All this talk about "Terrorisim"

dathi1

The debates are raging since Madrid on the airwaves here. Newstalk 106 this morning, David Mac Williams on Agenda TV3 etc.. Yet we seem to be making the same predictable stances over and over again just like the Brits at the height of the troubles. How to defeat Terrorism....

You cant!! You can minimise it. The priority should be the cause. Today 5 Arabs where killed in their own homeland by an occupying army on land it occupies illegally under UN resolution 242. Not a word, not a mention in any of the debates above. Another day another Arab..that's it.
Alquida subsidiaries and their ilk love this sort of stuff..it gives them exactly what they need for support bases in Euro countries like Ireland. 10% of all young British Muslims now say that they agree with 9/11 and would support alquida. We don't know what the score is here because we don't know who's here amongst FIS dissidents and other illegal immigrants that we let in form Algeria, Morocco etc..Clueless journalists and TV presenters preside over panel discussions about Islamic terrorism as if its something you can defeat IRA style. 8000 innocent people just like you and me are now dead in Iraq because of unelected slime Bush's democracy crusade in Iraq. We helped him with the logistics through Shannon. Its time we woke up to the realistic causes if Fundamentalist terror in the west or we are precipitating a war which no one can win. Badder Meinhof, Action Direct etc where all political based lefty anarchistic movements..This crowd (as well as Bush)use God as their excuse..you can't beat God.

TomF

Here is an excellent column on Spain's response to the massacre in Madrid, but it would take some changes in constitutions to delay elections, I'd think. We saw on this board that Spanish posters were convinced that the Madrid bombings were the work of ETA, even though that proved to be not true.

"One rule, one and only one firm rule must impose itself on Europe after this tragedy. In the event of another electoral hijacking, voting must be immediately postponed. The governed and the governing must both be given the time to recover their right minds. They must be able to assess and address the horror, its antecedents and its consequences; cool down before undertaking an informed vote. Let a people abruptly thrown in the abysses of hell maintain the suspense for a fortnight or two, so that it can exercise its sovereign power with sovereignty!
...

As soon as the news [of the Madrid train stations bombings] broke, every single Spaniard--backed by 20 years of bloody memories--including the Socialist winner Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and even a majority of Basques, were inclined to follow the ETA trail. Within 48 hours, the police, the intelligence services, the press and the ministers rectified their initial assumptions. As they were going to the ballot, the voters had heard of everything that was known, and Spanish democracy and its institutions had worked.

But some of the protesters were still waving around the lie of a "state lie;" and numerous voters, perfectly well informed, changed their minds and chose to bow down without regrets to the blackmail of their fellow citizens' assassins.
...

Whether we like it or not: ' Welcome to the world of megaterrorism!' "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004848

mike65

Rather shockingly I find myself agreeing with the thust of dathis post. Which is why I find it a bit foolisd for ppl to pretend that if they keep thier heads down Al qaeda
wont plant a bomb here or anywhere...

Al Quada are not like the IRA or ETA, you cant negotiate
terms for surrender (our or thiers) or sue for peace.

They are'nt going away and they won't ever be defeated in a tradional sense. At best they will be contained by strong will and never ending effort. I dont see much of either quality in Europe at the moment.

Fixing the Palestine/Iraesli issue wont make a blind bit of difference. At best all we can do is try to undermine the
fundmentalist mindset by encouraging pluralism in countries like Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia etc. That'll be a job that'll take a few generations if it happens at all.

The good news about Bush is that he can be and proberly will be voted out. Bin Laden is there until he dies and then others will follow.

Mike.

gandalf

The thing that alot of American commentators seem to ignore is you can never really defeat a terror organisation you can however erode their support base and marginalise them accordingly. Unfortunately as Robin Cook said on a Sky News interview this morning by invading Iraq and screwing up the occupation the Axis of Diesel have opened up a whole new support base for Bin Laden and his murderers.

While sorting out the Palestinian situation may not address Al Qauda or neutralise them totally it will remove a large amount of the support base for them in the Arab world. The same can be said for getting power into the Iraqi's hands as soon as possible and handing power over in the meantime to the UN and US and UK forces withdrawing from Iraq (I know this isn't going to happen, just throwing in here as a concept).

Gandalf.

flogen

Id agree with Gandalf and dathi1, invading countries is not going to stop Al-Q and co., as the invasion of Iraq has shown, it mearly increases support.
Perhaps if Bush had of tried to deal with the Middle East rather than attacking it, then Bin Laden wouldnt have much to say... what argument would there be against the West if they didnt interfere with the workings of the Middle East?

Flogen

mike65

Originally posted by flogen

Perhaps if Bush had of tried to deal with the Middle East rather than attacking it, then Bin Laden wouldnt have much to say... what argument would there be against the West if they didnt interfere with the workings of the Middle East?

Flogen

Ahem...Bin Laden is still pissed off about the Crusades and the Moors being driven from southern Spain (1498-ish). His war is of civilisations, secular democracy is his enemy. Palestine is not his concern, nor was it Saddams but he gave it lip service when it suited.

Mike.

Lear

Originally posted by flogen
Id agree with Gandalf and dathi1, invading countries is not going to stop Al-Q and co., as the invasion of Iraq has shown, it mearly increases support.
Flogen

Nevel Chamberlain would be proud. Respectfully, we tried appeasing al Qaeda for over 8 years prior to 9-11. During that time, al Qaeda only became stronger.

I lost friends in the WTC and my wife was on the 20th floor of the North tower that day. I had friends in the Pentagon and saw it burning from the train on the way to work that morning.

Now imagine if we actually had done something back in 1993 after the first WTC attack, and before AQ was a truely global force.

Respectfully, I'll choose to go down fighting rather than to hope the terrorist will bomb me last.

Sparks

Originally posted by Lear
Respectfully, I'll choose to go down fighting rather than to hope the terrorist will bomb me last.

Respectfully, consider the outcome of not having trained Osama in the first place. Consider not having supported an exploitative foreign policy which has done more harm than any other country's in the last fifty years. Your friends (and the ten thousand plus innocent civilians the US has killed in it's "War on Terror" (tm) since 3000 people died in the WTC attack) would still be alive.

Now consider how you'd feel had your wife not made it out of the North Tower. Take that feeling of pain and blind hatred and now imagine it shared by every relative of the 3,500 innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan by the US and the estimated seven to ten thousand innocent civilians killed in Iraq by the US. And ask yourself how safe you now feel, having created over ten thousand potential anti-US terrorists, when only nineteen managed to cause so much damage.

If they want to go down fighting, and you want to go down fighting, would you mind awfully finding some other planet to do it on please? I'd rather get on with my life, thanks ever so much.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Lear
Respectfully, I'll choose to go down fighting rather than to hope the terrorist will bomb me last.

This is an attitude I really don't understand. I am very sorry you lost friends in that terrible tragedy but..... How can you think that an "eye for an eye" solves anything? Just more dead people and we are even further away from peace. If there is death, the cause must be sought out, why did this person die? It's an attitude that pervades all aspects of the West. Look at western medicine; it treats the symptom and not the cause. This is exactly the same with the terrorist situation.

How anyone one can argue that death solves anything I would like to hear it, really. It's disgusting that people were killed in 11/9, it pains my heart. Why kill more people after that? Really, why? I could possibly understand how killing Bin Laden might be the slightly morale thing to do but I wouldn't support it. Why is there the Al Queda threat? I don't buy the line "you love live and we love death" that Al Queda are purported to have said (what utter rubbish). Nor do I believe that they are all "crazy". There clearly must be a reason why there are so many people upset with the West.

Bush getting voted out is not going to solve anything. This crap has been going on for the last 50 years in the US. It's just a change of faces.

Death is not the answer.

Nick

mike65

http://discus.islamicawakening.com/

the server is a bit dopey but be persistent!

Mike.

Lear

Originally posted by Sparks
Respectfully, consider the outcome of not having trained Osama in the first place.

Respectfully, the whole issue of anyone "training" Osama is dog dirt. Typically, leftist try to equate US involvement with the Afghan resistance as involvement with Osama.

It never was.


Now consider how you'd feel had your wife not made it out of the North Tower.

FYI, I have more than you can imagine. Plus, I remember my wife's words as she recounted her escape from the lobby of WTC Tower North. "It was raining glass and bodies".

FYI, I was part of a volunteer group aiding firemen and police at the Pentagon. I brought thousands of dollars of food (with my neighbors) and spent two days feeding these people. We literaly flipped a thousand pancakes in the morning,s erved a thousand sandwiches in the afternoon and made hugh vats of beef and vegatable stew. Normally, I probably wouldn't have bothered, but I made a promise to God on 9-11 that I'd do something to help if my wife and unborn child were spared.


Oh, yes, and I buried a friend I'd known since 1979 and watched his widow and children grieve.

Respectfully, THIS IS NOTHING but an academic exercise (as you can ONLY imagine about 9-11)-- buts for me is a real-life past experience.

Forgive me if such experiences make me more resolute to destroy terrorists, rather than more likely to appease them. Forgive me if I learn from Churchill and abrogate the teachings of Chamberlain.


Take that feeling of pain and blind hatred and now imagine it shared by every relative of the 3,500 innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan by the US ...

First of all, there is a difference b/t a murder plot perpetrated against civilians, and the fact that civilian casualties will occur during war regardless of the US's best efforts to avoid such -- especially considering the FACT that Taliban and al Qaeda forces were hiding in civilian populations.

If you reject that truth, then obviously the Allies were not justified in attacking the Axis powers as the unintended consequence was civilian casualties.

Oh, yes, and as far as I can tell, the only people who miss the Taliban's reign of power are the Taliban and al Qaeda ... well, add those leftists who hate the US more than they hate mass-murderers.

monument

Originally posted by mike65
Al Quada are not like the IRA or ETA, you cant negotiate
terms for surrender (our or thiers) or sue for peace.

Mutable Choice

Q1

Who is the most likely target of any other terrorists?

A. The country or countries which attack them/suppress their people/etc.

B. The country or countries which support the above.

C. The country or countries which are completely neutral.

D. The country or countries which are not in support the country or countries which attack them/suppress their people/etc.


Q2

How would you stop terrorism?

A. Invading countries. Kill innocent people.

B. Fund groups who are likely to turn on you.

C. Build a big wall around your country, and while your at it build in an another country.

D. Restrict your own people so much they start to think who the terrorist really are.

E. Restrict your own people so much they pick up on this terrorism idea.

F. Ban any non-violent or politic voice of the people behind any terrorism.

Sparks

Originally posted by Lear
Respectfully

I hate quoting movies, but...
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

the whole issue of anyone "training" Osama is dog dirt.

No, it's a matter of historical record.

FYI, I have more than you can imagine.

Then you should understand my point intimately. You should know, or at least have an idea of, what it would be like to lose your entire family in a deliberate attack.
Now ask yourself - if you had no legal mechanism, and didn't have a big enough army for a conventional war, what would you do to the people responsible?

And then tell me why you think creating ten thousand or more people who think that way about you is a good thing.

Forgive me if such experiences make me more resolute to destroy terrorists, rather than more likely to appease them. Forgive me if I learn from Churchill and abrogate the teachings of Chamberlain.

If you would learn from Churchill, learn about him as well. This is a man who was ready to deploy poision gas on the shores of england to defeat an invasion - and who was familar with the stuff because he'd been dropping it on the kurds a decade or so earlier and taxing them to pay for the cost of doing so. A moral man, he wasn't. And as soon as the war was over, he was put out to pasture by the people who'd elected him.

First of all, there is a difference b/t a murder plot perpetrated against civilians, and the fact that civilian casualties will occur during war regardless of the US's best efforts to avoid such -- especially considering the FACT that Taliban and al Qaeda forces were hiding in civilian populations.

You haven't thought about this enough. There is no difference to the relative. What if your wife was now in small unidentifiable pieces in the rubble of the WTC and you were told "Well, actually, we were attacking the buildings - she was just collateral damage"?
Would that lessen your loss or anger?

If you reject that truth, then obviously the Allies were not justified in attacking the Axis powers as the unintended consequence was civilian casualties.

It started off the other way round as I recall.
But you're right - several allied attacks were little more than outright war crimes. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the Japanese were sueing for peace, for example.

Oh, yes, and as far as I can tell, the only people who miss the Taliban's reign of power are the Taliban and al Qaeda ... well, add those leftists who hate the US more than they hate mass-murderers.

That's a nicly rabid point that misses out on the fact that the "leftists" are the ones who wouldn't have supported them in the first place and criticised Bush's support of the Taliban less than a year before the WTC attacks.
This is the thing I don't get - the left complains that a right-wing policy is unfair on others, get's ignored, the situation bites everyone in the ass, and then the right try to blame the left for supporting whomever had the teeth!

Lear

Originally posted by Sparks
I hate quoting movies, but...
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yadda yadda yadda

No, it's a matter of historical record.

If it were, you'd have posted a reliable URL, rather than repeat your baseless claim.

Then you should understand my point intimately. ...

I understand that you don't have the background to understand the very point you attempt to relate. I've been there. You haven't.

The difference between us is that you think that appeasement is the better course while I think killing every last one of the buggers is the better solution

Now ask yourself - if you had no legal mechanism, and didn't have a big enough army for a conventional war, what would you do to the people responsible?

Yeah, like poor ol' Osama who didn't care for the US presence in Saudi while kicking Hussein out of Kuwait. He should be able to target thousands of civilians ....

... but heaven forbid if the US decides to retaliate using a military solution

Your rhetoric is as vacuous as anything I've ever encountered.

Western civilization is the pearl of humanity that, while no means perfect, has elevated a portion of humanity beyond anything ever thought possible. In contrast,
Islamic terrorism is a sick cult of intolerance that preaches death to non-muslims for their mere existence.

Sparks

If it were, you'd have posted a reliable URL, rather than repeat your baseless claim.

So this guy is listed as the mastermind behind an attack that kills firends of yours and nearly your partner, and you don't even learn about who he is?
You wouldn't happen to think that Saddam had something to do with it as well, would you?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

I understand that you don't have the background to understand the very point you attempt to relate. I've been there. You haven't.

Fertiliser.

The difference between us is that you think that appeasement is the better course while I think killing every last one of the buggers is the better solution

No, the differences are that
1) I don't agree with causing damage you can't fix; and
2) I don't agree with causing the problem in the first place, while you can't see that the WTC attack is the result of a less-vicious version of what you're presenting as a solution.

... but heaven forbid if the US decides to retaliate using a military solution

So the US has a right to kill innocents, does it?

Western civilization is the pearl of humanity that, while no means perfect, has elevated a portion of humanity beyond anything ever thought possible. In contrast,

Dunno 'bout that. Our **** doesn't smell of roses...
...and some of the remainder of humanity do rather object to being buried in it so that a portion can have a luxurious lifestyle.

seamus

Originally posted by Lear
I understand that you don't have the background to understand the very point you attempt to relate. I've been there. You haven't.

The difference between us is that you think that appeasement is the better course while I think killing every last one of the buggers is the better solution

Nice idea. How are you going to carry it out? As you say yourself, they hide within civilian populations - should we eradicate entire towns just to kill the small group of terrorists who hide among them?
Terrorism has no nationality, no single face, no possessions or residences you can attack, and hope that it goes away. For every terrorist you kill, there are another 20 of his family and friends, who will pick up where he left off, in the name of revenge.
And you can bet your ass that they are all far more devoted and blind in their religious fate than all of the people around you.

The war that needs to be fought has to be a war of morals and of propaganda (to a certain degree). It's the United States's foreign policy which has largely been the cause of this. You can complain all you like that changing the foreign policy would be giving into the terrorists, but less people would die. Nice and simple. What is honour or pride over the lives of thousands of people?

Islamic terrorism is a sick cult of intolerance that preaches death to non-muslims for their mere existence.

Well, that's another thing. Al-Queda aren't united under a single banner of ideals, or a set way of thinking. It consists of hundreds (mayeb thousands) of cells, some of whom may not be fighting for the same thing at all, but are all fighting for something different in some way. They have a common hatred of the West, essentially, and know that strength in numbers is the only way to project an appearance of significant force. That their goals aren't similar is irrelevant. This is another reason why it's so difficult to physically attack terrorism. They all have different agendas. Removing one leader, or one thing to fight for, isn't going to stop the rest of them.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Lear

Originally posted by Sparks
So this guy is listed as the mastermind behind an attack that kills firends of yours and nearly your partner, and you don't even learn about who he is?
You wouldn't happen to think that Saddam had something to do with it as well, would you?

Not at all. By the time we went in, we had acsetained that al qaeda had trained the majority of hijackers.

By the way, had you actually read your own cite, you'd realize that it discredits your own statements, including that the US had trained OBL.

No, the differences are that
1) I don't agree with causing damage you can't fix; and

Oh, so in your opinion it is useless to attack terrorists. :rolleyes:


2) I don't agree with causing the problem in the first place, ...

Of course in your esteem, the US is to blame for everything to begin with. :rolleyes:


while you can't see that the WTC attack is the result of a less-vicious version of what you're presenting as a solution.

Oh, please. your hate has made you amoral to the issue of murder versus defense. The US never purposefully attacked a single innocent civilian in Afghanistan. The same cannot be said of al Qaeda. :rolleyes:


So the US has a right to kill innocents, does it?

The US has the right to defend itself. Realizing that mistakes will be made, the US should never target innocent civilians, and avoid civilian casualties when possible. We did that in Afghanistan.


Dunno 'bout that. Our **** doesn't smell of roses...
...and some of the remainder of humanity do rather object to being buried in it so that a portion can have a luxurious lifestyle.

Ahhhh, I see. Heaven forbid if Western countries raise themselves with hard work and ingenuity. It'll attract jealousy by the have-nots.

You assume that the relative luxury of the West causes poverty. You assume that one person's gain necessarily means it was ripped from the mouths of others. :rolleyes:

Sparks

Lear, that's not even worth a reply really.

joePC

Terrorisim, Terrorisim, Terrorisim

I am gona do a Nostradamus on this, I predict that the USA will be attacked with in the next 2 years as well as other european countries,

Everyone saw how easy it was for them in Madrid 911 days after 9/11 not a very long time.

The so call "War on terror" its a war that cannot be won unless the nukes a brought out and human race is over.
They had a chance to nip it in the bud years ago but fcuked up now the war is not only against the USA but also against the europeans countries that got involved.

I hope the next one isn't too bad,

* My comments do not portrai my feelings regarding the whole situtation *

Thanks joePC

Lear

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt

Originally posted by Lear

I think it was the National Security directive 166 + Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.

This isn't any proof of US support for OBL, its a vague and meaningless conclusion as NSD #166 never mentions OBL, and there's no proof that the US ever supported OBL ever.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Originally posted by joePC
I am gona do a Nostradamus on this, I predict that the USA will be attacked with in the next 2 years as well as other european countries,

I'd agree. Maybe not in the US, but almost certainly in the UK. Two greenpeace protestors over the weekend showed exactly what a joke the British "high terrorism alert" is. They'll be completely unprepared. On the upside, there seems to be a significance in numbers, linking major attacks to eachother. Perhaps some of the number crunchers out there could come up with some significant dates relating to 11/9/2001 and 11/3/2004.

Lear

Originally posted by seamus
Nice idea. How are you going to carry it out? As you say yourself, they hide within civilian populations - should we eradicate entire towns just to kill the small group of terrorists who hide among them?

How have we done it so far? By identifying their leaders and their resources and showing up on their front door quite unexpectedly. We identify their footsoldiers, their financiers and their enablers -- and bury their dead carcases in pigskins.

It will not be easy, but it is worthwile, as one day al qaeda will get their hands on a NUKE and will threaten the West with them. You can fight them now or cower to them later after the fact.

To me, only one course makes sense.


Well, that's another thing. Al-Queda aren't united under a single banner of ideals, or a set way of thinking.

Maybe not, but the ideals they have in common and their willingness to murder civilian populations make every single one of them worthy of extermination.

By the way, who voted al qaeda into power anyway? who do they represent but themselves? the answer is no one. They're self-appointed defenders of the Islamic way bent on killing non-muslims

Lear

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I predict Lear will be banned from the forum within the week as he is emotionally unstable regarding the topic at hand ...

Really? So far I'm the only one who makes any sense, the only one supporting my assertions with URLs and the only one not fabricating "facts".

Possibly enough to get my arse banned in some forums.


...such as the US policy of beefing up the Afghan “rebel” forces against the occupation by the Soviets…

To which I reply that the Afghan resistance and al Qaeda were two separate entities.

DapperGent

This:

Originally posted by Lear
I've been there. You haven't.

The difference between us is that you think that appeasement is the better course while I think killing every last one of the buggers is the better solution

and this:

Originally posted by Lear
Yeah, like poor ol' Osama who didn't care for the US presence in Saudi while kicking Hussein out of Kuwait.

juxtaposed with this:

Originally posted by Lear
Your rhetoric is as vacuous as anything I've ever encountered.

makes for a curious combination of this and this .

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Sarky

Originally posted by Lear
How have we done it so far? By identifying their leaders and their resources and showing up on their front door quite unexpectedly. We identify their footsoldiers, their financiers and their enablers -- and bury their dead carcases in pigskins.

How very Christian of you.

This paragraph makes me terrified that there are others who "think" the same way.

Y'know, that's kind of how certain terrorist groups work... Without the burial, of course, because they don't usually have the time for that.

Lear

Originally posted by Sarky
How very Christian of you.

I'm not sure that killing every rap-bastard who actively plots my own destruction is "Christian", I merely assert that it is preferable to dying at the hands of such people.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

DapperGent

Originally posted by Lear
I'm not sure that killing every rap-bastard who actively plots my own destruction is "Christian", I merely assert that it is preferable to dying at the hands of such people.

Gung-ho! Gung-ho! Semper Fi! Do or die!