Marching against Al Qaeda - what a joke

BlitzKrieg

can i ask An fear Aniar and others who supported american action in the middle east to answer the question i asked earlier. (only those who agree with me seem to answer it)


that question being:

"When has Direct Military action ever solved completely a terrorist situation. Or at least limited it to a state where a terrorist attack is not a immediate threat over a substantial period?"


1916 cannot be an answer as we had the war of the independance only a few years later...






On the whole Isreal being unjustiflibly attacked by arab nations. Please note that Isreal with France and Britain did infact invade Egypt in the 1960s (or 70s can someone verify) That Palistinians have as much right to the land as the Isreali's (both were promised the land by the british + Allies during ww1) and were forced off the lan in 1945. If thats not enough reason for the hostilities between the states...Then you my friend have double standards.

BlitzKrieg

oh and if you try and bite back by asking when has non-violent methods solved anything please note that the northen irish problem has made a lot more development since both sides ceased violence and attempted some discussion.

And though people might feel that these "extremists" wont listen to western people. Lets try and open up by not talking to them while having tanks pointed at them or at least tell Isreal that we wont support anymore actions into the west bank without justification and with some restraint.

try maybe the same approach as in the North of releasing prisoners (now i'm not saying to release all prisoners) but to perform something of similar show of good faith.


Please note the best advances in the middle east have been when such gestures are made.

-Camp David being a noticable mention.


And now for another of my questions... If Britain is one of the countries with the most experiance of Terrorism...And Spain...Why are these the two countries to ally with Bush in his War on terrorism whn they both know that direct military action has failed against both the IRA and ETA???

bonkey

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Oh dear!!

I wonder how many of these people are wandering about out there?

If you persist in making these insulting remarks about the posters here who happen to disagree with you, I can guarantee that it won't happen for much longer.

This is - I believe - your second warning. I would strongly recommend that you re-read the rules topic, because you clearly haven't understood the way things work here (or understand perfectly but think that for some reason it doesnt/shouldnt apply to you), and you won't be given another warning.

jc

gandalf

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Bdonkey

I hope for your sake thats a spelling error and not some cheap attempt at slagging bonkey. I wonder have you been banned from here already if it is.

Gandalf.

mr_angry

Originally posted by bonkey

If you persist in making these insulting remarks about the posters here who happen to disagree with you

I don't mean to interfere here Bonkey, but how was that comment directed at other posters? Seemed innocuous to me. Maybe I'm just too stoopid to be insulted...?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
can i ask An fear Aniar and others who supported american action in the middle east to answer the question i asked earlier. (only those who agree with me seem to answer it)

On the whole Isreal being unjustiflibly attacked by arab nations. Please note that Isreal with France and Britain did infact invade Egypt in the 1960s (or 70s can someone verify)

I think you'll find that was the 1956 Sinai campaign. Egyptian president Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal which had been jointly owned by the British and French governments. The British responded by labelling Nasser 'another Hitler' (take note all you Neocon Nitwits who claim you saw banners equating Bush and Sharon with Hitler and took such umbrage at how anybody could pass such a slur) and plotting with France to invade the region and snatch it back.

The best plot they could come up with was to get Israel to invade the Sinai desert (which it had been wanting to do for years because of 'terrorist' infiltration by armed bands of displaced Arabs, miffed at the fact that they had been 'ethnically cleansed' from their homes) and then they (the Brits and French) would intervene to sort out the warring factions and restore order to the blighted region.

Of course, the world including even the Americans, saw through this ruse fairly quickly and the United Nations demanded Britain and France withdraw. There was much opposition internally in the UK to the move with the Labour party refusing to back the invasion, an unprecedented move by an opposition party in a time of 'war.'

The British prime minister Anthony Eden, when criticised for not allowing the United Nations to sort out the matter in the first place, made a statement to the effect that the British were only testing the ability of the UN to respond quickly to such outbreaks. He was famously ridiculed by the great socialist orator Nye Bevan who likened his remarks to a burglar pleading for clemency by claiming that he was 'only breaking and entering to test the efficiency of the local police. If he (Eden) is sincere in what he says, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be Prime Minister.'

Would that we had such straight talking from opposition parliamentarians today.

Nick_oliveri

Weapons With Weapons= Fire With Fire
Peace talks and Ceasefires With Weapons= Water With Fire

You Decide

BattleBoar

Peace talks and Ceasefires With Weapons = Fighting Fire With Petrol sometimes too...

MrPinK

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Peace talks and Ceasefires With Weapons = Fighting Fire With Petrol sometimes too...

They may not always have positive outcomes, I can't think of any situation that has been made worse by peace talks.

Nick_oliveri

Obviously Enough We Need Evidence Of Peace Talks Failing.
None Supported So Far. Suppose Though Weapons Are Cooler In The Long Run.
Justifiable Death Is Worse Than Non-Justifiable. Its Quite Sick.Unless In A Dangerous Situation When Another Life/Lives Are In Danger.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by bonkey
If you persist in making these insulting remarks about the posters here who happen to disagree with you, I can guarantee that it won't happen for much longer.

This is - I believe - your second warning. I would strongly recommend that you re-read the rules topic, because you clearly haven't understood the way things work here (or understand perfectly but think that for some reason it doesnt/shouldnt apply to you), and you won't be given another warning.

jc

**** right off Bonkey, you ****ing asswipe.
'
Why don't you get a life you ****ing nerd?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Why don't you get a life you ****ing nerd?

This from a guy expousing his views on an Internet bulletin board...

:rolleyes:

gandalf

An Fear Aniar banned from Politics for a week.

Gandalf.

Zombrex

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
**** right off Bonkey, you ****ing asswipe.
'
Why don't you get a life you ****ing nerd?

Originally posted by gandalf
An Fear Aniar banned from Politics for a week.

dumb (dum)
adj. dumb·er, dumb·est

1. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.
2. Unintentional; haphazard: dumb luck.
3. Telling Bonkey, the moderator of the Politics discussion board, to "**** right off ... you ****ing asswipe"

:rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

and again the far right ignore my question and instead opt to offend the mod...truely this is an amazing display of their ability to argue a point. and hairy homar thanks for the fill in.

BattleBoar

First of all, who are the far right? The only person I'd consider far right I've seen on these boards xm3ti4, maybe sand, and neither have contributed anything to this post??

Anyway, of course the example is THE example. Negotiations with Hitler made WWII far more bloody, brutal, prolonged, and horrible than it ever would have been if the rest had done the inevitable as soon as Germany starts to openly rearm. 1935...Germany rejects Versaii treaty and openly rearms while britain and France protest but do nothing. 1936, Hitler denounces Locarno Pact, Occupies Rhineland. Brits and French protested again, but do nothing. Again Fast forward 1938. Britain and France negotiate with Hitler and eventually accept, and convince Czechoslovakia to accept, his demand for annexation of Czech Sudetenland in return for a pledge that Hitler has no claim on the rest of Czechoslovakia and "Peace in Our Time". 1939, Hitler buys time with and negotiates with USSR...they sign a pact whereby USSR agrees to stay out of a war between Germany and Poland + Western Europe in exchange for control of the baltic states and a portion of Poland. Negotiations cost Czechoslovakia and Poland, indeed the world, dearly.

So negotiations and peace talks can make things much worse when one side is intent on using those peace talks as a way of manipluating nations that don't want war. Of course, peace talks can also make things better, and have worked in other situations. You can't make a blanket statement that peace negotiations are always the best course of action, or that they are always *not* the best course of action either.

However, in this case it's really moot anyway, as there is no Al Queda leadership to negotiate with, even if one wanted to. The best one could hope to do is give in to the demands made in their statements, but there are no guarantees. And with Al Queda, it's likely a case of feeding the hungry crocodile in the hopes it'll eat you last.

Why should they stop at the destruction of Isreal, the dismantling of the UN, and whatever other demands they've made? Sure, to them the US is still the most pressing threat, but how often has Al Queda mentioned the crusades?...only time before they press to take the fight to the "heart of crusader europe", not to mention that bin Laden still sees Spain as rightly belonging to the Muslims (tragedy of Andalucia). They have no desire for peace unless it is on their terms, and on their terms is not an outcome the west can afford to let happen. They will push the world to give in where they can, then threaten terrorism to try and intimidate to get more, and commit terrorist acts to further frighten people into giving into more of their demands. And, they've really no reason to not continue until they acheive their goals unless their resources dry up, or they are stopped by force.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
First of all, who are the far right? The only person I'd consider far right I've seen on these boards xm3ti4, maybe sand, and neither have contributed anything to this post??

I probably would be also, believe it or not.

So negotiations and peace talks can make things much worse when one side is intent on using those peace talks as a way of manipluating nations that don't want war. Of course, peace talks can also make things better, and have worked in other situations. You can't make a blanket statement that peace negotiations are always the best course of action, or that they are always *not* the best course of action either.

Sometimes doing neither is the best course of action.

One thing that has been seen with terrorism, and with respects we have had a Hell of a lot more experience with it in Europe, is that it is an intelligence and propaganda war, not a conventional one. While many factors have come into play in the neutralisation and quasi-neutralisation of numerous European terrorist groups such as the IRA, the Red Brigade, ETA and Bader-Meinhof (all to one degree or other still exist, but are no longer anywhere near as much the threat they once posed) - the one factor that has if not caused them to fade away then become largely emasculated is loss of their support base. You don’t give the local population reason to hate you and swell the terrorists’ ranks after all - you give them support, autonomy, help and (while simultaneously infiltrating the terrorist ranks and quietly picking them off) you bombard this population with propaganda.

Conventional military means, on the other hand, actually aggravate the situation. Swagger about dropping bombs and the locals may smile to your face, but they’ll turn a blind eye too when they see someone dropping off a bomb at your doorstep. And their sons and daughters, young and angry and full of the propaganda of local resentment, will swell the ranks of the freedom fighters (one only has to look at all the angry young men posting here to see how easy it is).

As such the present War on TerrorTM has actually increased the occurrence and risk of terrorism Worldwide. Whether by accident or design, it actually fosters and perpetuates such resentments and the groups that spring from them. Iraq, a side-story on this ongoing campaign, bizarrely had little or nothing to do with terrorism (indeed al-Qaeda and Ba’ath Party were ideologically pretty much as far apart as one would get), yet has now become the most fertile ground for terrorism that one could imagine. Spain and Italy, now live in daily fear of attacks that were unthinkable a year ago because neither were frankly targets. And now they are.

As for why the present War on TerrorTM has been conducted in this manner is open to debate and while there are a good few conspiracy theories flying about, I’d tend to favour Napoleon’s old adage that one should “never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”.

Of course, as a side-note (and seeing as it is related to the topic at hand), this does not mean that Spain should pull out of Iraq. It would be unwise for it to do so at present. To begin with, it would be seen to encourage further acts of terrorism and additionally would mark Spain as an unreliable nation to do business with - if a nation signs a treaty of forges an alliance with another, they don’t care about the internal politics of that nation, but that it’s not going to change sides at a whim, after all.

Of course, had Spain simply reiterated it’s support for the coalition and the War on TerrorTM, and then found another pretext in six months; then it would have been far more expedient for Spain’s interests and potentially more damaging to the Bush re-election campaign (if that’s what they’re after).

Regrettably, however, Spain’s socialists have been noted for their passions in the past but not their competence, and this new crop has inexperience to add to that quality (you really would have had to live in Spain ten years ago - as I did for a while - to realize this). So while they’ll eventually realize this and try to be Machiavellian, they’ve already shown their hand far too early in the game.

Anyhow, that’s my 2 cent, et al.

BlitzKrieg

cheers battleboar and The Corinthian you gave me a proper answer.


except...Battleboar i was refering to a terrorist movement. But i still like your example and its one i should have seen coming...DOH!

Also I believe if you cannot reach Al quida itself then strike at its support with a friendly face. AKA the arab nations. The West needs to actually clean up its relationship with the middle east alot.

mr_angry

Well said Corinthian. And from someone on the "far right"? There is hope for the world after all.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mr_angry
Well said Corinthian. And from someone on the "far right"? There is hope for the world after all.

Regardless of political ideology it is not an unreasonable assumption that the motivation, corruption and self-interest aside, is generally for the common good. At the end of the day, both Pol Pot and Pinochet undoubtedly believed themselves to be the good guys, after all. And unlike you I’d probably agree with the latter.

Unfortunately, labels such as left and right are constrictive banners that many feel they must follow. That there may be concepts and ideas from either extreme that may be beneficial is often rejected out of hand by those on side, without actually understanding what they mean.

An Fear Aniar is a good example of this, simply reacting to anything he considered ‘lefty’ without actually understanding much of it. But the same is equally and frequently true of the other extreme (not to mention, lest we forget, of those smug apathetic little liberals in the middle ).

Sand

One thing that has been seen with terrorism, and with respects we have had a Hell of a lot more experience with it in Europe, is that it is an intelligence and propaganda war, not a conventional one. While many factors have come into play in the neutralisation and quasi-neutralisation of numerous European terrorist groups such as the IRA, the Red Brigade, ETA and Bader-Meinhof (all to one degree or other still exist, but are no longer anywhere near as much the threat they once posed) - the one factor that has if not caused them to fade away then become largely emasculated is loss of their support base.

The early battles of the ACW were unmitigated slaughters because the Generals on both sides were schooled by studying the tactics of Napoleon. Napoleon was a great general, but 50 years later military technology had advanced beyond what his tactics were designed to combat.

The groups you mention are indeed some of the more famous terrorist groups which various European states have combatted in the past. Theyre mostly based on a mixture of nationalism and political idealogy - implying they can be reasoned with. The Al Queda family of terrorist groups which are causing havoc are not based on nationalism - they are indeed unlike anything Europe has seen before because Europe is only one battleground of a worldwide Jihad - or political idealogy but rather religious fundamentalism.

This is one of the main reasons why western intelligence agencies have had such a hard time infiltrating these groups. Religious fanatics tend to be fanatical. Whilst one could apeal to the humanity of IRA volunteers who were perhaps disillusioned by the organisations killing of civillians or its involvement in organised crime the Al Queda crowd view the civillians killed as infidels/unbelievers/not human.

A popular support base is not required to carry out attacks - IRA/SF retain their support/apologists as is shown in the rising share of their vote. All it took to kill 202 people in Madrid last week was apparently 5 guys. That is the real problem with modern terrorism - that it can be anything from a sprawling organisation with a defined heirarchy or a angry loner with a grudge and access to household chemicals. If they can strike in the US and in Spain where they do not have support ( and the IRA struck in Germany - which is not a hotbed of Irish republicanism ). Quasi neutralisation is not enough when it takes only a handful of fanatics to unleash a biological attack for example.

A purely reactive strategy of simply trying to tighten up security is ...flawed imo. Everyone was worried about more plane hijackings so instead a train was bombed. Well all get worked up about making trains safe, and next it will be a cruise liner or a suicide attack on a parade. Theres too many potential targets. Its common wisdom that if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will find a way. Its not to say attempts to remove the reasons for support for the terrorists and improve security arent valid or correct - but only as part of a strategy not as the be all and end all of it.

Use of conventional military is neccessary in fighting these groups - not in all cases, where other means may be more effective, but their use cannot simply be ruled out - the attack on Afghanistan disrupted their training and logistics, it pushed the terrorists out of government and into the hills. To make the mistake that Al Queda are simply another IRA or another ETA is to make the same mistakes that the generals made in ACW - they were fighting a war 50 years ago rather than the one they were in the midst of. Terrorists cannot be allowed to maintain safe havens around the globe - where they are found they must be defeated.

The only person I'd consider far right I've seen on these boards xm3ti4, maybe sand, and neither have contributed anything to this post??

Rumours of my right wingedness are greatly exaggerated.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
the attack on Afghanistan disrupted their training and logistics, it pushed the terrorists out of government and into the hills.

Really? Aren't members of the Northern Alliance in the government now? Were the Taliban terrorists?

Terrorists cannot be allowed to maintain safe havens around the globe - where they are found they must be defeated.

So they should send troops into largely Morrocan neighborhoods in Madrid now? Or maybe they should arrest suspects based on evidence (which seems to be the case) and trying them according to criminal law.
Or you could attack countries that expressed a willingness to negotiate (and 1 that wasn't associated with terrorists) and kill lots of people who's families then might not care to much that Mr. Bin Laden or Mr. Zarqarwi is living next door.

Sand

Really? Aren't members of the Northern Alliance in the government now? Were the Taliban terrorists?

Their level of involvment with Al Queda was debateable but they hapilly aligned themselves with them by permitting - note permitting, this will be important later as distinct from opposing - the training and planning of terrorist attacks on their soil. Whilst they may not have been extreme enough for Bin Ladens liking, they certainly were friendly to the point where the Taliban decided it better to be defeated than to hand over Bin Laden. Draw your own conclusions.

So they should send troops into largely Morrocan neighborhoods in Madrid now? Or maybe they should arrest suspects based on evidence (which seems to be the case) and trying them according to criminal law.

See, heres where my earlier highlighting of the term permitting and its distinct difference in meaning from opposing come into play. Whilst the Taliban may have at best turned a blind eye to Al Quedas activities on their soil, the Spanish clearly oppose them. Hence, military action is not required because the local authorities are willing and able to combat the terrorists using conventional means. In the Afghan case *if* ( major, major, major if) Bin Laden was arrested and tried by the taliban he would be tried under Sharia law, which would be far more open to defences of "They were western infidels and got what was coming to them - Allah told me so".