An Observation on Terrorism (AQ)

[AlexCrowley 0]

Sorry to join in here, but the meds are wearing off...

In this thread theres been a lot of discussion about Al Quaida and very little about domestic terrorism, which is something that should concern people, usually made up of a subculture who feel their rights have been trampled by the oppressive government in power.

From what I recall of reading the CIAs 2000 report on terrorism there is no one country on the planet that does not have a domestic terrorist group.

A War on Terrorism, by definition, requires more than launching bombs at dark skinned people in hot climates where you coincidentally need a military presence due to having to leave your last residence due to restless natives.

As an English ex-pat who grew up at a time when the IRA was very active and blew up my town and the surrounding area with just enough time between that we'd all forget exactly how the town center looked with windows blown out, terrorism is something that I've taken for granted and read a little about.

Someone may have mentioned this, but as hard as it may be to step outside of an emotional reaction (because its TERRORism), it isnt about bodycount.

It's *never* about the bodycount. Bodycount is incidental. It's about "terror" and it's about ideologies. It's about 'I am right, you are wrong' and not being well funded enough to have your own standing army. It's Public Relations pure and simple. I hate to break it down this way, because usually this conversation gets me flamed heavily.

Terrorists require an authority to oppress them, or at least give that illusion. I'm still not sure how the US occupying Iraq based on faulty intelligence is considered a positive on the war on terror.

It doesnt matter the truth of it. It's like the difference between Michael Moore and Bill ORielly. They're both insane and if they were heavily armed I would be afraid of both of them, but if Michael Moore is saying 'hey, its great the US have come to bring us freedoms' while Bill is saying 'These invaders are on our soil and killing our families, and we're all poor and our religion says we shouldnt tolerate this'...well at first you're goint to think Bill is crazy, but after the fifth of sixth month without power, a job, food, stability and having to duck bullets every time you leave the house to grab a big mac you're going to start thinking that perhaps Michaels' a tool and that Bill is great and its time to start passing out the ammunition.

Am I saying provide therapy to terrorists? Of course not. I think I read an earlier post that seemed to make sense as far as the options go.

I guess my point, as I approach rationality, terrorism is more than Al Qauida - even tho they get the most press. It's like the IRA ceasefire, all of a sudden there were 20 groups we'd never heard of blowing crap up.

What is terrorism? I live in Boston Mass now, I've had beers where people 'collect for the cause'. I dont recall seeing Marines storm the bar and start arresting terrorist sympathizers. Would I say that outloud in Boston?? HELL NO!!! Here they're freedom fighters.

Now, I'm from the older, more historied and educated nation - hell we created our own church before you guys were around - does this give Tony Blair the right to invade Boston? If he does could he bring some decent fish and chips? Where do conflicting perspectives resolve? Is it mob rule? Can we get an electoral college to vote which groups are terrorists and which ones are freedom fighters? Dont understand where I'm going with this? Check out Irans leadership over the last 100 years and the various twists and turns that took and under who's influence and who was bad and who was good and why.

If its about 'evil terrorists' = 'a countries public opinion' + 'body count' + 'perverting religion' then there are some who could make a pretty good argument for Iraqis seeing the US as terrorists.

Here's my question about the iraqis....

If an insurgency is a rebellion against an established government then the iraqiis cannot be insurgents (since the conflict started before ratification of the parliament and the installation of any form of official rule). That makes them either terrorists or freedom fighters, but not insurgents. But why would they not call terrorists terrorists? Beats the hell out of me, maybe there's a difference between iraqi terrorist-freedom-fighters and alquada terrorists.....perspective again, i guess you cant be on TV denouncing uncle ahmed and aunt tizzie as terrorists when insurgents makes them sound just a little confused as to what the reality is.

Back here in the US Tim McVeigh had pretty light skin from what I saw. I doubt he had time to read the koran between bible study and chem 101.

[edited to add] In 1996 the Olympic bombings were done by a radical fundamentalist christian Eric Rudolph, an anti-abortionist who also bombed 3 abortion clinics. As a young man Rudolph allegedly took up the beliefs of Christian Identity, an extremist sect whose primary belief is that white people are God's chosen people, and everyone else is doomed to an eternity in Hell. Christian Identity also preaches the evils of homosexuality, prostitution, abortion and general sexual unseemliness of all sorts. Records indicate that Rudolph moved among many radical religious and racist groups in the US.

The fact is that terrorism is a hydra, you cut off one head and 7 more pop up. By constant public aggression towards a subset of a small culture (of any nationality or creed) and you will, undoubtably, prove to the moderate members of that culture that the zealots just may have been correct, at which point they radicalize.

This is why AQ were reportedly happy with Bush winning a second term (sorry, that was the reported reaction, not me making a judgment on the current administration). Because it meant that the public face of the US in the middle east would be one seen heavily armed, dirt streaked and oppressing their brothers - REGARDLESS of the reality of all the positive work being done by the soldier on the ground.

Terrorism = Madison Ave, with some camo and plastique and an ideology.

I appreciate your patience following this rambling post. Please direct all flames to /dev/null

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rehmwa 2]

Nicely put - without the usual junk trash or as many buzz words along with it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lummy 4]

an article I was reading over the weekend was stating that 3/4 of all suicide (murder) bombings have happened after 9/11.Granted, and also stated in the article, suicide bombings are the attack of choice in Iraq and account for a large # of the total #

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8599758/page/1/

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 2,476]

>They are failing. And I think a whole lot of it has to do with the "war
> on terror," . . .

It's far closer to a "war on arabs" than "a war on terror" unfortunately.

-----------------------------------------
Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
War radicalized most, probes find
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

The studies, which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the ''central front" in a battle against the United States.

''The terrorists know that the outcome [in Iraq] will leave them emboldened or defeated," Bush said in his nationally televised address on the war at Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month. ''So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction." The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, he repeated this month, ''so we do not have to face them here at home."

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.
-------------------------------------------


>rather than good diplomacy or financial handouts and 'group therapy.'

Facts don't support that. Again, most Al Qaeda arrests have come because of our allies i.e. because, through good diplomacy, they are willing to support us. Like it or not, it is French police and Pakistani border guards, not US troops, who are taking down Al Qaeda.

>Frankly, I'm not too terrified. I'm not worried about the guy next to
>me in the supermarket, I'm not too concerned about the guy at the
> post office, and I haven't had too many qualms about the people
> I've shared an airplane with. And I'm average.

I'm suprised you think that is a reasonable argument. Let me try this:

We are winning the war on leukemia. I'm not worried about getting it. I don't know much about the stats, but I have no concerns that I will get it and die, or that Amy will get it and die. And I'm average, so I'm representative.

Would that argument fly with you?

[Guest]

The Stranger magazine, Seattle's version of the LA Weekly (Seattle Weekly too) is of liberals, by liberals, and for liberals. They've never met a leftist/liberal cause they didn't like.

Yet here is what they had to say about the London bombings:

"If You Think Islamist Terrorism Is Political, You’re Wrong"

If you blamed last week's terrorist bombing of London, in which at least 52 civilians were killed and more than 700 were injured, on the war in Iraq, you're not alone. Before the smoke had even begun to clear, the Guardian published a series of Bush- and Blair-bashing editorials. The bluntest was by dissident intellectual writer/activist Tariq Ali, who deemed it "safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq" and argued that "the real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine."

Even less equivocal was George Galloway, a socialist MP whose constituency includes the Marble Arch tube station (17 casualties), who urged "the government to remove people in this country from harm's way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East. Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence."

And then there were the pundits on this side of the Atlantic, like Bob Herbert who editorialized in the New York Times that "last week's terror bombings in London should be seen as a reminder that Mr. Bush's war... has actually increased the danger of terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies."

So you see, you're not alone. You're not even far from the mainstream. What you are is wrong. You may also be simple-minded, fascist-sympathetic, self-hating, or a religious fanatic. But your stunning incorrectness—after all you've been given a chance to learn about al Qaeda and its apologists—towers above all your other dubious attributes. Despite claims by "The Secret Organization of al Qaeda in Europe" that the bombing was in retaliation for British involvement in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite the red herring coincidence of the G8 summit in Glasgow, this was an attempt to frighten the world into believing in God—and not just any God, either.

Good people all over the world are seething with legitimate rage about every facet of the war in Iraq, from the lies President Bush enlisted to justify it, to the insufficient body armor American troops have been provided with to wage it. Even those who were most gung ho on the eve of invasion have begun to find artful ways of retroactively withdrawing their support. They're not wrong—you don't need to be a genius to smell a quagmire brewing. But to connect the invasion of Iraq with the bombing of London represents the worst kind of moral blindness, because it invests the act with a political and spiritual legitimacy to which it is simply not entitled. The perpetrators of this mass murder have no legitimacy—political, spiritual, or otherwise. They're just murderers. If you believe the bombers had a legitimate grievance because you feel the war in Iraq is wrong, please consider the other talking points on the agenda you tacitly support (as enumerated in London's Daily Mirror by Christopher Hitchens): "The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law... The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a license to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way."

Amen, I say. This was not a political act (though politics were its Trojan horse). It was a religious one. And religion must be held accountable. No matter how much you hate Bush or Blair or their policies, they're no more responsible for the bombing of London than WMDs were responsible for the invasion of Iraq. It's clear that they're not helping matters by continuing the pretense that the war is going well, or that Iraq is anywhere near sustainable sovereignty. But that's another discussion. Yes, it's related; but it's only central if you accept the terms of discourse laid out by the bombers.

The irrational faith of a splinter sect of Islam is responsible for the bombing of London, and of Madrid, and of Bali, and of New York, and of Washington D.C. The argument for withdrawing troops from Iraq is part of another discussion, and an important one. There need be no discussion, however, that even if the coalition were to withdraw all troops today, even if no troops had ever been sent to Baghdad, or to Kabul, or to Kuwait, even if George W. Bush had never been elected, London, Madrid, New York, and D.C. would still be mourning, and another attack—Italy, Denmark, anywhere—would be in the works. I agree that Iraq was a mistake that keeps getting worse. But when that conflict ends, we'll still be at war (just like we were before the invasion). If we fail to parse the distinctions between these two related-but-also-unrelated battles, we're doomed.

One last quote, this time from a dead American writer: In the 1936 collection The Crack-Up, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Though the line is 70 years old, it provides a working definition for liberal thinking that liberals, particularly those who railed against Bush's incapacity for complex reasoning, should embrace—especially when they consider its far lesser-known follow-up line: "One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

[email protected]


All emphasis is mine.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Skyrad 0]

Tony Blair’s positioning of Britain as a “pillion passenger” to the US war on terror is proving a key problem in preventing terrorism in Britain, a respected think-tank will on Monday warn.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs will also claim there is “no doubt” the war on Iraq has imposed “particular difficulties” for the UK’s counter-terrorism efforts.


Hmmm.....'The Stranger'???? or the FT?

No FT? No comment.


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e7b346dc-f6ec-11d9-aeff-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=46d6f5a8-d260-11d8-b661-00000e2511c8.html

The report, which was commissioned long before the London bombings, is a setback for the prime minister, who has insisted the attacks had no direct connection with Britain’s support for the US over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The institute argues in the report, co-written with the Economic and Social Research Council, that the conflict in Iraq, designed to counter state-sponsored terrorism, has damaged the UK and the wider coalition against terror.

“It gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, cause a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for al-Qaeda linked terrorists and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government [in Afghanistan],” the report states.

Britain’s ability to tackle terrorism has been damaged by its commitment to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US, leaving it as a “pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat”, the report says. “Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign.”

The UK was slow to react to the threat posed by Islamist terrorist activity, the report says. It states that by the mid-1990s, the UK’s intelligence agencies were “well aware” that London was being used as a base by individuals linked to terrorism in the Middle East but did not regard them as a threat to national security.

But the report broadly supported the more recent approach taken to counter the al-Qaeda threat, saying that notwithstanding the failure to predict the July 7 bombings, “the UK has rightly placed a major response emphasis on intelligence-led action to disrupt potential terrorists”.

The think-tank’s warning about the effects of Iraq on the terrorist threat in the UK will fuel dissent on the left wing of the Labour party over the domestic risk created by Mr Blair’s foreign policy. John McDonnell, a leftwing MP, claimed it was “intellectually unsustainable” to suggest the bombings were not linked to the invasion of Iraq.

Clare Short, the former Labour cabinet minister, told the GMTV Sunday Programme there was “no doubt” Iraq was a factor.

But Sadiq Khan, the Labour Muslim MP for Tooting, warned it was “very dangerous” to make a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks. “It’s a very simple and easy thing to do . . . but I think it’s more complex than that,” he said.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[idrankwhat 0]

The war on terrorism is working, if you consider creating more terrorists the goal.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

Quote