Ways to Stop Terrorirsm

[Drooper]

Well, we could keep tracking down and arresting people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or according to some we could:

take all the countless billions it is going to spend on waging war all around the globe and spend it on schemes to alleviate poverty in the third world.

Let's see. The sheikh was a chap who, among other things, had the benefit of a US university education, dropped large sums of money in lap dancing clubs, ate in expensive restaurants and once hired a helicopter to fly past the office window of a woman he was trying to impress.

Another interesting titbit I picked up:

Why, if this is all about perceived economic injustices perpetrated by the West, did this chap have a plan to assassinate the Pope??

The best way to stop terrorism is chop of its head. Guys like the shake should be traced down like dogs and captured using any force necessary.

Ugh.

You can't (read : CAN'T) stop terrorism by 'cutting off its head'!

Bin Laden and co. have only been as successfull as they have been because there is such a large amount of support for them from common people. So long as those common people feel they have a US-inflicted/sustained injustice to contend with then terrorism will continue. Attempts by the US to stop terrorism by the use of more military force in distant parts of the world are pure fantasy - as a practical policy supposed to diminish the threat from terrorism it is worse than useless. In this particular case it does seem to be the US alone (and Britain) who claim to believe the policy will work. Almost nobody in the middle east, and practically nobody anywhere else either actually believes that military intervention can defeat terrorism.

If America wants to alleviate the threat of violence against it it should stop making the entire world into its enemy. It is currently doing the exact opposite, by declaring that anyone who doesn't do exactly what the WhiteHouse demands "is against us." That currently includes Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, China and Russia. If America cannot maintain a decent relationship with its own allies, how does it expect to contain anti-American terrorism coming from its enemies?

[Drooper]

You can't (read CAN NOT) stop terrorism by spending loads of money in some angst ridden act of middle class self loathing.

OBL and crew have not been successful at mobilising the masses. They have been successful of recruiting very wealthy individuals or organisations to bankroll operations and then they find an extremely small number of people dim or crazy enough to kill themselves in a pointless act of barbarism.

Knock of the OBLs and Khalim Sheikh Mohammed's of this would. Kill of their supply of money and they are effectively neutered.

What terrorist cause anywhere, ever, has been defeated by 'cutting off its head'?

-------


http://members.aol.com/bblum6/speech.htm (War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?)


...
You think the American Empire is against terrorists? What do you call a man who blows up an airplane killing 73 people? Who attempts assassinations against several diplomats? Who fires cannons at ships docked in American ports? Who places bombs in numerous commercial and diplomatic buildings in the US and abroad? Dozens of such acts. His name is Orlando Bosch, he's Cuban and he lives in Miami, unmolested by the authorities. The city of Miami once declared a day in his honor -- Orlando Bosch Day. He was freed from prison in Venezuela, where he had been held for the airplane bombing, partly because of pressure from the American ambassador, Otto Reich, who earlier this year was appointed to the State Dept. by George W.
After Bosch returned to the US in 1988, the Justice Dept condemned him as a totally violent terrorist and was all set to deport him, but that was blocked by President Bush, the first, with the help of son Jeb Bush in Florida. So is George W. and his family against terrorism? Well, yes, they're against those terrorists who are not allies of the empire.
The plane that Bosch bombed, by the way, was a Cuban plane. He's wanted in Cuba for that and a host of other serious crimes, and the Cubans have asked Washington to extradite him to Cuba; to Cuba he's like Osama Bin Laden is to the United States. But the US has refused. Can you imagine the reaction in Washington if bin Laden showed up in Havana and the Cubans refused to extradite him to the US? Can you imagine the reaction in the United States if Havana proclaimed Osama Bin Laden Day?
Washington's support of genuine terrorist organizations has been very extensive. To give just a couple of examples of the past few years -- The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have carried out numerous terrorist attacks for years in various parts of the Balkans, but they've been our allies because they've attacked people out of favor with Washington.
The paramilitaries in Colombia, as vicious as they come, could not begin to carry out their dirty work without the support of the Colombian military, who are the recipients of virtually unlimited American support. This, all by itself, disqualifies Washington from leading a war against terrorism.
Bush also speaks out often and angrily against harboring terrorists. Does he really mean that? Well, what country harbors more terrorists than the United States? Orlando Bosch is only one of the numerous anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who have carried out hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist acts, in the US, in Cuba, and elsewhere; all kinds of arson attacks, assassinations and bombings. They have been harbored here in safety for decades. As have numerous other friendly terrorists, torturers and human rights violators from Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia and elsewhere, all allies of the Empire.
The CIA is looking for terrorists in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan at the same time as the Agency sits in bars in Miami having beers with terrorists.
What are we to make of all this? How are we to understand our government's foreign policy? Well, if I were to write a book called The American Empire for Dummies, page one would say: Don't ever look for the moral factor. US foreign policy has no moral factor built into its DNA. Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes.
I know it's not easy for most Americans to take what I say at face value. It's not easy to swallow my message. They see our leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be moral monsters, how can they be called immoral?
They have names like George and Dick and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they even speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah cut off arms or legs as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. We're too civilized for that. But people named George and Dick and Donald drop cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child picks one up or steps on one of them and loses an arm or leg, or both arms or both legs, and sometimes their eyesight. And the cluster bombs which actually explode do their own kind of horror.

...

On page two of The American Empire for Dummies, I'd put this in a box outlined in bright red:
Following its bombing of Iraq, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now winding up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region.
That's not very subtle, is it? Not really covert. The men who run the empire are not easily embarrassed. And that's the way the empire grows, a base on every corner, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. 57 years after World War II ended, the US still has major bases in Germany and Japan; and 49 years after the Korean War ended, the US military is still in Korea.

A Pentagon report of a few years ago said:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere ... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

...

.
Or as General William Looney, the head of the US-UK operation that flies over Iraq and bombs them every few days, said several years ago:

If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn missiles. They know we own their country. We own their airspace. ... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.

We've gone through a few months now of a song and dance show that passes for debate, a debate about whether to attack a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, that has not threatened to attack us, that knows it would mean instant mass suicide for them if they attacked us. This debate is absurd not simply because Iraq is not a threat -- by now, even the Martians must know that -- but because our imperial mafia know that Iraq is not a threat, at all.
They've been telling us one story after another about why Iraq is a threat, an imminent threat, a nuclear threat, a threat increasing in danger with each passing day, that Iraq is a terrorist state, that Iraq is tied to al Qaeda, only to have each story amount to nothing; they told us for a long time that Iraq must agree to having the weapons inspectors back in, and when Iraq agreed to this they said "No, no, that isn't good enough."
How soon before they blame the horror in Bali on Iraq?
Does any of this make sense? This sudden urgency of fighting a war in the absence of a fight? It does, I suggest, only if you understand that this is not about Sadaam Hussein and his evilness, or his weapons, or terrorism. What it's about is that the empire is still hungry and wants to eat Iraq and its oil and needs to present excuses to satisfy gullible people. And then they want to eat Iran.
The empire, in case you missed it, is not content with merely the earth; the empire has been officially extended to outer space. The Pentagon proudly admits this and they have a nice name for it. They call it "full-spectrum dominance", and for years now they've been planning to fight wars in space, from space, and into space. And that's a quote.

...

Let me close with two of the laws of politics which came out of the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, which I like to cite:
The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."
The Second Watergate Law states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."
Both laws are still on the books.




There is a sign on someones desk close to mine which says :

"Rome did not build a powerfull Empire by having meetings. It did it by killing everyone who disagreed with them."

There is a reality-check needed here. IF America wishes to build and maintain a global empire in this age of unrestricted global communication THEN it can expect an increasing level of anti-American terrorism coming from each and every part of the world it attempts to dominate. Previous empires all fell. What kept them going as long as they did was an inability of the victims to fight back, and the fact that the Empires of the past had control of the information flow. The US does not have the luxury of either of these things - try as they might they cannot control the flow of information on the internet, and as Bin Laden has demonstrated - you can cause massive devastation with box cutters and a willingness to die for your cause.

[Drooper]

There is a reality-check needed here. IF America wishes to build and maintain a global empire in this age of unrestricted global communication THEN it can expect an increasing level of anti-American terrorism coming from each and every part of the world it attempts to dominate. Previous empires all fell. What kept them going as long as they did was an inability of the victims to fight back, and the fact that the Empires of the past had control of the information flow. The US does not have the luxury of either of these things - try as they might they cannot control the flow of information on the internet, and as Bin Laden has demonstrated - you can cause massive devastation with box cutters and a willingness to die for your cause.

Reality check is definitely required.

Build a global empire??

More like, prefer foreigners did not to commit mass murder on US soil.

I think you are confusing terrist organisations with popular movements of opinion.

All terrorist organisations are defeated by removing both funding and the "management". Examples: Ireland, Greece, Germany, Spain, Italy.

Large movements of popular opinion can only be addressed with reference to the issues.

And please don't waste your time quoting another rambling amateur socio-polilitical rant.

Build a global empire??


That is precisely what America is trying to do.


I think you are confusing terrist organisations with popular movements of opinion.


Terrorism cannot survive unless there is some sort of popular movement which believes in the same cause. All terrorism ultimately stems from a real belief that something needs to be done about an injustice of some sort. Do you think terrorists just like murdering people?

.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Do you think terrorists just like murdering people?

.

Do you think terrorists will just stop being terrorists?

[Graham]

Do you think terrorists will just stop being terrorists?

Eventually they will die. IMO, the best we can hope for is that the next generation will not follow in their footsteps.

Graham

Originally posted by ssibal


Do you think terrorists will just stop being terrorists?

No, of course they won't. But the fact is that most successful terrorist movements were/are backed by popular support. At the moment that most certainly includes both Bin Laden and the Palestinians.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


No, of course they won't. But the fact is that most successful terrorist movements were/are backed by popular support. At the moment that most certainly includes both Bin Laden and the Palestinians.

What exactly do you mean by "backed by popular support?" And exactly what is it that you think it is backed by popular support? Are you referring to the targeting and killing of innocents? I find it hard to believe that that is backed by a significant number of people. And if it is, I see no reason to stop hunting down and killing terrorists rather than give into their demands.

ssibal


What exactly do you mean by "backed by popular support?"


I mean large numbers of 'normal people' sympathise with their cause and accept that their methods are justifiable given the current situation. This is particularly true of the Palestinians.


And exactly what is it that you think it is backed by popular support? Are you referring to the targeting and killing of innocents?


If neccesary. Bin Laden and the Palestinians don't have the option of inflicting massive damage on the US and Israeli military so they target civilians instead.


I find it hard to believe that that is backed by a significant number of people.


Really?

I think both Bin Laden and the Palestinians enjoy very significant public support from all over the world.


And if it is, I see no reason to stop hunting down and killing terrorists rather than give into their demands.


I never suggested giving into their demands, and I never suggested they be left unhunted. I suggested that if you really want to deal with the problem of terrorism you must stem the flow of new terrorists rather than trying to kill the old ones.

If their demands are just and you do not give into them then you are inviting terrorism forever more. Sooner or later Israel and America are going to have to accept that the Palestinians have a case.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


That is precisely what America is trying to do.



Terrorism cannot survive unless there is some sort of popular movement which believes in the same cause. All terrorism ultimately stems from a real belief that something needs to be done about an injustice of some sort. Do you think terrorists just like murdering people?

.

I don't know if terrorists like murdering people, though I'll bet some do. OBL and crew dsiplayed a certain amount of glee at the death of thousands of people. At the very least terrorists don't find it too much bother.

Terrorism does not need a popular movement to sustain it. It needs some motivation from the people who perpetrate it, nothing more.

That motivation can be completely perverted and lacking in any foundation in reality (like your empire building nonsense). Terrorism is then the means to an end.

There are the cold calculating terrorists, who rarely end up on suicide missions: e.g. Yasser Arafat, OBL, Sheikh Mohammed etc. and those more caught up in the motivating cause, however stupid or unjustified it may be.

The Arafats etc. of this world will also happily down tools as soon as it meets their own personal aims. Possibly aiming for a peace prize (?).

The simple fact is there are not millions, nor thousands, not even hundreds of devotees of the Al-Qaeda "cause" lining up to commit acts of terrorism. The numbers are considerably smaller. This is no popular terrorist movement, but a small number of wealthy individuals manipulating others.

The rest of the masses just rant the usual xenophic nonsense as groups of people from all cultures have for centuries. This does not amount to a popular force for terrorism.

[rikzilla]

The only way to stop terrorism is to stop rewarding it.

Terrorism is being used in a rational way by Palestinians to further their goals. Arafat uses it in conjunction with conventional diplomatic efforts. After the Pals started hijacking aircraft in the 60's, and murdering Olympic athletes in the 70's they were rewarded by the Europeans (the quick release of terrorist suspects who go home to a hero's welcome)...and by the UN (The granting of observer status to the PLO, and the warm welcome of Yasser Arafat to speak before the General Assembly).

What has to be done is to tell people that terrorism will hurt, not help their causes. That no matter how noble the cause, the resort to terrorism will freeze them out of the diplomatic arena. That their cause will not be advanced, and will actually be set back by the use of terrorism.

The Palestinians have shown the world how to succeed thru terrorism. They've learned that if they kill Israelis they succeed...and that when Israel retaliates they succeed.

The real question is why the Palestinians are allowed to win thru terrorism...and other groups have much less success. There are other groups, many larger and with even more valid gripes than the Palestinians. The Kurds for example....the PKK resorted to several terrorist attacks and yet they were not rewarded in the same ways that the PA has been. Their terrorism was not rewarded at all.....if anything, it cost their movement. Therefore there have been no further Kurdish terror attacks.

The countries of the EU...and of course the UN are the chief rewarders of terrorism. They have fostered the climate which we now find ourselves in. IF they had not rewarded terrorism in the first place, we'd have far less of a problem now...and it's even unlikely 9/11 would have happened. Now this same UN and the same culprits in the EU are crying about American policy. Yet American policy, no matter how disliked does not reward terrorism. It kills terrorists and sets their causes back. It's the only coherrent way to deal with terrorism.

Perhaps when the more rational users of terrorism see that their terrorism will be counterproductive they will abandon it, as it seems have the Kurds.

-zilla

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Terrorism cannot survive unless there is some sort of popular movement which believes in the same cause

Ok, I'll take that challenge. You insist it "cannot survive". That is definitive.

I can disprove this assertion with 9 (nine) letters:

Unabomber

This is arguably the single most persistant (and by this measure successful) terrorist movement in the US in the last 50 years.

[rikzilla]

Geoff,

There are two ways to conduct the WOT. Top down, or bottom up. The very best way is the removal by assasination or imprisonment of their leadership. You say that they will merely replace these people,...and you are right. But there are some people like OBL who are not easily replaceable. The most effective way to reduce al-Qaida is to attack the leadership which exhorts the people to violence. There will always be people willing to do terrorist acts,...but if there are fewer less charismatic leaders to exhort them the movement will lose steam.

Terrorist groups are managed from the top down....attacking the leadership is the only way to go. Cells and individuals can be easily replaced...leadership cannot.

I recently read an article written by Alan Dershowitz. He advocated changing the way the IDF retaliates against terrorist acts. His idea is to pick an area that breeds and aides terror groups...for instance Jenin. Pick a building there and put up notices that the next time a terrorist blows up a bus, the IDF will destroy that building. Therefore it makes Hamas, etc bear the responsibility for the destruction of said building. Sure, it's collective punishment....but these people support terrorism...they expect to benefit from terrorism...they bear some responsibility for terrorism. After a while it will become apparent to them that they can stop the destruction of their homes and towns by ceasing popular support for the terrorists.

Good idea IMHO.

-zilla

Rik


Yet American policy, no matter how disliked does not reward terrorism


But American policy is considered by many to be indistinguishable from terrorism! What is the difference between OBL and the Palestinians using violence and fear to pursue their political agenda via suicide bombings and the US/ISrael pursuing their political agenda via UN-defying invasions and occupations i.e. violence and fear?

Is state-sponsored terrorism no longer terrorism?
Is it no longer terrorism simply because the US government says so?
Are you seriously claiming the US govt. is not trying to intimidate its enemies into submission? That IS terrorism.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I never suggested giving into their demands, and I never suggested they be left unhunted. I suggested that if you really want to deal with the problem of terrorism you must stem the flow of new terrorists rather than trying to kill the old ones.

Terrorists are going to pop up anywhere for whatever cause. If you stem the flow of new terrorists by appeasing the advocates of a certain cause, then a new cause for terrorism will pop up. This does not deal with the problem at all, it just legitimizes terrorism.

If their demands are just and you do not give into them then you are inviting terrorism forever more. Sooner or later Israel and America are going to have to accept that the Palestinians have a case.

Depends which Palestinian case you are talking about. If you mean the creation of a Palestinian state, maybe. If you mean death to all Jews, I don't think so. And what about Osama's cause? His "you soiled the holy land by putting troops there" nonsense? Is that a just cause for targeting and killing innocent people? I already accept that terrorism will be here forever, I am not prepared to give into it, those people simply need to be killed.

[max]

UCE


Having said all that, what would you do to solve the middle east trouble? And how would you go about dealing with Al-Queada

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The only way to stop terrorism is to stop rewarding it.

(snip)

Perhaps when the more rational users of terrorism see that their terrorism will be counterproductive they will abandon it, as it seems have the Kurds.

-zilla

First of all, IMO there are no "rational" "users of terrorism". If the Palestinians were truly rational, they'd realise that the best way to resolve their problems is by dialogue and negotiation.

Personally, I contend that terrorism is personal for the terrorists and that it's 99% about hatred and only 1% about the supposed "issue". That kind of terrorism is not rational and is not susceptible to reason. The only reward those terrorists want is death and destruction. You can't deal with those people and you shouldn't try.

However, the "issues", whatever they may be, do provide an excuse and a fertile recruitment ground for the brainwashed footsoldiers of terrorism. What would the leaders of Hamas be, for instance, if their country was settled and peaceful - two bit criminals and murderers most likely.

IMO, our best hope is to bypass the terrorists and the extremists where possible, giving them only as much attention as they're due (up to and including "taking them out" where possible). They're really not that important - fringe elements for the most parts, even their own countrymen think they're loonies. If we can bring their respective countries around to our side, destroying the terrorists will be easy - a police matter more than anything else.

However, if we react to terrorism by bombing entire countries into the ground we'll do the opposite of that - we'll just be pushing more and more people into the ranks of the terrorists, breeding more hatred and ultimately storing up trouble for ourselves.

BTW, I don't want to get into a mud-slinging match but the US could hardly be said to be innocent in the matter of supporting terrorism. There've been some fairly disturbing rumours about the School of the Americas (http://www.soaw.org/new/) and funding of various "enemy of my enemy" groups, for instance, as well as some pretty questionable CIA operations over the years.

Graham

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
But American policy is considered by many to be indistinguishable from terrorism! What is the difference between OBL and the Palestinians using violence and fear to pursue their political agenda via suicide bombings and the US/ISrael pursuing their political agenda via UN-defying invasions and occupations i.e. violence and fear?

What UN-defying invasions and occupations are the U.S. and Israel guilty of? And I mean enforcable UN resolutions.

Is state-sponsored terrorism no longer terrorism?
Is it no longer terrorism simply because the US government says so?
Are you seriously claiming the US govt. is not trying to intimidate its enemies into submission? That IS terrorism.

The U.S. government is not targeting and killing innocent people nor is it funding others to do so.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla

I recently read an article written by Alan Dershowitz. He advocated changing the way the IDF retaliates against terrorist acts. His idea is to pick an area that breeds and aides terror groups...for instance Jenin. Pick a building there and put up notices that the next time a terrorist blows up a bus, the IDF will destroy that building. Therefore it makes Hamas, etc bear the responsibility for the destruction of said building. Sure, it's collective punishment....but these people support terrorism...they expect to benefit from terrorism...they bear some responsibility for terrorism. After a while it will become apparent to them that they can stop the destruction of their homes and towns by ceasing popular support for the terrorists.

Good idea IMHO.

-zilla

You see, and no offence I mean this in the nicest possible way, but this is just bulls***.

I referred yo the other day to Oliver Cromwell, but you didn't remark on the links I posted. Did you have time to read them at all? Cromwell tried to put down a rebellion by ruthlessly punishing an entire country.

That was in the 1600's. Some 400 years later it still wasn't apparent to the various communities that were "supporting" the terrorists in parts of Ireland that they would be better off not doing so.

Now either the Irish are really, really slow learners (no jokes, please, I've heard them all before) or using collective punishment to combat terrorism simply does not work.

It may feel good and be totally justified but it just doesn't work.

Graham

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Graham:
I referred yo the other day to Oliver Cromwell, but you didn't remark on the links I posted. Did you have time to read them at all? Cromwell tried to put down a rebellion by ruthlessly punishing an entire country.

Umm, and it worked. Likewise successive Irish governments supressed the IRA by shooting and hanging them.

Having said all that, what would you do to solve the middle east trouble?


If I knew the answer to that one I would be a very wise man.


And how would you go about dealing with Al-Queada


Well the FBI seems to be doing quite a good job of that in Pakistan. I just object to them spewing propaganda about a war against Saddam being something to do with Al-Qaeda.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally psoted by Graham:


Umm, and it worked. Likewise successive Irish governments supressed the IRA by shooting and hanging them.

It didn't really work. It suppressed the rebellion, granted, but the underlying resentment was only strengthened. It was a short-term solution at best.

Where the Irish government had the advantage, IMO, is that they were more on the side of the general populace than the terrorists were and that they only hanged terrorists rather than just whoever couldn't run away fast enough.

That sort of supports what I'm trying (perhaps not terribly well) to say. If we work with the marginally-less-crazy parts of populations we have a much better chance of wiping out the fanatical elements than if we just wipe them all out and let God recognise his own, so to speak.

Graham

ssibal :


What UN-defying invasions and occupations are the U.S. and Israel guilty of? And I mean enforcable UN resolutions.


Oh I see....the resolutions against Iraq are enforceable even though the secutiry council doesn't agree, but the resolutions against Israel don't count?

Somehow I rather suspect that if it was in US interests to enforce the resolutions against Israel then they would be enforced. It's double-standards all over the place, and that might be easy for you to ignore, but not so easy for the Palestinians.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is state-sponsored terrorism no longer terrorism?
Is it no longer terrorism simply because the US government says so?
Are you seriously claiming the US govt. is not trying to intimidate its enemies into submission? That IS terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. government is not targeting and killing innocent people nor is it funding others to do so.


Palestine and Al-Qaeda simply do not have the resources to fight the US military directly. Are you saying it is OK for the US, which has the power to do exactly what it wants wherever and whenever it wanrs, to use military force, but it's only OK for others to respond using their own ineffective military?

That is like saying "We have defined the rules so that state-sponsored warfare is OK, but warfare conducted by terrorists against civilians is no OK. Oh, by the way, we have an enormous army so anyone who plays by the rules gets stuffed."

Your POV is just dandy if you happen to live in the country with the enormous army and agree with its policies. If you happen to live somewhere else or disagree with US policy you either sit on your backside and allow the US to dictate its own interests from one end of the planet to the other, or you fight back the only way you can.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
ssibal :



Oh I see....the resolutions against Iraq are enforceable even though the secutiry council doesn't agree, but the resolutions against Israel don't count?

The Security Council does not agree? They are the ones that passed the CHAPTER SEVEN resolutions on Iraq which ARE enforcable and they are the ones that passed the Chapter Six resolutions on Israel and its neighbors which are not enforcable.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Somehow I rather suspect that if it was in US interests to enforce the resolutions against Israel then they would be enforced. It's double-standards all over the place, and that might be easy for you to ignore, but not so easy for the Palestinians.

You know, you can shout double standard all you want but there is none. If it was in U.S. interests to enforce the resolutions on Israel and its neighbors (take note, they are not just for Israel) it could not do anything since those resolutions are unenforcable.

Palestine and Al-Qaeda simply do not have the resources to fight the US military directly. Are you saying it is OK for the US, which has the power to do exactly what it wants wherever and whenever it wanrs, to use military force, but it's only OK for others to respond using their own ineffective military?

They can respond with whatever they want, just do not target innocent people.

That is like saying "We have defined the rules so that state-sponsored warfare is OK, but warfare conducted by terrorists against civilians is no OK. Oh, by the way, we have an enormous army so anyone who plays by the rules gets stuffed."

So are you saying that warfare conducted against innocent people is OK?

Your POV is just dandy if you happen to live in the country with the enormous army and agree with its policies. If you happen to live somewhere else or disagree with US policy you either sit on your backside and allow the US to dictate its own interests from one end of the planet to the other, or you fight back the only way you can.

The Indians did not resort to terrorism to get rid of the British. There are ways to take on a larger, more powerful force that do not involve targeting and killing innocent people.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


First of all, IMO there are no "rational" "users of terrorism". If the Palestinians were truly rational, they'd realise that the best way to resolve their problems is by dialogue and negotiation.

Personally, I contend that terrorism is personal for the terrorists and that it's 99% about hatred and only 1% about the supposed "issue". That kind of terrorism is not rational and is not susceptible to reason. The only reward those terrorists want is death and destruction. You can't deal with those people and you shouldn't try.

However, the "issues", whatever they may be, do provide an excuse and a fertile recruitment ground for the brainwashed footsoldiers of terrorism. What would the leaders of Hamas be, for instance, if their country was settled and peaceful - two bit criminals and murderers most likely.

IMO, our best hope is to bypass the terrorists and the extremists where possible, giving them only as much attention as they're due (up to and including "taking them out" where possible). They're really not that important - fringe elements for the most parts, even their own countrymen think they're loonies. If we can bring their respective countries around to our side, destroying the terrorists will be easy - a police matter more than anything else.

However, if we react to terrorism by bombing entire countries into the ground we'll do the opposite of that - we'll just be pushing more and more people into the ranks of the terrorists, breeding more hatred and ultimately storing up trouble for ourselves.

BTW, I don't want to get into a mud-slinging match but the US could hardly be said to be innocent in the matter of supporting terrorism. There've been some fairly disturbing rumours about the School of the Americas (http://www.soaw.org/new/) and funding of various "enemy of my enemy" groups, for instance, as well as some pretty questionable CIA operations over the years.

Graham

Sorry Graham....

I didn't look at the Cromwell stuff...I will try to do so later. Your contention that terrorism is not rational is just plain wrong tho. Isn't it true that only after hijacking planes and murdering innocent people did the PLO get "observer status" at the UN?? Only after countless bombings did Yasser Arafat get to speak, not once, but twice to the UN general assembly? Did you know that of the "Black September" terrorists who killed the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 72 three were captured by the Germans? Where are these 3 now? Well, they were all released by the German government in exchange for a release of hostages on a hijacked Lufthansa plane. Later it was discovered that German Chancellor Brandt had colluded with the PLO....that the hijacking had been staged by Germany and the PLO so that Germany could release the terrorists before they themselves became a target....and in such a way as Israel could not object.

This is naked appeasement. These are the ways terrorists have been rewarded for their crimes. This is why there is a worldwide epidemic of terrorism. When you reward something....you end up getting more of it. That makes it a rational choice. The Palestinian cause was helped by terrorism...of that there can be no doubt. Now other groups are looking at the PLO's successes and are emulating them. As long as there are governments willing to sponsor terrorism....and other governments willing to appease terrorists...you will get more terrorism.

As for collective punishment...as you have shown with Cromwell...there has always been collective punishment. In every war there are innocent people who may not support the government they live under who get killed. Sad but true...it's a reality and we need to face it. The Palestinians who celebrate and aide terrorists are themselves guilty to a certain degree. Their society is guilty of raising their children to become "martyrs". Israeli soldiers go to great extremes to avoid civilian casualties, but terrorists actually target the innocent. Then they hide among their own civilian populations. Terrorists use civilians as their sword and their shield.

That is why America is not a terrorist as Geoff likes to say. We do not deliberately target, and then hide behind, innocent civilians. It's just that during wartime it cannot be helped. Case in point; Hiroshima and Nagasaki...surely lots of innocent people died...obviously these people suffered collective punishment in a wartime environment. But, there are very few...mostly on the fringe individuals who would call that terrorism. It was war. That is all.

Soon, if terrorism is not curtailed there will not just be a WOT...there will be all out war. An all out war the PA and other terrorist groups and state sponsors will lose, and lose badly. The level of collective punishment then will be far less restrained than it is now. By punishing...and ceasing to reward terrorism we can avoid this. But the UN and lefty euro nations seem hell bent on appeasement. Appeasement never works...one need only look at the history books.

-zilla

ssibal


So are you saying that warfare conducted against innocent people is OK?


If no other path is available, yes. If that is the only way to force the United States to stop bullying the whole of the rest of the world, yes. I would rather endorse terrorism than submit to continued/growing/unchallenged US domination of the world for the sole purposes of its own interests. If the US hadn't spent the past 50 years trying to impose its own will, for its own interests, all over the world then anti-americanism wouldn't exist and 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
ssibal



If no other path is available, yes. If that is the only way to force the United States to stop bullying the whole of the rest of the world, yes. I would rather endorse terrorism than submit to continued/growing/unchallenged US domination of the world for the sole purposes of its own interests. If the US hadn't spent the past 50 years trying to impose its own will, for its own interests, all over the world then anti-americanism wouldn't exist and 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

If the Europeans had not spent the last 40 years appeasing terrorism there would have been no 9/11. Most terrorism is rational. Penalize it...stop rewarding it...and those that employ it will see it as a self defeating tactic and stop hurting their causes by using it.

No matter how noble a cause....it's proponents should be shunned and treated as a pariahs if they dare resort to terrorism. This is a tactic that the UN and many Euro countries have never tried. Now that the US is going after terrorists with a purely
rational carrot and stick approach...we hear much crying abroad.

Enough is enough. We put up with major terrorist attacks every year for the last 4...The African Embassies...the USS Cole...9/11... and now since the WOT got started in ernest we have how many? 0 that's how many. None, nada, zip on US soil. Do any of you think that is merely a coincidence? Hint...if you do you've not been paying attention.

-zilla

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
It didn't really work. It suppressed the rebellion, granted, but the underlying resentment was only strengthened. It was a short-term solution at best.

Short term? Ireland remained under British rule for another 300 years.

Cromwells aim wasn't to soothe the concerns of the native populace, rather he aimed to subdue and ultimately replace them with British settlers in most of the country.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
ssibal :



Palestine and Al-Qaeda simply do not have the resources to fight the US military directly. Are you saying it is OK for the US, which has the power to do exactly what it wants wherever and whenever it wanrs, to use military force, but it's only OK for others to respond using their own ineffective military?

That is like saying "We have defined the rules so that state-sponsored warfare is OK, but warfare conducted by terrorists against civilians is no OK. Oh, by the way, we have an enormous army so anyone who plays by the rules gets stuffed."

Your POV is just dandy if you happen to live in the country with the enormous army and agree with its policies. If you happen to live somewhere else or disagree with US policy you either sit on your backside and allow the US to dictate its own interests from one end of the planet to the other, or you fight back the only way you can.

so, if you can't fight the military...it's okay to commit mass murder of people you don't even know anything about at a random bus stop??? Is this your idea of war? If so, then that superior military should be gainfully employed by turning every town your terrorists live in into rubble. Terrorism is an amoral tactic. How 'bout working within the current system as a means to change? What about non-violent civil disobedience??? Why do you find it acceptable that if you can't win on a battlefield it's okay to blow up schoolchildren??

-zilla

Rik :


so, if you can't fight the military...it's okay to commit mass murder of people you don't even know anything about at a random bus stop???


It is if that is the only way to fight back against a nation trying to dominate the world with only its own interests at heart.


Is this your idea of war?


No, it is my idea of armed struggle against state-sponsored terrorism. The US is using violence and threats of violence to get what it wants. EVERYWHERE!


If so, then that superior military should be gainfully employed by turning every town your terrorists live in into rubble.


And the occupants should respond by setting off a dirty bomb in America. So long as you defend the right of America to use violence and fear to promote its self-interest globally then you have no grounds for complaining when the victims fight back. It is not the terrorists that need to learn a lesson. It is the United States that needs to learn a lesson. Can't you understand what it is like to be on the other side of this? You don't like it when the terrorists throw sh*t at you - you FIGHT BACK. But the US has been throwing sh*t at the rest of the world for decades. The thing most Americans still haven't grasped is that 9/11 was a response to years of oppresive American foreign policy. YOU wouldn't submit to threats of violence from the terrorists! So what makes you think the terrorists are going to submit to threats of violence from the US? :rolleyes:


How 'bout working within the current system as a means to change?


THE CURRENT SYSTEM PLACES ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY WITH THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE.


What about non-violent civil disobedience???


Get real, Rik. Did Tony Blair listen to 2 million protestors, 2 archbishops, 3 heads of state on the security council, most of his own party and 90% of his own electorate? No, Rik, he listened to George W Bush instead. :(


Why do you find it acceptable that if you can't win on a battlefield it's okay to blow up schoolchildren??


I would say that blowing up schoolchildren is probably a bad idea because it will lose you friends. The WTC and the Pentagon weren't schools, Rik. They were symbols of US monetary and military dominance of the world. They were the emblems of the American Empire.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sorry Graham....

(snip)

Appeasement never works...one need only look at the history books.

-zilla

I think you're missing my point so I'll try to explain myself better. Three points:

1) Regarding "rational terrorists" - this is a discussion I occasionally have with my wife regarding career criminals, usually after watching heist movies. You know those movies where the criminals live comfortably from their crimes (like Robert DeNiro in Heat for instance). Their lives as criminals are successful and actually quite good. My wife says that makes them smarter than the rest of us since they don't have to work or pay taxes or anything like that. However, my contention is that, if they were really that smart they'd realise that it's just not worth it - a life spent looking over your shoulder, always waiting for the police to come knocking down your door and so on.

Thus, by my reasoning anyway (such as it is) whilst the actions of terrorists may seem rational when they achieve certain of their goals, they're actually not really rational because if they were they would know that their best hope for long-term comfort and success lies in not being murderous thugs. As DrBenway put it in another thread, if I was a Palestinian:

I would apply for Israeli citizenship. Like many Israeli Arabs, I'd obey the laws of the land, keep my nose clean, get a good education, and run for a seat in the Knesset.

2) Appeasment - I did not know that about the Germans and the "Black September" people. Is it a generally accepted fact? Frankly, it sounds a little conspiracy theory-ish but interesting nevertheless. Nevertheless, I don't think you could really describe the PLO as "successful". The only time they really came close to success was a few years back when they stopped being terrorists and tried the whole diplomacy thing for a while. Of more recent times they just seem to be a punching bag for the Israelis while groups like Hamas carry on terrorising.

I think it depends what your goal is - do you want to stop terrorism or punish terrorists? It is possible to do both but you have to be prepared to be flexible and sometimes you have to accept the unacceptable and treat to people whose very existence makes you want to vomit. Otherwise you can punish away to your heart's content and terrorism will just grow and grow.

Which leads me nicely to:

3) "Collective Punishment" - there's a big difference (which I think you're glossing over here) between "collective punishment" and "collateral damage".

The latter is an unfortunate but probably unavoidable consequence of a war. Bombs and bullets indiscriminate killers and sometimes innocent people get caught in the firing line.

"Collective Punishment" is another beast altogether, which is why it's banned under the Geneva Convention. As with Cromwell in Ireland (or the Russians in Afganistan or Chechnya, to use a more recent example) it involves deliberately targetting the civilian population of a country in order to undermine the support base of a terrorist/guerilla enemy.

"Collective Punishment" is a tactic that has never been proven to work. The only way to "root out" terrorist groups is to work with, not against the people they're hiding amongst. Look how well this is working in Pakistan, for instance. There we have a country that could easily be as hostile as Iraq, if not more so but somehow we've retained them as an ally and it's paying off.

The Israelis may well go to extraordainary lengths to make sure innocent civilians have left before they level their homes with bulldozers but they're still punishing the many for the actions of a few. Granted, the many probably are all somewhat guilty but ultimately - what are you going to do? Kill them all? An entire race, just to be sure? Of course not but every action taken against the populace at large pushes that populace further away and almst forces them to take up the opposite cause. It's completely counter-productive, in other words.

Graham

[rikzilla]

Geoff,

When the dirty bomb goes off in America it will make genocide a completely moral response. There is no government better equiped to implement unrestricted genocide than a vengeful US. Even one that no longer has a capitol city.

Terrorism can only help create this escalation...it is an escalation the terrorists cannot win.

-zilla

[max]

UCE


Are you a muslim/Palestinian? Most people who aren't can see both points of view regarding Israel. All the progs I have seen on TV about the war on Iraq always bring up Israel but it is usually a person of eastern origin. I too am against war with Iraq and it does appear that at present Bush is doing some bullying but maybe we don't know all the facts. But why Israel is always mentioned alongside Iraq puzzles me.
As far as I can recall, israel said if there could be no suicide bombings for a period of time peace talks could begin but so far the palestinians won't stop bombing. They don't want peace they want the whole of the country so that jews have nothing.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Graham:

Short term? Ireland remained under British rule for another 300 years.

Cromwells aim wasn't to soothe the concerns of the native populace, rather he aimed to subdue and ultimately replace them with British settlers in most of the country.


I'm not quite sure how best to respond to this. Cromwell's goals were clearly very different to the onstensive (ostensible? whatever) goals of the US and her allies today. However, the methods he adopted were those now being proposed by Rikzilla (I think).

If the US wants to spend the next 300 years repressing the population of Iraq then by all means let them fire ahead. I can't see too many New Yorkers wanting to up stakes and move to Bagdad but you never know.

Regardless, elements amongst the Irish population contiued to resist for centuries afterward. Nowaday, those people would be classed as terrorists. Thus, in so far as preventing terrorism goes, Cromwellian tactics are ineffective.

They were pretty effective at retaining a colony for the Empire but that's (hopefully) a different story.

Graham

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ssibal

The Indians did not resort to terrorism to get rid of the British. There are ways to take on a larger, more powerful force that do not involve targeting and killing innocent people.

Damn good thing for them they went up against a bunch of warm-hearted soft-headed Brits.

How would Pol Pot have handled a Ghandi approach do you think?

[rikzilla]

Graham,

The Black September terrorist appeasement by the W. German gov't of W. Brandt is detailed in this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300097662/qid=1046712237/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/102-8863669-7920139?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

From Amazon Review:
Great Book - Disturbing Facts, September 22, 2002
Reviewer: A reader from Los Angeles, CA United States
Rarely have I read a book that demonstrated such a disturbing trend - a trend in which terrorism is rewarded with incentives and practically forced into further terrorist actions. Dershowitz follows the apparent (and for terrorism, the appearance of success equates to actual success) causal relationship between terrorist attacks on innocent civilians and the subsequent recognition and advancement of the groups' cause. Because of this, terrorism has been encouraged by not only the lack of deterrence and the lack of a tough stand on terrorism, but also by the effective promotion of it through the advancement of terrorist groups' causes - such as inviting Arafat to speak at the United Nations after numerous plane hijackings and the ordered murder of American diplomats.

As disturbing as the fact that nearly all terrorists captured outside the Middle East were released in a matter of weeks or months (of the 204 terrorists captured between 1968-1975 outside the Middle East, only 3 remained in prison by 1975), is the assertion that for much of the history of modern international terrorism, the policies of our European allies and the United Nations have only served to further increase terrorism. The arguments not only make sense, they're backed by the historical facts.

The root cause of terrorism is its success, and this book takes a good look at how/why it has succeeded (and in some instances failed) thus far and how a moral society should respond to terrorism.





I just finished it....it's a compelling read. Dershowitz is above all else a civil libertarian. His credentials as a controversial defense attorney speak for themselves.

-zilla

Max:


Are you a muslim/Palestinian?


No. I just have a tendency to support those groups I believe have been treated unjustly. I find the situation in Israel impossible to resolve. Israel should never have been put there. The land did not belong to them. But now we are faced with an Israeli state which does exist. The damage has been done. I do not know what the solution is.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Geoff,

When the dirty bomb goes off in America it will make genocide a completely moral response. There is no government better equiped to implement unrestricted genocide than a vengeful US. Even one that no longer has a capitol city.

Terrorism can only help create this escalation...it is an escalation the terrorists cannot win.

-zilla

I realise this wasn't a response to me but it makes me wonder if maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

When (if, and hopefully not at all) the dirty bomb goes off in America, how will that make Genocide a "moral response"?

I don't doubt for a minute that it might well be the response of the American government in that situation but it certainly wouldn't be right or moral.

Are you seriously suggesting that thousands (millions?) of innocent people should be made to pay for the actions foa few hundred (or even a few thousand) terrorists?

Graham

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Max:



No. I just have a tendency to support those groups I believe have been treated unjustly. I find the situation in Israel impossible to resolve. Israel should never have been put there. The land did not belong to them. But now we are faced with an Israeli state which does exist. The damage has been done. I do not know what the solution is.

We know what the solution isn't. Terrorism cannot be allowed to continue to advance the Palestinian cause...or any cause for that matter. We will always have irrational terrorism which has it's roots in fanatical religion....but at least by disincetivizing those that choose terrorism rationally it can be massively curtailed.

-zilla

BTW: I know you're gonna jump on me for my use of the "genocide" word.... I personally would never advocate such a thing...but I honestly cannot see how it can be avoided if terrorism is allowed to escalate to that point.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Max:



No. I just have a tendency to support those groups I believe have been treated unjustly. I find the situation in Israel impossible to resolve. Israel should never have been put there. The land did not belong to them. But now we are faced with an Israeli state which does exist. The damage has been done. I do not know what the solution is.

the solution is simple and has been put on the table many times.

Terror was used to make a point of some Palestinians being unhappy with the way things are. Point made. stop making the point through terrorism for a little while then come to the table to negotiate a solution. I for one would not discuss things with you while you continue to kick me in the shins.

I'd like to add that there were better methods to gain attention. Terror is no more than punching someone to gain their attention. If you choose that method expect to get hit back before talks begin.

Rik


When the dirty bomb goes off in America it will make genocide a completely moral response.


In which case you have just legitimised an ALL OUT struggle against America. You seem to think that America has some sort of right to use more force against its enemies than they use against it. If Americas enemies simply equal the force used against them, this results in total global destruction.

Great.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


I realise this wasn't a response to me but it makes me wonder if maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

When (if, and hopefully not at all) the dirty bomb goes off in America, how will that make Genocide a "moral response"?

I don't doubt for a minute that it might well be the response of the American government in that situation but it certainly wouldn't be right or moral.

Are you seriously suggesting that thousands (millions?) of innocent people should be made to pay for the actions foa few hundred (or even a few thousand) terrorists?

Graham

Like I said...I am merely recognizing that this is where escalation takes us. In the end we are talking about genocide as a removal of the threat to world civilization. Removing that which is out to destroy the civilized world is indeed moral. German genocide of the Jews is the model of "evil" genocide...however a genocide that would preserve world civilization would not be an "evil"...that is why I called it a moral response. Believe me...if world civilization is threatened there will be a response by those threatened to remove the threat...utterly. This is escalation which can be very likely avoided merely by ceasing to reward causes that employ terrorism now. Any use of WMD will surely trigger a WMD use by the US. That is the beginning of genocide. I know it's a dirty word...but there I've said it. Cat's out...debate away.

-z:p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik



In which case you have just legitimised an ALL OUT struggle against America. You seem to think that America has some sort of right to use more force against its enemies than they use against it. If Americas enemies simply equal the force used against them, this results in total global destruction.

Great.

Sucks doesn't it?

Check and mate. That's what's at the end of the terrorist's road. Let's all hope the Martian colony has freedom from religion.

-z

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik



In which case you have just legitimised an ALL OUT struggle against America. You seem to think that America has some sort of right to use more force against its enemies than they use against it. If Americas enemies simply equal the force used against them, this results in total global destruction.

Great.

War isn't a boxing ring. If you use a stick I'll pull a gun. Not because I don't want to fight a fair fight that you began by attacking me, but simply because the goal is to win the fight.

[Tmy]

How about terrorizing the terrorists. Screw with their families, torch there suspected hang outs, car bombs and the like.

Turnabouts fair play.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about terrorizing the terrorists. Screw with their families, torch there suspected hang outs, car bombs and the like.

Turnabouts fair play.

I'm all for that. But we try not to target civilians. It would be a different story if suicide bombers knew that their actions would lead to the immediate deaths of those Hussein says he'll give money to, namely their families.

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sucks doesn't it?

Check and mate. That's what's at the end of the terrorist's road. Let's all hope the Martian colony has freedom from religion.

-z

Rik,

It's not just the end of the terrorists road, it is the end of civilisation on planet Earth. The price of your startegy is the total destruction of everything.

Originally posted by Troll


War isn't a boxing ring. If you use a stick I'll pull a gun. Not because I don't want to fight a fair fight that you began by attacking me, but simply because the goal is to win the fight.

And if you pull out a gun I will pull out a boxcutter and fly a plane into the WTC...... :(

You are legitimising the 9/11 attacks. If your policy is "I can inflict more force, therefore you will do as I say." then you leave your everyone else only 2 options. Submission to oppression or fighting back by any means possible, including terrorism. This thread is supposed to be about how to stop terrorism. So far yourself and Rik have demonstrated that the proposed US solution to eradicating terrorism leads only to global destruction.

Unless, of course, you are a Christian. In which case you are supposed to turn the other cheek. (I don't think George Bush read that bit).

[max]

UCE



Tell me how and when Bin Laden was oppressed. He was having a fine time being western, night clubbing it, womanising etc with his vast legacy from his father.
Also there is a pecking order in all walks of life be it parents, managers, bosses etc why not have USA as the top boss?
:)

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


And if you pull out a gun I will pull out a boxcutter and fly a plane into the WTC...... :(

You are legitimising the 9/11 attacks. If your policy is "I can inflict more force, therefore you will do as I say." then you leave your everyone else only 2 options. Submission to oppression or fighting back by any means possible, including terrorism. This thread is supposed to be about how to stop terrorism. So far yourself and Rik have demonstrated that the proposed US solution to eradicating terrorism leads only to global destruction.

Unless, of course, you are a Christian. In which case you are supposed to turn the other cheek. (I don't think George Bush read that bit).

Selective reading? I also posted a response pertaining to the stopping of terrorism in Israel. It's one method Israel offered but the Palestinians have refused to go along with.

[quote]
the solution is simple and has been put on the table many times.

Terror was used to make a point of some Palestinians being unhappy with the way things are. Point made. stop making the point through terrorism for a little while then come to the table to negotiate a solution. I for one would not discuss things with you while you continue to kick me in the shins.

I'd like to add that there were better methods to gain attention. Terror is no more than punching someone to gain their attention. If you choose that method expect to get hit back before talks begin.[quote]

Stop legitimizing terror as a means to an end. It's not. Just like I mentioned before and this time with even more clarity, if I step on your toes in a bar, punching me isn't going to make things easier for you. In fact I'll punch ya right back and maybe add a few. And that will continue so long as you swing at me. When you stop swinging then we can talk. You punching me only makes a point of your being upset that I stepped on your toes. It doesn't solve squat.

Terrorism makes a point. It makes two points actually. The first is that someone has an issue with someone else. The second is that they don't want to deal with it logically.

[Troll]

I called ya on your post. Lots of posts since then in various threads but I want this one to stay within sight so you lose that excuse for not replying.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Like I said...I am merely recognizing that this is where escalation takes us. In the end we are talking about genocide as a removal of the threat to world civilization. Removing that which is out to destroy the civilized world is indeed moral. German genocide of the Jews is the model of "evil" genocide...however a genocide that would preserve world civilization would not be an "evil"...that is why I called it a moral response. Believe me...if world civilization is threatened there will be a response by those threatened to remove the threat...utterly. This is escalation which can be very likely avoided merely by ceasing to reward causes that employ terrorism now. Any use of WMD will surely trigger a WMD use by the US. That is the beginning of genocide. I know it's a dirty word...but there I've said it. Cat's out...debate away.

-z:p

This sort of brings us back to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing again doesn't it?

Until recently, I understood the rationale for the use of atomic bombs in Japan as "otherwise we would have had to invade which would have resulted in far more casulties for us". More recently, I've come to realise that it might also have meant far more casultie for the Japanese.

That said, seeing of the effects of an atomic bomb is utterly horrifying and that level of objectivity/utility in moral thinking makes my head reel.You are right though, we do need to consider potentially world-shattering events on that level and not be afraid to use all the weapons at our disposal, as appropriate.

a genocide that would preserve world civilization would not be an "evil"...that is why I called it a moral response

I don't agree with this and here's why:

"World Civilisation" is not threatened by terrorism. Specific parts of specific civilisations are threatened by specific terrorist groups. Terrorism is a small scale problem, it's like vermin or woodworm - sure, if you let it get out of control it can cause some serious damage but it's not like you should burn down the house just to make sure you get them all.

Now, I hate to say this, frankly because it makes me sound like UCE ( :p ) but read to the end before you respond. For the first time in histroy, there are people in the world with the power to destroy human civilisation - but it's not the terrorists, it's us.

There isn't a single terrorist group in the world (nor would there be even if they all got together at once in some sort of multi-demoninational, ecumenical hatred fest) with the kind of power and resources that would be necessary to cause destruction on a wide enough scale to destroy humanity.

Ask yourself, how much damage could Osama Bin Laden really do? I won't for a second belittle the horror and pain of the WTC or any other terrorist atrocity but even an event ten times or a hindred times the scale of 911 wouldn't be sufficent to derail "civilisation".

Even if somehow they managed to plant "dirty bombs" in London, Paris, Bonn and five US cities of your choice, the world economy might collapse, countries might fall, violence and war might break out across the globe and last for a hundred years but civilisation would go on. Even if the entire of Europe and North America was wiped out, civilisation would go on (though not for most of us :( ). It might be set back a few years, or even a few centuries and that would indeed be tragic but ultimately, humanity would recover and continue - perhaps even to a better world than this, who knows?

But terrorists don't even have power on that scale. We, the civilised countries of the world, are the only people that do. The United States, or Europe, or Russia or China - any of thse nations could wreck some pretty serious havoc on the world and perhaps even wipe out humanity between them. All of those countries have the weapons and resoources to carry out an extended, international campaign of genocide but the terrorists of the world do not.

So that's why I don't agree that genocide on the scale you are proposing would be a correct, moral response to terrorism. We could burn down our house to get to the termites in the basement. We have have the power to do that and the termites are causing a lot of damage to the beams down there, but where the f*** are we going to live once the house is gone? The trouble with this world of ours is that, unless you plan on flying off to Mars, is that there's no escape. Once you start that fire pretty soon you're going to find yourself retreating before the flames with nowhere to go.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - terrorists live for hatred and destruction. They're not normal people (how could they be - could a normal person fly a plane into a building or strap explosives to their chest and run onto a bus?). Maybe they could have been normal people had the world treated them differently and maybe not - who knows and who cares? Maybe they're just psychos. Either way, there is nothing in the world that would delight them more than to see the United States of America raining hellfire down on the cities of the Middle East. There's nothing they'd like more than to see the world broken and destroyed. They'd do it themselves if they had the power. They don't but we do.

That's why our response to terrorism has to remain measured and controlled. We need to clear out those termites before the kitchen floor collapses - no question about that. If we can wipe the termites out entirely then so much the better but we have to remember what we're fighting for: civilisation as we know it; and remember that the only people with the power to take that away from us is us.

Sorry to get heavy first thing in the morning but, dammit, the knid of talk I'm seeing on some of these threads is making me very, very nervous.

Graham

Originally posted by Troll

Stop legitimizing terror as a means to an end. It's not. Just like I mentioned before and this time with even more clarity, if I step on your toes in a bar, punching me isn't going to make things easier for you. In fact I'll punch ya right back and maybe add a few. And that will continue so long as you swing at me.


Or until you are unconcious.....


When you stop swinging then we can talk. You punching me only makes a point of your being upset that I stepped on your toes. It doesn't solve squat.


You are right there. So why did you "add a few"?


Terrorism makes a point. It makes two points actually. The first is that someone has an issue with someone else. The second is that they don't want to deal with it logically.

There is no 'logical' way of dealing with America if it refuses to listen to reason, or respect the views of the rest of the world. Americans must understand that if they believe it is OK to use military force to pursue US interests all over the world, and take no responsibility when it comes to international treaties that everybody else signs up to then something must be done to stop them. There seems to be a total reality deficit going on here. The attitude is "We are the Sheriff. We make the rules. You will do as we say. We willl do as we like. And if you argue with us we will blow your head off. And....it is against the rules to kick us in the balls when we aren't expecting it.......

America DOES NOT play by the rules. Why should the terrorists?

[Graham]

"Bump" - to keep this parallel with the "Torture" thread, 'cos the topics kind of mesh.

Graham

[Tmy]

How about this............ we give them what they want! Isnt that "no negotiations wh terrorists" line a little to ridged.

Of course Im not sure what Al Queda wants. Is it to get the US troops out of the Saudi Arabian holy lands? Would that do the job?

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Tmy:
How about this............ we give them what they want! Isnt that "no negotiations wh terrorists" line a little to ridged.

Of course Im not sure what Al Queda wants. Is it to get the US troops out of the Saudi Arabian holy lands? Would that do the job?

Ultimately what Al-Qaeda wants is one world Islamic fundamentalism. The one sure way to stop Al-Qaeda embarking on terrorist campaigns would be to convert to Islam, slaughter anyone who refuses to do so, and make all the womenfolk wear those strange headresses.

Would it be worth it?

In terms of making lesser concessions than this it's worth keeping in mind a remark by Rudyard Kipling (IIRC) - "Paying the Dangeld never got rid of the Danes".

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about this............ we give them what they want! Isnt that "no negotiations wh terrorists" line a little to ridged.

Of course Im not sure what Al Queda wants. Is it to get the US troops out of the Saudi Arabian holy lands? Would that do the job?

IMO, no it wouldn't. I would think that if everything Al Queda ever demanded was suddenly handed to them on a plate along with total control of the Middle East and every Muslim from here to Indonesia, they would become more dangerous, not less.

Actual terrorists are small in number - a lunatic fringe of the greater population. They represent the extreme of some facet of popular opinion - in the case of Al Queda, primarily anti-Americanism.

That's why I think we need to work on isolating the terrorist from the greater population - get the people on our side and then squeeze out the terrorists like pus from a pimple.

In order to do that we will have to deal with some people who are, shall we say, in a grey areas - that to me, however, is an acceptable, if unpleasant neccessity.

"No negotiations with terrorists" but not "no negotiation" period.

Graham

Graham,

I think the terrorists have the potential to do far more harm than they have done so far. But I don't think they would do so unless they believed that the US was indeed attempting genocide against Islam. If Islamic fundamentalists did believe that this was US policy, for whatever reason, then they would indeed be capable of wreaking havoc on a scale big enough to derail civilisation. Deliberate release of smallpox in major western cities is the obvious example - we are now a population with ZERO natural resistance to a disease which has a track record of killing most of its victims even in a time when people did have a degree of natural resistance. The death toll in the west would be absolutely enormous, and if a smallpox attack was combined with various other sorts of attack then this could spell the end of civilisation as we know it, collapse of the global economy.

None of which changes the fact that a policy of 'escalate, escalate, escalate', which appears to be the path of choice for both Sharon and Bush, will lead only to more and more destruction. Many of the people posting here seem to think it is OK for the US Govt. to 'escalate' but somehow it is 'immoral' and 'against the rules' for their enemies to 'escalate' in response. I just don't get this. These people seem to believe only too clearly that if someone waves a stick at you, then the best response is to get a gun out. The alternative would be to submit to threats of violence, and once you submit to threats of violence you are accepting an intolerable situation. This must be avoided AT ALL COSTS. So why can't they understand that the situation is no different for the terrorists? It makes no difference how many bombs the US drops, or how many right-wingers in America threaten genocide against various bits of the third world - threatening people with violence simply makes them hate you even more. These people already despise America enough to sacrifice their lives in the struggle against America. Unlike the Americans, who bomb people from the safe distance of 30,000ft regardless of the fact that whilst protecting the lives of a couple of American pilots, it accidentally costs the lives of an entire convoy of refugees in tractors because they are so far away from the target that they can't see what they are bombing.

[ssibal]

UndercoverElephant, do you believe that al Qaeda is justified in its attacks against the U.S.? You keep talking about how the U.S. has oppressed the world for 50 years.....etc but what does this have to do with the terrorists we are currently fighting? Are you trying to say that they have taken up all causes around the world and are trying to give us payback for all we have done around the world? How was millionare bin Laden oppressed by the U.S.? The whole reason this started was because he was angry that U.S. soildiers set foot on the "holy land." All this current nonsense about the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi cause is nothing more than the al Qaeda leadership trying to hijack other causes to enlist more recruits. al Qaeda does not care that the U.S. fought in Vietnam, or that we did not sign the Kyoto treaty. Their struggle has more to do with religious fundamentalism than any acts commited by the U.S. The U.S. did not start this, al Qaeda started it, and for a STUPID reason.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


This sort of brings us back to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing again doesn't it?

Until recently, I understood the rationale for the use of atomic bombs in Japan as "otherwise we would have had to invade which would have resulted in far more casulties for us". More recently, I've come to realise that it might also have meant far more casultie for the Japanese.

That said, seeing of the effects of an atomic bomb is utterly horrifying and that level of objectivity/utility in moral thinking makes my head reel.You are right though, we do need to consider potentially world-shattering events on that level and not be afraid to use all the weapons at our disposal, as appropriate.



I don't agree with this and here's why:

"World Civilisation" is not threatened by terrorism. Specific parts of specific civilisations are threatened by specific terrorist groups. Terrorism is a small scale problem, it's like vermin or woodworm - sure, if you let it get out of control it can cause some serious damage but it's not like you should burn down the house just to make sure you get them all.

Now, I hate to say this, frankly because it makes me sound like UCE ( :p ) but read to the end before you respond. For the first time in histroy, there are people in the world with the power to destroy human civilisation - but it's not the terrorists, it's us.

There isn't a single terrorist group in the world (nor would there be even if they all got together at once in some sort of multi-demoninational, ecumenical hatred fest) with the kind of power and resources that would be necessary to cause destruction on a wide enough scale to destroy humanity.

Ask yourself, how much damage could Osama Bin Laden really do? I won't for a second belittle the horror and pain of the WTC or any other terrorist atrocity but even an event ten times or a hindred times the scale of 911 wouldn't be sufficent to derail "civilisation".

Even if somehow they managed to plant "dirty bombs" in London, Paris, Bonn and five US cities of your choice, the world economy might collapse, countries might fall, violence and war might break out across the globe and last for a hundred years but civilisation would go on. Even if the entire of Europe and North America was wiped out, civilisation would go on (though not for most of us :( ). It might be set back a few years, or even a few centuries and that would indeed be tragic but ultimately, humanity would recover and continue - perhaps even to a better world than this, who knows?

But terrorists don't even have power on that scale. We, the civilised countries of the world, are the only people that do. The United States, or Europe, or Russia or China - any of thse nations could wreck some pretty serious havoc on the world and perhaps even wipe out humanity between them. All of those countries have the weapons and resoources to carry out an extended, international campaign of genocide but the terrorists of the world do not.

So that's why I don't agree that genocide on the scale you are proposing would be a correct, moral response to terrorism. We could burn down our house to get to the termites in the basement. We have have the power to do that and the termites are causing a lot of damage to the beams down there, but where the f*** are we going to live once the house is gone? The trouble with this world of ours is that, unless you plan on flying off to Mars, is that there's no escape. Once you start that fire pretty soon you're going to find yourself retreating before the flames with nowhere to go.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - terrorists live for hatred and destruction. They're not normal people (how could they be - could a normal person fly a plane into a building or strap explosives to their chest and run onto a bus?). Maybe they could have been normal people had the world treated them differently and maybe not - who knows and who cares? Maybe they're just psychos. Either way, there is nothing in the world that would delight them more than to see the United States of America raining hellfire down on the cities of the Middle East. There's nothing they'd like more than to see the world broken and destroyed. They'd do it themselves if they had the power. They don't but we do.

That's why our response to terrorism has to remain measured and controlled. We need to clear out those termites before the kitchen floor collapses - no question about that. If we can wipe the termites out entirely then so much the better but we have to remember what we're fighting for: civilisation as we know it; and remember that the only people with the power to take that away from us is us.

Sorry to get heavy first thing in the morning but, dammit, the knid of talk I'm seeing on some of these threads is making me very, very nervous.

Graham

First off...wonderful thoughtful post Graham.

I screwed up by spending too much unproductive time in the torture thread. I'd like to read your post carefully and respond in kind. My time is short now though. I'll do it when I can.

Regards,
Rick

[Tmy]

Hmmmmm so these terrorists are like the gopher in the movie Caddy Shack. The trick is for George Bush to NOT be like groundskeeper Bill Murray who freaks out over the gopher and in the end blows up the golf course in the failed attempt to kill the annoying critter!!!

Who new Caddyshack had such deep meaning.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Graham


there are people in the world with the power to destroy human civilisation - but it's not the terrorists, it's us.



OK, they are going to agree that the reason the #2 guy who was just grabbed was hanging out with a world-class (islamofascist) bio-chemist is just 'cause the bio-chem guy is a sweetie. Whatever.

I think you are blindingly w r o n g. Biowar coupled with the speed & ease of worldwide travel scares the hell out of me. :eek:

[Drooper]

Terrorist bombs explode in The Philippines.

Yet another event that makes UCE's position impossible. How exactly is this anti US, anti Western or representative of a widespread popular discontent?

Originally posted by ssibal
UndercoverElephant, do you believe that al Qaeda is justified in its attacks against the U.S.? You keep talking about how the U.S. has oppressed the world for 50 years.....etc but what does this have to do with the terrorists we are currently fighting? Are you trying to say that they have taken up all causes around the world and are trying to give us payback for all we have done around the world? How was millionare bin Laden oppressed by the U.S.? The whole reason this started was because he was angry that U.S. soildiers set foot on the "holy land." All this current nonsense about the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi cause is nothing more than the al Qaeda leadership trying to hijack other causes to enlist more recruits. al Qaeda does not care that the U.S. fought in Vietnam, or that we did not sign the Kyoto treaty. Their struggle has more to do with religious fundamentalism than any acts commited by the U.S. The U.S. did not start this, al Qaeda started it, and for a STUPID reason.

2 years ago I would have said that the two most dangerous forces on this planet were Islamic fundamentalism and American Capitalist Imperialism. The Taliban were horrific. US foreign policy has been equally horrific. It comes as no surprise to me that these two extremes ended up in no-holds-barred conflict with each other. I am not an Al-Qaeda supporter. Does that help to clarify where I am coming from?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I think the terrorists have the potential to do far more harm than they have done so far. But I don't think they would do so unless they believed that the US was indeed attempting genocide against Islam.

Islam is an ideology. You can't "genocide" against an ideology.

You don't fight ignorance by killing stupid people. Similarly, you don't fight Islam by killing Muslims.

Dr B


Islam is an ideology. You can't "genocide" against an ideology.


Hey man, don't blame me for this. It was George W Moron who declared war on an ideology. And it was Rik who used the word genocide.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Dr B



Hey man, don't blame me for this. It was George W Moron who declared war on an ideology. And it was Rik who used the word genocide.

Can you cite a credible reference where GWB declares war on Islam? :rolleyes:

Can you cite a credible reference where GWB declares war on Islam?


First he just declared "We are at war." He didn't mention what or who he he was at war with, just that he was at war.

Then he declared "a crusade", and called it "Operation Infinite Justice".

Not much ambiguity there, is there?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
Terrorist bombs explode in The Philippines.

Yet another event that makes UCE's position impossible. How exactly is this anti US, anti Western or representative of a widespread popular discontent?

It is targetted at the west as they have chosen a target that would be likely to include some westerners. Why? Cause they can. It is representative of a popular discontent in the Southern region of the philippines.

How popular is a good question. eg, a government can win the popular vote with only 50% support. If my reading of terrorism is anything to go by, although many may support the aims of the terrorists, they may not support violence, and there would also be those who support neither or do not see that the terrorist aims would be a solution to anything either.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is targetted at the west as they have chosen a target that would be likely to include some westerners. Why? Cause they can. It is representative of a popular discontent in the Southern region of the philippines.



One American death out of 21 puts lie to that.

One American death out of 21 puts lie to that.


Not really. You have no idea who the actual hoped-for target was. They may have been trying to kill Americans but failed.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Not really. You have no idea who the actual hoped-for target was. They may have been trying to kill Americans but failed.

Right, they're the Keystone Terrorists. And pink is green and up is down. Your logic solves all riddles.

An Islam separatist movement. Aim: an Islamic fundamentalist state independent of The Philippines.

Why exactly would they even want to target Americans?

Drooper :


Right, they're the Keystone Terrorists. And pink is green and up is down. Your logic solves all riddles.


Is this supposed to be an argument?

You think that because only 1 american died the target can't have been Americans?

Does that mean that when the USAF bombed a convoy of Kosovan tractors the target couldn't have been Serbs?

Don't talk to me about logic, Drooper. :rolleyes:


An Islam separatist movement. Aim: an Islamic fundamentalist state independent of The Philippines.

Why exactly would they even want to target Americans?


I have no idea who placed that bomb. I just pointed out that the fact that only 1 American died is not grounds for 'logically' concluding that the target was not Americans. Neither is it grounds for concluding the target was Americans. Not enough data.

[Drooper]

Your logic is screwed because you don't use any. Let me run you through the chronology.

This all stems from your claim that these various terrorism events stem from popular and widespread justified hatred of US western hegemony and "empire building".

I maintain you are talking nonsense.

I suggest a terrorist attack in southern Philippines supports my point- a fair argument.

You claim it supports yours, because there it is a logical American target.

I suggest it is not a logical western target, given by the fact that most of the dead were not American - again a fair argument.

You claim it is simply because they made a mistake. This amounts to making up your oown "facts".

I then take exception to this non argument. - how can you make this absurd claim. I also point out that the group that perpatrated the act have political objectives that are not related to US foreign policy in any way, but are a Philippino issue.

While you continue to make absurd claims and pervert logic, I will continue to point it out.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
Hmmmmm so these terrorists are like the gopher in the movie Caddy Shack. The trick is for George Bush to NOT be like groundskeeper Bill Murray who freaks out over the gopher and in the end blows up the golf course in the failed attempt to kill the annoying critter!!!

Who new Caddyshack had such deep meaning.

Who knew indeed but that was the idea I was getting at, yes - nicely put! ;)

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by hammegk


OK, they are going to agree that the reason the #2 guy who was just grabbed was hanging out with a world-class (islamofascist) bio-chemist is just 'cause the bio-chem guy is a sweetie. Whatever.

I think you are blindingly w r o n g. Biowar coupled with the speed & ease of worldwide travel scares the hell out of me. :eek:

Are you responding to me?

Bio-weapons are terrifying and I'm not for a minute suggesting that terrorists should be allowed to run around meeting with who they like and doing what they like.

I would point out, however, that the #2 guy was captured in Pakistan, a country we have somehow managed to keep on our side in all of this.

If he had been hiding out in Iran or North Korea - do you think he would have been caught so quickly or indeed at all?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


First off...wonderful thoughtful post Graham.

I screwed up by spending too much unproductive time in the torture thread. I'd like to read your post carefully and respond in kind. My time is short now though. I'll do it when I can.

Regards,
Rick

I look forward to it.

See you later,

Graham

[karl]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about this............ we give them what they want! Isnt that "no negotiations wh terrorists" line a little to ridged.

Of course Im not sure what Al Queda wants. Is it to get the US troops out of the Saudi Arabian holy lands? Would that do the job?

It probably would. Without the presence of US troops, the relative stability of Saudi Arabia would deteriorate into a situation similar to Angola and some other African countries. Government forces would fight territorial battles against groups of fundamentalists, like al-Qaida, over the control of natural resources. It would be bloody and messy, but perfectly safe from a US point of view. Oh, but the price of oil would go way up. Darn! Can't have that.

[Tmy]

Lots of people believe that Saddam is linked to the events of 911. DO you think 911 would have occured if Saddam was removed back in the gulf war?? I'm thinking YES.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lots of people believe that Saddam is linked to the events of 911. DO you think 911 would have occured if Saddam was removed back in the gulf war?? I'm thinking YES.

I'd say "Yes" too. Rikzilla - any comment?

Graham

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lots of people believe that Saddam is linked to the events of 911. DO you think 911 would have occured if Saddam was removed back in the gulf war?? I'm thinking YES.

Given a completely linear reading of history, I agree the answer is yes.

However, if you ask whether I think that history might have taken a turn that made S11 unlikely had Saddam been removed in 1991, I would also say yes.

History is the culmination of various actions and events that interact. So imagine this scenario, which I think is pretty plausible.

1991: Instead of accepting Saddam's surrender, allied forces push on to Bahgdad. Sensing that their own survival depends on the removal of Saddam, senior officers kill him and and offer complete surrender to US forces as they enter the city.

1992-1993: US forces are wound down in Iraq and replaced by UN peacekeepers. A transitional government is put in place, brining representation from all ethnic groups, including the Kurds and Shiites. This transiational government fully cooperates with UN disarment of Iraqi WMDs etc. In return substantial international aid starts coming into Iraq.

1993-1994: Complete withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia is completed as tensions in the region subside.

1994-95: A new government in Iraq is elected, UN peacekeeping force begin withdrawal.

Under this scenario, OBL cannot find either the funding nor the support for a campaign directed at throughing the infidels out of the holey lands - because they have long gone.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper


Given a completely linear reading of history, I agree the answer is yes.

However, if you ask whether I think that history might have taken a turn that made S11 unlikely had Saddam been removed in 1991, I would also say yes.

History is the culmination of various actions and events that interact. So imagine this scenario, which I think is pretty plausible.

1991: Instead of accepting Saddam's surrender, allied forces push on to Bahgdad. Sensing that their own survival depends on the removal of Saddam, senior officers kill him and and offer complete surrender to US forces as they enter the city.

1992-1993: US forces are wound down in Iraq and replaced by UN peacekeepers. A transitional government is put in place, brining representation from all ethnic groups, including the Kurds and Shiites. This transiational government fully cooperates with UN disarment of Iraqi WMDs etc. In return substantial international aid starts coming into Iraq.

1993-1994: Complete withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia is completed as tensions in the region subside.

1994-95: A new government in Iraq is elected, UN peacekeeping force begin withdrawal.

Under this scenario, OBL cannot find either the funding nor the support for a campaign directed at throughing the infidels out of the holey lands - because they have long gone.

Yeah, that's one scenario. Others, perhaps involving Saddam being replaced by Muslim fundamentallists, are equally possible.

Regardless, IMO Osama's "Infidels out of the holy land" thing is just a catchphrase, one more slogan to recruit impresionable youths to his hate-drive.

Even allowing your scenario, I can't see that he would have gone away quietly.

I'm not sure the US would have given up its base in Saudi Arabia so easily either though.

Graham

[alancarre]

Wow, I just started reading this thread. Amazing stuff here...

Originally posted by ssibal

What exactly do you mean by "backed by popular support?" And exactly what is it that you think it is backed by popular support? Are you referring to the targeting and killing of innocents? I find it hard to believe that that is backed by a significant number of people. And if it is, I see no reason to stop hunting down and killing terrorists rather than give into their demands.


Certainly the Bush Administration, and previously Clinton, are/were "backed by popular support". After all, America is a "democracy" no? And nobody would argue against the fact that US/UK sanctions imposed against Iraq "target and kill innocents" (unless you consider children under 5 to be combatants). So here we have hundreds of millions of terrorist-sympathizers backing a policy of targeting innocents for the purpose of advancing their "cause". I suppose then, by your logic, that it's ok to hunt down and kill Americans rather than give into their demands? So terrorism is "justified"?

- Me

[Drooper]

Others, perhaps involving Saddam being replaced by Muslim fundamentallists, are equally possible

I don't think that would be equally probable, given either the historical social and cultural makeup of Iraq, or the fact that the UN would have been overseeing the transition of Government in that instance.


Regardless, IMO Osama's "Infidels out of the holy land" thing is just a catchphrase, one more slogan to recruit impresionable youths to his hate-drive.

Exactly. without it where is his powerbase?

Even allowing your scenario, I can't see that he would have gone away quietly.

He would have faded away. He was chased out of Saudi Arabia because he became too dangerous as a result of the support he began to gain on the back of his anti US campaign. No US, no campaign, no support => OBL is just another political trouble maker to the House of Saud. In fact they might have simple killed someone making souch trouble who didn't have any clout.

[Graham]

Drooper,

I'm still not sure you're right but I'd rather not argue this kind of speculation too far - "might have beens" are too much a matter of opinion.

Probably I should have just left it alone in the first place.

Alright?

Graham

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Graham
Drooper,

I'm still not sure you're right but I'd rather not argue this kind of speculation too far - "might have beens" are too much a matter of opinion.

Probably I should have just left it alone in the first place.

Alright?

Graham



Well, you were the first person to respond to the "if Saddam had been removed" question in thread. Besides, don't get to wound up, we are only talking hypotheticals here.

Also, this is particularly relvant, becasue this was a backhanded way of saying that the current crisis is unrelated to OBL and 911 and consequently the US is being very duplicitous in its demands upon Iraq.

In the present context it is significant, because, as indicated in my hypothetical, leaving Saddam to carry on as before could maintain instability in a very volatile region of the world and hence come back to haunt us in very unpredictable ways. I don't think that is a point that should be easily set aside.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper




Well, you were the first person to respond to the "if Saddam had been removed" question in thread. Besides, don't get to wound up, we are only talking hypotheticals here.

Also, this is particularly relvant, becasue this was a backhanded way of saying that the current crisis is unrelated to OBL and 911 and consequently the US is being very duplicitous in its demands upon Iraq.

In the present context it is significant, because, as indicated in my hypothetical, leaving Saddam to carry on as before could maintain instability in a very volatile region of the world and hence come back to haunt us in very unpredictable ways. I don't think that is a point that should be easily set aside.


Sorry, I wasn't getting wound up, I just didn't think the line of discussion was worth pursuing any further, perhaps I was wrong and perhaps I phrased it a little too sharply but I meant no offence.

I see what you mean about the "backhanded way of saying" and you're right in that context the questions is important. I'll address it as best I can:

IMO, Saddam and Iraq are not the principal causes of instability in the ME. IMO (he says again, very cautiously) that title would have to be jointly shared between Saudi Arabia and Palestine/Israel.

As regards SA, you would appear to believe that, if the US presence were to be removed from the country, the tide of Islamic Fundieism would die down. I think that to be incorrect.

Is it not possible that if the US troops were removed from SA, the Saudi princes would be overwhelmed by fundamentalist revolution or at the very least be obliged to give in still further to the demands of the fanatic wing in the implementation of Sha'ria (sp?) law? Again, speculation but a possibility, in my mind at least.

IIRC, Osama offered his services to the Saudis to remove Saddam at some point in the past. I would offer this as evidence that Osama himself is not primarily motivated by the desire to destroy America. I think, as I said, that he uses that as a recruiting slogan simply because it is a popular sentiment amongst middle-eastern youth.

I would speculate that his primary motivation is the spread of fundamentalist Islam and the destruction of all who oppose it (which I believe was also the primary motivation of Allah, contrary to the whinings of the "Islam is peace" crowd). He has supporters in many countries (Afganistan to Sudan and amongst immmigrant populations of western countries).

IMO, in the event that the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia, a proportion of his supporters there would continue to support him - those of them whose goals were the same as his all along and those that are carried on with him following his "success" in driving the US out of his home country.

Finally, I don't see how military action could ever be said to "promote stability".

As bad as Saddam's regime is it has, AFAIK, been realatively stable for many years. Without Saddam's all controling hand, however, I would suggest that there is plenty of fodder for instability between the conflicting demands and desires of Shi'ite/Sunni, fundamentalist/liberal, "Iraqi"/Kurdish populations of the region.

Even assuming Iran and Turkey don't move in for "their piece of the pie" there are enough contending factions within Iraq (which, IIRC, is an artificial construct of third party nations rather than a country formed of internal cohesion) to Balkanise the region into complete instability

I'm leaving the office now (I have a birthday party to go to - my daughter is four and my son is all of one year old!) but I will look forward to reading your comments tomorrow.

Regards,

Graham

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


2 years ago I would have said that the two most dangerous forces on this planet were Islamic fundamentalism and American Capitalist Imperialism. The Taliban were horrific. US foreign policy has been equally horrific. It comes as no surprise to me that these two extremes ended up in no-holds-barred conflict with each other. I am not an Al-Qaeda supporter. Does that help to clarify where I am coming from?

Actually it does not clarify. You said earlier if there is no other alternative that it was OK to target and kill innocent people. So I want to know if you think that the al Qaeda attacks are justified. It is obvious that al Qaeda is not attacking innocents because of the 50 years of so-called U.S. imperialism/empire building. So, do you think their cause is justified?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by alancarre
Certainly the Bush Administration, and previously Clinton, are/were "backed by popular support". After all, America is a "democracy" no?

Yes, but saying that terrorism is backed by popular support is like saying 6 day creationism is backed by popular support.

And nobody would argue against the fact that US/UK sanctions imposed against Iraq "target and kill innocents" (unless you consider children under 5 to be combatants). So here we have hundreds of millions of terrorist-sympathizers backing a policy of targeting innocents for the purpose of advancing their "cause". I suppose then, by your logic, that it's ok to hunt down and kill Americans rather than give into their demands? So terrorism is "justified"?

I would argue that the UN (not US/UK) sanctions do not target and kill innocents. I am not saying children or any of the other starving people are combatants, but the fact of the matter is that money which should be going to feed them are being diverted to build golden palaces and weapons that Saddam is not supposed to have.

Actually it does not clarify. You said earlier if there is no other alternative that it was OK to target and kill innocent people. So I want to know if you think that the al Qaeda attacks are justified. It is obvious that al Qaeda is not attacking innocents because of the 50 years of so-called U.S. imperialism/empire building. So, do you think their cause is justified?


This is an oversimplification. It is very difficult to balance moral rights and wrongs and say this was justified by that or wasn't justified by that. I am not going pass judgement and say that the WTC attacks were justified by US Empire building. I am not going to say they weren't either. I have explained my position. Politics isn't maths. Morality isn't maths either.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Drooper
Terrorist bombs explode in The Philippines.

Just wanted to point something out: There are possible links between the terrorists in the Philippines, and Iraq:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030304-9060681.htm

[Troll]

What I don't understand is how UCE continues to avoid accepting the easiest way to stop terrorism.

Simple dialect and a waiting period. Tell the terrorists to stop, prove that they have by waiting a period of time, then open talks with them to see how to address the issues.

Instead when this is mentioned UCE mentions years of oppression or imperialism. Well that's nice and all but it continues the issue and does nothing to resolve it. Instead the terrorists continue in hopes of trying to eliminate their enemy completely, something they will never do as they are in the position they are in to begin with due to the lack of military numbers and arms.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by ssibal


Yes, but saying that terrorism is backed by popular support is like saying 6 day creationism is backed by popular support.


Yes it is. Backed by popular support means 'backed by popular support'. Do you have some other definition we're unfamiliar with?



I would argue that the UN (not US/UK) sanctions do not target and kill innocents. I am not saying children or any of the other starving people are combatants, but the fact of the matter is that money which should be going to feed them are being diverted to build golden palaces and weapons that Saddam is not supposed to have.



Those are not UN sanctions anymore. Those are US/UK sanctions. There's so much documentation it's almost pointless to mention it. But here's a recent, fairly detailed example:

http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/?pg=1

So what is your argument? That we should starve out the non-combatants until eventually we reach the combatants? Thereby justifying the killing of innocents for our noble 'cause'? Doesn't it occur to you that Saddam also doesn't care about these innocents? So your argument is that we should help out Saddam and further punish his victims to help advance our noble aim. Sorry, but the argument jus doesn't wash.

And what do you think the targeting of Iraq's water treatment facilities during GW1 was? Was that targeting Saddam who can buy bottled water whenever he wishes? It must be targeting someone... who would that be? Here's a little more background reading for you:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

and I quote:

1. "IRAQ'S RIVERS ALSO CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS,POLLUTANTS, AND ARE LADEN WITH BACTERIA. UNLESS THE WATER IS PURIFIED WITH CHLORINE EPIDEMICS OF SUCH DISEASES AS CHOLERA,HEPATITIS, AND TYPHOID COULD OCCUR."

Conclusion:

2. "FULL DEGRADATION OF THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS."

That's biological warfare buddy. And that's why "The Association of Genocide Scholars" is contemplating taking the US to court accusing them of no less than genocide against Iraq:

http://home.gwu.edu/~nagy/iwtv-ags.htm

- Alan

Troll


What I don't understand is how UCE continues to avoid accepting the easiest way to stop terrorism.

Simple dialect and a waiting period. Tell the terrorists to stop, prove that they have by waiting a period of time, then open talks with them to see how to address the issues.


In a perfect world this would work. Unfortunately we live in a less than perfect world. Without decades of IRA terrorism there would be no power-sharing in Northern Ireland. I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this, just an observation that the IRA made life so unbearable that successive administrations in London would have been quite happy to see Ireland drift off into the Atlantic. Without that IRA pressure NI would still be plain and simple UK territory. Do you really think the Unionists and the English right-wingers would have made such concessions just because they were asked nicely to do so?

There are no "easy" ways to stop terrorism.

edited :

Personally I think this applies to Islamic terrorism even more clearly. The Israeli administration doesn't just need to sit down with the terrorists. It has to sit down knowing it has to make real concessions. It has to accept what this looks like from the other side, as do the Palestinians. The Israelis and Palestinians aren't ready to do this yet. The Americans and Islamists aren't even ready to think about doing this. America make concessions to the Islamic world? Not going to happen. Not until America has grown as weary of terrorism as the Israelis have (and more). What is for sure is that simply trying to bludgeon the terrorists out of existence will have the opposite to the desired effect.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Without decades of IRA terrorism there would be no power-sharing in Northern Ireland
And without decades of terrorsm by Ghandi and his followers in India, they may never have broken free of British rule.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

And without decades of terrorsm by Ghandi and his followers in India, they may never have broken free of British rule.

You simply do not understand the history Segnosaur. Find me ONE Irish person who believes peaceful protest in Ireland would have led to concessions from the British government and I will eat my words. The two situations are very different.

[max]

UCE


The world has been patient for long enough....now is the time to blast everyone off the face of the earth......particularly muslims

[ssibal]

Originally posted by alancarre
Those are not UN sanctions anymore. Those are US/UK sanctions. There's so much documentation it's almost pointless to mention it. But here's a recent, fairly detailed example:

http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/?pg=1

Uhm, they still are UN sanctions. It does not matter that some of the nations do not agree with them anymore. These same nations voted to put them in place through the UN, therefore they are UN sanctions.

So what is your argument? That we should starve out the non-combatants until eventually we reach the combatants? Thereby justifying the killing of innocents for our noble 'cause'? Doesn't it occur to you that Saddam also doesn't care about these innocents? So your argument is that we should help out Saddam and further punish his victims to help advance our noble aim. Sorry, but the argument jus doesn't wash.

My argument is that the purpose of the sanctions is not to target and kill innocent civilians. I never stated that I agreed with the sanctions. The purpose of the sanctions is to target the Iraqi military and leadership through means other than outright war. Obviously, there is the side effect of the sanctions harming innocent people. Which is why the nations that originally voted to put sanctions in place are opposed to them. You do not think they voted to target civilians do you? It was an unforseen consequence. The US/UK are trapped in a situation where if they lift sanctions, Saddam's regime is free to do pretty much whatever it wants. This is why we are going to war, so we do not have to worry about Saddam's regime or the sanctions.

And what do you think the targeting of Iraq's water treatment facilities during GW1 was? Was that targeting Saddam who can buy bottled water whenever he wishes? It must be targeting someone... who would that be? Here's a little more background reading for you:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

...

Once again, the targeting of that is to topple Saddam's regime, not just him. Do you really believe the military decided "hey lets bomb the water supply so that all the civilians will die"?

That's biological warfare buddy. And that's why "The Association of Genocide Scholars" is contemplating taking the US to court accusing them of no less than genocide against Iraq:

http://home.gwu.edu/~nagy/iwtv-ags.htm

- Alan

That is a ridiculous claim.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ssibal


Once again, the targeting of that is to topple Saddam's regime, not just him. Do you really believe the military decided "hey lets bomb the water supply so that all the civilians will die"?


Didn't you know? The military was planning on targeting things like orphanages and hospitals too.

Its a good thing all those 'human sheilds' when to Iraq to protect them.

Originally posted by max
UCE


The world has been patient for long enough....now is the time to blast everyone off the face of the earth......particularly muslims

:D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Dr B



Hey man, don't blame me for this. It was George W Moron who declared war on an ideology. And it was Rik who used the word genocide.

Sorry.

I hereby fully and completely appologise to the "word police" hopefully UCE will not also see fit to send the thought police after me! :rolleyes: :D ;)

-zilla

[Shane Costello]

Originaaly posted by Undercover Elephant:
Without decades of IRA terrorism there would be no power-sharing in Northern Ireland. I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this, just an observation that the IRA made life so unbearable that successive administrations in London would have been quite happy to see Ireland drift off into the Atlantic. Without that IRA pressure NI would still be plain and simple UK territory. Do you really think the Unionists and the English right-wingers would have made such concessions just because they were asked nicely to do so?

The British security forces probably had the capability to wipe the IRA out, if they wanted to. This option simply wasn't acceptable, though. Don't forget that a majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland did not back the IRA campaign, choosing instead to support John Hume and the SDLP. Had succesive UK governments the backbone to stand up to the Unionist establishment in the North and their active discrimination against the Catholic minority, then the IRA would never have been ressurected. And Northern Ireland is still UK territory, plain and simple.

Had things turned out differently, Ireland could now still be a relatively autonomous part of the UK. The Irish parliamentary party had secured Home Rule after decades of political pressure at Westminister, which was then postponed due to the outbreak of WWI.

[Troll]

It's a good an effective weapon for those at their wits end to resolve their conflicts with those they feel won't listen to them.

Well, the US has been speaking out about a few things for years. some listened, ie the end of the Cold war and destruction of the Berlin Wall. Some haven't listened though, so are we now allowed the use of terrorism? can we use bombs and guns to make the middle east countries that won't accept us as equals listen to us?

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You simply do not understand the history Segnosaur. Find me ONE Irish person who believes peaceful protest in Ireland would have led to concessions from the British government and I will eat my words. The two situations are very different.

John Hume springs to mind. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_and_Labour_Party)

[alancarre]

Originally posted by ssibal


Uhm, they still are UN sanctions. It does not matter that some of the nations do not agree with them anymore. These same nations voted to put them in place through the UN, therefore they are UN sanctions.


The point is the nature of the sanctions which (as implemented by the US and UK) amount to a system of targeting the most vulnerable section of the society (ie. infants and the elderly) while strengthening Saddam. Did you read that article?



Once again, the targeting of that is to topple Saddam's regime, not just him. Do you really believe the military decided "hey lets bomb the water supply so that all the civilians will die"?



First off, targeting civilian infrastructure, such as water treatment facilities, is a war crime. Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions (Additional Protocol I, 7 December 1979), of which the USA is a signatory to, specifically prohibits it:


1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:

(a) As sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or

(b) If not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.

4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.

5. In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.



http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Secondly, yes I believe that was precisely the reason why they attacked those facilities. War is war, and it's not a pretty business. Maybe the perception of war has changed, but not the goals and certainly not the implementation. Some people seem to be living in fairy tale land with regards to the reality of war. Too many video games perhaps?


- Alan

[ssibal]

Originally posted by alancarre


The point is the nature of the sanctions which (as implemented by the US and UK) amount to a system of targeting the most vulnerable section of the society (ie. infants and the elderly) while strengthening Saddam. Did you read that article?

Yes, I read the article and it does not support the contention that the sanctions are meant to target the Iraqi civilians. Saddam is not stronger because of the sanctions. He has been weakened because of them, unfortunately they have adverse affects on the civilian population.


First off, targeting civilian infrastructure, such as water treatment facilities, is a war crime. Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions (Additional Protocol I, 7 December 1979), of which the USA is a signatory to, specifically prohibits it:



http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

I think the bombing of water facilities in Iraq falls under 3b.

Secondly, yes I believe that was precisely the reason why they attacked those facilities. War is war, and it's not a pretty business. Maybe the perception of war has changed, but not the goals and certainly not the implementation. Some people seem to be living in fairy tale land with regards to the reality of war. Too many video games perhaps?

What? You believe the U.S. and other nations that bombed Iraq were trying to kill civilians? I disagree, I see no evidence that civilians are the intended targets.

[Richard G]

Terrorism can, and will be stopped by free men, in their homes, and on their lands. We cannot be timid. Armed citizens can, and will, keep evil men at bay. The sooner these parasites come out of the woodwork, the sooner we can exterminate them.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by ssibal


Yes, I read the article and it does not support the contention that the sanctions are meant to target the Iraqi civilians. Saddam is not stronger because of the sanctions. He has been weakened because of them, unfortunately they have adverse affects on the civilian population.


Stronger means "relative to his victims". He is not stronger relative to the US, or any other army. But his grip on the country has been strengthened. That's because the general population (that hates him) has been weakened. Only those segments furthest removed from the military are the ones being hit hard.

And what do you mean 'unfortunately'? If we know that we're killing civilians, then why don't we take steps to stop it? Is not the decision to let the orgy of death and suffering continue the same as deciding on it in the first place? The result is the same, and the power to alter the result rests in the same hands. And don't tell me that it's all Saddam's fault, because in this case it isn't. There are strict protocols in place to make sure that aid is used as intended.

Yet the US/UK keep blocking aid. Why?





I think the bombing of water facilities in Iraq falls under 3b.



No it doesn't. How can you think it falls under 3b? I'm anxious to hear your explanation.


What? You believe the U.S. and other nations that bombed Iraq were trying to kill civilians? I disagree, I see no evidence that civilians are the intended targets.

I think whoever ordered the destruction of the civilian infrastructure (that is necessary to sustain life), was targetting civilians yes. Further, those that took steps to make sure that the infrastructure could not be rebuilt are equally culpable. I don't for a second believe that civilians are somehow exempt from being targeted. They are a major nuisance, and will continue to be once the US (or a US puppet) has occupied the country. They will, after all, be facing the same problems that Saddam faces now.

- Alan

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by alancarre

But his grip on the country has been strengthened. That's because the general population (that hates him) has been weakened. Only those segments furthest removed from the military are the ones being hit hard.

Nope, not really. Although people are 'starving' now, they have always been oppressed. However, it should be noted that the No Fly zones have given a large amount of independence to various minority groups in the country. So, his grip is still strong, but if anything it may be a bit weaker.

Originally posted by alancarre

And what do you mean 'unfortunately'? If we know that we're killing civilians, then why don't we take steps to stop it? Is not the decision to let the orgy of death and suffering continue the same as deciding on it in the first place? The result is the same, and the power to alter the result rests in the same hands. And don't tell me that it's all Saddam's fault, because in this case it isn't. There are strict protocols in place to make sure that aid is used as intended.

Strict protocols? Iraqis starve, yet Saddam has money to build palaces and give to terrorist groups. If Iraq has the money, why is it giving it to terrorists thousands of miles away, instead of, oh, buying food and medicine for their people?

The fact that Iraq is spending money on things other than saving his own people should be a hint that maybe lifting sanctions while Saddam is still in power is not a good idea.

Of course the sanctions could have been lifted a decade ago. Saddam could have said "I have weapons, here they are, come and destroy them". Instead he lied and obstructed the UN's team. That is why sanctions are still in place.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Nope, not really. Although people are 'starving' now, they have always been oppressed. However, it should be noted that the No Fly zones have given a large amount of independence to various minority groups in the country. So, his grip is still strong, but if anything it may be a bit weaker.


Ok, so you didn't read the documentation I posted. Up to you if you want to live in a dream world.


Strict protocols? Iraqis starve, yet Saddam has money to build palaces and give to terrorist groups. If Iraq has the money, why is it giving it to terrorists thousands of miles away, instead of, oh, buying food and medicine for their people?


See above remarks.

- Alan

[ssibal]

Originally posted by alancarre


Stronger means "relative to his victims". He is not stronger relative to the US, or any other army. But his grip on the country has been strengthened. That's because the general population (that hates him) has been weakened. Only those segments furthest removed from the military are the ones being hit hard.

Uhm, but he is still being weakened by them which is what their purpose is.

And what do you mean 'unfortunately'? If we know that we're killing civilians, then why don't we take steps to stop it? Is not the decision to let the orgy of death and suffering continue the same as deciding on it in the first place? The result is the same, and the power to alter the result rests in the same hands. And don't tell me that it's all Saddam's fault, because in this case it isn't. There are strict protocols in place to make sure that aid is used as intended.

Sorry but I do not buy the whole "we're killing civilians" line. I know you asked not to tell, but this is Saddam's fault. There is a reason the sanctions are in place, and it is not because we just want to kill all the Iraqi civilians. Saddam has and continues to make choices that result in our taking actions against him. I will repeat, that it is unfortunate that these actions have an adverse affect on his civilians but it is not our goal to kill the Iraqi civilians. Things will hopefully start improving next month.






No it doesn't. How can you think it falls under 3b? I'm anxious to hear your explanation.

Because they are in direct support of military action and as far as I know, all the water facilities were not bombed.

I think whoever ordered the destruction of the civilian infrastructure (that is necessary to sustain life), was targetting civilians yes. Further, those that took steps to make sure that the infrastructure could not be rebuilt are equally culpable. I don't for a second believe that civilians are somehow exempt from being targeted. They are a major nuisance, and will continue to be once the US (or a US puppet) has occupied the country. They will, after all, be facing the same problems that Saddam faces now.

That makes no sense, what does it accomplish to target and kill Iraqi civilians? I can understand if they were a human shield or something similar but to indiscriminantly kill Iraqi civilians makes absolutely no sense.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by ssibal


That makes no sense, what does it accomplish to target and kill Iraqi civilians? I can understand if they were a human shield or something similar but to indiscriminantly kill Iraqi civilians makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if you can put aside your humanity for a minute and try to think of it from an operational point of view. Random killing of civilians is, at best, of little tactical use (ie. terrorism). But mass killing can, and historically has been very useful. The point is that if you intend to implement an outright occupation, it is desirable to reduce the threat of insurgency or retaliation from the indigenous population. Reducing their numbers, or seriously weakening them, accomplishes that goal.

There's no proof that that is the thinking, but it is consistent with actions taken so far. There may be other, equally disturbing motives. One thing though: there is NO evidence that these mass killings were accidental or unavoidable. The consequences of the sanctions regime were layed out 12 years ago and have all come true. Whatever the motive, the equation looks something like this:

"X innocent Iraqi deaths" - "some benefit" = 0

Now it may be, you could argue, that "some benefit" includes saving lives in the future. Well, that could be. Personally I don't wish the US to be making that calculation on my behalf, nor deciding for instance, to sacrifice my life on the basis of such analysis.

- Alan

"Kill one person you're a murderer, kill a million you're a conqueror... Go figure" -- Some movie I saw once