Fighting Terrorism...

Generic_Dave

Okay, I'm not sure if this is the place to be posting this, but I'm gonna go ahead and see what happens. I've been thining in the last little while, that it seems people believe that there's this big huge entity out there in the darkness, it's tendrils hide in caves, suburbs, in city centres and even under our beds. Global Terrorism, it's a phrase that seems to suggest that out there, somewhere there's a terrorist equivilent of the Pentagon. Whether it's Chechen rebels fighting the Russians, Al-Queda, Tamil Tigers, The Iraqi resistence or Hamas. In the words of George W Bush "You're either with us or you're against us."

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists. I mean, I know that some of these groups espouse a creed that seems to mirror the US "with us or against us stance" but in the North and in the Basque region ideals were also espoused which seemed just as incompatable with the order that was and yet through dilligence and hard work and a willingness to trust each other has yielded more results than carpet bombing Lebanon and invading Iraq. So basicly what I want to know is when did diplomacy die?

Sleepy

Short answer: when they put a redneck in the White House.

Jackie laughlin

There's a difficulty in defining terrorism but certainly Lebanon and Iraq have nothing at all to do with terrorism.

It is true that talking to terrorists in Ireland "corrupted" them to the point that after decades of killing and maiming for a united Ireland, they are now gasping to be Stormont ministers. However, the price was a perhaps fatal undermining of the constitutional SDLP and the creation of a nascent fascist party capable of winning Dail, Stormont and Westminster seats. Moreover, the "Real IRA" are at it again with firebombs.

The reason that talks with the IRA "worked" was that they knew they were defeated and had to try something else. Their convicts in particular wanted to pack it in and get out of jail.

Generic_Dave

Sleepy wrote:

Short answer: when they put a redneck in the White House.

It's not just America, Russia's been beating the living s**t outta Chechnya for quite some time now. It's just become more visual since GW got into the White House because America has a, moderately, free press and they're so damn heavy handed. But I can't sincerely believe that it's all Bushes fault.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There's a difficulty in defining terrorism but certainly Lebanon and Iraq have nothing at all to do with terrorism./QUOTE/

Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

What's happening in Iraq and Lebanon IS Terrorism, regardless of how you or I feel about the motives behind the actions.

The IRA also started attempting to talk to the British governments long before the feeling was reciprocated. And how can America, Britain, Israel, Russia KNOW that these negoiation won't work? They even use the Terrorist label to undermine Palestine's democratic selection of Hamas as their government. Cutting off aid and assistance, just when it looked as though Hamas might just be able to get the country together. But if we take away the rights we say we're trying to defend just because we don't like the elected, we're just undermining the position of the democratic process not just in Palestine but everywhere.

Maybe I'm just a bit idealistic or thick, but I just don't understand how these actions are seens as "fighting terrorism".

esskay

Generic_Dave wrote:

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists.

Negotation is not the aim of the war on terror, and neither is eliminating terrorists. The aim is to allow the U.S. to use force when and where is sees fit to further its own global economic agenda. Iraq was a battered and destitute state long before the U.S. decided to invade. Iraq was a "test case" for the U.S. to see if, by using mass progaganda and coercion of other governments, they could ingnore U.N. charters and international law and invade a country because they thought it was necessary. I am not saying Saddam was not guilty of horrendous attroceties, but there are far worse cases (North Korea, who they won´t touch cause they could because they could put up a fight)) around that get ignored. Iraq was an easy target they could start with, put a "democratic", U.S. friendly government in place and effectively take over the country´s economy. They are also now demonising the people of iraq who are fighting back against the invasion of their country. The U.S. corporations will be allowed to run riot with Iraq´s resources just as they are doing in South America and Asia. For example, I was in India recently and read an article about the exploits of Coke. They are using so much of india´s water to produce bottled drinks that in loads of places the local populace´s wells are running dry. ffs it´s happening in Ireland too. Shell has the rights to the gas fields off the west coast of Ireland and our government sold these right without getting and stake in the profits it will generate. Even Nigeria, when they sold right to oil feilds, got 50% of the profit. What do that say about our government? Sucking the U.S. corporate c%&k big time!

hobochris

one thing that keeps on poping up in my head is who are the real terrorists here?

The apparently unknown people that for all we know have all been caught by now or the media and government???

becuase while they have people scared of this terrorist threat, they have them in an easily controlable state where they can justify doing almost anything in the publics safety..
i mean lets face it, terrorism is a licence for governments to do alot of ****... all they have to do is get the media to throw some bull**** properganda in and then they can go ahead and do what they want... i mean take iraq for example... were thoose apparent weapons of mass destruction ever found? or was it just and easy way to get people to agree to allowing there sons and daughters go and die so that america would have more control over the oil industry...

I mean if we keep going on without questioning things, thinking its for our own safety we'll end up in a society like that in V for vendetta... where the government has full control over us...

i feel that the governments of world ( eu and u.s. ect..) need to be reminded that they work for the people and not vise versa...

Sand

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists.

Generally because Jihadist terrorism is not of the same breed as that of the IRA or ETA or any nationally inspired terrorist organisation.

The IRA wanted to adjust/"improve" the system in NI. They wanted a small but constant stream of murder, misery and instability in NI, but they were cautious of backlash to "spectaculars". They recognised mass casualties [look at Omagh] as being bad publicity. They viewed themselves as a vanguard and wanted to win the Irish opinion over to them. Irish opinion could tolerate small scale misery inflicted by the bold boys of the old brigade, but exceptionally cruel or murderous attacks were harder to explain in the IRA mythology.

Jihadist terrorism is not about Arab nationalism, its heartland is in Asia, not the Middle East. Jihadists do not seek to regulate or minimise casualties, they seek to kill as many people as they possibly can.

Jihadists view everyone who does not support them as being appostate [muslims, including all brands of Non Sunni Islam and any Sunni muslim who disagrees with them] or infidels [anyone and everyone else]. Jihadists feel that infidels should be murdered without hesitation, and that the indefinite existence of infidels is not acceptable.

Jihadists do not with to alter or improve the social system. They wish to overthrow it, burn it to ashes and build a new humanity cast in their own image, in a new society. Tabliban Afghanistan is what they aim for. First for the Islamic world, then for everyone else. Anyone who objects is either apostate or infidel and thus *must* be killed by their warped cults idealogy.

That doesnt leave a lot of room for negotation - theyre on a mission from God, and probably as open to reason and rational debate as the Spanish Inquistion were on the concept of witchcraft and non Church approved religious views. Their idealogy is completely nuts, but theyve a proven desire to kill thousands for it and a stated desire to kill millions of people which cant be dismissed when biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons are on their wishlists and very possible for them to gain. People cant make the mistake that terrorists are all the same and can be all dealt with in the same fashion. Some can be picked off by negotiation, but I cant imagine anyone who views human rights as being universal as negotiating a compromise with Jihadists who dismiss the concept of human rights outright.

18AD

"Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change."

Then would fighting terrorists to make them change their ways be terrorism?

Moriarty

18AD wrote:

"Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change."

Then would fighting terrorists to make them change their ways be terrorism?

It's hard to think of any conflict in the past 100 years that wouldn't qualify as terrorism under that definition.

Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down. After all, if terrorism is successfully diluted, new words will be created or old words and terms distorted to replace it. The use of language like this always seems to be a subtle game of high stakes poker where everyone is drawing money on a maxed credit card.

Jackie laughlin

How about: Terrorism is political violence where the victim is not the primary target but is used to effect a wider target audience usually through careful orchestration of the mass media.

freddyfreeload

Congratulations on your grasp and faithful repetition of the trite Murdochian line currently being pumped out by our no-brow infotainment media.

And I bow to your knowledge on that other "brand" of terrorism. Perhaps you are an ex-Jihadist yourself.

However, I must beg to differ and agree with hobochris. If the west (more specifically Washington) truly wanted to remedy this problem, they would do two things: 1). examine history for any lessons it could learn, and 2). examine various diplomatic routes, before trying one or more.

They are doing neither of these things.

Rumsfeld and BUsh have already told us, "prepare for total war - this could take a generation to sort out."

Which translates as: "We don't want peace with terrorist in Muslim lands, because terrorism would then cease to be a pretext by which we can annex oil in Muslim lands, and further our stated geo-political goals of global pre-eminence.

And history teaches us two things about terrorists. Contrary to widly held opinions, though they may be populated by mindless thugs, ALL active terrorists groups have LEGITIMATE claims behind them. And the reason they are militarily active is that those claims are not being addressed.

If the grown ups in this situation, i.e. the democratically elected governments of economically and socially advanced countries, behaved like grown ups and said, "Okay, lets sit down and talk about it." A solution is possible.

History has shown us time and time again: address the issues, and you can solve the problem.

History has also shown us: you can kill terrorists, but you can't kill terrorism.

In fact all the past and current evidence shows that trying to wipe it out is the best way to make it grow.

Therefore, the current Washington policy can only be down to two reasons. Either...

1). they are all incompetent fools incapable of learning the lessons of history.

2). they are an oil and arms industry supported oligarchy pursuing a policy that will further the economic and political agendas of the world's richest organisations and individuals to the detrimant of huge swathes of their own and foreign populations.

I'm pretty convinced it's number 2.

ff

Zombrex

Moriarty wrote:

It's hard to think of any conflict in the past 100 years that wouldn't qualify as terrorism under that definition.

How about this

Terrorism is ..

the use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone.


The last bit is important, as it what seperates terrorist organisations from modern day armies. A lot of of people like to claim that the British and American armies carry out terrorist acts, as to them terrorist seems to simply mean very bad acts. But it is important to remember that terrorist groups choose the tactic of terrorism for a specific reason, that being that they do not possess the ability to effect political change through force alone, where as a modern army most likely does.

Terrorism is a specific military tactic, one that most modern large national armies don't use, not because they are particularly more moral in their tactics but because most of the time terrorism doesn't actually work very well and a modern army has the force and ability that they don't need to use terrorist tactics anyway. They can effect change through force, they don't need to use the threat of random acts of violence

Terrorist organisations have to use the tactic of terrorism as they do not possess a large enough force to effect change otherwise

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
All political problems cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Bush and company would want to try to find a solution by dialogue. However, talk requires a willingness to compromise. Compromise is a scare commodity. Moreover, a group or nation or minority may have a legitimate grievance AND it may be being quite disgracefully ignored but that cannot in all cases justify violence.

freddyfreeload

I agree, no cause justifies violence.

But what our experience in our own back yard shows us is that if you deny a cause a viable political arena in which to air its grievances, then it will use violence, justifiable or not.

And yes, compromise is vital. The thing is, that if you go back to the root of what Al Qaeda actual want, it's all pretty reasonable, and most reasonable people (including their past and potential victims) would not have a problem negotiating on/conceding virtually all of what they have stated they want, namely (if memory serves):

1. US troops out of Saudi Arabia (because of the birth and resting places of Mohammed).
2. US troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan.
3. A solution to the Palestinian problem that recognises Palestinian statehood and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
4. An end to Washington's foreign policy of intervention in the domestic affairs of Muslim nations.

Not world domination, nor the end of our western consumerist culture. Just for the most powerful nation in the world to stop kicking the fastest growing religion around like a dog it keeps tied up in a corner.

Personally, I think everything they want would only serve to further world peace.

Whereas, what the US wants: geo-political control of other nation's energy resources, is the biggest threat to world peace today.

freddyfreeload

Your definition makes no sense... is it a joke?

random: so planned and coordinated is okay?

unannounced: so give a warning and anything goes?

large scale violence: so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?

unsuspecting victim or victims: so the entire US population, who are basically expecting another atrocity at anytime, would be fair game then?

in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone:

what? an attempt to force something that couldn't be achieved by force!?!?

Sand

Grand Freddy, I accept you have a different opinion, and given this is the internet I dont expect you to change it with the presentation of facts.

Generally, Id argue that Jihadists are as much a threat to Muslims as they are to anyone else. Jihadists arent muslims as such. Theyre simply people who isolated some particular violent passages from the Koran/Haddith to forge a new cult. Their world view is similar to what you could do if you went through the Old Testement, the Book of Revelations and the rest of the Bible and underlined all the bits of about "smiting" the enemies of God and ignored all the other parts about loving thy neighbour.

Jihadists view Shias as herectics and happily murder them in their thousands. Also, youre post assumes that the Jihadists are simply a reflection of some mistaken policy by "washington/the west" and that if this policy is corrected then Jihadism will cease to exist.

Your post is a fairly arrogant dismissal of any non western philosophy or world view as merely a reaction to western philosophy or views. The views underlying Jihadist terrorism are simply shadows of western views by what I see in your post.

Do you accept its possible for someone to form a view of how the world should be that isnt merely a reaction to White House policy? If not, then theres little point continuing the discussion. Though I would be interested in what particular issues youd be willing to compromise on in your negotiations with Jihadists - The right to free religion? Freedom of speech? Equality between genders? Would you be willing to compromise on the universitality of human rights? Would you be willing to agree that muslim women deserve less rights than christian women? Whose rights exactly would you be willing to forsake for your own safety?

Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down.

Its not, but apologists for terrorism have been working hard to build up their "freedom fighters" as legitimate soldiers, whilst denigrating legitimate soldiers as "terrorists".

Hence, clear defintions of terrorism like deliberate, premeditated attacks on civillians are avoided in favour of vague genralisations that can brand a backfiring car that startles a young child as an act of terrorism.

freddyfreeload

Hey, my mind is open, just present some facts.

Like what is a Jihadist? All Muslims practice Jihad, or personal struggle. I have a Muslim freind whose name is Jihad, he's the most peace-loving bloke you could ever hope to meet.

I agree that muslim fundamentalist terrorists are actually more of a threat to proper Muslims than they are to Western Christians. They loathe the enemy within more than the enemy without.

I don't agree they're a cult or cults of any kind. There is no singular or homogenous view of Islam, as there is no single or homogenous view of Judaism, or Christianity.

Jihadists view Shias as herectics

I think you'll find violent fundamentalist groupings amongst both Shia and Sunni Muslims, and Wahhabis, each of which views the other as heretical.

I guess my point is that the problem is too diffuse and complicated to imagine any way forward can be achieved by trying to bracket every Muslim who harbours a greivance with the West under categories like Jihadist, then writing them all off as mindless and beyond talking to.

Also, youre post assumes that the Jihadists are simply a reflection of some mistaken policy by "washington/the west" and that if this policy is corrected then Jihadism will cease to exist.

The problem the west has with Islam currently, is a product of Western/Washington policy, yes. Surely this is clear to all.

Your post is a fairly arrogant dismissal of any non western philosophy or world view as merely a reaction to western philosophy or views. The views underlying Jihadist terrorism are simply shadows of western views by what I see in your post.

No it's not. Well, it might have been arrogant. But it certainly isn't those other things. The full spectrum if Islamic opinion has existed almost since its very existence. What I'm saying, is that the very pressing crisis the West is now having with Islam is a relatively recent product of the West's own making. As I'm sure you know, the seeds of Al Qaeda were sown, watered, and nurtured by Washington.

Do you accept its possible for someone to form a view of how the world should be that isnt merely a reaction to White House policy?

Of course I do.

I would be interested in what particular issues youd be willing to compromise on in your negotiations with Jihadists - The right to free religion? Freedom of speech? Equality between genders? Would you be willing to compromise on the universitality of human rights? Would you be willing to agree that muslim women deserve less rights than christian women? Whose rights exactly would you be willing to forsake for your own safety?

I am a human rights activist, a member of Amnesty. I write letters to the Islamic and Western governments that deny people the rights you've listed.

But unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm not aware of an Islamic grouping of any kind that has demanded that any western nation rescinds any of its human rights.

Therefore negotiating with them wouldn't entail us compromising on those issues.

If we're talking about human rights within their countries, then that too is something for negotiation. We may not like the fact that some Muslim countries have poor human rights records, but we don't have the right to force them to change at the point of a gun. Just like we can't force America to abandon Camp X-Ray. So we try through peaceful means instead.

Quote:
Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down.

Whose diluting the word terrorism?

Ultimately it boils down to the original posters question. How do you beat terrorism?

You can't kill it.

You can't lock it up.

You can't make it stop or go away.

But you can address its root causes. History has shown that to be the only way to deal with it.

ff

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
I don't agree that NO cause justifies violence.

I also have problems with the notion of an Islamic State. It sounds like a Catholic State, only worse!

Theocratic states should be opposed. I don't want to put it any stronger than that because clearly a war to destroy it might do more harm than the theocratic state itself.

esskay

In 1938, President Roosevelt's close confidant Sumner welles praised the Munich argeement with the Nazi's and felt that it might lead to a "new world order based upon justice and upon law."
Shortly afterward While occupying parts of czechoslovakia Hitler explained that they were "filled with an earnest desire to serve the true interests of the peoples dwelling in this area, to safeguard the national indivuality of the German and Czech peoples, and to further the peace and social welfare of all." :eek:

It reminds me of Englands approval of the U.S.'s quest for global domination. The nazi's lead the way in using propaganda to influence large proportions of the population in order to proceed with what would normally be considered morally unjustifable. It's not the only comparison I found either

As the invasion of Iraq began the prominent historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger wrote that "The president has adopted a policy of 'anticipatory self-defence' that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbour, on a date which, as an earlier American President said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy." He added that "the global wave of symapthy that engulfed the United States after 9-11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arogance and militarism" and even in friendly countries the public regards Bush "as a greter threat to peace than Saddam Hussein."

freddyfreeload

It's a shame you feel that there are some causes that justify violence. Just out of interest, which are they?

The problem with reserving the right to violence for a cause that may be dear to your heart, is that by doing so you give others de facto legitimacy to feel the same way about the causes dear to theirs. That's the root of our problem.

Over history people of all creeds and colours have resorted to violence in the name of religion, civilisation, trade, power, expansionism, nationalism and naked greed; all have led down the same painful path; all are wrong.

But if you're talking about self-defence, that's hardly a different matter. Self-defence is not a "cause", but a legitimate response to being attacked. As is forming part of a deffensive coalition to protect other people being attacked, e.g. UN Peacekeeping invervention.

I also have problems with the notion of an Islamic State. It sounds like a Catholic State, only worse!

It would sound worse to you, you're not a Muslim. I'm sure a Muslim would feel the same way about a Catholic state. Personally I find theocracy distasteful as well, but that doesn't empower me to go changing the way other nations run their business.

But when you say Islamic State, what do you mean? If you mean a country where Sharia is the law then I guess we're talking about the likes of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Quatar.

Well Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are highly cherished allies of the west. Which is indeed most revealing about the root causes of our current problem. It shows that Washington's issue with Islam is less ideological than it is geo-political.

Pakistan was and remains the traditional base for the Mujahedin, which in turn spawned Al Qaeda. Pakistan is also almost certainly home to more Al Qaeda members than any other country. All but one of the 911 bombers came from Saudi Arabia.

Why does the US make war on some Islamic theocracies and not others? It's nothing to do with women's rights, or human rights, it's to do with energy resources and geopolitical advantage.

In fact the US didn't really have a problem with the Taliban until they refused to sign the Unocal pipeline deal. Only after they re-neged on the deal did the sabre rattling (on both sides) begin.

Since the war of course, the pipeline is going ahead.

Theocratic states should be opposed.I don't want to put it any stronger than that because clearly a war to destroy it might do more harm than the theocratic state itself.

No, please do? You say they should be opposed, but how? At the point of a gun? Via trade sanctions? Through peaceful persuasion? Take Saudi Arabia as an example and demonstrate how you would oppose the theocratic system there.

And though I agree with you about theocracy, what gives us the right to tell them they've got it wrong and seek to change them.

This is what amazes me about this issue. We in the West run around in a panic in the belief Muslim's in Iran and other far flung locations want to bend us to their will, when clearly the reverse is actually the case. The west is in a constant process of cajoling, pressurising and bombing Muslims into doing things the Western/Christian way. This has provoked some of the more extrme among them to react violently. This is wrong, but not surprising.

If we lived in a world where an Islamic State was the most powerful nation, and was constantly fighting wars of domination andf regime change, then a violent Christian fundamentalist backlash would be occuring too.

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
I hope you don't think that I support US foreign policy or that I would support a Christian theocracy.

I'd have to think long and hard about instances where violence was necessary. I'm thinking now about the Cuban revolution, the Sandanista defence of Nicaraguan democracy, anti-apartheid activists like Nelson Mandela, the Vietnamese invasion of Pol Pot's Cambodia.

You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to Mullahs, Priests and despots. Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of an evil perpetrated in the name of culture.

You have to take sides or you will standby evil. All things considered, the western, welfare state and open society should be exported whenever possible.

Sure, we can't invade the likes of Saudi Arabia but we could send only women envoys who would refuse to sit separately. I'll think about other non-violent subversion. You've raised an interesting project.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Your definition makes no sense... is it a joke?

No, you just didn't read it properly, apparently....

freddyfreeload wrote:

random: so planned and coordinated is okay?

Planned and coordinated have nothing to do with random.

Terrorist attacks are random in that they cannot be predicted by those who are about to be attacked. In a normal war like situation an army will attack identified strategic possitions, which in turn are normally fortified by the enemy who also move civilians out of the area (or in the case of some dictators move civilians into the area).

Terrorist do not work like this because the point is that they could strike anywhere. If they limited their attacks to a specific target or region then the population would simply avoid that area, and the effect of terrorising them would be lost.

Terrorism for it to work must be kept random, because as soon as the enemy is able to predict your targets you have lost a key element in your terror campaign.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unannounced: so give a warning and anything goes?

No, give a warning and you have lost significant element of effictiveness. If you were told 3 days ago that a bomb is going to go off in St. Stephens Green would you be terrorised? Or would you just not go there today and let the bomb squad look after it?

Some terrorist organisations such as the IRA gave very limited warnings in an effort to minimise loss of life as that was deemed to be bad PR for them. But as Omagh shows that didn't always work, and the warnings were so brief as to still instill a sense of on edge terror and apprehension in the general population, as the warnings were too short to rule out the threat of death or serious injury.

freddyfreeload wrote:

large scale violence: so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?

Again it is not as effective. The point of terrorism is to instill the idea in the general population that it could happen to them too. Single assinations are considered a waste of valuable resources by most terrorist groups as assinations do not achieve anything like the effect of a large scale attack, and as such are not generally used in terrorist campaigns. That is not to say that a string of single assinations are not used, they were used to quite an effect by the IRA, but this would fall under both random and large scale violence.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unsuspecting victim or victims: so the entire US population, who are basically expecting another atrocity at anytime, would be fair game then?

They are the people a terrorist would attack if they wanted to effect political opinion in the US. Blowing up a train in Japan would have much less effect on the general US political feeling than an attack on US soil against US citizens. Even attacking a US army station or US naval carrier would also be not as effective in the aim of terrorising the largest population group, as attacking the general population, even in small numbers, in say a US city or town.

freddyfreeload wrote:

what? an attempt to force something that couldn't be achieved by force!?!?

Freddy are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? It is quite clear that the second "force" referrs to physical force.

The US army physically removed the Sadam government from power. This is a classic example of military force being used to alter the political and social systems of a country.

Most terrorist organisations do not have the option of using physical force to change a political system. So instead they use terrorism, believing that through the threat of future random attacks on unspecting victiums they can non-physically force a political change.

It seems rather baffling that you feel you can comment on terrorism when you clearly have very little understanding of the subject ....

freddyfreeload

I'd consider most of the examples you stated as acting either in self-defence or defence of others who are threatened, which I think I had said I felt was acceptable (and self-defence isn't a cause per se). Revolution is always a sticky one, but the mass of a population freeing itself from oppression and state terror counts as self-defence in my book too.

It should be pointed out however, that Nelson Mandela never advocated violence.

You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to Mullahs, Priests and despots.

Not absolute perhaps, but equally, you can't discount cultural relativism. Your stance effectively says, we are right, they are wrong, we must change them. Do you see that if you give yourself the right to hold this view, you give a similar right to millions of others around the globe with opposing views to yours. A peaceful, reasonable Muslim woman in Indonesia could even now be writing on a chat board that: "You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to western godlessness, profanity and degradation."

Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of an evil perpetrated in the name of culture.

I agree wholeheartedly. To the extent that in my opinion every time the Irish goverment deports a woman who will face circumcision on return to Africa, they are colluding in her torture. (It's not an Islamic practice by the way).

The point is that there are more African's who consider this barbaric than there are who practice it. We should be doing all we can to empower women (and men who oppose it) who live in the regions where it is practiced, to get their point across and change things. This can, is, and will work.

But if you march in with an army in the hopes of forcing them to change, you'll only entrench the practice and swamp the powers of change from within.

You have to take sides or you will standby evil.

Do you mean on female circumcision or on Islam?

All things considered, the western, welfare state and open society should be exported whenever possible.

How? And what justifies your position. In many Muslim countries, people (men and women) are quite happy living as they do. Don't you think they might consider us misguided? Do they have the right to try exporting their system to us?

What makes you right and them wrong? The very same thing that (in their eyes) makes them right and you wrong. It's all very Swiftian.

Sure, we can't invade the likes of Saudi Arabia but we could send only women envoys who would refuse to sit separately.

Single, unaccompanied women would not be granted any kind of diplomatic access in Saudi Arabia, in fact they'd be deported with the Arabic word for prostitute stamped in their passports. Barbaric, huh? And this is the West's top ally in the Arab world.

In fact SA has traditionally had one of the poorest human rights records in the world. Amnesty have campaigned against it for years. The trouble is that its a virtually banned subject in the media, because of the close relationship between it and the west.

But going back to your plan of western women trying to break down Eastern customs. I don't think this would be a good idea, for reasons previously stated. What would we make of an envoy of women from Pakistan coming here and trying to persuade Irish women to cover their bodies? I think we'd see it as foreigners meddling in our culture. Which is exactly what it would be.

The important thing here is that there are many, many women within Arab countries trying to change their own societies from within. If you really want to help and to effect real change, I suggest you join an organisation (there are plenty of them) who are working to support these women make the change happen themselves.

freddyfreeload

It seems rather baffling that you feel you can comment on terrorism when you clearly have very little understanding of the subject ....

ROTFLMAO!:D

What, are you a professor of terrorism studies or something?

ff

freddyfreeload

Terrorism is the unlawful use of, or threatened use of, force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

US Department of Defense.

That works for me.

...the unlawful use, and threatened use, of force against individuals and property to coerce or intimidate government and society to achieve political and ideological objectives.

Now that sound like the Iraq War!


ff

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

ROTFLMAO!:D

What, are you a professor of terrorism studies or something?

ff

No, but I seem to understand what terrorism actually is a lot better than you.

Your comments such as...

"so planned and coordinated is okay?"
"so give a warning and anything goes?"
"so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?"

..betray the fact that you hold to the very common but quite incorrect (and rather tiresome I must say) view that the description "terrorism" is simply a reflection of the morality of a given action.

Where did the "is okay" bit come from? Do you believe that if something is not terrorist in nature it is automatically an acceptable and justifable military action? If something is not classified as terrorist in nature does this some how makes this event, no matter what it is, better than an event classified as terrorist.

In reality the description "terrorist" is not a reflection of the level of morality of a certain action or group, at least not directly.

Terrorism is a specific military tactic. The use of terrorism is generally considered immoral by most states and governments as terrorism targets combataints and non-combataints alike for no particular immediate strategic purpose or goal. For example terrorist aren't blowing up a bridge to stop tanks moving to the front line, or bombing a power station to stop anti-aircraft guns firing.

But it is perfectly possible for an immoral and hidious miltary action to not be terrorist in nature.

Despite the rather silly sound bite calls against George Bush and Tony Blair, the last 2 Iraq conflicts were not terrorist wars, at least on the part of the British and US Army. Put simply the American Army did(does) not need to use the tactic of terrorism because they had overwhelming force on their side. That is absolutely no reflection on the morality of these wars, either way.

Any definition of "terrorism" that cannot seperate the emotive aspects of the event from its specific nature and characteristics, is largely pointless. You end up with a definition where terrorism simply means bad and non-terrorist simply means acceptable.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

...the unlawful use, and threatened use, of force against individuals and property to coerce or intimidate government and society to achieve political and ideological objectives.

Now that sound like the Iraq War!

Groan .. no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

The US Army did not intimidate the Iraq government out of power. They physically removed them from power.

Its the difference between a stalker leaving threatening phone calls until a person leaves their home, and the police (or criminals or whatever) breaking down your door and dragging you physically out of the house.

These are two completely different methods of achieving a similar goal. It would be incorrect (and ridiculous) to claim that in the second example you were intimiated to leave your home. You weren't intimiated you were physically kicked out.

Also it is not terrorism because it is unlawful. It is unlawful because it is terrorism. The tactic of terrorism has been deemed unlawful by most states and governments. But something can be unlawful yet not be terrorist in nature. Just because the Iraq war was unlawful that is no indicator to if it was or was not an act of terrorism.

freddyfreeload

No, but I seem to understand what terrorism actually is a lot better than you.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand a given subject. That sounds like someone who once told me I couldn't discuss religion because I'm an atheist.

But what's worse is that now you're telling me what I think!

The funny thing is you're quite wrong I don't use a moral yardstick to measure terrorism, I use a behavioural one. To me, anyone who uses any kind of violence or the threat of violence to force others to their will is employing terrorism, ergo, they are terrorists. The IRA, Al Qaeda, ETA, and yes, the Bush & Blair Governments. Clinton too, of course. I would go on but...

Where did the "is okay" bit come from?

Sorry, that's just me being sarcastic. I forget sometimes that it doesn't travel too well through cyberspace. Let me try it again straight this time.

You said...

Terrorism is the use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone.

I would say that this def simply doesn't cover a wide variety of tactics used by terrorists, and is therefore unworkable. For the following reasons.

random... this is a value judgment from the victim's perspective. All attacks, even during legal war, seem random to the victim. From the attacker's viewpoint their own attacks are never random.

unannounced... as you've said yourself, the IRA used to issue warnings. The reason I object to your definition is that it effectively lets them of the hook for announcing their intentions.

large scale violence... what is and what isn't large scale? 10 deaths, 50, 3,000, or 1? What about property, infrastructure? As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, large or small scale. Any violent act on any scale designed to effect political, social or religious change is terrorism. Again, I feel your def lets too many acts and too many groups off the hook.

In a later post you infered that you by large scale you meant sustained. However, this still doesn't fly for me. One act of terrorism, is still an act of terrorism.

perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims... c'mon! all victims of all crimes, and indeed casualties of war, are unsuspecting. True, no one in the two towers on 911 would have suspected anything. But Israeli's wandering around their markets in Jerusalem are not unsuspecting. They are permanently suspicious of attack by terrorists. However, according to this part of your definition a suicide bomber in an Israeli marketplace is not a terrorist. I disagree.

in an attempt to force... a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone... I'm sorry, I still don't get this one. I understand what you're saying, but it still makes no sense... IF you're talking about military force.

If what you mean is, "resorting to military force to effect social or political change that cannot be achieved through political, diplomatic or economic force." Then fine, I understand and (with some reservation) agree with that.

But you seem to be saying: "Its okay to use military force to effect social or political change as long as you can do it in an all out attack and not in dribs and drabs using the only means available to you." If that's what you're saying, then I have to disagree. That kind of thinking is insane.


Now, to get back to some of your (rather strange) questions.

Do you believe that if something is not terrorist in nature it is automatically an acceptable and justifable military action?

No, as I've stated before. The only time I personally consider military action justifiable is in self-defence, or to come to the aid of others unable to defend themselves. Plus, in certain circumstances, when the bulk of nation's population is suffering oppression, revolution is effectively self-defence.

If something is not classified as terrorist in nature does this some how makes this event, no matter what it is, better than an event classified as terrorist.

Not at all. My greatest concern with your definition, as I'm sure you've worked out, is that it lets certain Western countries off the hook for their bopmbastic, illegal bullying of other nations. (Bear in mind before you reply that I, and people like me, campaigned against Saddam's regime while the US and the UK were arming him to the teeth, even as he was gassing the Kurds).

Despite the rather silly sound bite calls against George Bush and Tony Blair, the last 2 Iraq conflicts were not terrorist wars, at least on the part of the British and US Army.

It was neither "silly", nor a soundbyte. Bush and Blair effected political and social change (not to mention ringfencing Iraq's oil reserves) through the ongoing threat of, and eventually, use of force. That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism. Plus, it was deemed illegal.

It was terrorism. Scale does not exempt it.

Put simply the American Army did(does) not need to use the tactic of terrorism because they had overwhelming force on their side.

So might is right?

If Al Qaeda recruited enough people to invade and conquer a country, would they have transcended terrorism?

Interestingly you seem to think of terrorism as purely tactical. It's strategic as well you know. Almost by definition. All causes are strategic in nature.

Any definition of "terrorism" that cannot seperate the emotive aspects of the event from its specific nature and characteristics, is largely pointless. You end up with a definition where terrorism simply means bad and non-terrorist simply means acceptable.

I think that's the exact problem with your definition. It implies that any action that falls outside it is somehow okay.

I have no problem with the US Defence Department's definition. And my own does not moralise, it simply covers all violence perpetrated with the intent of imposing political, social or economic change on a given population.

The US Army did not intimidate the Iraq government out of power. They physically removed them from power.

The US government did intimidate Iraq. From Bush senior to Bush junior. They intimidated, bullied, threatened, humiliated, used ongoing, sporadic and illegal air attacks against civilians between the wars, illegally administered a brutal sanctions policy, and reduced one of the most economically and socially advanced countries in the region to third world status. When all that failed, they started threatening and bullying again. Gives us those weapons you haven't got or we'll attack you! How much more intimidating does it get than that?

It would be incorrect (and ridiculous) to claim that in the second example you were intimiated to leave your home. You weren't intimiated you were physically kicked out.

The US army didn't just turn up one night and kick the door down. They left plenty of threatening messages first. (See my last comment).

Just because the Iraq war was unlawful that is no indicator to if it was or was not an act of terrorism.

It is one indicator. The other is the threat, followed up by the use, of force to effect political change and social change to their own advantage.

ff

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Yes it is. The correct one :cool:

freddyfreeload wrote:

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand a given subject.

Agreed. But I claimed you didn't understand the subject because you seem to be defining terrorism as pretty much any immoral military act that induces terror.

By that definition the atomic bomb was terrorism, so was the holocaust.

There is a different (a big one) between a military action of force that also produces terror and an act of terrorism, as I've tried to explain.

freddyfreeload wrote:

But what's worse is that now you're telling me what I think!

I am basing this on your posts. If you posts are not actually what you think you need to make that clearer.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I don't use a moral yardstick to measure terrorism

Then what was the point of your rather tiresome "oh so if they do X, that is okay then" comments. Okay in what context, if not a moral one?

freddyfreeload wrote:

To me, anyone who uses any kind of violence or the threat of violence to force others to their will is employing terrorism, ergo, they are terrorists.

Well that would be a rather silly definition of terrorism. As I explained before terrorism is a specific military tactic. It is not simply the act of producing terror.

A bank robber will attempt to instill terror in the bank staff by shouting, waving his gun around, he might even shoot someone to show he means business. The bank staff will no doubt be terrorised into doing as they are told, which is exactly what the bank robber wants.

The bank robber is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

A person when faced with a burgler in there home will most likely attempt to scare away the burgler, possibly with the threat of violence or injury, hoping that such a threat will cause the burgler to think twice about staying in the house and fleeing.

A home owner faced with a burgler is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

A cat when faced with a threatening animal will arch its back, push out its claws and reveal its teeth and begin to make load high pitched noises. This action is meant to instill fear and terror in the other animal to intimedate the animal to back down and go away.

The cat is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

If you define terrorism as simply the act of instilling fear and terror in another for a specific purpose then the word loses all relievent meaning, and the list of what is and is not terrorism is extended to such an degree as to be pointless.

freddyfreeload wrote:

random... this is a value judgment from the victim's perspective. All attacks, even during legal war, seem random to the victim.

No, that isn't true at all.

For example Sadam knew exactly where the US Airforce were going to strike in Bagdad. Which is why these areas were heavily fortified and protected with anti-air craft guns (not that it made much different).

Randomness defies purpose. There is a military purpose in destroying an air base or a check point. Purpose can be predicted and anticipated. Random attacks cannot. Which is why terrorists use random attacks on random targets, and why conventional military oppreations consider these types of attacks immoral.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unannounced... as you've said yourself, the IRA used to issue warnings. The reason I object to your definition is that it effectively lets them of the hook for announcing their intentions.

As I explained the IRA did not issue warnings in time to prevent the attack, or death and injury from these attacks.

They were in all relievent meaning unannounced.

freddyfreeload wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, large or small scale.

Violence is violence, but me having a fight in a pub will not effect the wider population in any shape or form. But you can bet your life me blowing up the pub will.

I would define "large scale" as a violent act or series of acts big enough to be noticed and seriously concern the wider population.

For example the spate of gang land killings has grown to such a scale that people in Dublin are now seriously concerned that they or their family or friends may be at risk.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Any violent act on any scale designed to effect political, social or religious change is terrorism.

Thats my point.

A small scale attack is not designed to effect political social or religious change, since a small scale attack will not cause enough concern in the wider population to achieve this. So it isn't terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

In a later post you infered that you by large scale you meant sustained.

It can mean sustained, in referrence in small scale individual attacks.

A small scale attack, such as an assination, will have very little effect on the wider population unless they attacks are sustained for a period of time.

But it doesn't have to be sustained, a single event can trigger as much concern in the population as a series of sustained events.

freddyfreeload wrote:

One act of terrorism, is still an act of terrorism.

True, but an isolated act of violence that has very little or no effect on the general population is not going to be an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of that act is to instill terror in another party.

For example a girl getting raped in a park by a gang land thug to send a message to her drug dealling boyfriend is not really an act of terrorism in any meaningful sense of the word. It would make a mockery of the terrorist laws if this person when caught by the police was charged with acts of terrorism. He would be charge with rape, and possibly intimidation.

freddyfreeload wrote:

perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims... c'mon! all victims of all crimes, and indeed casualties of war, are unsuspecting.

Again that is not true.

The Iraqi people were not unsuspecting of the day the US Army was going to attack Iraq. The US announced the day to the public.

But for a terrorist to do so would defeat the purpose of terrorism. If an attack is announced so the population are expecting it it is much harder to instill a sense of concern or terror in the general population.

freddyfreeload wrote:

But Israeli's wandering around their markets in Jerusalem are not unsuspecting. They are permanently suspicious of attack by terrorists.

Would an Israeli man wander aound a market in Jerusalem if he knew the market was going to be blown up that day? I seriously doubt it.

freddyfreeload wrote:

However, according to this part of your definition a suicide bomber in an Israeli marketplace is not a terrorist. I disagree.

If you think that you are reading my definition wrong.

A suicide bomber is a perfect example of what is a terrorist -

His target by random.
The target holds no military or political significance and as such the Isreali people and army have no reason to fortify or evacuate it over any other market in Israel, or even suspect that an attack will take place there over any other place in Israel.

He is completely unannounced.
The bomber will not give away any indication of what he is planning at all to the public. Hamas (or who ever) will not give warning to the Isreali government or army that such an attack will take place in this market or when it will take place.

The act of violence will be large scale.
A bomb killing a large number of people at random will make all the headlines in all the papers and will shock and seriously concern all Isreali people.

The people in the market, along with the police and army, are unsuspecting.
If the bombing mission goes to plan no one will be aware of the bomber or his plan until it is too late. No one will have any reason to suspect the target and as such will have no way to predict or prevent that attack

The bomber is attempting to force political change...
The poltical goals of Hamas are long and complicated, some are achievable others nonsense (the complete destruction of Israel is more for the cameras than the military), but it is clear the bomber is blowing himself up for a specific purpose or goal.

..through the threat of further violence..
The actually market itself, or the people in it, have no military or political value. Blowing up the market and killing the people will not actually achieve any purpose by itself. The purpose is to instill the fear in the wider population that such attacks can come at any time in any place and against anyone, so the wider population are thinking "I could be next"

..that cannot be achieved through conventional force alone.
Hamas cannot force, through military strength, the Isreali people or army to do anything. They cannot invade the country, they cannot destory the infrastructure or remove the government.

(I added the conventional bit to avoid confuse between conventional military force and the force of terrorism, which is a social force, not a physical one)

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but it still makes no sense... IF you're talking about military force.

Hamas, or the IRA cannot physically force their enemies to do anything. They cannot roll into London with tanks and M16s and remove the Queen and the British PM from power while instilling their own system of government. They cannot physically force the people in Northern Ireland to be ruled from Dublin or physically force Dublin to rule Northern Ireland.

This is in contrast to say the US Army that can force through political change through physical force. The US Army physically removed the Taliban from power in Afganastan. They physically removed Sadam's government from power in Iraq. They don't need to use terrorism because they can just do it the old fashioned way, with lots of tanks and grunts and bulliets. Besides terrorism would not have worked in Iraq anyway since the population had no control over Sadam to start with.

All a terrorist group can do, by definition, is attempt terrorise the general population to such an extent that the general population decide to force their government to impliment the terrorist demands to get out of the state of terror. It is a social force, not a physical one.

This is one of the main reasons why terrorism is largely pointless against a dictatorship with strong control, since a dictator does not generally tend to listen to his population anyway, so them being terroristed or not is irrelvent (there are exceptions to this)

freddyfreeload wrote:

No, as I've stated before.

Then why do you insist on implying that I support any action that I do not deem as terrorist?

You have constantly said "oh, so its okay then" in your post, which getting very tiresome and rather silly.

From now on I'm just going to put a :mad: face beside any future comments that I support or approve of a military action so long as it is not terrorist, because really you are just making that cr@p up.

Unless you want to point out where I said anything, terrorist or not terrorist is "okay"

freddyfreeload wrote:

Not at all. My greatest concern with your definition, as I'm sure you've worked out, is that it lets certain Western countries off the hook for their bopmbastic, illegal bullying of other nations.

How does it let them "off the hook" if we have established that something can still be illegal and immoral even it is not terrorist in nature?

If I shot my wife and kids and then raped my next door neightbour that wouldn't be a a terrorist act by any definition, even your wide open one.

Does that mean I would be off the hook?

freddyfreeload wrote:

It was neither "silly", nor a soundbyte. Bush and Blair effected political and social change (not to mention ringfencing Iraq's oil reserves) through the ongoing threat of, and eventually, use of force.

Yes, and the "eventual use of force" bit rules them out of the definition of terrorist.

Bush and Blair did not force political change in Iraq by terrorising the general population of the country to such a point where they made their government comply with the demands of Bush and Blair. Under Sadams regin that probably would not have even been possible to do, since Saddam cared very little for the mood or feeling of the population at large.

Bush and Blair forced political change in Iraq through an overwhelming act of physical force. The literally physically removed each part of the Saddam government piece by piece.

It was not an act of terrorism, because the US Army don't need to use terrorist tactics to achieve anything, they can do it the old fashioned way.

freddyfreeload wrote:

That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism.

No it doesn't. It doesn't fit the US departments definition nor my definition (which I personally think is a better one)

The Iraq government was not intimidated through threat of violence to change. The Iraq people might have been intimidated (scared sh1tless) of the threat of violence but they had no power to change the government.

In the end the Iraq government was physically forced to change.

freddyfreeload wrote:

So might is right?

Ignoring this ... :mad:

freddyfreeload wrote:

If Al Qaeda recruited enough people to invade and conquer a country, would they have transcended terrorism?

No idea what you mean by "transcend," but they would not longer be using terrorist tactics. They wouldn't have to they could achieve their goals through military force.

Bin Laden would love to be in this situation. Terrorism is very costly for the return on investment in a mission, and is quite ineffective compared to other military tactics. Al Qaeda use terrorism because they have no other option, not because they choose to.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Interestingly you seem to think of terrorism as purely tactical. It's strategic as well you know.

Tactical and strategic have almost the exact same meaning.

A strategy is normally a combination of a number of tactical plans for an over all goal, where as tactics are the "right now" plan for a given situation.

You could consider each terrorist action a tactic, with the over all terrorist campaign the strategy.

freddyfreeload wrote:

It implies that any action that falls outside it is somehow okay.

Ignoring this one as well ... :mad:

freddyfreeload wrote:

The US government did intimidate Iraq.

They didn't intimidate the Iraq government out of power

freddyfreeload wrote:

They intimidated, bullied, threatened, humiliated, used ongoing, sporadic and illegal air attacks against civilians between the wars, illegally administered a brutal sanctions policy, and reduced one of the most economically and socially advanced countries in the region to third world status.

The sanctions policy was not designed to terrorise the general population into removing Saddam, and neither did it do this.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Gives us those weapons you haven't got or we'll attack you! How much more intimidating does it get than that?

Intimidation by itself is not terrorism.

My bus driver intimidates me, can I charge him with terrorism?

freddyfreeload wrote:

It is one indicator. The other is the threat, followed up by the use, of force to effect political change and social change to their own advantage.

If you follow up a threat with a use of physical force to effect political change you are not a terrorist organisation.

Terrorists would love (kill) to be able to actually be able to do this. They can't which is why they use terrorism in the first place.

freddyfreeload

Okay... perhaps we should dial this down a little. I've apologised for being sarcastic. I've not, to my recollection, insulted you. This is not, and should not, get personal.

Back to biz.

The IRA did physically force their enemies to the negotiating table. It's a matter of historical record. Ask any Unionist if the IRA forced the British Government into altering the political scenery in N.I. and they'll answer yes.

Al Qaeda/Mujaheddin & the Taliban did forcefully take control of Afghanistan by removing the Soviet regime with physical military force, yet they were, and still are, terrorists.

All a terrorist group can do, by definition, is attempt terrorise the general population to such an extent that the general population decide to force their government to impliment the terrorist demands to get out of the state of terror. It is a social force, not a physical one.

Yes, most of the time. There are exceptions, see above. The PLO in Gaza too.

Then why do you insist on implying that I support any action that I do not deem as terrorist?

I don't. My criticisms are of your definition, not you. It's too narrow, and frankly, unneccesary.

You have constantly said "oh, so its okay then" in your post, which getting very tiresome and rather silly.

Oh, so it's okay then... Woops, that tiresomely, silly, sarcastic streak again!

How does it let them "off the hook" if we have established that something can still be illegal and immoral even it is not terrorist in nature?

Governments don't like to look like terrorists, especially when they are declaring war on terrorism. Because by their own definitions, they are starting to look like terrorists, they are now seeking to widen those definitions. I see your definition as just this kind of widening. Therefore I rail against it. Apologies if this seems personal. Again, it's not you, it's the def I have a problem with.

Bush and Blair did not force political change in Iraq by terrorising the general population of the country to such a point where they made their government comply with the demands of Bush and Blair.

The US and Britain repeatedly tried to provoke/encourage the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. What do yuou think 10 years of illegally administered sanctions and illegal bombing raids were all about?

Moreover, they were also threatening the regime itself. Which is what terrorists do. Hezbollah threatening to wipe Israel off the map, for example.

Bush and Blair forced political change in Iraq through an overwhelming act of physical force. The literally physically removed each part of the Saddam government piece by piece.

As did the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, just before they changed their name to The Taliban.

It was not an act of terrorism, because the US Army don't need to use terrorist tactics to achieve anything, they can do it the old fashioned way.

I didn't actually accuse the US Army of using terrorist tactics. I accused the Bush Government of using terrorist tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyfreeload
That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism.

You said: No it doesn't. It doesn't fit the US departments definition...

Yes it does...

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

It's right there in their own black and white ink.

It doesn't fit yours. But then yours is bloated, too broad, and unnecessary in the presence of more succinct and effective ones.

You could consider each terrorist action a tactic, with the over all terrorist campaign the strategy.

Quite. And in the case of Iraq, the US's overall strategic objective was to effect political change. They did so through the tactic of unlawful use of force. It was therefore terrorism.

The sanctions policy was not designed to terrorise the general population into removing Saddam...

I think you'll find it was. Madeline Albright certainly thought so.

Intimidation by itself is not terrorism.

No, but it is part of it, as you yourself have said.

My bus driver intimidates me, can I charge him with terrorism?

Only if he's unlawfully trying to effect political, social or economic change in you by shoving a bomb up your arse!

If you follow up a threat with a use of physical force to effect political change you are not a terrorist organisation.

...the "eventual use of force" bit rules them out of the definition of terrorist.

Okay, lets look at an actual example here...

In 2004 Bin Laden threatened the Spanish Government, demanding that unless they pull their troops out of Iraq, he'd attack Spanish people on their own soil. They did not pull out. Bin Laden then followed up his threat with physical force killing 170 people. The people of Spain then promptly kicked their government out and elected one that pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq. Spain ceased to have a problem with Bin Laden.

Now, are you saying that because he followed through on his threats with actual physical force, that this was not an act of terrorism?

Your definition says:
"The use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone."

The problem with your quote is that it's possible to argue that it does not cover...

• The INLA campaign in Northern Ireland (it was not large scale)
• The activities of Michael Stone (he was a freelancer and not large scale)
• The Shankhill Butchers (not large scale, not members of any single identifyable group)
• The UVF, UFF and UDA campaign's in N.I. (Their core objective: maintainance of the Union, was entirely achievable through British military force alone)
• The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan (achieved by force alone)
• The Khmer Rouge (Year Zero achieved by force alone)
• Hammas Suicide Bombers (Their victims are not unsuspecting)
• All bomb attacks where sufficient telephone warnings are given (not unannounced)
• All attacks by paramilitaries on specific military targets (not random)

Putting all our emotions on the subject, my sarcasm and silliness and any rancour aside for a minute... do you not agree that the above list poses a problem?

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

The IRA did physically force their enemies to the negotiating table.

Who did they physically force to the negotiating table???

The IRA never made any British government negotiate with them. The government did so out of its will, because it wanted to stop the violence. They could have just as easily not gone to the table and the British infrastructure, its police army, public service, public works etc would have carried on perfectly fine. The IRA could do no significant damage to any of these areas.

The British government choose to go to the negotiating table. That is how terrorism works. You can't make the enemy do what you want but you hope they eventually will because they, or the public they represent, are tired of the terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Al Qaeda/Mujaheddin & the Taliban did forcefully take control of Afghanistan by removing the Soviet regime with physical military force, yet they were, and still are, terrorists.

They are, but not because of their campaign in Afghanistan (though that campaign contained terrorist eliments)

freddyfreeload wrote:

Yes, most of the time. There are exceptions, see above. The PLO in Gaza too.

The exceptions are not terrorism. It is perfectly possible for an organisation to use terrorist tactics with one hand while using non-terrorist tactics with the other, just like it is possible for the military to use the army and the navy.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I don't. My criticisms are of your definition, not you.

There is nothing in my definition about anything being "okay", or any mention of the term "off the hook" ... :rolleyes:

freddyfreeload wrote:

Governments don't like to look like terrorists, especially when they are declaring war on terrorism.

Very true, but that is because terrorism, due to its random targetting mostly of civilians for no particular specific military purpose or goal, is considered illegal and immoral. That doesn't mean that governments like doing other illegal and immoral things so long as they don't fall under the term terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I see your definition as just this kind of widening.

My definition is quite narrow, on purpose, so I'm not quite sure what you mean

As I said, a cat is not a terrorist, neither is someone defending their home by shouting loudly, though both seek to induse a state of fear or terror in others

freddyfreeload wrote:

The US and Britain repeatedly tried to provoke/encourage the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam.

Not through the tactic of terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

What do yuou think 10 years of illegally administered sanctions and illegal bombing raids were all about?

Neither the sanctions nor the air campaign were about terrorism.

That is no reflection on their morality, it is a reflection on the military tactics the US Army used in Iraq. For a start the US Army is stupid but not stupid enough to use terrorism when they don't need to and when terrorism has a very small ability to actually do anything.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Moreover, they were also threatening the regime itself. Which is what terrorists do.

No its not. Al Queda don't threaten George Bush (I mean actually try and kill him, not say "Oh we will kill him". It would be pointless to, because as well as having very little chance of succeeding, attempting to will kill George Bush in Washington DC means they won't be attempting to kill you or me, so why would we then go into a state of fear for our lives.

For terrorism to work as many people as possible in targetted population group must believe that they might be next. Otherwise they are not terrorised.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Hezbollah threatening to wipe Israel off the map, for example.

Something they have absolutely no ability to achieve. Just because someone claims to want to do something doesn't mean they actually are doing it.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I didn't actually accuse the US Army of using terrorist tactics. I accused the Bush Government of using terrorist tactics.

In relation to the Iraq war neither did.

freddyfreeload wrote:

It's right there in their own black and white ink.

The US Army did not intended to coerse the Iraq government, the intended to physically remove it.

freddyfreeload wrote:

They did so through the tactic of unlawful use of force. It was therefore terrorism.

Not if you achieve your goal through that physical force. Then terrorism becomes a completely unnecessary a tactic.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I think you'll find it was. Madeline Albright certainly thought so.

Madeline Albright, if she claimed this, is wrong.

freddyfreeload wrote:

No, but it is part of it, as you yourself have said.

Part of it is. But simply intimidating someone, as the US attempted to do with Iraq, is not by itself terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

In 2004 Bin Laden threatened the Spanish Government, demanding that unless they pull their troops out of Iraq, he'd attack Spanish people on their own soil. They did not pull out. Bin Laden then followed up his threat with physical force killing 170 people. The people of Spain then promptly kicked their government out and elected one that pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq. Spain ceased to have a problem with Bin Laden.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Now, are you saying that because he followed through on his threats with actual physical force, that this was not an act of terrorism?

Did the bombings in Madrid effect in any way Spain's physical ability to sustain troops in Iraq?

It didn't, not in the slightest. Spain could have continued perfectly fine with its troops stationed in Iraq. The bomb had absolutely no logistical effect on Spain's military at all.

So why was it carried out? It was carried out to terrorise the Spanish people to pressure their government to pull out of Iraq.

So why were the Spanish people terrorised? The bomb only killed a small handful of them, what did the rest of them have to worry about? The threat of further random violence. The bombing itself was simply a demonstration to the people of Spain what Al Queda could do. After the bombing every single person in Spain thought "Am I next"

So you have two important elements of terrorism here.

1 - Al Queda cannot actually stop Spain stationing troops in Iraq. They cannot disrupt the Spainish military to any large degree, or disrupt the Spainish government to any large degree though physical force.

2 - They can get everyone is Spain worried about being killed though. And this concern is then reflected in what the population decide to do

Lets compare this to say the US Airforce shooting down an Iraq jet fighter in 2000 in the no fly zone.

Can the US Army physically disrupt Iraq's ability to sustain its military - Yes. Anytime it wants to. It could destroy the entire Iraq Army if it wanted to, as it almost did.

Does the shooting down of this jet plane terrorise the general population? No. No one in Iraq though "sh1t, I might be next" They don't fly jet planes, there is no reason to think that the US would kill them

So you see the fundamental differences between a terrorist action and a non-terrorist action.

freddyfreeload wrote:

The INLA campaign in Northern Ireland (it was not large scale)

The INLA were largely involved in kidnapping, assination and gun running. These are not terrorist in nature. They were involved in a bombing of a disco. I would call blowing up a disco "large scale", as well as being random and unspecting. Hense, terrorism

freddyfreeload wrote:

[*]The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan (achieved by force alone)

It was. The Taliban are not a terrorist organisation, they are a military dicatorship.

freddyfreeload wrote:

[*]The Khmer Rouge (Year Zero achieved by force alone)

Neither are the Khmer Rouge, who too are a military dicatorship.

freddyfreeload wrote:

[*]Hammas Suicide Bombers (Their victims are not unsuspecting)

Please show me one Israeli killed or injured by a Hamas bomber who knew it was going to happen yet continued into the square or market or bus anyway.

freddyfreeload wrote:

[*]All bomb attacks where sufficient telephone warnings are given (not unannounced)

Depends on what you mean by "sufficient." A bombing campaign where the police are given plenty of time to alert and evacuate all people and locate the bomb itself, I would not consider terrorist in nature. For a start how would anyone be terrorised by such an event?

freddyfreeload wrote:

All attacks by paramilitaries on specific military targets (not random)

No, these are not terrorist in nature. Even if an army station is being attacked I know I'm not going to be attacked since I'm not in the army station, and neither are 99.999999% of the population. Hence no reason to be terrorised since it isn't going to happen to me.

freddyfreeload wrote:

do you not agree that the above list poses a problem?

It only poses a problem if you insist that a certain action or group must be classified as terrorist.

Why you need to do that I've no idea.

We have already established that an event or action can be highly illegal and immoral while not being terrorist in nature, so why the insistence that all these events you listed are considered terrorist I've no idea, or why you stated a number of times "oh so its okay then" in your previous post

Sand

Like what is a Jihadist? All Muslims practice Jihad, or personal struggle. I have a Muslim freind whose name is Jihad, he's the most peace-loving bloke you could ever hope to meet.

Im fully aware of the dual nature of Jihad, spiritual and militaristic. Seeing as were discussing terrorists who carry out acts like 9/11 its safe to assume use of the term Jihad refers to the more violent form. If youre lacking in information on Jihadist terrorism, I suggest you try and seek out information on it.

I don't agree they're a cult or cults of any kind. There is no singular or homogenous view of Islam, as there is no single or homogenous view of Judaism, or Christianity.

So you feel that terrorism is a reflection of mainstream Islam?

It is a cult, it is not an "interpretation" of Islam, its a perversion of it to justify terrorism and human sacrifice. Its half the reason why recent converts to Islam keep cropping up in extremist circles - they have little or no grounding in Islam, and being recent converts can feel unqualfied to contradict others, and hence are very vunerable to extremists.

But unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm not aware of an Islamic grouping of any kind that has demanded that any western nation rescinds any of its human rights.

Therefore negotiating with them wouldn't entail us compromising on those issues.

Human rights are universal. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, not just westerners.

If we're talking about human rights within their countries, then that too is something for negotiation. We may not like the fact that some Muslim countries have poor human rights records, but we don't have the right to force them to change at the point of a gun. Just like we can't force America to abandon Camp X-Ray. So we try through peaceful means instead.

So you would endorse the removal of human rights from non "westerners", and co-operate with the imposition of Taliban style regimes so as to preserve the safety of people in the west?

This is your basis for negotiation?

Hobbes

As I recall the Spanish pulled out of Iraq not because of the train bombings but because Spainish people clearly pointed out they didn't want to be there to begin with and the government tried to blame it on ETA.

freddyfreeload

Just to clear some points up. I am a human rights activist. I believe human rights are universal. This includes the right to freedom of worship. So while I personally believe that Islam is wrong, I don't have the right to change Muslims to my way of thinking. This is the very essence of freedom. I do believe, however, that I have the right to urge change via a rights based approach, particularly one that empowers those living in countries where their rights are impinged to effect change themselves, from the grass roots up.

I'm not lacking in knowledge on any kind of terrorism, I've read dozens of books on the subject, including on Irish and Islamic terrorism. Again, as with Klaz, please don't make the mistake of assuming I know nothing just because I disagree with you. (I have also met and spoken with several terrorists in my time).

So you feel that terrorism is a reflection of mainstream Islam?

Of course not. I just don't think the term "Jihadism" carries any helpful meaning for anyone interested in resolving the wider problems that exist between east and west. It's a media concoction that serves no constructive purpose. It just a negative way of conveniently labelling "the other" in the western conciousness. Before long, people will start talking about Asians as looking Jihadist, because they have long beards or a Kurta.

It is a cult, it is not an "interpretation" of Islam, its a perversion of it to justify terrorism and human sacrifice.

I agree with you that extrimist terrorists are perverting the word of their religion, in a similar way to how the IRA perverted the word of God to defend their actions. Religion is a vital motivating/manipulating factor in both instances, but the term "cult" hardly applies.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. But I think you probably see where I'm coming from.

So you would endorse the removal of human rights from non "westerners", and co-operate with the imposition of Taliban style regimes so as to preserve the safety of people in the west?

It's not a case of either or. It is possible to negotiate peace with terrorists AND discuss human rights issues with oppressive regimes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

freddyfreeload

Hmm, confusion reigns, and history is being teisted to fit your definition.

The Madrid Bombings
You previously stated:

"If you follow up a threat with a use of physical force to effect political change you are not a terrorist organisation."

My question to you was/is simple... are you saying that because Bin Laden followed through on his threats with actual physical force, that his was not terrorism?

The INLA were largely involved in kidnapping, assination and gun running. These are not terrorist in nature. They were involved in a bombing of a disco. I would call blowing up a disco "large scale", as well as being random and unspecting. Hense, terrorism

So they fit one of your criteria, but not the rest. Insufficient. Def doesn't work.

The Taliban are not a terrorist organisation, they are a military dicatorship.

Were. There members are now certainly engaged in terrorist activities. That said, The Mujaheddin, The Taliban, Al Qaeda. Same octopus, different legs.

Neither are the Khmer Rouge, who too are a military dicatorship.

Nope. The Khmer Rouge were a terrorist organisation that took over a country and established a military dictatorship. Check it out.

Please show me one Israeli killed or injured by a Hamas bomber who knew it was going to happen yet continued into the square or market or bus anyway.

Your definition said: "unsuspecting". It did not say, "possessing certain knowledge." Perhaps you want to change it though.

Depends on what you mean by "sufficient." A bombing campaign where the police are given plenty of time to alert and evacuate all people and locate the bomb itself, I would not consider terrorist in nature. For a start how would anyone be terrorised by such an event?

The IRA frequently did this. Granted, there were plenty of times they didn't too. But the occasions when they did are still terrorism in my book. Not by your definition though.

[attacks on military targets] No, these are not terrorist in nature. Even if an army station is being attacked I know I'm not going to be attacked since I'm not in the army station, and neither are 99.999999% of the population. Hence no reason to be terrorised since it isn't going to happen to me.

Are you saying Warrenpoint wasn't a terrorist act? (Plus a littany of others)

Are you saying Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist act?

It only poses a problem if you insist that a certain action or group must be classified as terrorist.

Then clearly it is, because it fails to classify some (if not all) of the actions/groups I've listed.

And I notice you failed to respond on...

The activities of Michael Stone (he was a freelancer and not large scale)
The Shankhill Butchers (not large scale, not members of any single identifyable group)
The UVF, UFF and UDA campaign's in N.I. (Their core objective: maintainance of the Union, was entirely achievable through British military force alone)


Of course, I admit I could be wrong, perhaps your definition is perfect! What do you think?


I know this is off topic but could you answer a couple of questions for me?

1. Going into it, did you support the second Iraq War?
2. Before the War, did you believe Iraq had WMD?
3. Do you now believe Bush & Blair a). lied, or b). made a mistake.


ff

freddyfreeload

Perhaps we should get back to the OP's question.

How can we combat terrorism?

I maintain...

You cannot kill it - and trying only fuels it.

You cannot imprison it - and trying fuels it too.

You cannot define it into submission -

ALL the historical evidence shows that negotiation is the only way to address the root causes and acheive a peaceful solution.

The is no historical precedent (to my knowledge) where force has acheived the same results.

So... my vote goes for NEGOTIATION

ff

Sand

Just to clear some points up. I am a human rights activist.

Thats reassuring.

I believe human rights are universal. This includes the right to freedom of worship. So while I personally believe that Islam is wrong, I don't have the right to change Muslims to my way of thinking. This is the very essence of freedom.

Do you also believe that other groups, say oh I dont know, jihadist terrorists do not have a right to change Muslims to their way of thinking through the imposition of Taliban style regimes?

Of course not. I just don't think the term "Jihadism" carries any helpful meaning for anyone interested in resolving the wider problems that exist between east and west. It's a media concoction that serves no constructive purpose. It just a negative way of conveniently labelling "the other" in the western conciousness. Before long, people will start talking about Asians as looking Jihadist, because they have long beards or a Kurta.

I consider the term to be very helpful. Otherwise Id have to repeatedly replace the term with an extremely long description of their beliefs, manifesto, organisation, and modus operandi each and every time I referred to them. Which would be really inefficient.

And labeling "the other"? You just reduced the issue to "the wider problems that exist between east and west"? No effort required to discern between different views or groupings within the monolithic "east" grouping I guess. They are after all, just "the other".

Religion is a vital motivating/manipulating factor in both instances, but the term "cult" hardly applies.

The IRA wasnt a religiously inspired or motivated terrorist organisation. Its membership back prior to the 70s reflected the culture their recruits came from - I.E. strangling oppressive Catholicism - but as Im sure youre aware, the Provos are idealogically communist, and demand a 32 county socialist republic. They may be sectarian, but they are not involved in some holy struggle handed down to them from God himself to purge humanity of the non Catholics.

Jihadists are on a mission from God to purge humanity. Or so they believe at any rate. When youre only accountable to God, and the rest of humanity are dehumanised as sinners and degenerates...well, the dynamics are different.

It's not a case of either or. It is possible to negotiate peace with terrorists AND discuss human rights issues with oppressive regimes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Rubbish tbh, the terrorists wish to overthrow the current regimes in the Islamic world [and the majority of them would not be missed, at least not until the new regime was installed] and replace them with "Islamic" government, i.e. the Taliban.

The terms of your surrender/compromise with Jihadists would naturally prevent intervention to stop the massacres of Shias and other non Sunni muslims, the removal of whatever equality women and other minority groups might have achieved and the heartwarming prospect of the repression of "unIslamic" stuff like music.

Also, you would not be allowed to campaign for human rights in the Islamic word - i.e. corrupting the morals of good Muslims by leading them away from Sharia law.

But, I guess, seeing as it wouldnt affect us in the west, we wouldnt be compromising our values by accepting that deal.

ALL the historical evidence shows that negotiation is the only way to address the root causes and acheive a peaceful solution.

The root cause in this case is what Jihadists perceive as their orders from God. Unless you can convince them youre God - and Islam doesnt really recognise that God takes mortal form - then youre not really recognising the reality of the situation.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

Do you also believe that other groups, say oh I dont know, jihadist terrorists do not have a right to change Muslims to their way of thinking through the imposition of Taliban style regimes

What do you think about the US backing of jihadist terrorists against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Ever seen Rambo III?

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

My question to you was/is simple... are you saying that because Bin Laden followed through on his threats with actual physical force, that his was not terrorism?

His "physical force" didn't physically force any change, nor was it designed to do so. Al Queda cannot force the Spanish

freddyfreeload wrote:

So they fit one of your criteria, but not the rest. Insufficient. Def doesn't work.

The bombings fit all of my critera for a terrorist act.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Were.

Ok, were, as in the time when you referred to them.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Nope. The Khmer Rouge were a terrorist organisation that took over a country and established a military dictatorship. Check it out.

The Khmer rouge were a military insurgency that took over large parts of the country bit by bit through physical force of numbers and support from China.

They might have once in a while used terrorist tactics, but for the large part they did the old fashioned way.

Normally organistaions that use terrorism cannot take over the country by force. If they could they wouldn't need to use terrorism as a strategy.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Your definition said: "unsuspecting". It did not say, "possessing certain knowledge." Perhaps you want to change it though.

Unsuspecting as defined by WordNet is

1 - Not suspicious
2 - Not knowing or expecting

The word is perfectly fine in the defintion, it is understood exactly as I mean it to be. Israeli people are not expecting their bus to blow up, or even suspicious that it might. If they were they would not get on the bus in the first place. Find me one person who suspects a bus is going to blow up yet still gets on it....

freddyfreeload wrote:

The IRA frequently did this. Granted, there were plenty of times they didn't too. But the occasions when they did are still terrorism in my book. Not by your definition though.

If they do it at all they are a terrorist organisation.

There are plenty of times the IRA didn't use terrorism as a tactic for their campagins. There are plenty of times they did, as you point out.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Are you saying Warrenpoint wasn't a terrorist act? (Plus a littany of others)

No Warrenpoint clearly wasn't a terrorist act.

It was an ambush on a military transport, the purpose being to kill the soldiers inside the transport most liklely Lieutenant-Colonel David Blair.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Freddy, the dilussion of the term "terrorist" until the word looses all relilvent meaning.

You seem determined to classify any military act as terrorist, no matter the circumstances of the attack. Warrenpoint also wasn't a naval invasion or an air raid and for anyone to claim it was would be dismissed as clearly not understanding the events at hand.

Why are you fixated on classify everything as terrorist? Do you think that something must be classifed as terrorist for it to be denounced? Do you think that something that isn't terrorist is some how okay by everyone?

freddyfreeload wrote:

The activities of Michael Stone (he was a freelancer and not large scale)

No, I would not consider Michael Stone's actions at Milltown terrorist in nature, he clearly was attempting to assinate senior IRA men.

freddyfreeload wrote:

The Shankhill Butchers (not large scale, not members of any single identifyable group)
The UVF, UFF and UDA campaign's in N.I. (Their core objective: maintainance of the Union, was entirely achievable through British military force alone)

THe UVF UFF and UDA were attempting to effect social and political change in the Catholic population of Northern Ireland through terrorism, as defined in my definition.

Whether a terrorist campaign like that is necessary or not is largely irrelivent. I would not consider any terrorist campaign necessary.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Of course, I admit I could be wrong, perhaps your definition is perfect! What do you think?

I think it is near to perfect as one can get.

And I think if you forgot about your rather illogical desire to classify every military or civilian attrocity as a terrorist act you might realise that it fits terrorist actions quite well.

freddyfreeload wrote:

1. Going into it, did you support the second Iraq War?

Not in the slightest.

But whether it was or was not terrorist (it wasn't) had very little to with that fact. Unlike you, I see nothing wrong with denoucing a military action even if it isn't terrorist in nature. Just like I don't limit myself to denouncing naval engagments or special forces operations.

freddyfreeload wrote:

2. Before the War, did you believe Iraq had WMD?

No

freddyfreeload wrote:

3. Do you now believe Bush & Blair a). lied, or b). made a mistake.

Mistake would imply they had misjudged something. They were told the WMDs were not there by the military and intelligence services. So one could argue Blair made a mistake, but I think Bush knew what he was doing.

freddyfreeload

Sigh...

Do you also believe that other groups, say oh I dont know, jihadist terrorists do not have a right to change Muslims to their way of thinking through the imposition of Taliban style regimes?

Of course. My lines have been clear enough that reading between them is unneccesary. I believe in Universal Human rights.

But nowhere, in philosophy, nor human rights law, does it say mention a right to force others to your will.

I consider the term to be very helpful.

Yes, labelling is very easy. But not constructive, nor helpful.

Otherwise Id have to repeatedly replace the term with an extremely long description of their beliefs, manifesto, organisation, and modus operandi each and every time I referred to them. Which would be really inefficient.

Or you could say Wahabist extrimists, when you're talking about Wahabist extrimists, or Shia, or Sunni extrimists when you're talking about them. Your term is catchall and offerers no useful insight into combatting terrorism.

And labeling "the other"?

This is not my label. It a term used by sociologists in explaining social behaviours like racism: the way a given social group distances those they feel outside their group by "reducing" them to labels, attributing sets of negative behaviours to all people within the group they define as "Other" and often dehumanising them. Using terms like "Jihadist" is the beginning of that process.

You just reduced the issue to "the wider problems that exist between east and west"?

That's not reducing, that's WIDENING, and refers to, as anyone with any degree of common sense should realise, the issues of cultural and political mistrust that exist between the wider Christian world and the wider Muslim World all levels.

No effort required to discern between different views or groupings within the monolithic "east" grouping I guess.

The Esat is not monolithic.

They are after all, just "the other".

You're not getting the point yet. The term, Jihadist, is a media invention that cements a notion of "The Other" in the minds of readers/viewers. It only serves to distance.

The IRA wasnt a religiously inspired or motivated terrorist organisation.

All the scholarly work on the subject implies that religion plays precisely the same role in the activities of groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas as it did with the IRA. Similarly politics. Their goals are political (and can therefore be addressed as such) but religion is the rallying call, the banner, the motivator, that whips up the fervour to kill and possibly be killed.

Jihadists are on a mission from God to purge humanity. Or so they believe at any rate. When youre only accountable to God, and the rest of humanity are dehumanised as sinners and degenerates...well, the dynamics are different.

Again, by using a catchall term you're overlooking the fact that there are several extremist Muslim groups using terrorism at the moment, from each of the main Muslim sects, plus some sub-sect orgs, each with differing POLITICAL" objectives, each using and manipulating religion to recruit, whip up fervour and do what they do.

the terrorists wish to overthrow the current regimes in the Islamic world

List the groups you're talking about and cite their stated objectives. Then we can talk specifics instead of your wildly tossed-out and outrageously innacurate generalisms.

The terms of your surrender/compromise with Jihadists would naturally prevent intervention to stop the massacres of Shias and other non Sunni muslims, the removal of whatever equality women and other minority groups might have achieved and the heartwarming prospect of the repression of "unIslamic" stuff like music.

You really haven't a clue what's going on have you? Generalism after generalism after complete bull**** mixed up statement. Amazing. This statement of your implies that only Sunni's are guily of massacres.

Also, you would not be allowed to campaign for human rights in the Islamic word - i.e. corrupting the morals of good Muslims by leading them away from Sharia law.

Complete nonsense. Amnesty have been campaigning in such countries for decades. Campaigning for women's rights, against torture, imprisonment without trial. We make most progress where western governments don't wade in with their their size nines.

Bu then you wouldn't know about that would you, because despite all your pontificating I bet you've never lifted a finger to help anyone being oppressed by any of the regimes you refer to.

The root cause in this case is what Jihadists perceive as their orders from God. Unless you can convince them youre God - and Islam doesnt really recognise that God takes mortal form - then youre not really recognising the reality of the situation.

Wrong again. Foot soldiers, however misguided and fanatical they may be follow orders from their leaders. Their leaders DO have political motives: stated demands that the west can engage with, IF our govts wanted to. The problem is they don't. Washington wants Total War, as Rumsfeld puts it.

Seems you and people like you relish the prospect of that.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Perhaps we should get back to the OP's question.

How can we combat terrorism?

I maintain...

You cannot kill it - and trying only fuels it.

You cannot imprison it - and trying fuels it too.

You cannot define it into submission -

...

So... my vote goes for NEGOTIATION

ff

I would agree with all your inital points but I would add "You cannot negotiate with it"

Most terrorist demands, especially those of Islamic fundamentalists, are pretty, shall we say, unreasonable. Al Queda want a destruction of democracy and an world wide imposing of fundamentalist Islamic law for example. Not many countries can negotiate around that idea, even if they wanted to.

I believe that the only way to fight terrorism in the short term is a strong intelligence service and in the long term by improving the social/political causes that breed terrorism

Sand

Of course. My lines have been clear enough that reading between them is unneccesary. I believe in Universal Human rights.

But nowhere, in philosophy, nor human rights law, does it say mention a right to force others to your will.

So if an attempt was made to remove human rights from people, using force, then it would be justifiable as a defence of human rights to use force in response?

And theres plenty of philosophy that advocates forcing others to your will...

Or you could say Wahabist extrimists, when you're talking about Wahabist extrimists, or Shia, or Sunni extrimists when you're talking about them. Your term is catchall and offerers no useful insight into combatting terrorism.

Because Wahabist/Sunni extemist is just as useful or unuseful as Jihadist [And the Shia sect is theologically at least more open to debate/reinterpretation than Sunnis - hence the coverage of portraits of Mohammed in Iran whilst the Sunni world was burning anything and everything over the ****stirring carried out by the Danish immans]. A person can be fundamentalist, even extremist about some religion but not be inclined to violence against others. Theres plenty of religious groups that live in isolated remote communities living to religiously inspired standards we would consider extreme, but theyre hardly a concern because theyre not violently inclined nor on a mission from God to wipe out the sinners.

That's not reducing, that's WIDENING, and refers to, as anyone with any degree of common sense should realise, the issues of cultural and political mistrust that exist between the wider Christian world and the wider Muslim World all levels.

Try to understand that from what I can see youve been busy the last couple of posts attacking the use of "Jihadist" because either A) you feel it simply dismisses a group of people as "the other" to try and distract from the topic to a non issue C) just to be pedantic.

You then go on to describe the issue as being east/west and later christian/muslim. Thats just outright laughable, considering A above. The issue has nothing to do with east/west. It has nothing to do with christian/muslim.

You're not getting the point yet. The term, Jihadist, is a media invention that cements a notion of "The Other" in the minds of readers/viewers. It only serves to distance.

Youre not getting the point - East/West only have any real meaning on a map or giving directions. In geo-political terms theyre pure media inventions to describe Cold War allegiances, and by extension a very, very loose summary of individual freedoms as opposed to state oppression in various countries. Hence Japan being considered "western" despite being in the Far East.

You complain about the term Jihadist, and offer even worse terminology for framing the debate.

All the scholarly work on the subject implies that religion plays precisely the same role in the activities of groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas as it did with the IRA. Similarly politics. Their goals are political (and can therefore be addressed as such) but religion is the rallying call, the banner, the motivator, that whips up the fervour to kill and possibly be killed.

Link me to this scholarly work. Cite it to me. Show me the studies. The IRAs goals were purely political - a redrawing of the political map to include the 6 countys in a 32 county [socialist] Ireland. Their membership and activites were sectarian, but their stated objectives had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Jihadists goals have everything to do with religion. They wish to establish a new society based on the 13th century caliphate, sharia law and a "cleansing" of all non Sunnis. You mentioned before being able to make peace with the terrorists whilst talking about human rights to the oppressive governments, betraying total ignorance about the goals and objectives of Jihadists. Any deal that leaves the status quo of "apostate" governments in place would not be acceptable to Jihad terrorists.

Again, by using a catchall term you're overlooking the fact that there are several extremist Muslim groups using terrorism at the moment, from each of the main Muslim sects, plus some sub-sect orgs, each with differing POLITICAL" objectives, each using and manipulating religion to recruit, whip up fervour and do what they do.

There you go again "catchall term" :rolleyes: - Sorry, is East or Muslim supposed to be more useful? How does that impact the existence of Jihadist groups whose goals are not political in nature? Did the PLO blow up the WTC [Twice]? The Spanish trains? The London Underground? The US embassies in East Africa? The Bali nightclubs? Jihadists are not Shia, and what militant Shia terrorist groups exist tend to be involved with struggles against either Israel or in Iraq. Jihadists are drawn from the Sunni sect. Al Queda in Iraqs stated goal was and is to spark a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias - and theyve effectively succeeded. I think its safe to assume Shias arent with Al Queda & Co. Hence use of your terms like "east" or "muslim" wouldnt be all that helpful.

List the groups you're talking about and cite their stated objectives. Then we can talk specifics instead of your wildly tossed-out and outrageously innacurate generalisms.

Again, if youre not aware of the stated goals and objectives of jihadist terrorism then I suggest you educate yourself. Ive better things to do than assist you in that.

Complete nonsense. Amnesty have been campaigning in such countries for decades. Campaigning for women's rights, against torture, imprisonment without trial. We make most progress where western governments don't wade in with their their size nines.

By the terms of any *conceivable* deal you might have a hope of selling to Al Queda youd have to agree to not contradict their message nor lead good muslims astray with your talk of human rights. The "far enemy" is regarded so because of its cultural projection into the Islamic world by movies, books and music. All of this is resented and hated by Jihadist terrorists, as it not in line with their perversion of Islam.

You throw out solutions like "Cant we all get along, lets ask them for peace!", argue for negotiation and compromise like no one ever considered it before and yet fail to recognise or even consider what a deal might entail. The reason people dont favour negotiation and compomise with Jihadist terrorist groups is because any conceivable compromise would simply be incompatible with basic concepts like universal human rights.

Bu then you wouldn't know about that would you, because despite all your pontificating I bet you've never lifted a finger to help anyone being oppressed by any of the regimes you refer to.

No, Ive got to admit Ive never had the sort of dedication and guts that it takes to be out there on the front lines, writing letters to dictators waste papers baskets.

You really haven't a clue what's going on have you? Generalism after generalism after complete bull**** mixed up statement. Amazing. This statement of your implies that only Sunni's are guily of massacres.

Everyones guilty of massacres. But were not talking about everyone. Nor are we talking about easterners, nor even muslims, nor even Sunnis. Were talking about Jihadists and their goals.

Wrong again. Foot soldiers, however misguided and fanatical they may be follow orders from their leaders. Their leaders DO have political motives: stated demands that the west can engage with, IF our govts wanted to. The problem is they don't. Washington wants Total War, as Rumsfeld puts it.

Please - look at the London train bombings, and the more recent plot on the UK-US flights. Literally cottage industry terrorism. AQ would have offered training and funding at best, but they would not have controlled the operation in any absolute way. AQ couldnt order them to not carry out the operation - they simply would have sought out different training and funds. AQ doesnt control the various terrorist groups it networks with - it simply provides them with support, networking and a unifying idealogy.

Guys who are willing to blow themselves up to kill people they dont know have a *little* more commitment to the cause than simply following orders. You might want to recognise that if your peace talks are going to be realistic.

Seems you and people like you relish the prospect of that.

No, Ive simply recognised that any deal would involve compromises that would not be acceptable. You simply have failed to recognise that and continue to delude yourself that human rights could be advocated in an idealogical space that would have to be surrendered to Jihadists to appease them.

But please, seeing as youre so confident negotiation can work explain to me the basic framework of the deal you envisage with AQ/Jihadists in general - assuming of course you can find a leadership to talk to and can get them all in a room and willing to negotiate a joint deal...

freddyfreeload

I would agree with all your inital points but I would add "You cannot negotiate with it"

Yet negotiation with terrorist organisations has a proven track record of success. Trying to destroy them has a track record of failure and entirely counter-productive results.

Washington has yet tried negotiating with Al Qaeda. I'm not suggtesting they should set up a meeting with Bin Laden for next Monday, but there is a process, lengthy though it may be, that could be pursued. Call it dialogue rather than negotiation, if you will.

Al Queda want a destruction of democracy and an world wide imposing of fundamentalist Islamic law for example.

Can you show me where/when have they demanded this?

I am aware of the American and European media's interpretations along these lines, but not of Bin Laden or Al Qaeda ever having issued such demands.

I think you'll find their objectives are more rooted in their birth, i.e. King Faud's rejection of Bin Laden's offer to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq (at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990) with the Mujahideen, and King Faud's decision instead to let the U.S. Military into the land of Islam's two most holy sites, Mecca and Medina.

I believe this issue could be addressed. A U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is surely negotiable, and could be the key to the ending of Al Qaeda's campaign.

I believe that the only way to fight terrorism in the short term is a strong intelligence service and in the long term by improving the social/political causes that breed terrorism

I think I agree. Certainly to your first point. To your second, what do you mean by improving? If you mean beginning a process of "addressing" the underlying social and political causes, then I agree wholeheartedly. If by "improving" you mean somehow destroying the fanatical element within Islam that breeds suicide bombers, then I'd have to disagree. Not because I have any respect or regard for this element, but only because I'm certain it's impossible to wipe it out, and that attempting will only make it larger, stronger and more determined.

ff

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Yet negotiation with terrorist organisations has a proven track record of success.

Not quite sure where you get that from?

Besides very few governments can negotiate with terrorists because it just sends the message that terrorism works

freddyfreeload wrote:

Washington has yet tried negotiating with Al Qaeda. I'm not suggtesting they should set up a meeting with Bin Laden for next Monday, but there is a process, lengthy though it may be, that could be pursued. Call it dialogue rather than negotiation, if you will.

What should Washington give Al Qaeda to satisfy them? They want a complete destruction of democracy and a world wide Islamic legal system, so I'm not quite sure what Washington good give them.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Can you show me where/when have they demanded this?

Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri and the rest of Al Queda split idiologically, from the more moderate Dr. Abdullah Azzam teachings in the late 80s. Zawahiri is a particular leader in this view point, interpriting the teachings of Eygptian revolutionary Sayyed Qutb as meaning that western democracy is an afront to Allah.

Bin Laden, who had orginally followed Azzam was radicalisted by Zawahiri and his egyptian Islamic Jihad group.

Zawahiri outlined the goals of Al Queda in the 2001 "Knights under the Prophets Banner", a kind of Mein Kampf for the Islamic movment.

He outlines how he believes all Muslims should kill Americans and Jews on site, and more importantly he believes that there can be no truce, as America wishes to destroy Islam. Western Democracy (which is seen as either Christian or secular and an afront to Islam) is part of this attempt to destroy Islam.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I think you'll find their objectives are more rooted in their birth, i.e. King Faud's rejection of Bin Laden's offer to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq (at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990) with the Mujahideen, and King Faud's decision instead to let the U.S. Military into the land of Islam's two most holy sites, Mecca and Medina.

That was the birth of Bin Ladens anti-American feeling, but unfortunately for the west Al Queda has been the light to the moths of Islamic fundamentalism, and now contains a number of high ranking fundamentalist, each with different "births" but a shared hatred of the west.

For example Zawahiri's hatred of the west most likely came from his teenage years following Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and was most likely radicalisted by the 1967 6 day war. One origin of Al Queda's anti-democracy idelogy can probably be traced to Zawahiri's time under Qutb, who believe that there should be no decision on rules on earth, everyone should follow Islamic law and that is it.

freddyfreeload wrote:

A U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is surely negotiable, and could be the key to the ending of Al Qaeda's campaign.

Unfortunately not the case. The anti-US feeling of Bin Laden on this issue is due to an embrasshment of being rejected by hte government of his home country. The anti-US rant was just a response to this. If the Saudi bases were removed it is not even clear if that would even satisfy Bin Laden.

But also the Al Queda philosphy has spread far beyond the bases in Saudi Arabia. If Al Queda one a victory with Saudi bases, why would they stop when Israel still exists, and Iraq is stil under US control etc etc.

freddyfreeload wrote:

If by "improving" you mean somehow destroying the fanatical element within Islam that breeds suicide bombers, then I'd have to disagree.

Not sure how one would "destroy" a fanatical element, so that isn't what a I meant. I meant exactly what I said, improving the social and political situations in countries that breed radicalism.

freddyfreeload

So if an attempt was made to remove human rights from people, using force, then it would be justifiable as a defence of human rights to use force in response?

No. Two wrongs don't make a right. It would be justifiable to use a human rights based approach to defend the human rights of others.

And theres plenty of philosophy that advocates forcing others to your will...

Not the arena of philosophy concerned with human rights (or natural rights as they're sometimes termed), which is what we were talking about.

the Shia sect is theologically at least more open to debate/reinterpretation than Sunnis

Like Hezbollah and Iran, you mean?

The adherents of both sects consider the other apostates. Plain and simple. I don't think you'll find either willing to compromise on the issues that divide them, a debate that's been raging since the death of Mohammed.

---

My issues with your favoured term, "Jihadist" are as follows:

a). it's a term that offends the vast majority of Muslims because, by implication, it denegrates the concept of Jihad, a vital tenet of Islam, that does not conform simply to the North American and Western European media notion of "Holy War".

b). it is rapidly becoming a label that erroneously denotes more than the terrorist organisations you apply it too. This kind of labelling does not serve the mainstream Muslim community and leads to racist behaviour like airline passengers kicking Asian men of a plane.

c). it does nothing to identify and address the root of the security issues currently faced by countries like Britain, the US and possibly even Ireland. As a term it's about as constructive as Protestants refering to Catholics as Papists. (Note I did not say "the same as"). While not technically incorrect, the term Papist remains offensive and unhelpful nonetheless.

East/West only have any real meaning on a map or giving directions. In geo-political terms theyre pure media inventions to describe Cold War allegiances,

They are actually centuries old terms used to describe Islam and Christendom, as in "ne're the twain shall meet." Pre-cold war, I think you'll find.

The broad terms I have used to describe broad communities, were not intended to isolate a specific entity, unlike yours. Mine were INTENDED to be catch-all. And you can hardly claim that terms like Western and Eastern and Muslim and Christian are not understood by all. Unlike Jihadist, which is a recently concocted term that signifies nothing of constructive use.

But, still... Okay, perhaps I should have been more specific in my terminology. I'll try to be in future. Will you, though?

You suddenly yearn for specifics. Okay, let's call a spade a spade then. As far as the security issues facing North America and Western Europe at the moment are concerned, the number one problem is specifically Al Qaeda. 911, the London bombings, the Madrid train bomb, the failed London bombings and the recent foiled plot, all were either conceived of and carried out by Al Qaeda, or inspired by them. We don't need the term Jihadist, when Al Qaeda will do.

Link me to this scholarly work. Cite it to me. Show me the studies.

On the grounds that you go on to say you can't bothered to respond to my requests for citations, I'm not about to give you a bibliography. However, one book you should check out (by someone Washington is actually listening to) is Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape (this link will take you to an article about him/his book you might find interesting). It's a study of suicide bombings, Al Qaeda's weapon of choice.

He says, of his findings:"The prevailing wisdom is that suicide terrorism is largely a function of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, myself, right after 9/11, I went and grabbed the Koran because I wanted to know what's wrong with Islam that this is driving people to do suicide terrorism. Well, I was actually surprised to discover that what over 95 percent of all suicide attacks around the world since 1980 until today have in common is not religion, but a clear, strategic objective: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

The IRAs goals were purely political - a redrawing of the political map to include the 6 countys in a 32 county [socialist] Ireland.

I agree completely. But religion did play a vital role. It was the fuel used to whip up fervour, to aid recruitment of loyal adherents, and to justify the killing of their enemies. In their minds, the killing was done for Ireland, and in the name of God. This is a pattern that fits most military and paramilitary action, from the Crusades to Joan of Arc to the Middle East to the U.S. President's "God bless America."

And it also goes for Al Qaeda. Their core demends are political. They use religion to whip up fervour, assist in recruiting members, and to inspire them to kill and be killed.

They wish to establish a new society based on the 13th century caliphate

Please cite your source.

Al Qaeda supports the creation of Islamic states goverened by Sharia law. Of which the world already has several, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, top allies of the US. To my knowledge they have not expressed a desire to take over any given country and establish another Afghan/Taliban regime.

Again, if youre not aware of the stated goals and objectives of jihadist terrorism then I suggest you educate yourself. Ive better things to do than assist you in that.

I'm suggesting you are the one who needs to educate yourself. If you can't be bothered to support your argument with evidence when asked, perhaps you should drop it, or at least reconsider its validity.

By the terms of any *conceivable* deal you might have a hope of selling to Al Queda youd have to agree to not contradict their message nor lead good muslims astray with your talk of human rights.

Nonsense. They have on several occasions offered a truce to both Europe and the US. Their only demands: a change in foreign policy to cease military and political intervention in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

You throw out solutions like "Cant we all get along, lets ask them for peace!",

I have said neither of these things.

The reason people dont favour negotiation and compomise with Jihadist terrorist groups is because any conceivable compromise would simply be incompatible with basic concepts like universal human rights.

Nonesense. Us and Britain have never refered to human rights issues as a reason for not engaging in diplomacy with Al Qaeda.

And you'll find most human rights organisations advocating diplomacy not war. Do you think human rights organisations do not value the principle of universal rights? They do. They just realise they cannot be achieved at the point of a sword.

Al Qaeda have actually offered grounds to discuss a truce. The creation of a Shia State was not on their list of demands. Changes in US and European foregn policy were. Their overtures were rejected out of hand.

No, Ive got to admit Ive never had the sort of dedication and guts that it takes to be out there on the front lines, writing letters to dictators waste papers baskets.

Go ahead and sneer if you wish. Writing letters doesn't take courage, but it does take time and committment. And it does work. I've been involved in campaigns that have resulted in the freedom of political prisoners, the pardoning of executions and the improvement of women's rights in the sort of countries you have alluded to before. People like me also support financially and through protest, boycotts and other campaigning, the kind of rights based work that makes a genuine difference to the political scenery and daily lives of men, women and children who live in oppressive regimes of all kinds.

What have you done except sit on your arse and spout a bit of hot air?

AQ doesnt control the various terrorist groups it networks with - it simply provides them with support, networking and a unifying idealogy.

Again, this is a sweeping generalisation that doesn't properly fit the known facts. And even if it were true, it makes little difference. Al Qaeda is the unifying centre. Without Al Qaeda, none of these actions would have happened. I think even you realise that.

But please, seeing as youre so confident negotiation can work explain to me the basic framework of the deal you envisage with AQ/Jihadists in general - assuming of course you can find a leadership to talk to and can get them all in a room and willing to negotiate a joint deal...

See my last post to Wicknight.

All it really takes is for 1). the realisation that political goals lie at the root of Al Qaeda's terrorist activities. 2). acknowledgment that negotiation on these political issues is possible. 3). the establishment of a dialogue between Washington and Al Qaeda leadership (which clearly does exist).

Now, given your rejection of the fact that the only known resolution to terrorist conflict is dialogue, how would you propose dealing with Al Qaeda and/or the people you term Jihadists?

Or perhaps you can't be bothered to answer...

ff

philologos

Jackie laughlin wrote:

How about: Terrorism is political violence where the victim is not the primary target but is used to effect a wider target audience usually through careful orchestration of the mass media.

Terrorism isn't just political though, someone can terrorise another person just. so there would have to be a wider definition of it

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

1). the realisation that political goals lie at the root of Al Qaeda's terrorist activities.

The stated political goals of Al Queda are,

- Drive all western social/political/cultural infulence from Muslim lands
- The complete destruction of the Israeli state
- Topple any pro-western Muslim governments (this includes, but not limited to, Saudi Arabi, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordon and Eygpt)
- Unite all Muslims under one Muslim state following the teachings of Al-Wahhab (the 18th century cleric who believed Islam had been corruped a century after Muhammad and that everything since then is not true Islam) and Qutb (the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who taught that western ideas of democracy are an afront to God, and that there should be no man made laws, only the Qu'ran)

These go a little beyond removing US air bases from Saudi lands...

freddyfreeload wrote:

2). acknowledgment that negotiation on these political issues is possible.

I'm not quite sure how you define "possible". On which point above do you think the US government could negotiate, even if it wanted to? Maybe the US government could help destroy Israel?

freddyfreeload wrote:

3). the establishment of a dialogue between Washington and Al Qaeda leadership (which clearly does exist).

As for point two what would they discuss?

freddyfreeload

So betwen the to-ing and the fro-ing it seems that what we've boiled it down to is this:

1. Some people believe that Al Qaeda's primary objectives are political, and that a process of discourse could be entered into that could resolve the growing conflict we now find ourselves facing by addressing those issues. They point to the fact history shows us examples (like the IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, PLO) where diplomacy, negotiation and discourse have worked successfully to end terrorist campaigns. I belong to that group.

2. Some people believe that Al Qaeda want world domination under Sharia Law and believe diplomacy, negotiation and discourse is not possible and should not be attempted. You two seem to belong to that group.

What neither of you has yet stated is how your way of thinking can end Al Qaeda's campaign of violence.

Please say how.


And Wicknight, I notice you've avoided my direct questions from a previous post...

1. Going into it, did you support the second Iraq War?
2. Before the War, did you believe Iraq had WMD?
3. Do you now believe Bush & Blair a). lied, or b). made a mistake.

I'm just curious...

ff

MiCr0

just a quick reminder to all posters to discuss the topic - and not the poster

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

1. Some people believe that Al Qaeda's primary objectives are political, and that a process of discourse could be entered into that could resolve the growing conflict we now find ourselves facing by addressing those issues.

Who are "some people"?

Al Queda want what Al Queda have stated they want, which I listed above. As I asked before, which parts of those objectives do you believe the US, European or Middle Eastern governments could negotate around?

freddyfreeload wrote:

What neither of you has yet stated is how your way of thinking can end Al Qaeda's campaign of violence.

Firstly I would point out my "way of thinking" is not the same as Sands, and I've had many a discussion on this topic with Sand where we do not agree (although we both seem to understand the nature of Al Qaeda)

Secondly, I don't think it is possible for the west to end Al Qaeda's campaign of violence. It is only possible to limit it.

A number of ways that middle eastern terrorism could be lessend, would be a lasting peace in Israel and a stable situation in Iraq. Both these things are probably years, even decades away. Improving Muslim relations in Europe would be no harm either.

freddyfreeload wrote:

And Wicknight, I notice you've avoided my direct questions from a previous post...

1. Going into it, did you support the second Iraq War?
2. Before the War, did you believe Iraq had WMD?
3. Do you now believe Bush & Blair a). lied, or b). made a mistake.

I'm just curious...

I did answer them, in this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51965061&postcount=40

To repeat, no, no, yes, no