Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jihad terrorism
Options
Comments
-
lazydaisy wrote:Wait, so if your suicide brings death to others then its honourable, otherwise its shameful?
If your suicide is done for a noble cause yes, otherwise it is a sin.
Islamic sucide bombers don't consider killing themselves as part of a suicide run to be "suicide" as in killing yourself because you have lost the will to live.0 -
But the reason there are people with funds and willing to blow things up in the first place is a result of the increasing tentions between the west and Islamic people caused by aggression on both sides.
This would be comforting, because it would imply we can easily solve the problem by not being such utter bastards. Unfortunately sometimes the target of irrational hatreds has done little or nothing wrong, and cant really change to be more likable to those who hate them. I mean, what did Ann Frank ever do to Adolf? She mustve done something under the whole "Its not them, its us" line of thinking. Also the funds required to carry out terrorism are tiny when youve got human smart bombs - they brought down the world trade center with a few dozen guys (absolute tops including support/training), box cutters and plane tickets. Tracing the financing of terrorism is important in that it can help track down the cells carrying it out but it doesnt cost hundreds of thousands to carry out a London tube bombing.
Also, whilst Western powers might be (rightly) criticised by Jihadists for supporting/dealing with dictatorships in the name of stability, theres no recognition in their thinking of any positive effort on the part of the Western powers - the assistance rendered to the victims of this years natural disasters in the Pacfic and Pakistan for example, or even historically the interventions to cease the ethnic cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars in the Balkans. If anything, these are further humiliations to Jihadists because in their thinking, Islamic people shouldnt need infidels for anything.
Realistically, the global economy is based on oil, and seeing as most of it is in the Middle East that means western powers are going to interfere to ensure the oil flows. Theres no happy clappy alternative of non-involvement. And there is no getting round that people in these countries are going to resent that. Either the West deals with dictators, or it deposes dictators. Either way its the bad guy. The Western powers cant win a popularity contest with the Jihadists, especially when the Jihadists are advertising utopia and the West is unwilling/unable to defend itself idealogically. The best case scenario is that the Jihadists overreach and spark outrage/disgust. The recent hotel bombing in Jordan is an example, suddenly Al Zarqawi wasnt getting half as much sympathy from his family as opposed to when he was blowing up Iraqis.Yes the reason Al Queda claim to hate the west is because of idiology, but the reality is that people are lining up to join groups like Al Queda because of the military response to places like Afganistan.
That only holds water if you feel that radical islamic thought only sprung up since the US invasion of Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan a boon to Jihadist recruitment? Maybe, but they didnt need it to recruit the 9/11 guys and the invasion disrupted the training camps that thousands of terrorists learned their trade at. The pros outweigh the cons.0 -
Sand wrote:Unfortunately sometimes the target of irrational hatreds has done little or nothing wrong, and cant really change to be more likable to those who hate them.
Which might be true of fanatics it certainly isn't of the Muslim religon as a whole. The religeon teaches tolerance of other faiths (although they are going to hell).
This line of discussion was brought up on the Islam forum sometime back and if anyone is bothered could probably find it in the FAQ of said forum.0 -
You guys should watch this documentary. Its on one of the links I posted earlier, but I pulled it out to make it obvious.
*There are some unpleasant images, so if there's kids around you may want to ask them to leave or not open until they do. Viewer discretion advised.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
*I edited this post to add that warning.0 -
Which might be true of fanatics it certainly isn't of the Muslim religon as a whole. The religeon teaches tolerance of other faiths (although they are going to hell).
I know, its the faith of a billion or so people aged well over a thousand years with a mass of input and reinterpretation. The Jihadist brand of Islam is very similar in outlook and message to the brand of Christianity you could create by going through the Bible and underlining all the bad bits/militants/punishment of sinners and pretty much the entire Old Testement when God was one angry so and so. The various brands of Christianity or Islam have always been more a reflection of the underlying culture/history than anything else.
What I mean in what I said was that theres no way Europeans or Americans can compete with Jihadists in winning hearts and minds. Theyre local, the west arent. They speak the lingo, the share the culture, and they understand the people. Theyre cut from the same cloth. They can appeal to shared identity against the outsider, They dont even have to sing fire and brimstone. I doubt any suicide bomber is recruited off the college campus by a guy saying "heres some grenades, now go do your duty for God!!!" It would start an awful lot more subtle than that.
To think of it from an Irish perspective can you see for example an English guy having a chance of persuading an Irish audience that English rule was overall a pretty good deal for Ireland? Not a chance, even if the audience couldnt care less about Northern Ireland. And were bright new children of the Celtic Tiger.0 -
Advertisement
-
Depends on what you mean by "solve".Sand wrote:This would be comforting, because it would imply we can easily solve the problem by not being such utter bastards.
Part of the problem I feel with current suggested policies with the war on terrorism from both sides (ie pro-war, anti-war) is the idea that it can eventually be won, or solved as you put it.
In reality it doesn't work like that. You can never kill or disarm every nut job out there who wants to start a personal crusade against the US or the west and who has money to do something about it. The "war" against terrorism is not a war that can ever be won.
But having said that there is a very real reason why Islamic terrorism has sky rocketed after 9/11 and why Al Queda has gone from an organisation on the brink of collapse to a current position where it is more powerful that it has ever been.
Hundreds of Muslim men and women did not just wake up on Sept 12 2001 and go "I think I will join a terrorist organisation". The reason membership has grown significantly is because these Muslims believed the hype, that there actually is a war going on.
They see American military forces in Afganistan and Iraq as being foriegn invaders killing Muslims for their won gain. Trying to explain "Yes well, you guys started it with 9/11" is pointless
The biggest mistake the US made after 9/11 was helping start the war Al Queda had been hoping they would for years. If you state that yes there is actually a war on, invade a few countries and kill a few thousand Muslims you are going to piss of a few hundred thousand more Muslims who otherwise would probably care less about America 4,000 miles away desolving itself into a pit of sin.
That is true, but sometimes the worse response to someone itching for a fight is to help start one.Sand wrote:Unfortunately sometimes the target of irrational hatreds has done little or nothing wrong, and cant really change to be more likable to those who hate them.
Imagine if the British government had gone completely over board after Omagh and introduced a whole new level of interment and intimidation against Catholics in N.I. That might have helped catch the R-IRA but it would have increased resentment towards the British 100 fold and lead to huge increase in Republicanism and an increase and percieved justification for terrorist opperations.
If the US had picked itself up, brushed itself down and continued on after 9/11 I doubt Al Queda would still be operating, certainly not at the levels it currently does. I doubt London and Madrid would have happened at all. I am not blaming the US for the European bombing or saying it was their fault. I am purely looking at this from the perspective of cause and effect.
She made Germany give up the Rhine land and humilated her with the 1918 treaty, and generally kicked her ass in WWI.Sand wrote:I mean, what did Ann Frank ever do to Adolf?
Well obviously Ann Frank didn't, but is one of the reasons the Nazi party grew so quickly with such support in Germany during the 1930s
Not sure I follow that line of thinking ... it seems to be more the knee-jerk how-dare-you "Bill O'Rielly" style perception of I am saying rather than what I am actually saying.Sand wrote:She mustve done something under the whole "Its not them, its us" line of thinking.
True, but the funds required to train, support and facilitate 12 men for almost 2 years while they get ready for the opperation is a little outside the scope of most oridinary middle eastern (or western) Muslims.Sand wrote:Also the funds required to carry out terrorism are tiny when youve got human smart bombs - they brought down the world trade center with a few dozen guys (absolute tops including support/training), box cutters and plane tickets.
The cost of 9/11 was estimated to have been close to $500,000 before you include the training in Afganistant.
Again, the actual cost of the opperation is nothing (well the cost of the bombs). But as I explained above with 9/11 that isn't where the true cost comes from.Sand wrote:Tracing the financing of terrorism is important in that it can help track down the cells carrying it out but it doesnt cost hundreds of thousands to carry out a London tube bombing.
Though it is interesting to notice that in the hightend security concerned world we living in post 9/11 Al Queda seem to have realised they actually don't need to do anything close to the scale of 9/11 to have the same wide effect in terrorising the population. The London bombings would not have required anywhere near the level of planning and training as 9/11 did.
True, but that is hardly the point. I don't think Donald Rumsfield would get very far if he went to Al Queda with a list of nice things the US has done for the Middle East in the last 50 years, just like there isn't much point after you have just been caught cheating on your wife bringing up the wonderful and expensive trip to Paris you took her on 2 years ago.Sand wrote:Also, whilst Western powers might be (rightly) criticised by Jihadists for supporting/dealing with dictatorships in the name of stability, theres no recognition in their thinking of any positive effort on the part of the Western powers
One thing the US administration with all its gun-ho "lets find them and kill them" attitude has failed to realise is that the war on terrorism is not a conventional war over who has the most bullets and who killed the most people. It is, to put it simply, a Pubic Relations war
The war will be "won" (or at the least decreased in damage and threat, since as I explained it cannot be won) not by killing Muslims, but by improving preceptions of the west so they don't want to kill us
Now of course,based on your belief that this argument is in some way saying the US is at fault and that they should own up to something ("Its not them, its us"), you would probably say that it should not be the responsability of the US government to prove to the fundamentalists why they deserve not to be killed and attacked, and that the US has a right to respond to attacks against them any way they can.
But if you ignore the issue of blame and fault for a moment, the reality is that at the moment Al Queda is having a recruiting field day, and that this largely down to very negative image of the US, an imagine that is rationalied by those who hold it by the foriegn policy actions of successive US governments. Improving this image will effect this, just as the actions after 9/11 did in the negative.
None that would be accepted by US governments or business lobbies. But then I doubt these are the people who are that concerned about international terrorism.Sand wrote:Theres no happy clappy alternative of non-involvement.
Not while at the same time protecting US business interests in the region. But I don't accept that this is a necessity as you seem to.Sand wrote:The Western powers cant win a popularity contest with the Jihadists
I mean the same argument was used to justify slavery in pre-civil war America, that while slavery might not be that nice and it might be unfair, it was in fact an economic necessity and that the US economy would be completely ruined if slavery was ever removed. It was removed and the US economy did take a large hit, especially in the South. But the US survived.
Radical Islamic fundamentalism was not invented by the Afghanistan war, but pre-9/11 Al Queda was an organisation close to collapse. Post 9/11 people are lining up to join. This was not in response to the 9/11 attacks themselves, but in response to the US military attack that the attacks triggered.Sand wrote:That only holds water if you feel that radical islamic thought only sprung up since the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Not really, as Madrid and London proved the lost of the Afgan camps was countered by the increase in recruitment in Europe and America.Sand wrote:The pros outweigh the cons.0 -
Wicknight wrote:Depends on what you mean by "solve".
Part of the problem I feel with current suggested policies with the war on terrorism from both sides (ie pro-war, anti-war) is the idea that it can eventually be won, or solved as you put it..
I didnt realise you were a military strategist.Wicknight wrote:
But having said that there is a very real reason why Islamic terrorism has sky rocketed after 9/11 and why Al Queda has gone from an organisation on the brink of collapse to a current position where it is more powerful that it has ever been...Wicknight wrote:The reason membership has grown significantly is because these Muslims believed the hype, that there actually is a war going on. ...
Wait... did I miss something... there ISNT a war going on?Wicknight wrote:They see American military forces in Afganistan and Iraq as being foriegn invaders killing Muslims for their won gain. Trying to explain "Yes well, you guys started it with 9/11" is pointless
Uh huh. It would have nothing to do with the lack of integration in Europe. :rolleyes:Wicknight wrote:The biggest mistake the US made after 9/11 was helping start the war Al Queda had been hoping they would for years. If you state that yes there is actually a war on, invade a few countries and kill a few thousand Muslims you are going to piss of a few hundred thousand more Muslims who otherwise would probably care less about America 4,000 miles away desolving itself into a pit of sin.
So you are saying that this war is about Muslim retribution.Wicknight wrote:Imagine if the British government had gone completely over board after Omagh and introduced a whole new level of interment and intimidation against Catholics in N.I. That might have helped catch the R-IRA but it would have increased resentment towards the British 100 fold and lead to huge increase in Republicanism and an increase and percieved justification for terrorist opperations.
Resentment from who? It may have have been applauded if those Catholic in the North were connected to the Omagh bombing and not considered overbaord.Wicknight wrote:If the US had picked itself up, brushed itself down and continued on after 9/11 I doubt Al Queda would still be operating, certainly not at the levels it currently does. I doubt London and Madrid would have happened at all. I am not blaming the US for the European bombing or saying it was their fault. I am purely looking at this from the perspective of cause and effect. .
No your not. Your looking at from the perspective who doesnt get it.Wicknight wrote:She made Germany give up the Rhine land and humilated her with the 1918 treaty, and generally kicked her ass in WWI. .
No, no she didn't.Wicknight wrote:Well obviously Ann Frank didn't, but is one of the reasons the Nazi party grew so quickly with such support in Germany during the 1930s .
Debateable and reductive. That's like saying Hitler became who he was because he was frustrated about not being able to sell his art. Is that part of your cause and effect nonsense. This blame the victim tripe has got to stop.Wicknight wrote:perception of I am saying rather than what I am actually saying.
.
Welcome to my world.Wicknight wrote:True, but the funds required to train, support and facilitate 12 men for almost 2 years while they get ready for the opperation is a little outside the scope of most oridinary middle eastern (or western) Muslims.
The cost of 9/11 was estimated to have been close to $500,000 before you include the training in Afganistant. .
If you kept up to date you would realise they dont need money for training. They use the web. They hold lesson plans on-line. This is how you kidnap. This is how you slice someone's head off. Watch the links I provided. It will also be backed up with other current findings.Wicknight wrote:Though it is interesting to notice that in the hightend security concerned world we living in post 9/11 Al Queda seem to have realised they actually don't need to do anything close to the scale of 9/11 to have the same wide effect in terrorising the population. The London bombings would not have required anywhere near the level of planning and training as 9/11 did..
Wasnt the same effect. Bombings in London didnt bring down the economy of their enemy. They realised they didnt need money and they didnt need training camps.Wicknight wrote:One thing the US administration with all its gun-ho "lets find them and kill them" attitude has failed to realise is that the war on terrorism is not a conventional war over who has the most bullets and who killed the most people. It is, to put it simply, a Pubic Relations war..
Who taught you political theory, Dustin the turkey?Wicknight wrote:The war will be "won" (or at the least decreased in damage and threat, since as I explained it cannot be won) not by killing Muslims, but by improving preceptions of the west so they don't want to kill us]..Wicknight wrote:So who should be in charge of this PR job? Celia Larkin, oh no, that wont do... she was an adultress after all... and they dont like cheaters.... right because you can reason with these killers... ]]..
Your naivety is kind of sweet if it werent so irritating.Wicknight wrote:But if you ignore the issue of blame and fault for a moment, the reality is that at the moment Al Queda is having a recruiting field day,]..
Link please.Wicknight wrote:and that this largely down to very negative image of the US, an imagine that is rationalied by those who hold it by the foriegn policy actions of successive US governments. ,]]..
Rationalised and perpetuated. And not largely down to ngeative image of the US, its about power. Wake up Dorothy.Wicknight wrote:None that would be accepted by US governments or business lobbies. But then I doubt these are the people who are that concerned about international terrorism.,..
International terrorism brought down the US stock market, business went under, as did airlines. You dont think they are concerned? I wonder what its like in cloud cuckoo land, do tell us sometimes WK.Wicknight wrote:I mean the same argument was used to justify slavery in pre-civil war America, that while slavery might not be that nice and it might be unfair, it was in fact an economic necessity and that the US economy would be completely ruined if slavery was ever removed. It was removed and the US economy did take a large hit, especially in the South. But the US survived. .,..
Um no, not the same argument at all. Some economists argue the south is still recovering.Wicknight wrote:Radical Islamic fundamentalism was not invented by the Afghanistan war, but pre-9/11 Al Queda was an organisation close to collapse. Post 9/11 people are lining up to join. This was not in response to the 9/11 attacks themselves, but in response to the US military attack that the attacks triggered. .,..
Link please.0 -
It didn't realise I had to be ...lazydaisy wrote:I didnt realise you were a military strategist.
What?lazydaisy wrote:Wait... did I miss something... there ISNT a war going on?
Yes because hords of angry European Muslims were lining up to blow up train stations before 9/11lazydaisy wrote:Uh huh. It would have nothing to do with the lack of integration in Europe.
I am saying the Al Queda has recieved a huge boost in membership and support from young Muslims who believe that the US military is killing other Muslims for US interests, and who want to do something about that.lazydaisy wrote:So you are saying that this war is about Muslim retribution.
Trust me, the Catholics in the North would not have applauded a servere claim down on Catholics following Omagh. They are not exactly lining up to applaud the last round of intermentlazydaisy wrote:Resentment from who? It may have have been applauded if those Catholic in the North were connected to the Omagh bombing and not considered overbaord.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ni/internment.shtml
"It" being what exactly ... :rolleyes:lazydaisy wrote:No your not. Your looking at from the perspective who doesnt get it.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had not actually read the very next sentence when you posted that ...lazydaisy wrote:No, no she didn't.
No, obviously he became who he is because he is pure evil ... yes, that makes more sense ...lazydaisy wrote:That's like saying Hitler became who he was because he was frustrated about not being able to sell his art.
LOL .. i was waiting for someone to step in with the "how can you blame the victim!!" argument ...lazydaisy wrote:This blame the victim tripe has got to stop.
In case you didn't actually read it I have stated twice this is about cause and effect, not blame.
Blaming suicide bombers for blowing up train stations might make you feel better, but it is not really going to stop them now is it. You have to realise why something happens before you can attempt to stop it.
If you read the 9/11 report you will see that it cost Al Queda $500,000 to carry the operation out ... which strangely enough is exactly what I said it costs ...lazydaisy wrote:If you kept up to date you would realise they dont need money for training.
Well firstly, neither did 9/11. 9/11 ground New York to a halt, the London bombing ground London to a hault. Neither brought down the economylazydaisy wrote:Bombings in London didnt bring down the economy of their enemy. They realised they didnt need money and they didnt need training camps.
Secondly, wasn't that the point I was making, that in this modern post-9/11 world Al Queda has to do less to achieve more.
You apparently don't understand what public relations means ...lazydaisy wrote:So who should be in charge of this PR job? Celia Larkin, oh no, that wont do... she was an adultress after all... and they dont like cheaters.... right because you can reason with these killers...
You are over whelming with your thought out carefully constructed criticism and debating skills ... please, please stop, you are making my points look so foolish ...lazydaisy wrote:Who taught you political theory, Dustin the turkey?
...
Your naivety is kind of sweet if it werent so irritating.
...
Wake up Dorothy.
...
I wonder what its like in cloud cuckoo land, do tell us sometimes WK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stmlazydaisy wrote:Link please.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1015-04.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/14/alqaeda-canada050514.html
That sentence doesn't even make sense. How can "power" be a rationalisation for anti-American feeling in Muslimslazydaisy wrote:Rationalised and perpetuated. And not largely down to ngeative image of the US, its about power.
"Well Muhammad, I just hate those damn Americans"
"Why Akmed? Because they are killing our Muslims brothers in the holy lands of the Middle East?"
"No, Muhammad, because of power"
"Er ... because of what?"
"Power Akmed ... i hate those Americans because of ... umm .. power"
"Er, the US military power?"
"No just ... umm ... power .. in general"
Concerned in ending the war? No, not really. Certainly not enought to change policy in the middle east.lazydaisy wrote:International terrorism brought down the US stock market, business went under, as did airlines. You dont think they are concerned?
You should read Orwells 1984 for a good fictional example of why, to politics and big business at least, the point of war is not to win but to continue.
Was that a reason not to get rid of slavery?lazydaisy wrote:Some economists argue the south is still recovering.
See links abovelazydaisy wrote:Link please.0 -
RE: frontline episode posted above.
There were some very important omissions in its reference to the downfall of the spannish government after the bombing.
Firstly, the spannish people were always opposed to the War in Iraq. it was not the Madrid bombings which caused anti-war feelings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2895489.stm
the above BBC report was written in March 2003. a whole year before the madrid bombing.
Another factor is that the Government of Spain, who were supportive of the war, chose to blaime basque seperatist group ETA for the bombing, out of fear that if it got out before the election that Al-Queda were responsible, they would loose power to the anti-war opposition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_4273000/4273817.stm"There is no doubt Eta is responsible," said Spain's interior minister Angel Acebes following an emergency cabinet meeting. "Eta had been looking for a massacre in Spain," Mr Acebes added.
ETA denied their involvement in the attacks, suggesting that "Arab resistance" were responsible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_bombings#ETA_suspicions
The government were found to be trying to lie to their people so they went out and protested, both on the streets and in the election booths.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511886.stm
The documentary suggests that Al-Queda were wholly responsible for the downfall of the spanish government, and their subsequent withdrawal from the War, this is not the case.0 -
Wicknight wrote:What?
You said something about believing the hype that there actually is a war going in. Its hype?Wicknight wrote:Yes because hords of angry European Muslims were lining up to blow up train stations before 9/11?
Different circumstances. The EU has changed since then.
But here's a list of terrorist acts and you can decide what is and what isnt entirely the cause of the US invasion of Afganastan and Iraq.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htmWicknight wrote:Trust me, the Catholics in the North would not have applauded a servere claim down on Catholics following Omagh. They are not exactly lining up to applaud the last round of interment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ni/internment.shtml?
Who else in the world other than local nationalists?Wicknight wrote:No, obviously he became who he is because he is pure evil ... yes, that makes more sense ...]?
What are you saying?Wicknight wrote:LOL .. i was waiting for someone to step in with the "how can you blame the victim!!" argument .....
In case you didn't actually read it I have stated twice this is about cause and effect, not blame.......
Well if your causality wasnt so weird I could accept that. Where you bring accountability? So far it doesnt seem to be part of your lexicon.Wicknight wrote:Blaming suicide bombers for blowing up train stations might make you feel better, but it is not really going to stop them now is it. You have to realise why something happens before you can attempt to stop it.
Yes, but your understanding of why something happens is very misled. You think theorising with waffle is going to stop them? Holding suicide bomber responsible for the death and atrocity they cause doesnt do anything for my feelings. It is the beginning of stopping them.Wicknight wrote:If you read the 9/11 report you will see that it cost Al Queda $500,000 to carry the operation out ... which strangely enough is exactly what I said it costs ..........
Yes and I said up to date. Things have changed since then. OF COURSE I READ IT! It has since been criticised. Though your figure well may and probably is accurate.Wicknight wrote:Well firstly, neither did 9/11. 9/11 ground New York to a halt, the London bombing ground London to a hault. Neither brought down the economy..........
Excuse me, have you just arrived on earth? NYC is still recovering! Bring to a hault is minimising it, the MTA strike brought NYC to hault, 911 did something altogether different, of which grinding it to a hault was a detail.Wicknight wrote:You apparently don't understand what public relations means .............
Oh yes I do. You dont. Im guessing you want Saatchi and Saatchi or Max Clifford on the case. Would you like to prepare another dialogue for us, between the Taliban and Max Clifford perhaps?Wicknight wrote:You are over whelming with your thought out carefully constructed criticism and debating skills ... please, please stop, you are making my points look so foolish ... .............
You manage to do that all on your own without any help from me.Wicknight wrote:That sentence doesn't even make sense. How can "power" be a rationalisation for anti-American feeling in Muslims
"Well Muhammad, I just hate those damn Americans"
"Why Akmed? Because they are killing our Muslims brothers in the holy lands of the Middle East?"
"No, Muhammad, because of power"
"Er ... because of what?"
"Power Akmed ... i hate those Americans because of ... umm .. power"
"Er, the US military power?"
"No just ... umm ... power .. in general".............
Yes, I see Dustin the Turkey is giving you your lessons in political theory.Wicknight wrote:Was that a reason not to get rid of slavery?
Slavery was debated on a number of levels, both social, political and, economic. The industrial revolution was happening up north and needed a labour force, so the country as a whole wouldn't have lost money. But the south would have lost a way of life and a lot of free labour.
There was obviously a moral debate going on as well, but you were talking about economics - and by the way it was a republican who freed the slaves, Lincoln.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, I see Dustin the Turkey is giving you your lessons in political theory.
Please attack the post and not the poster. I'd much prefer you refute what people say with some kind of sources but if you can't and its opinion thats fine but don't try to win an argument on name calling.by the way it was a republican who freed the slaves, Lincoln.
So why then was it only up to 50 or so years ago that the US gave equal rights to Blacks?0 -
Hobbes wrote:So why then was it only up to 50 or so years ago that the US gave equal rights to Blacks?
False statement.
And since you are non-American and like to believe the negative that you read about us ... I'll give you a short US History lesson.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (1865) ... abolished slavery ... NATION WIDE. Unlike the Emancipation Proclimation (1863) which freed slaves in captured Union Territory, now all slaves were freed.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (1868) gave the former slaves full rights.
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution (1870) gave them the right to vote.
Your confusion about "rights" is the 1965 Voting Rights Act which prohibited the use of a poll tax for participation in elections. Blacks had the right to vote under the law, additional local laws required the payment of a Poll Tax (used to pay for the cost of the election) to vote. Blacks always had the RIGHT to vote, the poll tax kept many of the poor from exercising that right.
As a sidelight ... after Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education (1954) ... Southern schools were fully integrated through busing of students. Twenty years later, the Alabama State Attorney General brought suit in California to force California to comply with the integration of schools forced upon the south. Integration was a slow process and resistance to integration was not limited to the south.
However, back to topic ... the RIGHTS of blacks were ALWAYS there ... enforcement was the problem.
Another side-light ... A Republican freed the slaves (as previously pointed out by LD) ... DEMOCRATS in the south (and the rest of the country) failed to enforce the law.
Nox0 -
lazydaisy wrote:I didnt realise you were a military strategist.
[snip]
Who taught you political theory, Dustin the turkey?
Your naivety is kind of sweet if it werent so irritating.
Wake up Dorothy.
One months ban
You obviously havent learned from your last ban0 -
Nox wrote:False statement.
And since you are non-American and like to believe the negative that you read about us ... I'll give you a short US History lesson.
I was talking about equal rights for Blacks in America.
Speaking of history lessons go read up on the American Civil Rights Movement 1955-1968. I was wrong btw it is less then 50 years ago.
But don't feel persecuted, the UK for example didn't give full equal rights to women until the 1980's.0 -
"Quote:
Originally Posted by lazydaisy
I didnt realise you were a military strategist.
[snip]
Who taught you political theory, Dustin the turkey?
Your naivety is kind of sweet if it werent so irritating.
Wake up Dorothy.Earthman wrote:One months ban
You obviously havent learned from your last ban
Earthman, is this a joke?0 -
By and large yes ... two points -lazydaisy wrote:You said something about believing the hype that there actually is a war going in. Its hype?
At the moment the US had gone to war with two traditional entities, the Taliban and the Iraq army. Neither of these entities were Al Queda.
Secondly, the "war" on terrorism is an abstract media friendly sound bite concept. There isn't actually a war going on (except in Iraq) because Al Queada is not a military group you can fight. The "war on terror" is the same as the "war on drugs" or the "war on illiteracy"
In what why has the EU significantly changed independently from 9/11?lazydaisy wrote:Different circumstances. The EU has changed since then.
None of them are ... you still are not getting my point. The Al Queda terrorist actions are because of idiology. But the reason (as in cause and effect) Al Queda has people lining up to join them and carry out terrorist campaigns is because of US military action in Afganastan and Iraq.lazydaisy wrote:But here's a list of terrorist acts and you can decide what is and what isnt entirely the cause of the US invasion of Afganastan and Iraq.
Of the top of my head, the US Irish-American lobby that has funded IRA terrorism for the last 40 years. And Lybia.lazydaisy wrote:Who else in the world other than local nationalists?
I am saying that there are very real psyhcological reasons why Hitler became the monster he did, on of them being the frustration he experiences in Munich. Dismissing these reasons as "blaming the victim" or saying that Hitler is the way he is just cause, is unhelpful and will lead to more Hitlers, just like ignoring the very real reasons why Muslims turn to Islamic terrorism will only lead to more Islamic terrorists.lazydaisy wrote:What are you saying?lazydaisy wrote:Well if your causality wasnt so weird I could accept that. Where you bring accountability? So far it doesnt seem to be part of your lexicon.
Accountability is irrelivent, because accountability only works as a future deterent if the person understands what they are doing is wrong.
Are you really suggesting that to stop future Islamic terrorists is point out to them that what they are doing is wrong, and that pointing blame at events such as 9/11 will make future potential terrorists go "you are right, I never realised that 9/11 was actually Al Queda's fault, now I certainly won't join them"
Simply sitting back and saying "well it isn't our fault, they started it" is completely pointless and achieves absolutely nothing. In fact it makes the situation worse, though it might make you feel better.
Sigh ...lazydaisy wrote:Yes, but your understanding of why something happens is very misled. You think theorising with waffle is going to stop them?
Firstly you cannot stop "them", the ones who are already committed. You cannot convinced them they are wrong by blaming them, you cannot find them and kill them. The only hope to stop future generations from joining the fight in the first place.
Secondly, the answer to the "war on terrorism" is to realise that it is not possible to win and remove yourself from the war. You continue with very good intelligence services, you continue to police your countries against all threats including terrorism. But you with draw from fighting pointless wars in the middle east because all that does is fan the flames of hatred.
How does it stop them?lazydaisy wrote:Holding suicide bomber responsible for the death and atrocity they cause doesnt do anything for my feelings. It is the beginning of stopping them.
Oh I'm sorry I forgot the NYC = the entire US economy ... sorry how silly of me :rolleyes:lazydaisy wrote:Excuse me, have you just arrived on earth? NYC is still recovering!
You still don't understand what PR is if you think it is limited to Max Clifford representing ex-Big Brother x-list celebs.lazydaisy wrote:Oh yes I do. You dont. Im guessing you want Saatchi and Saatchi or Max Clifford on the case. Would you like to prepare another dialogue for us, between the Taliban and Max Clifford perhaps?
I see you got banned ...lazydaisy wrote:Yes, I see Dustin the Turkey is giving you your lessons in political theory.
Or so first NYC going down for a month is the entire US economy, now the entire southern states facing a huge economic depression doesn't effect the economy as a whole. ok thenlazydaisy wrote:The industrial revolution was happening up north and needed a labour force, so the country as a whole wouldn't have lost money.lazydaisy wrote:There was obviously a moral debate going on as well, but you were talking about economics
Because economic reasons are being used by Sand to justify the fact that the west will always meddle in the Middle East, and that we just have to accept that. I was saying that the same reasoning, that slavery is an economic necessity was used why it should just be accepted.0 -
That list makes terrorism look like something invented in 1961 and that didn't get popular until the late 1990s.
But it wasn't the same Republican party. But really aren't we getting off topicNox wrote:Another side-light ... A Republican freed the slaves (as previously pointed out by LD) ... DEMOCRATS in the south (and the rest of the country) failed to enforce the law.0 -
lazydaisy wrote:and by the way it was a republican who freed the slaves, Lincoln.
Is that supposed to be shocking?
The Republican part was set up in opposition to slavery only 4 years previous to Lincoln being elected president in 1860. The Republican party was formed in opposition Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have expanded slavery into the new areas.
As Victor points out it is was a very different party than today. Back in 1860s the Republican strong holds were New York and New England. It got virtually no support in the Southern states. How much would change in the next 100 years.0 -
In reality it doesn't work like that. You can never kill or disarm every nut job out there who wants to start a personal crusade against the US or the west and who has money to do something about it. The "war" against terrorism is not a war that can ever be won.
No, certainly theres no Dirkastan to be invaded or bombed. Thats half the problem with criticism of the WoT - whose to say whether the US is winning or losing, theres no clear concrete measures to measure by? I dont feel theres any quick fix solution. In the short term however, there are terrorist groups out there, and there are terrorist networks. They have to be combatted, they cant be ignored. The previous U.S. policy of ignoring or limiting retaliation for terrorism backed by Bin Laden was rewarded with 9/11. If rogue states, like the Taliban, are providing cover for terrorists then they do need to be disrupted. A turtle strategy wont work because theres simply too many targets for terrorists to hit for them all to be secured.Hundreds of Muslim men and women did not just wake up on Sept 12 2001 and go "I think I will join a terrorist organisation". The reason membership has grown significantly is because these Muslims believed the hype, that there actually is a war going on.
No hundreds of them had already woken up on Sept 10th 2001 and before and joined a terrorist organisation for any one of a hundred reasons, often as the culmination of a journey from mainstream life to increasingly radical thought brought about by confusion or disconnection from a changing, modernising world. There has to be an acceptance that the Muslims are not our shadows, that they can reach views and conclusions somewhat independant of our actions.
As for the hype of the war, as far as radical Islam is concerned there is a war and there has been one for decades against infidels, apostates (basically any Muslim who doesnt agree with them) and Pharohs (Any muslim government they disagree with). The Caucuses, the Balkans, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, Kashmir, Afghanistan are all theatres of what these guys view as a war between Islam and the House of War. As far as theyre concerned, theyve already knocked the USSR out of the war.
There have been attacks on US targets before 9/11. They almost took down the WTC with a truck bomb in 1994 for example. Bin Laden hinted in an interview that he had helped fund the Somali warlords against the US/UN back in the early 90s - this was back when the US Marines were escorting aid convoys to help avert a famine, they didnt exactly win any brownie points with AQ for that either. I remember when I was in Paris that another group was bombing the Metro. A radical Islamic assassinated Sadat all the way back in the 70s IIRC.
If these guys are convinced there is a war and are busy waging it, is it wise to pretend they dont exist?If the US had picked itself up, brushed itself down and continued on after 9/11 I doubt Al Queda would still be operating, certainly not at the levels it currently does. I doubt London and Madrid would have happened at all. I am not blaming the US for the European bombing or saying it was their fault. I am purely looking at this from the perspective of cause and effect.
The US turned the other cheek to previous attacks - didnt work. If anything, the old adage of "let them hate, so long as they fear" imploded as Jihadists were confirmed in their thinking that the US was a degenerate paper tiger that could be easily defeated and lacked the will to fight. Bin Laden commented in an interview on the speed with which the US pulled out of Somalia. Hate and contempt is a deadly combination.Not sure I follow that line of thinking ... it seems to be more the knee-jerk how-dare-you "Bill O'Rielly" style perception of I am saying rather than what I am actually saying.
Its not, its demonstrating that a group can be demonised and hated without having done anything "wrong" to deserve such hatred.But if you ignore the issue of blame and fault for a moment, the reality is that at the moment Al Queda is having a recruiting field day, and that this largely down to very negative image of the US, an imagine that is rationalied by those who hold it by the foriegn policy actions of successive US governments. Improving this image will effect this, just as the actions after 9/11 did in the negative.
Yep but there are two problems. First thats a long term project, that doesnt help inside the next 40-60 years. Secondly the US cant win a public relations war with its own people, let alone with people from a wholly different culture. Especially when theres more demands on Middle Eastern policy than "Like Me!!! Like Me!!! Please Love Me!!!" If the US for example deals with a dictatorship, then theyre supporting the repression of Muslims. If they act to depose that dictatorship, then theyll be neo-imperialists in it for the oil. And thats only the interpretation Michael Moore will put on their actions, well before the Jihadists contribute their 2 cents. If they try a hands off policy, then Russia, Germany and China will be happy to cosy up instead - as in Sudan and Uzbekistan.None that would be accepted by US governments or business lobbies. But then I doubt these are the people who are that concerned about international terrorism.
Well what is the alternative? I mean with all the criticism there has to be an alternative out there, that takes into account the neccessity of secure energy supplies and the increased competition for access to energy supplies from the likes of China and India? And its not just rich bussinessmen who depend on oil. You do too.0 -
I am not saying ignore them, but invading Iraq, invading Afganastan etc is not the opposite to ignoring them, despite what Bush's spin doctors say.Sand wrote:They have to be combatted, they cant be ignored.
The correct response to 9/11 was to seriously beef up security at home and intelligence services, quietly. As demonstrated in Moores F911 that has not been done. As attention has shifted to funding wars in the Middle East, homeland security has weaked
Al Queda are ghosts and shadows. The traditional army, navy and airforce have nothing to do with combatting Al Queda. Yet here we are fighting a phoney war against groups that have very little to do with protecting America or the West from terrorist campaigns.
The problem is politicions think they have to be seen to be doing something measurable. Bush has to come on telly each night and say "we destroyed this, we blew up that, you are now safer". But it doesn't work like that. Fighting Al Queda needs to be done in the shadows behind the scenes. Massive WAR ON TERROR! style programs are counter productive.
And invading Afganastan and Iraq was rewarded with a series of terrorist attacks across Europe and Asia.Sand wrote:The previous U.S. policy of ignoring or limiting retaliation for terrorism backed by Bin Laden was rewarded with 9/11.
Why? It does nothing? Was AQ long term effected by Afganastan? Nope, as Madrid and London prove.Sand wrote:If rogue states, like the Taliban, are providing cover for terrorists then they do need to be disrupted.
Al Queda as an organisation teetering with collapse pre-9/11. All the radical Islamic movements that had come out of the aftermath of the Afgan-Soviet war were. They were slowly self distructing, imploding in on themselves. The horror of 9/11 would only have weakened AQ, just like Omagh weaked the R-IRA.Sand wrote:No hundreds of them had already woken up on Sept 10th 2001 and before and joined a terrorist organisation for any one of a hundred reasons,
So we can then blame them?Sand wrote:There has to be an acceptance that the Muslims are not our shadows, that they can reach views and conclusions somewhat independant of our actions.
That might be true when looking at individuals in something like a court of law, but we all know that groups are people sway as groups depending on external factors. That is the basis of every marketing campaign in the modern world. Trying to reason with that, point out the flaws in logic to individuals is pointless. How would you even begin? How would you even attempt to reach a young British muslim thinking of joining a terrorist group?
Its not "these" guys you need to worry about. There will always be a handful of nut jobs who have taken it upon themselves to destroy the great evil. It is the 10 thousand other Muslims who might join them tomorrow.Sand wrote:If these guys are convinced there is a war and are busy waging it, is it wise to pretend they dont exist?
Take the US anti-government militias up in the mountains in places like Virgina. Now there ain't much you can do about them, and they can claim they are the legitamate government of the US, that they will bring down the government etc etc. Now you certainly watch them, you put resources on them, if they attempt to do damage you stop them with the police.
But if the US military said "Right well these guys seem to have declared war on the government, fire up the Cruise missles" and bombed the virgina hills back to the stone age, what do you think would happen? Every nut job from Virgina to Istanbull would be going "Holy crap, those bastards, where to I sign up to kick their ass"
Define "work" .. How many AQ attacks before 9/11 and how many after in the space of 5 years?Sand wrote:The US turned the other cheek to previous attacks - didnt work.
Right wrong, you fault my fault are irrelevent Sand. Saying the US has done nothing to deserve the attack is pointless as a method to stop future attacks while the US military is killing muslims in Iraq.Sand wrote:Its not, its demonstrating that a group can be demonised and hated without having done anything "wrong" to deserve such hatred.
You seem to be thinking about this is the same way lazydaisy was, that if you say the US should do something it is saying the US is to "blame" for what happened. But blame is irrelevent. Blaming someone, either the Islamist or the US government is irrelevent, it isn't going to do anything
Not really, the US had been in the gulf only 10 years before 9/11.Sand wrote:Yep but there are two problems. First thats a long term project, that doesnt help inside the next 40-60 years.
How about they don't do either ... radical idea I knowSand wrote:If the US for example deals with a dictatorship, then theyre supporting the repression of Muslims. If they act to depose that dictatorship, then theyll be neo-imperialists in it for the oil.
And ... ?Sand wrote:If they try a hands off policy, then Russia, Germany and China will be happy to cosy up instead - as in Sudan and Uzbekistan.
The alternative is to stop invading countries and Sand. It isn't hard. Ireland doesn't do itSand wrote:Well what is the alternative? I mean with all the criticism there has to be an alternative out there, that takes into account the neccessity of secure energy supplies and the increased competition for access to energy supplies from the likes of China and India? And its not just rich bussinessmen who depend on oil. You do too.0 -
Advertisement
-
The correct response to 9/11 was to seriously beef up security at home and intelligence services, quietly. As demonstrated in Moores F911 that has not been done. As attention has shifted to funding wars in the Middle East, homeland security has weaked
There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of power plants, monuments, dams, bridges, chemical plants, water resevoirs and transport systems. It is *not* possible to secure them all. Youre surrendering the iniative to AQ which is the first step on a long road to defeat tbh. AQ only have to get lucky once, the US has to get lucky every single day.The problem is politicions think they have to be seen to be doing something measurable. Bush has to come on telly each night and say "we destroyed this, we blew up that, you are now safer". But it doesn't work like that. Fighting Al Queda needs to be done in the shadows behind the scenes. Massive WAR ON TERROR! style programs are counter productive.
Of course, and who says it isnt? I mean theyre renditioning somebody? The Italians are issuing arrest warrants against the CIA? Military action does not prevent covert action. And as the renditions and Italian case demonstrates covert action has the potential to be portrayed just as negatively as removing Saddam Hussein.Why? It does nothing? Was AQ long term effected by Afganastan? Nope, as Madrid and London prove.
Of course it was affected by the loss of its host regime and training center. The level of planning, co-ordination and training that was demonstrated in 9/11 is not matched by 4 local guys building bombs based off internet recipes and boarding tube trains.Al Queda as an organisation teetering with collapse pre-9/11. All the radical Islamic movements that had come out of the aftermath of the Afgan-Soviet war were. They were slowly self distructing, imploding in on themselves. The horror of 9/11 would only have weakened AQ, just like Omagh weaked the R-IRA.
Whats your basis for this view of AQ? Chechnya would keep them going for years, Kashmir would too, the Thai jihad kicked off with little or no US involvement. And as for the "horror" of 9/11 I recall Palestinians dancing in the streets when they heard the news (Arafat quickly sent gunmen to put them back off the streets of course) and a US senator noting that the people celebrating 9/11 were enemies of the US. I remember getting a poster on here saying that if the US rebuilt the WTC he hoped AQ would knock them down again. Theres another poster on here who I wont mention who cheerleads for the insurgency in Iraq despite daily horrific atrocities against ordinary Iraqis. The horror doesnt seem to bother him.So we can then blame them?
That might be true when looking at individuals in something like a court of law, but we all know that groups are people sway as groups depending on external factors. That is the basis of every marketing campaign in the modern world. Trying to reason with that, point out the flaws in logic to individuals is pointless. How would you even begin? How would you even attempt to reach a young British muslim thinking of joining a terrorist group?
Yep. Why not? Theyre not children.
I accept that attempting to reason with terrorists or supporters of terrorism is pretty much pointless - I get reminded every time NI rears its head afterall - but then trying to win a PR war with AQ in the short term is your strategy, not mine. The likes of Moore are doing their level best to convince your young British muslim to join AQ, so youve got your work cut out for starters.But if the US military said "Right well these guys seem to have declared war on the government, fire up the Cruise missles" and bombed the virgina hills back to the stone age, what do you think would happen? Every nut job from Virgina to Istanbull would be going "Holy crap, those bastards, where to I sign up to kick their ass"
I know, but youre ignoring that militias are content to engage in survivalist fantasies and demonising Washington, whereas AQ actually was and is out there planning and carrying out attacks and has been for quite some time. If AQ was just a group of heavily armed hermits whod care less? Theres much to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie, but its not a great strategy when the dogs are already up and about.Define "work" .. How many AQ attacks before 9/11 and how many after in the space of 5 years?
You seriously want to do a tot up of before and after? With the USS Cole, the WTC attacks prior to 9/11, the Kenyan embassy bombings, and so on and so forth pre 9/11 wasnt exactly the wilderness years for AQ and their cronies.And ... ?
Price of oil skyrockets as West living off Chinas leftovers? Economies go downhill fast? Bad stuff? The West needs to get off oil, but its not anything that sort of transistion is going to take 20-30 years, not 2-3.The alternative is to stop invading countries and Sand. It isn't hard. Ireland doesn't do it
The only middle eastern country the US has ever invaded was Iraq, back as part of UN coalition liberating Kuwait. Oh wait, that was a bad thing. They got 9/11 for that? Were back in this cant live with them, cant live without them trap where the US will always be criticised for either not doing the right thing, or for doing the wrong thing. And Ireland doesnt invade countries because it cant, not because of our stern moral code of non-violence (hahahahahaha-Norn Iron-hahahahahaha). I mean Germany is for human rights above all, tempered by the harsh lessons of WW2 and the memory of mans inhumanity to man......unless they can get an Uzbek airbase that is.
Surely having spelt out how disagreeable US/Western policy is youve got a decent idea of a workable alternative other than "dont enforce UN mandates to liberate invaded states"?0 -
Wicknight wrote:invading Iraq, invading Afganastan etc is not the opposite to ignoring them
Iraq and Afghanistan can't be conflated like that IMO. That's something the Jihadi nuts like to do in their propaganda.0 -
Firstly, it is possible to secure them all. It is not possible to secure them all to the same level of the white house, but then that is not necessary.Sand wrote:There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of power plants, monuments, dams, bridges, chemical plants, water resevoirs and transport systems. It is *not* possible to secure them all.
Secondly this goes which goes back to my point that this war cannot be won, there will always be threat. The effort should be put into security and minimising that threat, not charging around the world killing people in a vain attempt to some how kill every Muslim that could ever want to harm Americans.
Please explain how slashing the homeland security budget and invading Iraq protects chemical and nuclear power plants in the US?
Al Queda always have the initative, they are the terrorists. The western security forces have to find out what they are doing and attempt to stop them. There is not point in the US military taking the initative because they are fighting shadows and ghosts.Sand wrote:Youre surrendering the iniative to AQ which is the first step on a long road to defeat tbh.
Welcome to the world of terrorism. That is a fact of life, and unfortunatly no matter how uncomfortable it makes yourself or the American people, there is nothing that can be done about it. 100% security is not possible.Sand wrote:AQ only have to get lucky once, the US has to get lucky every single day.
Yeah, when the CIA completely f**k it up. The Milian police were weeks away from bringing down Omars Italian network (legally). Since 2003 they have gone back underground and Omar is now a poster boy for American repression and arrogence.Sand wrote:Military action does not prevent covert action. And as the renditions and Italian case demonstrates covert action has the potential to be portrayed just as negatively as removing Saddam Hussein.
True, which kinda makes you wonder what the point of invading Afganistan was, except to push people like the british bombers into the open arms of Al Queda.Sand wrote:The level of planning, co-ordination and training that was demonstrated in 9/11 is not matched by 4 local guys building bombs based off internet recipes and boarding tube trains.
Which is why treat of death, threat of invasion, threat of punishment if they don't fall in line, simply blaming them, is pointless.Sand wrote:The horror doesnt seem to bother him.
Who said it was short term. If America with drew from Iraq and Afganistan tomorrow it would probably take 15 years for the effects, as the children who are now 10 and don't really understand what is happening develop in a world with America not involved in the middle east, so when they reach 25 (prime age for bombers) they are less motivated to target America for "crimes" they didn't experience.Sand wrote:but then trying to win a PR war with AQ in the short term is your strategy, not mine.
Yes, Michael Moore hates America ..:rolleyes:Sand wrote:The likes of Moore are doing their level best to convince your young British muslim to join AQ, so youve got your work cut out for starters.
But Sand you are missing the point, the big pictureSand wrote:Theres much to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie, but its not a great strategy when the dogs are already up and about.
Its like when people started calling for punishment to the hijackers for 9/11 .. the hi-jackers were dead! You don't have to worry about the hi-jackers any more, it is the kids in London, Paris and Saudi Arabia who are turning on their TVs and seeing dead Muslims in Afganastan and Iraq.
The thousand or so members of Al Queda are not the big problem. It is the hundred thousand muslims who will sustain Al Queda for the next 20 years that are the problem.
It is like the execution of the 1916 rising leaders. The leaders were not the problem, they were not the people that brought war to Britian and the start of the collapse of the British Empire. It was the Irish kids, men and women, who reading about the executions in the paper the next day that brought down an Empire.
The USS cole and the Kenyan embassy were soft targets. They are nothing like the Madrid bombing in terms of daring and planning. And the previous WTC was before Al Queda, though possible linked to Bin Laden. And that was over 10 years. The London and Madrid and Bali bombers have been in a space of 4 years. So how are things getting better?Sand wrote:You seriously want to do a tot up of before and after? With the USS Cole, the WTC attacks prior to 9/11, the Kenyan embassy bombings, and so on and so forth pre 9/11 wasnt exactly the wilderness years for AQ and their cronies.
WHo says we need to get off oil. There is no reason to believe that if the US backed off from the middle east, Russia or China would invadeSand wrote:The West needs to get off oil, but its not anything that sort of transistion is going to take 20-30 years, not 2-3.
Sigh .. yes Sand, blame, that will work .. I can see Al Queda putting down bombs now saying "Jesus we didn't realise it was our fault, we though we were justified because of what the US did, but now we see the light" ... war overSand wrote:The only middle eastern country the US has ever invaded was Iraq, back as part of UN coalition liberating Kuwait. Oh wait, that was a bad thing. They got 9/11 for that?
Are you really saying that you see no alternative but for the US military and intelligence services to keep messing around with in the Middle East for the next 100 years or China will invade and we won't have any oil anymore?Sand wrote:Were back in this cant live with them, cant live without them trap where the US will always be criticised for either not doing the right thing, or for doing the wrong thing.
What? This is nothing to do with morality Sand, this is to do with not f**king things up any more than they all ready are. You keep bringing this back to who is right and who is wrong, who is to blame and who is rightous. All these points are completely irrelivent to actually stopping terrorism. A rightous dead American is still a dead American. A immoral terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest is still a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest. Pointing out to him that he is in fact at fault is not going to do anything. Invading and bombing a country he is connected to as revenge or punishment isn't going to stop himSand wrote:I mean Germany is for human rights above all, tempered by the harsh lessons of WW2 and the memory of mans inhumanity to man......unless they can get an Uzbek airbase that is.
Yeah, my advice would be think more about the consequences of the actions the US takes. You cannot remove the threat of terrorism by force and trying to do so will make only make matters worse. Instead pour resources into counter-terrorism and security, remove yourself from meddling in Middle Eastern government and states, bunker down and pray you have done enough, and are lucky enough, to stop the next serious attack.Sand wrote:Surely having spelt out how disagreeable US/Western policy is youve got a decent idea of a workable alternative other than "dont enforce UN mandates to liberate invaded states"?
Because Sand, there is not an alternative. The idea that through military might terrorism can be in some way destroyed is ridiculous in the extreme. It cannot be because you are not fighting a country or group, you are fighting an idea. The West is not fighting Al Queda, we are fighting the million Muslims who will join Al Queda in the next 50 years.
We Irish should know that better than anyone given our history of opposition to the British that lasted for 800 years.0 -
Wicknight wrote:or the end of the Star Trek TNG when Riker decides to ram the Borg mother ship with the Enterprise to stop them attacking Earth (obscure Boards.ie reference #124)
Wicknight. You've just earned yourself a promotion in the world of my estimation.
Your death will now only be painful.
0 -
Wicknight wrote:WHo says we need to get off oil.
The less Western countries (esp. the US) need oil, the less reason they have to meddle in the politics of the Middle East.Wicknight wrote:which kinda makes you wonder what the point of invading Afganistan was
I know I'm butting into an argument here but I am puzzled by why you think the attack on Afghanistan after Sept. 11th was such a bad idea. What else could the US have done?
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. His training camps etc were in Afghanistan. He was on very good terms with that crazy Taliban Government in power there.
Invading Afghanistan post-Sept 11th after the Taliban refused to round up Bin Laden and his men was the correct thing to do IMO.
In fact, the US should have attacked quicker and used more of its own forces instead of bombing from several thousand feet and paying off unreliable proxies to capture Bin Laden for them.0 -
I know that, and I think it would be a good idea, but Sand is basically say the west has to keep f**ked around in the Middle East or completely get off oil all together because if we stop f**king around China and Russia will and then we won't be able to get any oil (or we will have to buy oil off China). I don't accept those are the only too possibilities.fly_agaric wrote:The less Western countries (esp. the US) need oil, the less reason they have to meddle in the politics of the Middle East.
The US could have realised that there is not much that can be done through military force, and instead got around to fixing the serious problems in intelligence gathering that lead to 9/11.fly_agaric wrote:I know I'm butting into an argument here but I am puzzled by why you think the attack on Afghanistan after Sept. 11th was such a bad idea. What else could the US have done?
The US military should have gone back to dusting their shoes.
It is a common, quite American, misconception that there is always an answer through military might, the Rambo syndrome that it is always possible to just overwhelm and kill anything that threatens you. You see that with the amount of gun owner ship in the US, and more importantly the idea that having a gun makes you safe.
So .. did they kil Bin Laden? Would killing Bin Laden even have stopped Al Queda? Doubtful. It goes back to the idea above that if you just kill enough or certain members of Al Queda you will be safe.fly_agaric wrote:Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. His training camps etc were in Afghanistan. He was on very good terms with that crazy Taliban Government in power there.
Bin Laden might be the figure head, but it would not be like killing Bush. If you kill Bin Laden someone will take his place with in days and you will have helped recruit a thousand more angry muslims into A.Q0 -
-
Wicknight wrote:I know that, and I think it would be a good idea, but Sand is basically say the west has to keep f**ked around in the Middle East or completely get off oil all together because if we stop f**king around China and Russia will and then we won't be able to get any oil (or we will have to buy oil off China). I don't accept those are the only too possibilities.
Fair enough. As I said, I was butting in a bit and not following the whole argument. I'd say that China in particular will increasingly meddle if they can get away with it as their power grows. Much as I dislike the US's imperial attitude in dealing with other countries at times, at least it has a representative government. Maybe China can be the Jihadi's new "Great Satan" in a few decades? With the government's mistrust of all sorts of religion it should be ideal for the role.Wicknight wrote:The US could have realised that there is not much that can be done through military force, and instead got around to fixing the serious problems in intelligence gathering that lead to 9/11. The US military should have gone back to dusting their shoes.
That intelligence gathering is more important than military force must be true for the War on Terror (yeuch) as a whole but the point is, in this particular case (Afghanistan post Sept 11th with Al Qaeda targets to attack) alot could be done through military force. In fact (IMO), the US did not use enough force in Afghanistan and then went off tilting at windmills in Iraq, creating the greatest propaganda coup, recruiting tool, and training ground for the Jihadis yet. Better than Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, and Afghanistan etc by far.Wicknight wrote:It is a common, quite American, misconception that there is always an answer through military might, the Rambo syndrome that it is always possible to just overwhelm and kill anything that threatens you.
That's a bit of a generalisation.:)
It's also a "common misconception" among all kinds of people that going to war is never correct course of action and is never justified.
I just can't understand why anyone would argue for no military action if a country suffers a massive attack and you know exactly where the people who did it are, what government has been providing them with support, you have the capability to mount an attack, and you can attack them relatively cleanly without the risk of provoking a wider war. For good or ill, the US is the most powerful country in the world. As such, I don't think it would have been tenable for any US government to have an incident like Sept. 11th occur in the US, know who did it and that a military counter-attack was feasible, and then opt not to make a military response.Wicknight wrote:So .. did they kill Bin Laden?
No.:) Again I repeat that I think they failed because the US's attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was too timid and too slow (IMO). I mean, you mention a "Rambo Syndrome"? I remember being really, really worried after Sept. 11th that the US would completely overreact, carpet bomb the place like it was Cambodia all over again and kill tens of thousands of civilians. Insead they sat on their hands for a while negotiating with the Taliban, then dropped some bombs (on the mountains mostly), and delivered several suitcases of cash to proxies who were supposed to "get" Bin Laden et al for them but then somehow contrived to let all the top people slip away in the end.Wicknight wrote:Would killing Bin Laden even have stopped Al Queda? Doubtful. It goes back to the idea above that if you just kill enough or certain members of Al Queda you will be safe.
No, of course they wouldn't have stopped "Al Qaeda"/the Jihadis. I agree. Killing enough Jihadis will not make you safe but it could make you safer if you don't make too many non-Jihadis angry enough to join the holy war (see Iraq).
The US would be in a better position (safer, IMO) if they had gotten a more conclusive victory in Afghanistan (Bin Laden and his coterie captured or killed) than having Bin Laden, Mullah Omar etc "out there" somewhere as kind of Jihadi totems who dealt a mighty blow against the Great Satan and then managed to melt away before the US or anyone else could lay a finger on them. Not exactly the type of tale to make enemies of the US at all fearful of its wrath is it?Wicknight wrote:Bin Laden might be the figure head, but it would not be like killing Bush. If you kill Bin Laden someone will take his place with in days and you will have helped recruit a thousand more angry muslims into A.Q
Killing Bush won't end this "War on Terror" any more than killing OBL will.
Do you mean that OBL shouldn't be hunted down and killed because it will make muslims angry? The kind of muslims who hero-worship OBL are probably pretty angry already. They will continue to worship him as a martyr for the cause anyway.0 -
Well I'm not really saying that, and as I explained to Sand this isn't about morality, this is purely about what works. I am not arguing that the US was not justifed in invading Afganastan. I am arguing that invading Afganastan only made the situation worse, that the military tactic that terrorism can be some how fought using conventional military is flawed.fly_agaric wrote:It's also a "common misconception" among all kinds of people that going to war is never correct course of action and is never justified.
It is true that the US f**ked Afganastan by using the local war lords to do the dirty work, and allowed Bin Laden to slip through the net. But even if they hadn't, they had gone in quickly and fast and got him out it is doubtful that that would have dealt a serious blow to Al Quedas plans for the next 5 years. Thought it probably would have stopped the Iraq war and other US involvement in the mess that is the modern Middle East, so it would have probably had a effect. So it is impossible to really tell.
Thats my point, the people who actually carried out 9/11 are all dead. The people who would carry out London were not part of Al Queda yet. Al Queda are ghosts and shadows. It is not like a country that is a static entity, that doesn't change over time and that can be dealt with.fly_agaric wrote:I just can't understand why anyone would argue for no military action if a country suffers a massive attack and you know exactly where the people who did it are
The exact same logic as you are using was used by the British after 1916 rising. The people who carried out this terrorist action should be hunted down and punished. They had the ring leaders of the rising sitting in a prision. Problem solved as far as they were concerned.
They felt the best thing to do was to execute them for treason, to send a message to the general population that uprising against the British Empire would not be go un-punished.
That was possible the worst decision in the history of the British Empire. 8 years later they were facing a war of independence, 40 years later the Empire was crumbling.
Al Qeada is not the people that make it up, it is the idea. As I said to Sand it is not the current thosand members of AQ that are the big problem, it is the million that will sustain the idea of Al Queada in the next 25-50 years. Just like it wasn't the 1916 rising that brought down British rule in Ireland it was the men and women who took up arms and joined Sinn Fein after the execution of the 1916 ring leaders.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:Thats my point, the people who actually carried out 9/11 are all dead. The people who would carry out London were not part of Al Queda yet. Al Queda are ghosts and shadows. It is not like a country that is a static entity, that doesn't change over time and that can be dealt with.
Perhaps I should have said enablers, organisers etc rather than the people who actually hijacked the planes but I see what you are saying.Wicknight wrote:The exact same logic as you are using was used by the British after 1916 rising. The people who carried out this terrorist action should be hunted down and punished. They had the ring leaders of the rising sitting in a prision. Problem solved as far as they were concerned.
They felt the best thing to do was to execute them for treason, to send a message to the general population that uprising against the British Empire would not be go un-punished.
I see what you mean but there are some differences.
The 1916 men didn't go and blow up some big London buildings full of civilians in an effort to gain the Irish Republic. Despite their less brutal tactics, the Rising leaders still had practically no public sympathy or support for what they had done until the British overreacted and executed them. Should have kept them in jail.
Speaking of Bin Laden specifically as a representative poster boy for Al Qaeda:
Bin Laden already has support among muslims for his Jihad despite his much nastier and more questionable tactics. If the US kills Bin Laden he becomes a martyr, but only to the people who already support him. They must be fairly far down the old rabbit-hole of hate if they can admire someone like Bin Laden. The US killing or capturing Bin Laden should not add any fuel to the fire of muslim hatred for the US. What does make things worse is the death of civilians during military action.Wicknight wrote:Al Qeada is not the people that make it up, it is the idea. As I said to Sand it is not the current thosand members of AQ that are the big problem, it is the million that will sustain the idea of Al Queada in the next 25-50 years. Just like it wasn't the 1916 rising that brought down British rule in Ireland it was the men and women who took up arms and joined Sinn Fein after the execution of the 1916 ring leaders.
If Al Qaeda is as directly analagous to a national liberation movement as you suggest, and its various broad aims and causes also prove as attractive to young muslims as the big idea of freeing your country often is won't it be impossible for the US to win no matter what it does?
If the US backs off and adopts a less robust response to AQ's attacks - it is a sign AQ is winning its struggle and should take the fight to the enemy to try and secure more of its very wide ranging goals.
If the US fights hard (militarily where it is appropriate), it is creating martyrs and storing up bitterness which will keep the hate going for the next round of AQ recruiting.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement