How to win the War on Terrorism

Lincoln · July 12, 2002, 17:11

Now we deserve to be terrorized? Uh oh, where are the babies...

Imran Siddiqui · July 12, 2002, 18:22

Yes Lincoln. Undoubtably, you've heard: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Well has been expanded. We know their issues, we know what to do, and we KNOW what has worked to stop terrorism in Northern Ireland. If we don't change, then it's 'shame on us'. Maybe my statement was a crude way to put it, but same difference.

Imran's point was that the Israelis should've addressed Palestinian terror like the British have recently addressed Irish terror - by examining their legitimate grievances, instead of increasing repression.

Bingo! When the Brits started listening to the disgrunted minority and started trying to address those problems, the violence fell dramatically. Violence only begets violence, as the British found out.

I do find it highly amusing that MANY Americans supported Irish terrorists as freedom fighters, but Palestinian terrorists are dirty terrorists. Perhaps some subtle racism plays in here as well?

Ming · July 12, 2002, 18:36

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I do find it highly amusing that MANY Americans supported Irish terrorists as freedom fighters, but Palestinian terrorists are dirty terrorists. Perhaps some subtle racism plays in here as well?

MANY?... Maybe you should have said "some"... because many implies just that. I doubt you could find any statistics to support "MANY". And yeah, I'm sure "some" people do... just like "some" people support the KKK... and "some" people support terrorist attacks against civilians

Imran Siddiqui · July 12, 2002, 18:39

Try just about all of New England during the 80s and early 90s, Ming. Most of the money to fund the IRA came from Bostonians.

And I don't recall any administration, until Clinton's, really saying the IRA was bad.

Lincoln · July 12, 2002, 18:48

That is all real nice but were we "opressing" OSB before he attacked us? If Israel needs to stop oppressing the Pals then fine, that is a good idea but what does that have to do with the motive for the attack against the United States?

Ming · July 12, 2002, 18:53

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Try just about all of New England during the 80s and early 90s, Ming. Most of the money to fund the IRA came from Bostonians.

Again... meaningless opinion... not based on facts. But, even if "ALL of Boston" was behind them, we are talking about only one percent of the US population

I find it sickening that ANYBODY can support ANY terrorist attacks on innocent civilians... and by the way, I never supported the IRA either. Terrorists are terrorists, no matter what their faith or skin color.

Imran Siddiqui · July 12, 2002, 18:56

Ming, but isn't it telling that an American President never said what the IRA did was wrong until the late 90s?

Ecthy · July 12, 2002, 18:57

Chris62, I'm appalled

chequita guevara · July 12, 2002, 19:02

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
It would sure as heck help their efforts if they gave up on terror entirely. Much as I want to be on the Pal side of the conflict, every time they pull another "ha! got a schoolbus!" I can't help but to think that the Israelis should flush them all... for the benefit of mankind at large.

Taking this statement as an example. Palestinians know what Israel's demands and concerns are, from the left to right. When extremist Palestinians committ acts of terror, then those elemnts in Israelis society gain more support from mainstream Israelis. Thus, it is in the interest of Palestinians to respond to Israel's legitimate concerns. This would go a long way to ameliorating the support for Sharon and other Israeli extremists.

We can all see that this is logical. However, when we turn it around and say that "our" side should stop engaging in the activity that drives the Arab/Moslem mainstream towards exremists, we are accussed of giving in to terror. Rather I like to think we are pulling the rug out from underneath the terrorists. If the mainstream sees we take their concerns seriously, then they will not be drawn to extremists to have their concerns addressed.

Ming · July 12, 2002, 19:02

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ming, but isn't it telling that an American President never said what the IRA did was wrong until the late 90s?

I didn't say that I speak for the president... I don't find it telling at all... I will assume that as usual, it's a political issue... It's all about votes. If you are looking for the high moral ground in the White House, you are looking in the wrong place.

Saint Marcus · July 12, 2002, 19:12

1) He says to take the words of terrorists at the face value, and assumes that they will stop attacking the Us if we give in to those demands.

2) But if we take their words at face value, then shouldn't we acknowledge that when they say they will destroy the hedonistic western civilization that they'll try to no matter what?

Hmmm, I may be nitpicking in your logic, but can't you just pospone invasion? I mean, just give in and see what happends. If the US is still targetted, you can always give the call and bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/bananaville then. What's the rush? Why should the US be so trigger happy? Yes I know it's the American way to shoot first and ask questions later, but may it not be possible to ask those questions first, and then shoot if needed? Sounds a lot better to me.

Saint Marcus · July 12, 2002, 19:14

He owns a huge construction company

he gave that up years ago.

Saint Marcus · July 12, 2002, 19:31

Also, the "argument" some of you use, "we will not give in to terrorism", doesn't hold ground at all. You expect other countries to "give in" when you attack them, why is this any different? Don't like being on the recieving end of a war? You reap what you sow.

you've been attacked, find the reasons why you were attacked, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Problem solved.

But no, you think: we've been attacked, our pride is hurt, we must strike back. Which in turn leads to the other side thinking: "they've attacked us again, we should strike back and hit them harder this time". A vicious cycle of violence. Nothing is solved, and only more bloodshed is the result. But you got your revenge, and that's what matters right? Hope you can sleep well at night.

Sirotnikov · July 12, 2002, 19:37

When terrorists make demands, take them at their word. When bin Laden says he wants us to remove our military bases from the Arabian peninsula, drop trade sanctions against Iraq and stop arming Israel, believe it: that's exactly what he wants.

That's a nice piece of appeasement loving that our lefties sirely appriciate.

It may or may not be wise to give into these demands

Whoooaaa!!!

Did every lefty in Apolyton read that?

Did any european, or communist actually thought that perhaps, it is not wise to give in to bin Laden's demands, just because he is a suicidal maniac?

Or maybe it is not wise to give in to demands made by suicidal maniacs at all?

: 9-11 was an act of revenge for more than a decade of perceived insults and abuses.

So we're supposed to be forgiving and understanding to them slaughtering innocent people, because they percieve they are abused?

Muslims around the world watched in anger and despair as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, first in the Gulf War

Which was none other than Saddam's fault.

and later as the result of U.S.-imposed trade sanctions and daily bombing raids over Iraqi cities.

to prevent Iraq from getting the same weapons that al-Qaeda currently try to get.

This is ludicrous. If we haven't done all that, then there would be no 9/11/2001, but instead Saddam would have had nukes in 1993 and used them too.

They were appalled by the continuing carnage in the endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a meat-grinder that claimed a grossly disproportionate number of Palestinians.

Merely because a disproportionate number of Palestinians participates in terror, and a dispropotionate number of them often become victims of fire exchanges.

According to Muslims I've met from Amman to Tashkent to Karachi, President Clinton's 1998 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan were the last straw.

According to Hitler, not giving him Poland, was the last straw.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist;

That's what you'd like us to blieve.

But terrorist is anyone who targets innocent civilians. Period.

No matter for what goal you do it - once you target civilians you are a terrorist.

Guerilla warfare against military and government targets is acceptable. Targetting civilians is not.

This whole relativist babble is horse manuer. "One man's murderer is another man's entertainer / what ever".

A murderer is a murderer once he murdered. His motiefs make a difference in his sentance. He is still a murderer though.

Desperate, determined individuals whose political and other concerns are systemically excluded from mainstream discourse by those in power form resistance organizations.

Such as the Fascist party, the Nazi party and other bodies which we surely should let into political discourse

Few members know other members save the person who recruited them and one or two more they themselves recruit.

Where does he get this stuff from? His arse I bet.

Is this why the Israeli Shin Bet successfully arrests more and more terrorists? Because they do not know each other and thus unable to rat out?

Keep babling about things you know about instead.

[b]These tactics hardly ever work. [/q]
The Soviet union did a good job.
So did Syria on 20,000 muslim extremists which are now all extict together with their entire village.
So did Jordan to PLO in 1970.

Who doubts that Hamas recruits new members among those who watch Israeli bulldozers knock down their neighbors' homes?

Who is stupid enough to think that if Israel hasn't bulldozed down homes, Hamas would suddenly decide to stop sending suiciders?

I dont' recall any homes bulldozed in Sept 2000.

But you can no more bomb a resistance organization out of existence

Syria did that successfully.
Israel almost did that PLO, but then reinstated it.

than you can track down every one of the estimated 40,000 Al Qaeda members

Israel did that to the assassins of the sportsmen in Munich.

That broad-based outrage, in the form of millions of dimes and quarters dropped into collection plates in mosques worldwide, should serve as a signal that, just maybe, American policies in the Middle East and elsewhere should be reassessed.

rephrase:

The broad based outrage of Nazis in the form of millions of men going to the army, should serve as a signal that just maybe, they have a serious claim over Europe and the destruction of Jews.

Addressing Islamist demands-not caving in outright-would eliminate most of the broad-based Muslim support for jihadi groups. Moreover, they'd do us more good than harm

Good. This is positive.

You hear that euros - you address the demands. Not cave in outright. You do not cave in to Saddam. You do not cave in before bin-Laden. You do not cave in. Period.

Stopping or reducing our $3 billion per annum flow of arms to Israel would allow us to truly act as an impartial negotiator in the Middle East, not to mention put a dent in the deficit

This is nonsense which should be sunshine clear to anyone with any economy concept.

The $3 billion per year that America gives us, go right back into the American market - the arms market. It has the same effect on the American deficit as if the govt. would simply give $3 billion per year directly to the Arms companies.

He wants to fix the deficit at the expense of the American industry? Excellent

Furthermore, do you really think that just because Israel doesn't get $3 billion in arms per year, but with a power Jewish lobby and Zionist Christians in the Government and pro-Israelis in the Pentagon, the US will ever be considered impartial by the Muslims?

This man is either fooling you or is a fool himself. He's out hunting wolves armed with only with a duck whistle.

Take away the cause's raison d'être and the cause goes away.

1930s.
Germany found it's way out of the limitations of the versailles treaty.
Germany's every territorial wish until September was fullfilled.

Wait.... this means that WWII shouldn't have happenned, right?

I mean, there were no longer arms controls, land depravation and other things.

So what was the real reason for the war?
Hitler and Naziism.

And the allies slowly understood that and only after they got rid of that, did peace lay upon the land.

Just like now the real reasons for the war are bin-Laden, Hattami, Saddam, Assad and fundamentalists and terrorists.

Removing the causes without removing the instigators (all the people mentioned earlier) will not solve the problem.

Sure, fullfilling the demands is important. And it is part of the solution. But it is not a sufficient solution. And that's what lefties through out the last 100 years are ignoring - and it comes back to bite them in the arse.

chequita guevara · July 12, 2002, 19:41

I think you've been misunderstanding us all along, Siro.

Sirotnikov · July 12, 2002, 19:43

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's much smarter than lets smack them and make them madder at us so they can kill us again.

You're right.

Everyone knows that caving in to bullies and running away is the best way

Frankly, if there are any other terracts in the US by Arabs, we deserve them. We haven't changed anything and just became the same bullies we were before.

If they employ terracts, aren't they bullies?
I would think so.

Sirotnikov · July 12, 2002, 19:50

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Also, the "argument" some of you use, "we will not give in to terrorism", doesn't hold ground at all. You expect other countries to "give in" when you attack them, why is this any different? Don't like being on the recieving end of a war? You reap what you sow.

There are two ways of managing a conflict.

Winning - which is the best option, but then you have to fight and risk the failure of losing.
Surviving - which is what you are suggesting. Ingoring terror tendencies and appeasing demands will only feed the beast. Look at any historical example - you can't feed the irrational illogical beast of terror.

How can you consider people who don't blink when they kill thousands of innocent civilians possible of rational thought is beyond me.

Chamberlaine thought the same way you did - and was proven wrong, with harsh consequences.

I only wish we won't have to go through it again.

you've been attacked, find the reasons why you were attacked, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Problem solved.

Reasons why the west is attacked:

1) the muslim and arab world is currently poor, opressed and backward. It feels the need to prove superiority.

2) the autocratic leaders, be they religious or not, channel popular descent against the evil west, which is different and non religious and non muslim.

3) the muslim world wishes to hold it's grounds and not lose more territory. israel is part of that territory which islam claims.

Chris 62 · July 12, 2002, 19:51

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Chris62, I'm appalled

You should be Andy.

That might be the stupoidest article seen in some time.

The heart of this matter is simple, some people want the US to do what they say, and if the US refuses, they will attempt to kill as many as they can.

To even attempt to talk to such a bunch is pointless.

Next, the matter of US "adressing" the desires of the Islamic man in the street.
Ask me if I give a rat's ass what his desires are, the fact is the USA is blamed for any problem they may have.
For example, our friend Saddam right above me (Love that avatar marky, he looks so happy!) totally disreguarded the cease-fire of 91, and still flaunts it, because sanctions don't bother him personally, but Imran's "man on the arab street" is told the USA is starving babies in Iraq.
The guy that causes the problem draws politcal benifit from it, as amazing as that is.
I would care if they brought their complaints to us in a civilized fashion, point by point, but as long as they think murdering us is a good theme for a dance party, no dice.

Let's talk about Israel, what right does a man in Saudi Arabia have to tell the US whom it wants to ally with?
Who it gives weapons and aid to?
Sorry, as a nation that the US's choice, if Americans don't want that they can tell the government to stop it, but I have yet to see anybody beating down the doors of Congress to do this.
To say we have to pander to some clown walking the streets of Theran is insane.

I do agree with some things, like total withdrawl and severing ties with Saudi Arabia, in fact, I would be in favor of severing ties WITH ALL nations that don't give a fig about women's rights, and treat freedom like a joke.
Unfortunatly that would mean almost the entire Muslim world, but that's just my opinion (not all of it, and I'm not talking about religion, they can believe what they want, but since they like to treat women like property, I can do without them. And spare me any assinine charge of racism, I don't think I'm better then them as person, or as a people, or through religion, I just find this medieval attitude sickening).

On Palestine, I think it was Moomie who hit the nail on the head, if terror ended the state they want would be built overnight, but they will never get by blowing up children and old ladies and calling those bombers martyrs and heros.
I think they sure as hell should have a country, damn over-do, but they will never get it this way.

One last thing, I realize this seems rather harsh to some, but I have a real F*ck you attitude with people who try to kill me and mine, they can kiss my ass before I'll care what they think, simply because they tried to kill me.
I'm funny that way.

Oh, and Imran, if we go by your "The US deserves it" attitude, the USA would be withen it's rights to nuke Mecca, since their lose change was behind terror against the US.
After all, they brought it on themselves.

Ecthy · July 12, 2002, 20:32

Chris, that article is fine.

Siro, the first side to bring up the nazis loses the debate

chegitz, I agree.

Chris 62 · July 12, 2002, 20:37

If you like it, that's fine with me.

I don't agree.

I should write that next time, to save typing time.

Ramo · July 12, 2002, 20:44

Frankly, if they sat down and did nothing at all for a year, their state would be handled to them on a silver platter.

The Pals tried that in '81-'82. In response, they were invaded by Israel.

Lincoln · July 12, 2002, 20:47

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

he gave that up years ago.

So now he is broke? Did he give all the money away? Of course he is probably broke now because he is probably dead thanks to the war on terrorism. Or maybe we should have just sat down to reason with him?

chequita guevara · July 12, 2002, 20:58

No, OBL's not broke, but his family officially cut ties with him about ten years ago. They do to much business with the Bushes to jeapordize it by offically associatiing with Osama. Unofficially, he still calls his momma, at least up until 9/11. Two of his brothers are associated with an organization which has known links to terrorism (though the FBI investigation into that got quashed by the Bush II administration).

OBL probably doesn't have access to his money right now, with the crack down on the Islamic informal "banking" system. However, it's not really needed, since rich Saudis are still supporting various organizations against us. Neither the Saudis no the US is seriously looking into the Royal connections.

Lincoln · July 12, 2002, 21:08

He probably doesn't have access to much at all in the grave.

Imran Siddiqui · July 12, 2002, 21:19

Everyone knows that caving in to bullies and running away is the best way

Yes, like Britain did with Northern Ireland.

I also like how Siro likes to compare Palestinians to Hitler's Germany, when the proper comparision is with the Isreali government.

cia · July 12, 2002, 21:38

Here's the deal.
First, why don't all these hard-working terrorists blow up and assasinate the Saudi royal family if they don't like them? A plane or two anyone?
Second, I say we withdraw our support from the Saudi Royals and let them get whacked. The next terrorist attack on the US will be met with a full-scale invasion and war on Saudi Arabia, followed by occupation. Oil problem solved.
Third, the damn Iraqi people are starving for two reasons, Hussein wants to spend the money on weapons and their suffering is a political tool of control. Please point to a time when he fed them and they were prosperous before rebutting this with some flippant comment.
Fourth, the poor people of the Middle East have now been completely indoctrinated into what to think. Appealing to their higher sensibilities will not work.

Imran Siddiqui · July 12, 2002, 21:50

Please point to a time when he fed them and they were prosperous before rebutting this with some flippant comment.

Um... THE ENTIRE 80s!! Iraq was the richest Arab state before the Gulf War and the most modern.

cia · July 12, 2002, 21:53

Imran,
HUH!
Ever hear of the Iran/Iraq war?

Sirotnikov · July 12, 2002, 22:22

Imran, the Israeli government is infact doing exactly what the Brittish government has done.

So if you are comparing us to nazis, you are comparing 1940s Brittain to nazis.

chequita guevara · July 12, 2002, 22:28

Although the Iran/Iraq war produced hardship, the people of Iraq were probably the best off of any Arab state. You could make claims about the Arab gulf states, but their great prosperity came on the enmiseration of their foreign workers, who made up a majority of the population of the Gulf States.

Siro, the anaolgy to Hitler you are making might be correct, except you are off by a decade. In "appeasing" terrorist the anaolgy with Hitler would be this. The German people are attracted to the Nazis because of the humiliating terms of Versailles, the lack of decent employment, and the political instablity of Germany. You could, do nothing, and watch the Nazis recruit ever more people and finally take power, or you could address the underlying problems that make the Nazis look attractive: abolish the indemnities imposed on the Germans, start a jobs program so people can have work, both of which would help stabilize the society.

No of course, because the nutjob violent Nazi minority (along with the majority of Germans) support such a simple program, if the Allies gave in, that would be appeasement in your definition. I think it's stopping a problem before it starts.