| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| If I may...; A reply to a cognizant antiIraq argument | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 16 2004, 03:01 PM (441 Views) | |
| Dwayne | May 16 2004, 03:01 PM Post #1 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10557 http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewto...p=103297#103297 The Jihad in Afghanistan will broaden until the entire world will be conquered because Allah has promised the victory to Islam Abdullah Azzam Ah unclejohn ... another quasi-intellectual pontificating endlessly your 'Byrnesian' idiocy to the adoration of other perpetually pompous peacocks who only have a resemblance of intelligence.
Before September 11th, before anyone recognized there was a war being waged, law enforcement was an important component in that war, but after 9-11 the strategy had to change. Law enforcement is reactive; first a crime must happen before the police can act. Law enforcement cannot act like an army and stop terrorism at the source, before it reaches America's shores. The stakes are now too high to pretend that every port or harbor and every airport is secure. A free society is too open to cover every entrance into the nation or even police the thousands of miles of borders. The only thing that's can ultimately stop terrorism is stopping it at its source; sometimes the military is a necessary facet in confronting terrorism at its source.
Is this to imply that nations that support terrorism haven't been identified? Of course not. State Sponsors of Terrorism In the immediate area surrounding the Middle East, there are four major state sponsors of terrorism. These state sponsors are nations whose government actively supports terrorist organizations. ![]() Iran ![]()
Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and has started operations in Iraq supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Iraq ![]()
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq sponsored Hamas. There are elements from both Syria and Iran, and from the former regime who are carrying out terrorism in Iraq. Sudan ![]()
There is sectarian violence against Christians by the Muslim government in the Sudan. Syria ![]()
Syria supports Hamas, Hezbollah and is currently giving free passage into Iraq. Analysis The palatable euphemism "state sponsor" is used to describe nations that wage covert wars of attrition against other nations using terrorist organizations. Each of these nations are complicit in organizing and funding terrorism. Any attempt to stop or reduce terrorism must, at the very least, address these four nations for what they are - purveyors of Islamists propaganda who provide bases for training and staging attacks on any nation of their choosing. In addition to nations that sponsor terrorism, individuals on the Arabian Peninsula provide large amounts of financial and material assistance. This assistance often comes under the aegis of Islam - Clerics and Islamic charities. ![]() To combat these state sponsors, extreme pressure must be brought to bear on the nation diplomatically, economically and/or militarily. Each nation is unique and will require a unique approach, Ultimately the goal being that the political leaders of the Middle East repudiate the individuals and religious figures inciting terrorist acts. As well, the political leaders must repudiate the attitudes that are ultimately used to justify a whole host of violent and inhuman acts towards other peoples; ie: honor killings, rape, infanticide, arranged marriages, homosexual homicide, terrorism, etc, etc. It is an attitude that permeate the whole of Middle Eastern culture, but isn't necessarily spread throughout all Muslim culture. It's something somewhat unique to that region of the planet. Terrorist Havens In the immediate area surrounding the Middle East, the State Department has identified six nations or territories as terrorist havens. This is distinct from sponsorship in that the nation-state does not direct national resources toward terrorist organizations, but that does not mean financial and/or material support is not available in these havens. Individual sympathizers will provide terrorist organizations that financial and/or material support. ![]() Afghanistan
Georgia
Lebanon
Palestinian Authority
Somalia
Yemen
Analysis The euphemism "terrorist haven" is used to describe nations with so little control of their own territory that most of their citizens live outside the law. Often these nations appear to sponsor terrorism, but are distinguished from state sponsor only in that the governments of these nations do not provide support to the terrorist organizations. To combat this, the United States has sought to improve diplomatic ties and sought permission to conduct covert operations with the nations in question. This strategy is best exemplified by the killing of Ali Qaed Senyan and 5 of his associates. In conjunction with Yemeni intelligence, the CIA destroyed the vehicle Senyan was riding in with a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone, which had been used to track Senyan some time. These types of operations continue to this day. Terrorist Transit The combination of lax security, state sponsorship and porous borders allow terrorists to effusively move from nation to nation. Very few natural borders exist between Middle Eastern nations, and where a border exists there are those willing to provide safe passage. In mass or individually, movement from Syria to Afghanistan and from Chechnya to Saudi Arabia occurs nearly unchecked. There are Jordanians in Iraq; there are Saudi Arabians and Chechens in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and there are Saudis in the Caucasus. ![]() There's a neophyte principle in chess called "Control the Center" - simply put, you want to dominate the area where the most activity occurs. Look at the above map and let that sink in for awhile. Terrorist Organizations To fully appreciate the dynamics of the Middle East, you have to examine the major Islamists terrorist organizations in the region. ![]() al Qaeda
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Hezbollah
Jamaat al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Inter-connections The inter-connectedness of the various terrorist organizations is the one factor that makes fighting a war against a single one of the organizations most difficult. ![]() al Qaeda A short list of connected terrorist organizations...
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad The connections between al Qaeda and Hamas tend not to be operational, but organizational.
Hezbollah
Jamaat al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Analysis Using the funding and materials provided by state sponsors, plus the ties these major terrorist organizations have established between themselves, make combating only one organization difficult. The end result being this, any gains on dismantling one organization is met with the remaining groups taking up the slack. The only approach to combating these organizations that will work is a broad based initiative akin to how the Justice Department combated the Mafia in America. Often the objective was to target as many of the organizations as possible. If not and only one family was brought down, the others would quickly fill in the void left behind. Law Enforcement
No one has suggested that using the military is the only way in which to fight the War on Terror. There is a whole hidden war not seen unless one looks for it. In Chechnya, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Jordan, battles on all fronts - military action, police action, and court action - all occur on almost a daily basis. Most of this "hidden war" is not America and American forces, but still the War on Terror. The strategy for fighting the War on Terrorism is a multifaceted effort and always has been. The Causes of Terrorism Like combating terrorism, the root causes are multifaceted. The Social Situation As was indicated earlier, the social conditions that bring about terrorism from the Middle East is an attitude toward women, children and the weak that permeates the whole of Middle Eastern culture, but isn't necessarily spread throughout all Muslim culture. This attitude fosters the type inhuman acts towards other peoples -- honor killings, rape, infanticide, arranged marriages, homosexual homicide, terrorism, etc, etc. -- that are so common to the Middle East.
Yes, we do, but sadly any attempts to undermine those social conditions are most often met with moral relevancy. "How dare you judge others culture, and just what right do you have to impose your western values on other cultures?" are the cries coming from so many. The Economic Situation The economic problems through the Middle East are closely related to the social problems. Women are not allowed to own land and often not allowed to work, children are exploited, and legal rights for anyone except adult men are nearly non-existent.
It is ironic that what Pres. Bush wants to bring about in the Middle East is exactly what is prescribe by this critic. So many in the west have a hard time wrapping around any strategic plan is the need to include the idea the Muslim cultures need to start accepting personal responsibility for how they've arrived at the point they are now. Many want to blame Jews or the West while ignoring the reality that the foundations for the present socio-economic conditions in the Middle East were laid many years ago before the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. The Historical Situation Any comprehensive strategy for combating terrorism must consider the historical roots for all that is happening today, and not dismiss those historical roots as "ancient history" or as an insignificant aspect of the problem. For Middle Eastern cultures - and why both the secular and sectarian, while opposed internally show a united front externally - this is about wounded pride of an empire lost and the reacquiring of that empire. From the beginning... Less than 100 years after the founding of Islam, it had gone from a religious empire on the Arabian Peninsula to one that covered the entire Middle East. Over the next 1000 years, Muslim armies spread Islam by the tip of the sword. Sweeping across North Africa and up across to Spain, up through the Balkans and right up to the Gates of Venice, and as far as east as the Philippines, Muslims carved out an empire that truly spanned the globe. The primary force that turned back the tide were the Crusaders, but it was done at a great cost in life on both sides. Over the next 500 years, there was a steady deconstruction of the Islamic empires, ending with the Ottoman Empire.
There is one point were Islamists and Pan-Arabist overlap, and that is the desire to create a greater Arab state. Where the two diverge is that the Pan-Arabist would likely stop at recreating the Ottoman Empire, but the Islamists would want to reconstitute the empire from the glory days of Islam and then some.
While the average Persian, Arab, Turk, Kurd or Nubian is probably content with just having a peaceful and fulfilling life, the Islamists and Pan-Arabists are not so content. They will wage their war until their objectives are accomplished, and the West will either ignore this to their own peril or recognize it to bring about an actual solution.
Not if France has anything to do with it. There are certain customs and practices in Turkey that make Turkey no better than Saudi Arabia. Honor killings are a prime example.
Hope is for fools and dreamers; only action brings about change and that is what is sorely lacking. Very few of the so called 'political leader' on any side has been willing to take action and do the right thing. Instead these leaders opt to do the easy thing. Never in history has the right action been the easy action.
Turkey is a quasi-democratic nation, but really, is that what the world really needs - merely democratic Islamic cultures? It is not that simple. Most of the time experiments in Islamic democracy devolve into mobocracy, because there's no respect for the individual. What happens is voters, incited by radical cleric, will turn out in mass to vote in a theocratic government that institutes Dhimmi status for non-Muslims, which ultimately is a perpetuation of the social conditions that results in the social conditions the west wants ... needs to eliminate.
This statement by johnny drips with irony, because it required a change of heart internally for such an event to occur, and that internal change would not have occurred had it not been for an unyielding, strong-arm and nearly unilateral American foreign policy designed to isolate Libya.
Ah, so you claim that the "US hinterland" is in a state of "hopelessness that is fed on by religious obscurantism". Well, if so, then where is the associated terrorism this situation is supposed to cause? I'm sure you might retort that it's only this way "[in] some respects", but I ask - in what respects? Are women denied the right to own land? Are men allowed to kill their pregnant daughters? Are there laws that allow killings to protect the honor of the family? That statement by johnny strikes me as a statement that cannot be supported by the facts.
War may not be the best way, but when there were other avenues available, too many didn't follow those paths out of some misguided sense of fairness. So now war is upon us, because Islamists had the audacity to cross the Atlantic to wage war on the American homeland.
Hello Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. No one claimed that the War on Terrorism would be a quick and short fix. Nor has anyone claimed the same about Iraq. But in what epitomizes "short-term thinking" critics have already declared a war lost that has barely been started. This is especially apparent in Iraq. Using this rational johnny just laid out, can one conclude that South Africa's hard won freedom is a failure due to all the violence still occur in that nation? I think not, but the johnny's argument could be made about most all of Eastern Europe, and large parts of Asia. But in the end, any strategy to fight terrorism that only focused on Afghanistan and not confront it everywhere else, is doomed to failure. ![]() The flow of support - the financiers - the materials - the propaganda - it's a complex web that can only be torn down the same way any spiders web is brought down - almost all at once and with any means necessary. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat." The right thing is never the easy thing, and sometimes the right thing appears impossible. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 16 2004, 03:39 PM Post #2 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
That is why I am suggesting the total isolation and indoctrination of the Iraqi people. First off, it separates them from the influx of money, weapons, and terrorists from other countries. Secondly, it will change them as a people. Japan had a similar disdain for the worth of the individual. If you did not succeed in battle or in life, you were without honor and deserved to die. This was a holdover of over a millenia of Bushido culture. However, the United States was able to give the Japanese populace an understanding and respect for human life. This is what I propose we do in Iraq. Unfortunately, many people do not have the intestinal fortitude for the tactics needed for this to occur. Despite the fact that they involve merely controlling the Iraqis and not slaughtering them by the billions (to paraphrase one person), they don't seem to understand that, unless the Middle Eastern way of thinking is changed, that we will never be at peace with them. The Muslem philosophy is too self-centered and rigid to accept the beliefs of other people. If this did not result in attacks in other countries and the killing of innocents, then I believe the West would be more then willing to let Muslems live in peace. However, the Muslems have shown that they are willing en masse, to support these actions either by providing direct support in the way of money or direct involvement, or indirect support in the way of not working to stop these groups. This cannot be allowed to continue as it will only mean more terrorist attacks no matter WHAT Western countries do to appease them. That is why any action must not only target the terrorists themselves, but must also target the Muslems themselves. Organizations like Al Quida and Hamas cannot exist without the support of the Muslem population. If you take away their primary source of resources (both human and material), they will quickly dry up and will no longer be a threat to us. People will say that this is unfair to the Muslem people and that we have no right to impose our ideals on them. However, the Muslems have no right to attack us in this fashion and we certainly have the right to defend the lives of our citizens in whatever way is necessary. If the public cannot stomach what needs to be done to stop the terrorist attacks, then the public should not be outraged when terrorist attacks occur. They occur only because the public held onto unrealistic ideals in an area that they are hardly experianced in, that being combat and war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | May 16 2004, 03:40 PM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
very well put - the war on terror is not a retaliation of 9-11 and al-Qaeda is not our only enemy. Looking at the data you have provided only the nave would claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 16 2004, 03:48 PM Post #4 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
is that sarcasm? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | May 16 2004, 03:49 PM Post #5 |
|
Time to put something here
|
No - why would you think it is? I agree with your findings |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 16 2004, 04:09 PM Post #6 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
My bad ... I apologize
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 16 2004, 04:15 PM Post #7 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I will personally be interested to see the war-bashers' reaction to this once the evidence is right in their face. I personally would never have found all of this information myself. For some reason or another, the facts seem to agree with my statements entirely. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 16 2004, 04:22 PM Post #8 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
It's really amazing when you step back and take a look at the whole thing and just how obvious all this is. But I guess its easy to lose sight of the total situation when you zoom into focus on just one thing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | May 16 2004, 08:38 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Its funny how the opposition claim that we who are for are not seeing the world in the complexity that it is, yet fail to see past this one operation and look at the war as a whole. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | May 16 2004, 11:04 PM Post #10 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
That is because they were not the ones who were attacked. The outrage and uncertainty was not shared by people like Somerled, and you can't transfer those feelings in words to make it clear. Bush made it clear. He said'with us, or against us". Our interests are more important than ever, otherwise we would have commitees of PC fanatics strangling our freedom and choking out the American Spirit.(see the U.N.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | May 17 2004, 08:55 AM Post #11 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Woooo, does that qualify as our biggest post ever? Thank you dwayne, very comprehensive. Looks like about 4-6 hrs work |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 17 2004, 09:39 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Very interesting - but alarmist and sounds like Rumsfeld / Bush Pro-War propoganda. You failed to mention Kazakistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and Pakestan as sources of funds, equipment, weapons and fighters. Not to mention very likely links between the Russian Marfia for who international turmoil and warfare and terrorism is a good thing (as it benefits them). Keep in mind that Ben Laden is a monster that your own CIA and government created (when the USSR occupied Afganistan and he was supported by them). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 17 2004, 09:47 AM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Why does DATA sound like propaganda to you? Because it may be true? Actually, Osama was NOT a creation of the CIA. Sorry, wrong again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 17 2004, 09:54 AM Post #14 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^ What he said
A mistake that Bush obviously does not want to repeat. But it seems that those who want to pull out too early, before democracy is properly established would be the ones forgetting this mistake and wanting to repeat it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 17 2004, 07:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
We all saw just how good the intelligence that was used to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq was - It was "rock solid" and "incontravertable" and proved nearly 100% wrong / fabricated / sexed up and just plain completely unreliable . That was alarmist , so is this stuff. What makes you think this stuff is any more reliable (given the sources) ? These being 1. The Council for Foreign Relations (Most of the .... errr? "data" came directly from the propoganda held in their pages) an ultra-right wing lobby group. 2. Christian Science Monitor / Houston Chronicle 3. The SF Chronicle 4. Aljazeerah 5. Islam Online 6. Slade.net (who ever they are) 7. Houston 24hr News ? 8. Boston Times 9. The Indian Express. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
















8:54 AM Jul 11