Unthinking Terrorism

whiskeyman

Hobbes wrote:

Indeed. I recall on my blog jaunt that one tinfoil hatter claiming that they were setup with deliveries not knowing they were bombs (must see if I can dig the link out again, it was funny to read).

Actually, I heard this being mentioned on BBCs Newsnight a few nights ago.

SkepticOne

Wheely wrote:

If because of the London bombings troops pulled out of Iraq and Israel ceded Palestine....would we still think the bombers were sad, pathetic and misguided......sure!!! But would the Iraquis and the Palestinians.....propbably not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...this is a complicated and almost impossible issue to form a coherent opinion on....whats the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter???

I think the Palestinians would like to see the back of the Israelis but bombs in London would certainly not have any effect on Israeli policy whatsoever. The bombings, if anything, in the eyes of the Israelis, would have the effect of vindicating their past policies. As for Iraq, while most Iraqis no doubt want to see the back of the Brits and the Yanks, they know that if they pulled out now, while Iraqi forces are not up to strength, this would be a disaster - they don't want to be overrun with Jihadi types either. They have enough problems with daily suicide bombings against ordinary Iraqis as it is. The coalition forces have an obligation towards the country they invaded.

solas

The coalition forces have an obligation towards the country they invaded.

especially as they took out the man who managed to subdue these "Jihadi" types during his reign...as tyranical as he was.

SkepticOne

solas wrote:

especially as they took out the man who managed to subdue these "Jihadi" types during his reign...as tyranical as he was.

Yes. The Jihadi types are filling the vacuum left behind by Saddam. It is not enough to get rid of Saddam, they must also get rid of the terrorists or build up Iraqi forces sufficiently to deal with them themselves.

solas

any chance of power sharing there or do you think it will always be a non negotible with terrorists type thing too?

StonedParadoX

wow.. good ****in debate lads
lots of crazy theories and lots of bright young? minds here

i cant really give an opinion cuz i dont really care about the london bombings or whats happening in iraq cuz it doesnt bother me cuz i dont really care and dont reallly listen to the news

*shrugs*

solas

great!

SkepticOne

solas wrote:

any chance of power sharing there or do you think it will always be a non negotible with terrorists type thing too?

Well no. I don't believe that terrorists are required in Iraq. Have there been calls from Iraqis for more terrorists (apart from Saddam and his followers)?

solas

Have there been calls from Iraqis for more terrorists (apart from Saddam and his followers)?

oh sure...they advertise on a daily basis..(in the sunni daily telegraph) seem to be receiving a lot of responses too, aparantly everybody wants to be one.
I'm sure if we ignore them for long enough they will just go away.

SkepticOne

Unfortunately there are groups in Iraq that have ruled themselves out of any possible political process. They can neither be ignored nor negotiated with. They will be around for a long time. They don't need to be elected or wanted since they appoint themselves. The most the Iraqis can hope for is that they have developed their own security forces of sufficient strength to deal with them and that more moderate Sunnis enter the political process imo.

solas

They can neither be ignored nor negotiated with. They will be around for a long time.

apparantly it could take up to ten years to "defeat" the insurgency....painful thought.
sometimes wonder why it was so necessary to remove Saddam in the first place.

The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. It is often divided by analysts into several main ideological strands, some of which are believed to overlap:

He did manage to keep them at bay for years.
(just posing the question for the discussion)

marco murphy

the 'resistance' wont be beaten.Especially not sunni.Unless there is an agreement.

Orizio

Unfortunately there are groups in Iraq that have ruled themselves out of any possible political process.

I think the point here is that those who can not be 'talked' with are the mainly Saudi jihadi's.They have ruled themslves out of any talks because they are neither Iraqi or would consider working with Jaafari and his infidels.But the jihadi's aren't the real problem and I have seen nothing much to suggest the Sunni and tribal insurgent groups in Iraq won't give up the arms if they are under sufficent pressure or get offered favourable peace terms or,more likely,both.The jihadi's won't talk full stop.

Right now the Sunni insurgencies have time on there side and without military pressure,from the US obviously,there will be no need for them to talk with Jaafari's government.There worried(rightly)that they will be ruled by a Iran backed Shia government in Iraq and many Sunni tribal traditions(extremely nationalist) simply won't forget the death's of there loved ones at the hands of the US or Iraqi army.The insurgency only needs to wait and stay united as Iraq falls apart,as rushed 'democracies' invariably do.

solas

so..why (the answer maybe painfully obvious) exactly was Saddam taken out?

iregk

because he wouldn't let them near the oil!!!!

the resurgance will never be beaten as they dont want to beat them. as long as there is resurgance there is "war". as long as the "war" is going on it gives them a reason to stay there and pump the oil back to the states.

oh and skeptic, love the comment about the lizard people. absolutely hillarious, especially considering im reading a book at the moment about said subject!!! shape shifting royal family etc...

Orizio

iregk wrote:

because he wouldn't let them near the oil!!!!

the resurgance will never be beaten as they dont want to beat them. as long as there is resurgance there is "war". as long as the "war" is going on it gives them a reason to stay there and pump the oil back to the states.

Do I smell an unproven 'liberal' conspiracy theory?Iraq's oil industry has been nationalized(one of the few things in neo-liberal Iraq that has been nationalized you'll notice)and America was already getting Iraqi oil from Iraq before the invasion.Nor is the US short of oil sources considering South/North America and the gulf.Nor would a US president invade a country half way across the world-a little risky politically .Nor would the CIA etc allow an invasion for oil.

The reasons for invading were no doubt WMD's and the PNAC idea that democracy would spread through the Sunni world from Iraq.Clearly though having elections without peace,a constitution,liberal institutions or a somewhat strong capitalist economy doesn't work.

solas

The reasons for invading were no doubt WMD's and the PNAC idea that democracy would spread through the Sunni world from Iraq.Clearly though having elections without peace,a constitution,liberal institutions or a somewhat strong capitalist economy doesn't work.

There is so much BS surrounding the invasion of Iraq that its difficult to fathom truth from deceit. The wmd was clearly a crock but was the basis for invading. Considering it also came in the wake of the declared "war on terror"..it doesn't really make sense as the original terrorist of the osama type were in opposition to Saddams regime. Osama (and muslim extremists) wanted Saddam gone as much as Bush did, so its like Bush was helping out Osama. (and all the other fundementalists terror groups that we are now witnessing)

Saddam was also the most westernised leader in the middle east, which is why there are so many individual terror groups now hounding the setting up of democracy as they all wish to return Iraq back to an Islamic governed state under sharia law, which Saddam had previously dispensed with in a move to revolutionise the country. So from a western point of view Saddam was working on a level that benefitted relations with capitalist societies. It wasn't a democracy but under the conditions there it was the next best thing and over time could have developed that way.

So why take him out? Why was he such a threat?
The topic questions the subject of terrorism, the majority of which is the direct result of the iraq invasion.

Bin laden and his mates were a couple of bufoons in the scale of things when compared to the jihadi's in Iraq.

also with regard to this

Do I smell an unproven 'liberal' conspiracy theory?Iraq's oil industry has been nationalized(one of the few things in neo-liberal Iraq that has been nationalized you'll notice)and America was already getting Iraqi oil from Iraq before the invasion.

yes, but prior to 2000 Iraq was trading oil in dollars, until he decided to benefit from the euro and made the switch, which could be economically catastrophic for the US if all the opec countries followed suit.
Regardless..it seems thats just one part of the story.

SkepticOne

Orizio wrote:

Right now the Sunni insurgencies have time on there side and without military pressure,from the US obviously,there will be no need for them to talk with Jaafari's government.There worried(rightly)that they will be ruled by a Iran backed Shia government in Iraq and many Sunni tribal traditions(extremely nationalist) simply won't forget the death's of there loved ones at the hands of the US or Iraqi army.The insurgency only needs to wait and stay united as Iraq falls apart,as rushed 'democracies' invariably do.

I largely agree with this analysis. I think the most likely scenario is that the US will pull out within the next couple of years keeping some troops in bases. Already much of the popular support is gone. The only issue I have is with those who think that this scenario will be good for the Iraqi people overall. I think the reason many want an immediate pull out is the desire for vidication of their opinion that the war was a mistake rather than concern for the welfare of the people themselves.

solas wrote:

It wasn't a democracy but under the conditions there it was the next best thing and over time could have developed that way.

But Saddam had his sons lined up to take over. It would most likely have been Qusai rather than Oday since Oday, the elder, was too psychotic even for Saddam.

Rightly or wrongly, the invasion happened. What is still worth discussing, imo, is the way Iraq will be left and what the occupying powers should do.

solas

Rightly or wrongly, the invasion happened. What is still worth discussing, imo, is the way Iraq will be left and what the occupying powers should do.

right..but as we have seen from past experince, nations bear the brunt of war and hold the grudges for the pain and suffering endured. If we take Ireland as an example throughout the last century people were still content to use terrorism as a way of expressing that grudge. The way to some kind of resolution was to recognise and empathise in some manner as to why it had come so far...or at the very least to find the fuel of the fire and quell it.
It may seem like a very small thing to do but not long after Tony Blair was elected (and made it a priority to unite warring factions) he apologised on behalf of the nation for the potato famine!
For the first time in centuries there was a leader, willing to recognise the wrongs that had occured in the past and that which was fuelling the militant patriot. The same gesture showed some sense of understanding of the nature of the underlying problem and in essence Ireland no longer sought an "apology" of sorts..but began making progress towards healing. There had been some justification or recognition of the injustices that had occured.

It will come down to something similar in Iraq, (people will have to take responsibility..on all sides, including the US) if and when it comes down to accountability.

its also interesting to note that Iraq has brought its first charges against Saddam Hussein today.
linky

solas

me wrote:

If we take Ireland as an example throughout the last century people were still content to use terrorism as a way of expressing that grudge. The way to some kind of resolution was to recognise and empathise in some manner as to why it had come so far...or at the very least to find the fuel of the fire and quell it.

its also fair to say that America bears the grudge of 9/11..and is expressing it via this war, which doesn't make sense as there does not seem to be a direct connection or any evidence that there is any relationship between Iraq and 9/11.

cal29

The Iraqi insurgency will continue and probably eventually spread to the Shias who will grow tired of the continuing occupation

the Iraqis had planned for this eventuality that they would be invaded and occupied the military leadership realised that it would be a futile exercise to try and stand and fight in a conventional manner
They had dispersed and hidden massive ammounts of weapons and materials around the country.They are fighting the war that they had always planned on fighting the US/UK did not destroy the Iraqi army republican guard as they claimed all they did was take off their uniforms and decide to fight on their terms.
The US actually played into the hands of the insurgency by disbanding the Iraqi army.

What will happen in the Future well IMO a future US president who's prestige is not tied up in the Iraqi invasion occupation will withdraw from Iraq just as they withdrew from Vietnam
they have not got the troops a draft would be political suicide and probably only speed up the inevitable withdrawal
they cannot afford it economically
It is weakening the US position worldwide the Iranians and North Koreans are basically putting the 2 fingers upto the US because they know the US is overcommitted as it is

In Afghanistan the US is already preparing for a pull out and "reformed" taliban are being welcomed back in to help run the country

Orizio

Cal29 wrote:

The Iraqi insurgency will continue and probably eventually spread to the Shias who will grow tired of the continuing occupation

I disagree.For one thing the insurgency doesn't seem to be loved in Sunni areas(seems like its the old 'lesser of two evils scenario') ,and the Sunni fubdamentalist,that are foreign and unwavering in there militancy and backward beliefs are unlikely to go down well among the secular and modern minded Sunni Iraqis.The relationship between the Iraqi Sunnis and Jihadi's is a marriage of extreme distrust and a volatile one at that.The chances of Sunni/Shia alliance are long gone now,and with the Shia massacres(100 outside a Shia mosque)coming quick and fast there is more likely to be a civil war then an alliance.

the Iraqis had planned for this eventuality that they would be invaded and occupied the military leadership realised that it would be a futile exercise to try and stand and fight in a conventional manner
They had dispersed and hidden massive ammounts of weapons and materials around the country.They are fighting the war that they had always planned on fighting the US/UK did not destroy the Iraqi army republican guard as they claimed all they did was take off their uniforms and decide to fight on their terms.
The US actually played into the hands of the insurgency by disbanding the Iraqi army.

Yep.

Saddam was also the most westernised leader in the middle east,

I think your ignoring about a half a dozen countries there.

which is why there are so many individual terror groups now hounding the setting up of democracy as they all wish to return Iraq back to an Islamic governed state under sharia law, which Saddam had previously dispensed with in a move to revolutionise the country.

Its worse then that since Sharia Law has already been put upon Iraq(if I remember correctly).What these extremists want we can only guess but i'm going to sayat beyond an attempt to bleed the US dry and train Islamists for wars back home,the overall agenda is a return of a Sunni caliphate with Baghdad as the capital.

yes, but prior to 2000 Iraq was trading oil in dollars, until he decided to benefit from the euro and made the switch, which could be economically catastrophic for the US if all the opec countries followed suit.
Regardless..it seems thats just one part of the story.

Thats very true,Saddam did make US companies buy oil through French/Russian/Chinese companies,thereby reducing there profit margins.Besides this,the US never invaded a country at the behest of an oil company and its highly unlikely Iraq bucked that trend.Iraq's nationalized oil can be useful to the US,not oil company profits,but the facts that it gives them leverage over Saudi Arabia and OPEC.Both useful things to have,especially when you consider the US's reliance on OPEC and the Saudi's laziness in dealing with Wahhabists in there own land.But the WMD's and spread of good governance from Iraq seem to explain the invasion best i think.

solas

orizio wrote:

I think your ignoring about a half a dozen countries there.

re reading that was kinda funny..I should have put "one of the more westernised states"

orizio wrote:

Both useful things to have,especially when you consider the US's reliance on OPEC and the Saudi's laziness in dealing with Wahhabists in there own land.

read this earlier..while its hardly a real threat I thought it a glowing representation of US mentality.

DENVER - A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons

orizio wrote:

But the WMD's and spread of good governance from Iraq seem to explain the invasion best i think.

ah..lets just call it a holy war.

cal29

Orizio wrote:

I disagree.For one thing the insurgency doesn't seem to be loved in Sunni areas(seems like its the old 'lesser of two evils scenario') ,and the Sunni fubdamentalist,that are foreign and unwavering in there militancy and backward beliefs are unlikely to go down well among the secular and modern minded Sunni Iraqis.The relationship between the Iraqi Sunnis and Jihadi's is a marriage of extreme distrust and a volatile one at that.The chances of Sunni/Shia alliance are long gone now,and with the Shia massacres(100 outside a Shia mosque)coming quick and fast there is more likely to be a civil war then an alliance..

I think you are listening to fox news to much
the insurgency in Iraq is on different levels and from different groups

the majority of it is from Iraqi nationalists and former regime elements there is a much smaller jihadi element and some foreigner fighters but only a relatively small number
the leadership of the Insurgency know that it is a waiting game all they have to do is keep up the pressure on the US and they will leave just as they left vietnam just as the Soviets were forced out of Afghanistan
The americans are now starting to talk about a 10 year war will the next president or the one after that be willing to pay for GWBs mistakes in invading Iraq


BBC news 24 had an interesting update on the situation in Iraq the other day
and basically the insurgency is growing (estimated to involve 200,000 insurgents)
life on the ground is getting worse not better

no economy
no improvement in unemployment running at about 40%
less electricity than this time last year
Queues for fuel that last days

Who gets the blame for all that not the Insurgents the americans and the shia government

I never suggested that there was going to be an alliance among the Sunnis and Shias but i dont think the Shias are going to sit idly by and let the US sell them out the way they did the South Vietnamese
At the moment most shias see it in their interest for the americans to stay mainly because they are not ready to deal with the sunnis on their own behalf
That does not mean they like the american presence it is the lesser of two evils at the moment.
various things could change that like the recently revealed talks with the insurgents or perhaps an american/israeli airstrike on Shia Iran

Orizio

I think you are listening to fox news to much

Dude I live in Ireland not America.I don't watch trash news channels.

the insurgency in Iraq is on different levels and from different groups

Yes I know this.

the majority of it is from Iraqi nationalists and former regime elements there is a much smaller jihadi element and some foreigner fighters but only a relatively small number

Why the hell do you feel the need to tell me this?

the leadership of the Insurgency know that it is a waiting game all they have to do is keep up the pressure on the US and they will leave just as they left vietnam just as the Soviets were forced out of Afghanistan
The americans are now starting to talk about a 10 year war will the next president or the one after that be willing to pay for GWBs mistakes in invading Iraq

Sure.

BBC news 24 had an interesting update on the situation in Iraq the other day
and basically the insurgency is growing (estimated to involve 200,000 insurgents)
life on the ground is getting worse not better

no economy
no improvement in unemployment running at about 40%
less electricity than this time last year
Queues for fuel that last days

Why the hell are you telling me this???I was against the invasion.

Who gets the blame for all that not the Insurgents the americans and the shia government

Sure.

I never suggested that there was going to be an alliance among the Sunnis and Shias but i dont think the Shias are going to sit idly by and let the US sell them out the way they did the South Vietnamese

You basically said the insurgency will spread to include the Shia's.Not a chance for reasons I have already given.Debate them.

At the moment most shias see it in their interest for the americans to stay mainly

The Shia's,excpet there leaders,want the US gone.

I suggst you re-read my posts,your getting the wrong idea completely.

Davei141

Is this an x files convention? never seen so many nut cases in one place (excluding the sane ones, you know who you are).

solas

Is this an x files convention? never seen so many nut cases in one place (excluding the sane ones, you know who you are)

yes.. and yes...
but its been quiet over at the paranormal forum, havent had many ufo sightings lately.

OP wrote:

In the wake of the London bombing’s a week ago today, I have decided to start a debate on terrorism. Let me first off state that I categorically denounce terrorism and all its forms and aims.

The aim of a terrorist is to cause terror. What drives people to such extremes ? What can be done about it. These are a few things I hope I can think of solutions to in the next few lines.

aliens..its the aliens fault.

biko

Wicknight wrote:

It is interesting when someone sacrafises themseleves for our side it is heroic patriotic thing to do (Easter 1916 for example), but when a terrorist does it they must be sad pathetic men. The harsh fact is the reasons these men allow themselves to be killed are probably closer than we would like to admit.

I think you're dead on there. The glorified idea of the solder taking as many enemies as possible with him as he dies is strong in Western psyche (American WW2 and cowboy films)

cal29

Orizio wrote:

You basically said the insurgency will spread to include the Shia's.Not a chance for reasons I have already given.Debate them.



)

Yes i believe it will but that does not mean that the Shias will be fighting alongside the sunnis or for the same thing

just as the jihadis are fighting against the americans but it is not with the ideal of the same end result as the former regime elements and nationalists

solas

In a report that may make uncomfortable reading for Prime Minister Tony Blair after the London bombings on July 7, terrorism experts said Britain had suffered by playing "pillion passenger" to the United States.
"The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States," the security experts said in the report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

linky

em..