Fighting Terrorism...

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

freddyfreeload

My apologies. For some reason I missed that post completely. Thanks for the link.

And I'm beginning to get a better handle on where you're coming from (Not the Iraq thing, but your interpretations of Warren Point, Michael Stone etc).

In retrospect I should not have responded so sarcastically to your definition:o . Perhaps if I'd framed my reservations less obliquely we'd have got here sooner.

That said, I still have trouble reading things the same way you do, including the worth of your definition. I think you are fitting facts to suit it, rather than fine tuning it to fit the world we live in. That said, it a term people the world over are struggling, and largely failing, to define adequately.

You say that I seem "determined to classify any military act as terrorist, no matter the circumstances of the attack." Which means I have clearly given the wrong impression. I honestly am not. To be honest, my distaste of violence is such that I believe the term terrorist/terrorism itself to be largely pointless. My passion for the US Def Dept's definition stems only from the fact that it hoists them by their own petard.

You asked "who are some people" I refer to who believe 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.

Amongst them are: Allen Zerkin of the New York University's Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response. A US govt funded group set up in the wake of 911.
Tariq Ali
Robert Pape (currently advising
Mo Mowlem
Judge Hamoud al-Hitar (Interseting CS Monitor article).
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard.

You have said you believe Al Qaeda's objectives 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)

I prefer to rely on stated objectives rather than versions framed by western media. Al Zawahiri actually calls for the following three core rights for all Muslims are:
:
“The Quran-Based Authority to Govern.” The creating of an Islamic states governed solely by sharia law.

“The Liberation of the Homelands.” With reforms and free elections possible after first establishing “the freedom of the Muslim lands and their
liberation from every aggressor.”

“The Liberation of the Human Being.” A vision of a contractual social relationship between Muslims and their rulers that would permit people to choose and criticize their leaders but also demand that Muslims resist and overthrow rulers who violate Islamic laws and principles.

All of which I have serious issues with, but nothing that really precludes the opening of peace negotiations.

Perhaps you could cite statements that support your personal interpretation of Al Qaeda's demands (I don't mean western media editorial).

However, as you know. No one leaves a negotiating table with everything they want. The IRA don't have a 32 country socialist republic, yet peace has been negotiated.

The current US administration's objectives for the region are geo-political control of energy resources through the projection of military power (Project for the New American Century). Clearly, they could not hope to come away from a negotiating table with this anymore than Al Qaeda could expect the dismantling of Israel.

There's a big difference between the central strategic goals of both the US and Al Qaeda and the religious, cultural and rhetorical clothing both dress them up in.

In the heel of the hunt, I think Al Qaeda's rhetorical aspirations would evaporate if an end to US geo-political intervention in the region came about.

But that's the root of the problem. The US is happy to fan the flames of Islamic resentment, permit Al Qaeda to thrive, leave Bin Laden on the loose... all in order to prolong a contrived need for their intervention in the region, and maintain their ugly status quo, to the great economic benefit of the Hallibuton's and Raytheons of the world.

Or as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman once wrote: "For globalization to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is...The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

Unless the US changes this attitude to foreign policy (or Middle-East oil runs out) I'm afraid we're stuck with Al Qaeda and all the misery they spawn.

Sadly, I think we're looking at a decade plus of conflict during which time thousands more will die unneccesarily. And then, once the oil is starting to run out, the negotiations will eventually kick in. Of course, by then, the damage done to relations between the two communities worldwide will be immense and long term.

That's the price we're being asked to pay for control of other county's dwindling energy reserves.

freddyfreeload

My apologies. For some reason I missed that post completely. Thanks for the link.

And I'm beginning to get a better handle on where you're coming from.

In retrospect I should not have responded so sarcastically to your definition . Perhaps if I'd framed my reservations less obliquely we'd have got here sooner.

That said, I still have trouble reading things the same way you do, including the worth of your definition. I think you are fitting facts to suit it, rather than fine tuning it to fit the world we live in. That said, it's a term people the world over are struggling, and largely failing, to define adequately.

You say that I seem "determined to classify any military act as terrorist, no matter the circumstances of the attack." Which means I have clearly given the wrong impression. Actually, my distaste of violence is such that I believe the term terrorist/terrorism itself to be largely pointless. My passion for the US Def Dept's definition stems only from the fact that it hoists them by their own petard.

You asked "who are some people" I refer to who believe 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.

I'm hardly alone. Among others are: Allen Zerkin of the New York University's Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response. A US govt funded group set up in the wake of 911. Mo Mowlem Judge Hamoud al-Hitar (Interseting CS Monitor article). Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard.

You have said you believe Al Qaeda's objectives 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)

I prefer to rely on stated objectives rather than versions framed by western media. Al Zawahiri actually calls for the following three core rights for all Muslims are:
:
“The Quran-Based Authority to Govern.” The creating of an Islamic states governed solely by sharia law.

“The Liberation of the Homelands.” With reforms and free elections possible after first establishing “the freedom of the Muslim lands and their
liberation from every aggressor.”

“The Liberation of the Human Being.” A vision of a contractual social relationship between Muslims and their rulers that would permit people to choose and criticize their leaders but also demand that Muslims resist and overthrow rulers who violate Islamic laws and principles.

All of which I have serious issues with, but nothing that really precludes the opening of peace negotiations.

Perhaps you could cite statements that support your personal interpretation of Al Qaeda's demands (I don't mean western media editorial).

However, as you know. No one leaves a negotiating table with everything they want. The IRA don't have a 32 country socialist republic, yet peace has been negotiated.

The current US administration's objectives for the region are geo-political control of energy resources through the projection of military power (Project for the New American Century). Clearly, they could not hope to come away from a negotiating table with this anymore than Al Qaeda could expect the dismantling of Israel.

There's a big difference between the central strategic goals of both the US and Al Qaeda and the religious, cultural and rhetorical clothing both dress them up in.

In the heel of the hunt, I think Al Qaeda's rhetorical aspirations would evaporate if an end to US geo-political intervention in the region came about.

But that's the root of the problem. The US is happy to fan the flames of Islamic resentment, permit Al Qaeda to thrive, leave Bin Laden on the loose... all in order to prolong a contrived need for their intervention in the region, and maintain their ugly status quo, to the great economic benefit of the Hallibuton's and Raytheons of the world.

Or as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman once wrote: "For globalization to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is...The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

Unless the US changes this attitude to foreign policy (or Middle-East oil runs out) I'm afraid we're stuck with Al Qaeda and all the misery they spawn.

Sadly, I think we're looking at a decade plus of conflict during which time thousands more will die unneccesarily. And then, once the oil is starting to run out, the negotiations will eventually kick in. Of course, by then, the damage done to relations between the two communities worldwide will be immense and long term.

That's the price we're being asked to pay for control of other county's dwindling energy reserves.

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

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).

Please don't refer to me in a thread I haven't posted in, and only found while scanning. If you have a remark about me, notify me and let me cover it. I've never assumed you know nothing because you simply disagreed with me. If you have evidence/proof, provide it. If you don't, I might call you on it. Just as many of the posters to the politics board would do to me. Its natural on these boards.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

My passion for the US Def Dept's definition stems only from the fact that it hoists them by their own petard.

I understand that, but my point was that that is not necessary.

It is not necessary to produce a wide encompassing definition of terrorist so one can fit the US military actions as terrorist in nature. The US actions can be condemned even if they are not terrorist, and having such a wide definition makes the term "terrorist" almost meaningless, especially when one considers that it is supposed to referrer to a specific military tactic.

freddyfreeload wrote:

You asked "who are some people" I refer to who believe Al Qaeda's primary objectives are political,
You have said you believe Al Qaeda's objectives are...

Thanks for the links, I must say I am genuninely shocked that someone like Mo Mowlem would have such a naieve view of the situation. A the Lib Dem councilor pointed out at the bottom of the article, how can you negotate with a groups whos aim is your destruction.

freddyfreeload wrote:

All of which I have serious issues with, but nothing that really precludes the opening of peace negotiations.

A few points points.

Firstly, that is one statement from Al Queda. They have given lots more. It would be naieve to ignore where Zawahiri is coming from, his political views

Secondly, if you conceed something to Al Queda do you honestly believe they would stop?

Third, what would you conceed? The US or Britian is not in the position to over throw any of the governments in the Middle East to be replaced by governments that Al Queda approve off

Fourthy, negotation with Al Queda legitamises them. Al Queda are not in a position to demand anything. They are not a representative of any country or group. What if Saudi Arabia don't want the US to withdraw military support. What if Saudi Arabia quite like having US military support? Should the US ignore the wishes of the Saudi government because Al Queda disapprove?

freddyfreeload wrote:

Perhaps you could cite statements that support your personal interpretation of Al Qaeda's demands (I don't mean western media editorial).

I did, Zawahiri outlined his beliefs in

freddyfreeload wrote:

The IRA don't have a 32 country socialist republic, yet peace has been negotiated.

The IRA is a very different situation, and it would be hard to argue that the IRA got anything from the negotiting table, except prisioner releases.

For a start the IRA is a miltiary wing of a political movement, and as the such the political movement can rail in the IRA when it looks like political progress is being made. Al Queda is the movement, there is no pressure being put upon it by other groups

Secondly the demands of republicans with relation to what they got, ie a devolutation in northern ireland and the establishment of a multi-cultural government system, are actually reasonable goals, and within the realm of the British government being able to grant

You have as yet not shown any of the goal of Al Queda, including the removal of US bases, as being within the realm of reasonable possibly.

Thirdly the republican movement had a legitamate government, ie Ireland, speaking on their behalf, and the IRA were, despite being extreme and relatively unpopular, part of that movement. Al Queda are not part of a wider legitamate movement and they just are more extreme. Most Muslims don't follow any of the goals of Al Queda, and none of the governments in the Middle East support them. There is no legitamacy behind Al Queda. Who do they represent?

You need to ask yourself do the people or governments of the Middle East actually support the goals Al Queda have set out?

freddyfreeload wrote:

In the heel of the hunt, I think Al Qaeda's rhetorical aspirations would evaporate if an end to US geo-political intervention in the region came about.

I agree, but how does negotation with Al Qaeda help or hinder that? Negotation with them is an irrelivant factor, because what Al Qaeda will approve or not approve is not a reflection of the people in the countries in question.

When you are talking to Al Qaeda who are you talking to. Who do they represent. They don't represent the Saudi government or the Saudi people. So how do you negotate with Al Qaeda over US military bases in Saudi Arabia

When you are talking to Al Qaeda you are not talking to the people of Iraq, so how do you negoatate with Al Qaeda over US involvement in Iraq.

I would be like negotating with the ETA in Spain over Northern Ireland political structures. ETA's approval of the Assembly is rather irrelivant, it is the people of the area that matter, not a terrorist group in another country, even if they support the Republican cause.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Unless the US changes this attitude to foreign policy (or Middle-East oil runs out) I'm afraid we're stuck with Al Qaeda and all the misery they spawn.

I agree, but the answer to that isn't negotation with Al Queda.

freddyfreeload

My apologies. I accidentally used your name instead of another posters. Freudian slip!:o

freddyfreeload

Thanks for the links

No problem. I find the Yemeni example interesting. It shows there's hope. I know the idea of foot-soldiers (be they military or paramilitary) being brainwashed to loathe their enemies is nothing new, but it's encouraging to know that the Al Qaeda version is not beyond deprogramming.

I must say I am genuninely shocked that someone like Mo Mowlem would have such a naieve view of the situation.

But is it naieve? Who knows until this route is explored.

Did you check out the Robert Pape link I posted to Sand yesterday.

A the Lib Dem councilor pointed out at the bottom of the article, how can you negotate with a groups whos aim is your destruction.

The same objections were made about the IRA, the PLO and the ANC, among others.

Firstly, that is one statement from Al Queda.

Which is actually the "Three Platforms" of Zawahiri's thinking.

I have not read the book you referenced, "Knights under the Prophet". Have you? If so perhaps you can quote where he and/or Al Qaeda make the demands you listed.

I don't doubt the underlying tyranny of their dream. It's just that, as you have said yourself, the majority of Muslim's don't share it. It would remain, therefore, an unfulfillable aspiration.

Secondly, if you conceed something to Al Queda do you honestly believe they would stop?

They have three times offered a truce only ever mentioning the US occupation of Iraq and US/European attacks on Muslim people as issues.

On all three occasions, the offers have been rejected out of hand. I'm not saying Bush and Blair should have said, "Whatever you say Osama." But they could have responded somewhere short of an outright refusal. It reminds me of Thatcher's refusal to listen to peace proposals before the Falklands War.

The IRA is a very different situation, and it would be hard to argue that the IRA got anything from the negotiting table, except prisioner releases.

Well, Britain has dropped any claim to any interest in Northern Ireland, and has committed to facilitating a 32 county Ireland if/when the majority of people there wish it. Given demographic patterns this is de facto re-unification. It's just a matter of time.

devolutation in northern ireland and the establishment of a multi-cultural government system, are actually reasonable goals, and within the realm of the British government being able to grant

This was not their goal. This was the outcome. Their goal was a 32 county socialist republic. What they got was the compromise you outlined above.

Al Qaeda might want to create their own Islamic state somewhere in the Middle East, but they are not asking the west for it, so it wouldn't even be on the negotiating table.

What they want from the west is an end to our military and geo-political intervention. As they have stated. A goal shared by many Muslims who don't support Al Qaeda.

You have as yet not shown any of the goal of Al Queda, including the removal of US bases, as being within the realm of reasonable possibly.

The removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia is entirely reasonable. They've pulled out of other countries at the drop of a hat, when it suited them, regardless of what the host country wanted.

And how do you know the Saudi's wouldn't have a problem with it. It's fomenting enough internal trouble for them.

You need to ask yourself do the people or governments of the Middle East actually support the goals Al Queda have set out?

I think the majority of people and governments in the Middle East would like to see a). US/European disengagement from Iraq, b). an end to US/European military and geo-political intervention in the Middle East and c). a Palestinian solution. Three stated objectives of Al Qaeda. I also believe that only a minority (although sadly a growing one) support the methods Al Qaeda are using in pursuit of these goals.

Again, it's similar to the Northern Ireland situation 15 years ago. A significant proportion of the population supported the IRA's goal of ending partition, but only a tiny minority supported the methods they were using in its pursuit.

Most Muslims don't follow any of the goals of Al Queda, and none of the governments in the Middle East support them. There is no legitamacy behind Al Queda. Who do they represent?

and...

the republican movement had a legitamate government, ie Ireland, speaking on their behalf,

Fair points. Perhaps then, direct dialogue with Al Qaeda is un-neccessary. Instead the UN could establish a forum of Middle Eastern, European and US government representatives to address the central issues. This forum could establish what the legitimate governments want for their region and their natural resources.

If, as I suspect, these goals coincide with Al Qaeda's strategic objectives, so much the better. A solution could be reached that would honour the wishes of legitimate governments in the region, and remove the imediate causes of Al Qaeda's campaign, without having to negotiate with them directly.

This would leave just their ideological aspirations hanging - aspirations we agree are not shared by the bulk of Muslims. And with a regional plan, framed in part by local governments, in place, it's hard to see how they could become any more than that.

ff

Sand

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.

So you wouldnt favour the use of force to protect peoples right to life when they are the victims of genocide, for example? Triumph of evil and the inaction of good men...

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.

Again, I repeat what I stated...

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

Were not discussing the possibility of undoing the Sunni/Shia schism, merely recognising that the Shia tradition is not as "puritan" as the Sunni tradition. And for the record, mainstream Islam is non-denominational; mosques for example are simply Muslim and are as open to Sunni prayer as they are to Shia. The reasons for the split were more political, but the fallout had theological implications as Shias do not regard the Hadith attributed to the other political faction as being relevant. The hatred of Shia demonstrated by Jihadists is not a part of mainstream Islam.

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".

The same offence, if not even greater, would be caused if I referred to them as Muslim or Islamic terrorists. A shorthand reference for this particular breed of terrorism is required. Jihadist suits me, call me when you think of something better than "Eastern" or "Muslim".

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.

No the centuries old terms for Islam and Christendom, were well Christendom and Islam Im guessing. East and West are simply throwbacks to Cold War breakdowns. Prior to that youd have to go back to the 3-5th centuryies BC where the Greeks were busy explaining their victories against the Persians on the basis that the easterners were girly men, as Arnold might say. Their view of the East being limited to the Persians is as inaccurate as your view that the East is limited to Islam, but they had the excuse of not having relatively poor maps.

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.

Right, so AQ are muslim terrorists. And Hizbollah are muslim terrorists too. Not only are the billion or so muslims, already cruely wounded over my use of the term "Jihadist", going to be ever so slightly bothered by a catchall term like that, it basically lumps Hizbollah and AQ in the same box despite them having vastly different, even contradictory goals. Very constructive.

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

I am being specific. Youre just wasting my time with stuff like "Muslim is a much more helpful term to describe Bin Ladens views and objectives!"

We don't need the term Jihadist, when Al Qaeda will do.

You could use the term AQ, Ive used it myself, but its only the name of an organisation that was created to advance and facilitate a violent idealogy. The organisation may perish, but it is the idealogy that is the true enemy - the Nazi party was crushed in the 40s, but the echos of totalarian national socialism continues.

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.

The Provos never carried out suicide bombings, despite what they viewed as *their* homelands being occupied and cruel oppression. They preferred to take mens families hostages to force them act as suicide bombers. A slight hole in your theory that the Provos and AQ are peas in a pod, under some window dressing.

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.

Well, I ask myself, why waste my time when if he was bothered he could google it himself? And do I honestly believe facts will impact your views?

As it is you claim studies regarding the IRA show theyre just AQ with some shamrock and produce a link to a study of suicide bombings and how theyre linked/not linked to the Koran. Which has nothing to do with the IRA. And of which on 71 were carried out by AQ, 0 by the IRA.

Also as your link itself states:

Sageman also notes that the lead hijacker on 9/11, Mohamed Atta, was Egyptian -- and "to my knowledge, I don't think we are occupying Egypt.

the killing was done for Ireland, and in the name of God.

Actually, the killing was done in the name of Ireland and the easter egg bunny. Its true, I didnt just make it up. Despite there being absolutely no evidence for their terrorism being motivated by their love of Cadbury Easter Eggs and their idealogy actually being at the very least neutral on the subject of Easter Eggs, its true.

:rolleyes:

Please cite your source.

Oh I dont know. How about Marc Sageman in the article you linked to. You did read it didnt you? Hes not really my source as Ive actually not read his book, but it seems hes reach the same conclusion.

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.

AQ regards both regimes as "apostate" actually and aim to supplant both with their more "back to basics" brand of Islamic state, aka The Taliban.

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.

See, oh I dont know, everything above. When you dont even read the articles you cite as supporting your view, then why should I waste my time citing more for you to ignore?

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.

Death camp survivors might disagree. I guess the letter writing campaign to Adolf never really got off the ground there.

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.

:rolleyes: Why would the creation of a Shia state be on the list of demands of a group of violently militant Sunni supremacists? Why would they even bother to negotiate any state carveup with the EU/US?

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

Well, I wrote a letter to the South African government back in 1990 arguing that apartheid wasnt really nice and that they really should let Nelson Mandela out. Which did the trick. In the aftermatch of Srebinica I sent a letter to Mr Milosevic arguing that genocide wasnt all that nice, and by the end of year the whole war with its ethnic cleansing was over. More recently, I sent a letter to Mr Putin telling him that it wasnt nice to support rigged elections in the Ukraine, which again worked. Shamefully, Ive been written out of the history books.

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.

Actually it does fit with the known facts. Saying it aint so wont change reality. AQ is not organised or motivated on similar lines to the IRA. And if AQ didnt exist, Jihadists would simply create a different organisation to support their efforts.

All it really takes is for 1). the realisation that political goals lie at the root of Al Qaeda's terrorist activities.

The delusion more like. Youre basically fighting the last war. And again, youve shied away from spelling out what a compromise would look like. Easy to argue for compromise when its vague enough.

Sand

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?

Short term? Identify and disrupt/destroy Jihadist training bases, leadership and financial links using intelligence services, local friendly regimes where possible, military force where necessary.

Long term? Greater intervention in the Islamic world to demand greater political freedoms to allow the development of of alternatives to secular dictatorial rule that do not involve Islamic extremism. Help the Islamic world to "succeed". This is tricky as for the Islamic world to succeed, the present leadership in the majority of cases would have to go [they had their chance afterall...], and yet its Islamic extremists who currently stand as the most likely successors. Either way, the past policies of ignoring failed states or dealing with dictatorships for fear of something worse has to end.

At no point negotiate with AQ/Jihadists and attempt some Grand Bargain with them over the heads of the entire Islamic world. As Wicknights noted, AQ speak for nobody.

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

Please say how.

Again, you shied away from it before but explain what a deal with AQ/Jihadists would look like.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

I have not read the book you referenced, "Knights under the Prophet". Have you? If so perhaps you can quote where he and/or Al Qaeda make the demands you listed.

I haven't, since it is a very hard book to get a hold of (especially in work where I don't want the office scanner noticing I'm on fundamentalist Islamic websites). But I have read a number of summaries of it, and I have read about Otbh and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

freddyfreeload wrote:

It's just that, as you have said yourself, the majority of Muslim's don't share it. It would remain, therefore, an unfulfillable aspiration.

Thats kinda the point of not negotating with Al Queda. They don't represent anyone with any legitamate requests, so how could any government conceed anything to them. They have no morality on their side. Even a group like the IRA one could say their underlying cause (catholic rights in N.I) had merit. What elements of the Al Queda demands have merit?

freddyfreeload wrote:

On all three occasions, the offers have been rejected out of hand. I'm not saying Bush and Blair should have said, "Whatever you say Osama." But they could have responded somewhere short of an outright refusal.

No they couldn't have. The meeting of any demands from Al Queda would be a sign of supporting intimidation and extortion. There is no merit behind the Al Queda demands, they don't represent anyone as you yourself state. So how can Bush or Blair give them anything, under what pretext could that happen?

freddyfreeload wrote:

Well, Britain has dropped any claim to any interest in Northern Ireland, and has committed to facilitating a 32 county Ireland if/when the majority of people there wish it. Given demographic patterns this is de facto re-unification. It's just a matter of time.

It is highly debatable that that was due to pressure from the IRA. In fact I would argue that would have been achieved a lot sooner if it wasn't for the IRA.

And I'm not sure Britian has dropped any claim to N.I. I think it was the Republic that did that.

freddyfreeload wrote:

What they got was the compromise you outlined above.

But that wasn't a compromise between the British government and the Ira. It wasn't even really a compromise between SF and the British government.

The only thing the IRA actually got was prisioner releases.

freddyfreeload wrote:

What they want from the west is an end to our military and geo-political intervention.

But they don't have any legitamacy to make that demand. They aren't a government or people within a state that has military intervention from the west.

It would seriously undermine the soverinty of the middle eastern countries if the US started negotating with Al Queda over what takes place in these countries. What if Saudi Arabia don't want the US to pull out? What if the Iraqi government demand that the US remain in Iraq and clean up the mess they made.

Al Queda don't represent anyone, so how can their demands be negotated around. It would be like deciding health care policy based in Cork based on the rantings of lunatic with a gun in Rome.

freddyfreeload wrote:

The removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia is entirely reasonable.

To whom? The Saudi government want US troops in Saudi Arabia. The US are not an occupying force, they were invited there. Should the demands of Al Queda over rule the wishes of the Saudi government? What kind of message does that send?

freddyfreeload wrote:

And how do you know the Saudi's wouldn't have a problem with it. It's fomenting enough internal trouble for them.

The US Army would have to pull out of Saudi Arabia withing hours of the Saudi government ordering such a withdrawl.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I think the majority of people and governments in the Middle East would like to see a). US/European disengagement from Iraq, b). an end to US/European military and geo-political intervention in the Middle East

What are you basing that on?

There a number of very pro-western governments in the Middle East, that are seeking a move away from Middle Eastern isolationism and an imbrace of western trade and ecomonics.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Fair points. Perhaps then, direct dialogue with Al Qaeda is un-neccessary. Instead the UN could establish a forum of Middle Eastern, European and US government representatives to address the central issues. This forum could establish what the legitimate governments want for their region and their natural resources.

That would be an excellent idea. In fact there are a number of bodies like this.

freddyfreeload wrote:

If, as I suspect, these goals coincide with Al Qaeda's strategic objectives, so much the better.

Well you seem to be assuming Al Queda's goals are actually good things, that would benefit the Middle East. I can see that removal of US military pressence and meddling would be good, but establishment of Islamic governments and a removal of democratic institutions wouldn't be.

esskay

So far the U.S has vetoed, abstained or ignored:
1:vetoed a U.N resolution for prevent militarisation of space
2:2003 Senate Armed Serivces Committee repeals a 1993 ban on r&d of low-yield nuclear weapons
3:Continually developing BMD (Link http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html) in clear violation of 1972 Anti Ballistic Misile Treaty
4:Refused to reaffirm Outer Space Treaty 0f 1967 to reserve space for peaceful purposes
5:Blocked negotiations at the UN Conference on Disarmament at the session that opened in Jan 2001
6:Us is the only country to insist on exemption from certain inspections and tests when the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997
7:Withdrew from negotiations to institute verfication measures for the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Vonvention, effectively terminating them
8:"No longer supports some of the Article VI conclusions" of the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Article VI is the primary element of the NPT applying to nuclear powers: it commits them to "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament"
9:Effectively barred reaffirmament of the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare

Now really, who should we fear, the U.S. or a few terrorists with some (homemade?) explosives and AK's???