Anti-warriors, may we attack Abu Sayyaf rebels with your blessing?

[American]

Dear Abu: Hell's coming. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79152,00.html)

It's already packed its bags. Allied Special Forces are planning to hunt Abu Sayyaf rebels.

The Philippine government is tired of getting video tapes in the mail of tourists, villagers, doctors and missionaries getting beheaded while some lovely, well educated, and finely mannered gentleman in fatigues reads his rambling political statement.

I know it bothers some people to see us fighting there, more than Iraq even. To them: Eat ****. Where terrorists hide, we shall go.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by American

I know it bothers some people to see us fighting there, more than Iraq even. To them: Eat ****. Where terrorists hide, we shall go. [/B]

Great. When is the attack on Boston happening?

[a_unique_person]

The phillipines, due to it's long history of corruption and poor management, has been partly to blame for the Abu Sayeff problem. (how many times have the rebels been cornered, only to miraculously escape? Could it have something to do with bribery?)

However, it is a soveriegn democracy trying to control a terrorism problem within it's own borders.

If the US can help to clean up the problem once and for all, I can't see too much wrong with this. However, given the past history, a simple military intervention probably won't achieve a long term resolution. There is more to the issue than just a few bad guys who need to be shot.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The phillipines, due to it's long history of corruption and poor management, has been partly to blame for the Abu Sayeff problem. (how many times have the rebels been cornered, only to miraculously escape? Could it have something to do with bribery?)

However, it is a soveriegn democracy trying to control a terrorism problem within it's own borders.

If the US can help to clean up the problem once and for all, I can't see too much wrong with this. However, given the past history, a simple military intervention probably won't achieve a long term resolution. There is more to the issue than just a few bad guys who need to be shot.

I don't know if I have ever had occassion to say this before, but for once I agree with you 100%.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by American
Dear Abu: Hell's coming. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79152,00.html)

It's already packed its bags. Allied Special Forces are planning to hunt Abu Sayyaf rebels.

The Philippine government is tired of getting video tapes in the mail of tourists, villagers, doctors and missionaries getting beheaded while some lovely, well educated, and finely mannered gentleman in fatigues reads his rambling political statement.

I know it bothers some people to see us fighting there, more than Iraq even. To them: Eat ****. Where terrorists hide, we shall go.

Sounds like an exciting safari!

JK

[crackmonkey]

I don't know... I don't really see a compelling reason to go there with US troops.

[Jon_in_london]

As a democratic ex-US colony, the Philipines have a right to request US military assistance and the US has, in my opinion, something of an obligation to give it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Great. When is the attack on Boston happening?


False analogy. Again no strong defense so we get a ridiculous distraction. Does Boston have armed rebel guerilla forces hiding out in the hills? Are we getting tapes of beheadings from Boston?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


False analogy. Again no strong defense so we get a ridiculous distraction. Does Boston have armed rebel guerilla forces hiding out in the hills? Are we getting tapes of beheadings from Boston?



Never heard of NorAid have you?

A ridiculous distraction? There's a few people in Enniskillen and Omagh who may disagree.

Beheadings? Ever heard of James McEvoy and Patrick Gillespie?

Do some research. There are Americans who are actively supporting terrorists. If people come out with macho, posturing BS about hunting down terorists wherever they are, expect to be called out on it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Noraid is not an active guerilla group. As for the beheadings...never heard of them being done in Boston...can you please give me something to work with? When did they take place?
Enniskillen and Omagh...what about them? You really should be a bit more explicit instead of blurting out a word or two on the subject.

Since when was it my job to do your research and prove your points for you? Put something with more substance on the table instead of mere proof surrogates.

If you are going to put Boston, a city in a first-world country that is highly developed on level with villages who are involved in guerilla warfare then you really better present something better then "well look up this...and look up this." Evidence which might or might not exist.

[Skeptic]

The phillipines, due to it's long history of corruption and poor management, has been partly to blame for the Abu Sayeff problem.

Quite true. And, with her long history of being a dirty slut, she's partially to blame for being raped.

Oh, wait, I forget: "Blaming the Victim" is only acceptable when they're the victim of terrorism.

Sorry.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by American
Dear Abu: Hell's coming. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79152,00.html)

Er... just a nitpick:

Addressing an arab as "Dear Abu" is nonsensical. "Abu" is a prefix meaning "father of", not a proper name.

The reason why so many arabs are named "abu"-something is that in arab society, once you have a firstborn son named (say) Jaffar, you are known as "abu Jaffar" from then on. It is not really a name, but a title.

(Similarly, by the way, for "Ibn", which is a prefix meaning "son". A proper arab name is usually something like: "Muhammad Ibn Mahmood Ibn Ibrahim al-Gazali": Muhammad, the son of Mahmood, the son of Ibrahim, from the Gazali tribe/clan/extended family.)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Noraid is not an active guerilla group.


Wow, I really do have to explain simple things these days.

There are mudering, IRA scum, currently living in the USA, who are protected from deportation by the Irish/American lobby in the American Government.



The IRA have received funds, weaponry and political support from NORAID. The IRA carry out atrocities like Enniskillen and Omagh. Therefore, people who support them in this way are terrorist scum.


Now, my main point is, if the US will go after terrorism wherever it may be, as America claims, the people of Northern Ireland, who have been suffering terrorism for 30 years, might reasonably expect the same aggression towrads terrorists to be shown to groups who have been terrorising them.

After all, didn't GWB say "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them."

[DialecticMaterialist]

Wow, I really do have to explain simple things these days.

Yeah....because some people like evidence and explanation.

There are mudering, IRA scum, currently living in the USA, who are protected from deportation by the Irish/American lobby in the American Government.

Well if that's true then I agree the US should send them packing. Can you give me some links to articles to back this up?



The IRA have received funds, weaponry and political support from NORAID. The IRA carry out atrocities like Enniskillen and Omagh. Therefore, people who support them in this way are terrorist scum.

So why couldn't the FBI just arrest them? Would the army be necessary? Also when did they send these funds to support terrorism? Are they involved with teh RIRA?


Now, my main point is, if the US will go after terrorism wherever it may be, as America claims, the people of Northern Ireland, who have been suffering terrorism for 30 years, might reasonably expect the same aggression towrads terrorists to be shown to groups who have been terrorising them.

Yes true, but I suppose we consider Ireland more capable of solving the terrorist action themselves. But yes, I agree the US should, rescources allowing, go after the RIRA.

After all, didn't GWB say "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them."

Are we harboing them? Why would the US do that? Is the situation perhaps more complex then you let on?

And if Bush did and we are I admit we are being hypocritical and should arrest members of NorAid. I doubt we'd have to use the army to do this and I still doubt this is comparable to what is happening in the Phillipines.

Lastly, could you please give me a link? It'd be much appreciated.

[Shaun from Scotland]

NORAID WATCH (http://members.lycos.co.uk/uindex/NW/main.html)

The best source on US links with the IRA is "The IRA,: analysis of a secret army" by Bowyer Bell



edited because I got the author wrong

[DialecticMaterialist]

Okay, can you perhaps provide another? That source seemed kind of unreliable/bias. I'm asking because if I take your viewpoint and argue for it, I;m going to want something more solid then "Shaun from Scotland told me." or the link that they will likely scoff at. I've already done a search on my own and turned up nothing solid.

[Shaun from Scotland]

NORAID watch is far from biased. While it is run by people who would call themselves Loyalists, it has a wide range of friends and supporters.

Including me. Originally a Roman Catholic

It is a well known site and exists to counter the numerous pro NORAID web sites which exist. To make a judgement on who is the more reliable source is a question of how well you know the conflict. And while I actually despise most Loyalists, this stupid, senseless conflict has scum on both sides, who operate with a savagery the rival of any terrorist organisations worldwide. Given this, I see no reason to dispute their claims.

You wont find much on the web on this. Most of it is from books and newspapers. I have followed the troubles closely for years. Sorry, other than what I have provided, all I can put forward is my experience.

And really, I don't expect the US Army to attack Boston. What gets me here, is macho posturing. We are in a serious time. This is no time for Rambo histrionics.

[Shaun from Scotland]

The US Dept of State briefly refers to US support for the IRA

Scroll to IRA External Aid (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10254.htm#udauvf)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes well then I'm sorry to say but until I find something a lot stronger, I cannot commit myself to your viewpoint. As for macho/rambo posturing...I don't agree with that either. I for example think that Bush's statement "You're either for us or against us." Was one of the stupidest things I ever heard. However I also agree though that sometimes you have to take a firm-decisive stance instead of pussy footing around. I'm an adherent of situational morality. Meaning I think different problems call for different types of solutions.

[Shane Costello]

Shaun from Scotland,

As an Irish person I share your opinion of the IRA and the idiot Irish-Americans who support them. OTOH it's wrong to tar all Irish Americans with the same brush, any more than it would be wrong to tar all Irish people with the crimes of the IRA. The FBI have been involved in operations against IRA activities in the US. Most recently IRA members were imprisoned in Florida for gun-smuggling, at a time when they were supposed to be decommisioning the ones they already had.

The Irish-American lobby has very little, if any, influence in the present American administration. The strongest IRA mollycoddlers in the US have connestions to the Democrats, such as Neill O'Dowd, editor of the "Irish Voice" newspaper, who worked on Hilary Clinton's election campaign, not to mention all those odious Kennedys.

Sadly we needn't cross the Atlantic for examples of terrorist appeasement. Just look at the democratic governments in Britain and Ireland. who've been far to accomodating of the IRA and their political representatives, IMO.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Shaun from Scotland,

Sadly we needn't cross the Atlantic for examples of terrorist appeasement. Just look at the democratic governments in Britain and Ireland. who've been far to accomodating of the IRA and their political representatives, IMO.

Two of them in Westminster, for example?

To me it always seems that the NI problem should be sorted by the British and Irish governments and not by pandering to paramilitarys.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Shaun from Scotland,

As an Irish person I share your opinion of the IRA and the idiot Irish-Americans who support them. OTOH it's wrong to tar all Irish Americans with the same brush, any more than it would be wrong to tar all Irish people with the crimes of the IRA. The FBI have been involved in operations against IRA activities in the US. Most recently IRA members were imprisoned in Florida for gun-smuggling, at a time when they were supposed to be decommisioning the ones they already had.

The Irish-American lobby has very little, if any, influence in the present American administration. The strongest IRA mollycoddlers in the US have connestions to the Democrats, such as Neill O'Dowd, editor of the "Irish Voice" newspaper, who worked on Hilary Clinton's election campaign, not to mention all those odious Kennedys.

Sadly we needn't cross the Atlantic for examples of terrorist appeasement. Just look at the democratic governments in Britain and Ireland. who've been far to accomodating of the IRA and their political representatives, IMO.

And that's one of the really terrible things about the Troubles Shane. Every Irish person I know hates the paramilatiries, no matter what side they come from. A tiny little minority causes so much trouble.....

With regards to the present situation, I guess at least we have made some progress. But it must be tough if you have had a loved one blown up or shot, to see thugs like Martin McGuiness now parading around as a "Statesman".....

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_London:
Two of them in Westminster, for example?

Yup. Guess who were among the, ahem, "anti-war" groups taking part in the, "anti-war" demo in Dublin last week?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Jon_in_London:


Yup. Guess who were among the, ahem, "anti-war" groups taking part in the, "anti-war" demo in Dublin last week?

Are you referring to Gerry "I was never in the IRA, honest, no really I wasn't" Adams?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Shaun in Scotland:
Are you referring to Gerry "I was never in the IRA, honest, no really I wasn't" Adams?

Him and dozens other Sinn Fein/IRA bozos who are screaming "what about the Iraqi children!" but who say "it's time to move on" when anyone brings up the subject of children the IRA and their offshoots have slaughtered.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Shaun in Scotland:


Him and dozens other Sinn Fein/IRA bozos who are screaming "what about the Iraqi children!" but who say "it's time to move on" when anyone brings up the subject of children the IRA and their offshoots have slaughtered.


I wonder if they would like to offer themselves as human shields? Would make a change from making human bombs.....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The phillipines, due to it's long history of corruption and poor management, has been partly to blame for the Abu Sayeff problem.

Quite true. And, with her long history of being a dirty slut, she's partially to blame for being raped.

Oh, wait, I forget: "Blaming the Victim" is only acceptable when they're the victim of terrorism.

Sorry.

if the s*** has raised kids by beating them around the head and starving them, maybe that is why they fought back. things are rarely that simple as your analogy. should abu sayeff be cleaned up? yes.

[Skeptic]

if the s*** has raised kids by beating them around the head and starving them, maybe that is why they fought back.

OK, OK. So "blaming the victim" is all right in OTHER situations as well, such as blaming the victim of rape for being raped. It doesn't apply ONLY the victims of terrorism for being killed.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's amazing, really, how your sympathies are ALWAYS automatically towards the agressor, the criminal, the terrorist; how you ALWAYS show sympathy and "understanding" to murderers, while calling their victims names and implying that they deserve it.

In the name of "seeing both sides of the story", "even handedness", "not being simplistic", and other such cliches (after all, you DON'T see both sides of the story--you only see the terrorist's side), you have lost all sense of right and wrong, good and evil.

You are, put simply, a moral bankrupt.

things are rarely that simple as your analogy. should abu sayeff be cleaned up? yes.

Please, AUP, explain how a group whose official, practical, and theoretical raison d'etre is to wipe all infidels from the face of the earth by killing them--a goal they made quite clear is operational from the day they were formed, since killing infidels is all they do--can be "cleaned up", except by the use of explosives, that is.

Oh, and would you care to put your theory to the test by becoming a negotiator with the wonderful, misunderstood people of the Abu Sayyaf organization, who only need a little cleaning up? Or are you only willing to sing their praises out of the range of their AK-47s, you know, just to be on the safe side?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
if the s*** has raised kids by beating them around the head and starving them, maybe that is why they fought back.

OK, OK. So "blaming the victim" is all right in OTHER situations as well, such as blaming the victim of rape for being raped. It doesn't apply ONLY the victims of terrorism for being killed.



The phillipines itself, particularly in the Marcos years, had a history of political murder, oppression and terrorism of it's citizens. Prime breeding ground for violent political dissent.

Slowly, the country is improving, although you still get idiots like the previous president who were into widespread graft and corruption.

You really need to stop looking at things in such simplistic terms. if the world was so simple, such problems would have been solved centuries ago.



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's amazing, really, how your sympathies are ALWAYS automatically towards the agressor, the criminal, the terrorist; how you ALWAYS show sympathy and "understanding" to murderers, while calling their victims names and implying that they deserve it.




i don't think i have any sympathy for abu sayeff. when i try to understand a situation, i am not saying which side i have sympathy for, i am just trying to understand. you are committing the basic logical fallacy of deliberately twisting the meaning of words.



In the name of "seeing both sides of the story", "even handedness", "not being simplistic", and other such cliches (after all, you DON'T see both sides of the story--you only see the terrorist's side), you have lost all sense of right and wrong, good and evil.

You are, put simply, a moral bankrupt.



in what way did i only try to see the terrorists side? by pointing out that the people of the region have been oppressed by dictators such as marcos, that the phillipines armed forces have been colluding with the terrorists in exchange for bribes, i am taking the side of the terrorists? All I am trying to do is point out that the situation is not as simple as it appears to be at first. And if you do not understand the situation, you cannot solve it. My job involves a lot of problems solving, and i have years of experience at it. I am recognised at my job for my problem solving skills. The fundamental part of solving a problem is to look at the evidence, and take nothing for granted. People who come to you with a problem always present it as they see it. If you take their word for what the problem is and how to solve it, you will never get anything fixed.

By pointing out that maybe getting in some very good troops to kill some terrorists, that the underlying problem may still not be solved, i am not siding with the terrorists. I am just saying that the current plan of action may still not work.

you are morally bankrupt, because your sense of morality cannot solve anything.



things are rarely that simple as your analogy. should abu sayeff be cleaned up? yes.

Please, AUP, explain how a group whose official, practical, and theoretical raison d'etre is to wipe all infidels from the face of the earth by killing them--a goal they made quite clear is operational from the day they were formed, since killing infidels is all they do--can be "cleaned up", except by the use of explosives, that is.



from what i understand, the abu sayeff may be nominally moslem, but they are also descended from a tradition of piracy in the area, and the muslim religion is not really that important to them. From what i have read in the paper, piracy and theft are there main motivation.



Oh, and would you care to put your theory to the test by becoming a negotiator with the wonderful, misunderstood people of the Abu Sayyaf organization, who only need a little cleaning up? Or are you only willing to sing their praises out of the range of their AK-47s, you know, just to be on the safe side?


i never said all they need is for me to put their side. i have no doubt that if i was to walk up to them and say i understand their plight and all they need is me to sort it all out for them, they would kidnap me and hold me for ransom, probably killing me in the end.

what is your problem?

[American]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I don't know... I don't really see a compelling reason to go there with US troops.

Luckily they don't make important decisions based on the views of someone called crackmonkey.

No offense... it's a cute name.

As for Boston terrorists... I live around Cambridge (essentially Boston). At least since the 1990s the Irish influence must have faded, if it ever existed at all. I GREW UP here in the 1980s and 90s, I go to Irish bars, I've met "shady" characters. They're pussies. There is no revolution here, and as my username indicates, I am not an "Irish-American". Should I ever happen to cross a single terrorist Irishman, I will quietly collect evidence and turn him in to federal law enforcement. If it's my own father, mother, brother or sister, I will turn them in. They are not safe knowing me. I get a thrill from snitching on people who think that they're big. They're not so big in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit. (Now that's a classy gangster style! How much did those cool threads cost you, punk?)

The old mafia political leaders are powerless without their young thug murders. Those people don't listen to old men anymore. Why work for crime bosses, making them rich and powerful? Get lost.

The most conservative anti-political dynasty man in Boston radio is an Irishman (Howie Carr). He's single-handedly bringing down every Irish democrat in massachusetts, making a mockery of their legacy. (The only reason Kennedy lasted this long is the over-75 vote, who miss their beloved JFK. Thankfully, they're finally dying off.)

Don't hate the Irish. Don't hate or love any ethnic group. There's plenty more to hate in the world. You either have to lose that hate or channel it in a good way.

[crackmonkey]

I just think that it's unnecesary to send in American forces to chase a few hundred thugs around Basilan Island. We have plenty more important things for our forces to do... a few thousand more troops hunting al Qaeda in Afghanistan would be a better use than having them do laps around a jungle island in the South Pacific. For all the bombast about Abu Sayyaf being in league with Al Qaeda - they've devolved to a gang of hoods. They're more interested in getting ransom money than Muslim ideology. The Filipino troops can handle them just fine by themselves.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I just think that it's unnecesary to send in American forces to chase a few hundred thugs around Basilan Island. We have plenty more important things for our forces to do... a few thousand more troops hunting al Qaeda in Afghanistan would be a better use than having them do laps around a jungle island in the South Pacific. For all the bombast about Abu Sayyaf being in league with Al Qaeda - they've devolved to a gang of hoods. They're more interested in getting ransom money than Muslim ideology. The Filipino troops can handle them just fine by themselves.

The Filipino troops should be able to handle them just fine by themselves, but due to corruption and incompetence, Abu Sayeff has been literally getting away with murder.

Now, if the US goes in and cleans up the immediate problem for them, is this still going to be a long term solution?