Fighting Terrorism...

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

esskay wrote:

The fact is, this whole Iraq/Afghanistan situation has been created to allow the US to get a foothold in the middle east which the US government considers to be of stupendous strategic importance due to the massive oil reserves. Just think, once they have set up bases there they can use the "terrorist" issue to bully any country that won´t go along with their wishes and have troops and equipement just hours away to back up their threats. They have already established a precedent for breaking international law and invading a country, whats stopping the doing it repeatedly now? The propaganda machine will just generate another "threat" that need to be "fixed" US style

great post, you are spot on. this fact is undeniable

Sgt. Sensible

US report says Iraq fuels terror

The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.

The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim that going to war has made the world safer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

Sand

I think it's boring, irrelevant and an example of pure intellectual dishonesty.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the relevancy - I encounter crap arguments that repeat the basic A is no better than or no worse than B, where A and B are vastly differing situtations far far more often than my sanity can withstand. I like the quote because if anyone posting crap like the above sees it, perhaps they might reconsider claiming that the precision bombing of enemy facilities is no better than WW2 carpet bombing or similar...perhaps. I live in hope.

Haven't seen Commando no

You really should, its a factual hardhitting docu-drama on the consequences of unbridled US imperialism in Latin America.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. It is a matter of record that the Taliban nutters offered Bin Laden's head on a plate to the US. Instead the US/UK chose to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, enormously bloody and costly moves which have been gifts to islamic fundamentalism in terms of recruitment and propaganda. I find the inability of people to admit that this is reality amusing sometimes, but mostly it's just sad.

No its an opinion, based on the evidence of the last attempt to "ally" with Jihadists. I cannot of course examine the peace deal that advocates of negotiation claim would be successful because - nothing beyond vague commitments to peace have been put forward.

Your opinion on the other hand is based on twisting reality to better suit it. The Taliban did not offer Bin Laden to the US on a platter - that would imply unconditionally. They offered to send him to be tried by an Islamic court under Sharia law. And Al Queda suffered badly from the Afghan invasion, its camps and training was disrupted, its leadership clipped and sent fleeing and its state sponsor was toppled.

The only Islamic fundamentalists who benefitted were Iranians who had a fanatic Sunni fundamentalist regime on its border crushed. I find it odd that people are unable to admit that the enemies propaganda and recruitment drives are really their own concern, and that victory is usually achieved by....finding the enemy and killing him. I struggle to think how wars would have been won if generals had been paralysed by avoiding killing enemy soldiers for fear their friends and families would join up to continue the fight.

Sand

Crushing point. I forgot every "Statement of Principles" written by any Neocon organisation prior to 98 is now worthless...... Sand in predictably trite understatement... cue yawn...

My point is that its old, very old....I thought about linking to a "Titanic Sinks" headline but that in itself is old. I also considered linking to the communist mandifesto. Thats how old it is.

I was and remain distinctly underwhelmed by the document/site. Whats supposed to be "proven" by the links? That the US wish to remain powerful? No sh1t!?! That they wish to spread democracy and human rights? Is there no evil they wont sink to!?!

And for itself - Christianity was rather absolutist last time I looked. And you shouldn't mistake pluralism for relativism. Nor your own ethnocentricity for universalism.

Distraction - were talking about the reality/unreality of a Christian world to counterbalance the Islamic world. Essentially though, I dont have to prove that the Christian world doesnt exist, no more than I have to prove leprechauns dont exist. You have to prove it does, or at least make a reasonable stab at it. That there are no religious police, that the Pope and other religious figures are routinely mocked and belittled [Father Ted? How far would Imman Ted have got before Dermot Morgan was murdered for insulting Islam?], that there was a huge struggle over the issue of inserting a reference to God in the EU consitution whilst actual religious law is practised in the Islamic world, mosques in Rome whilst it is illegal to practise Christianity in Saudi Arabia should serve as a guide to which is more or less defined by religion.

You're terrified of relativist opinion? Poor thing, never mind... go to bed with some Rand and everything will be absolute again in the morning.

I find it sad and wrong. People who are afraid to evaluate and consider what they think about a situation and advocate an opinion. Hence the retreat to the "high ground" of not having an opinion, buttressed by meaningless cliches like "one mans [terrorist/concentration camp guard] is another mans [freedom fighter/misunderstood patriot]". Moral relativism comes out with crap like "Well, sure the Sudanese have a problem with child slavery, but have you seen the working terms and conditions in McDonalds? Sure theyre no better so we cant criticise."

Another line is "Well, sure the Sudanese have a problem with child slavery, but they have a different culture with different values and that doesnt mean our culture or values are better. Imposing human rights and dignity on those children would be a gross example of cultural imperialism."

In this particular case, people need to invent a repressive Christian monolith so they can say "Well, sure in Palestine they burn churches down every time anyone say boo, but did you know that in order to build a mosque in Denmark, you have to get planning permission? Clearly religious oppression is at work in both cultures so we really cant criticise". That they have to invent it doesnt appear to impact.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

Your opinion on the other hand is based on twisting reality to better suit it. The Taliban did not offer Bin Laden to the US on a platter - that would imply unconditionally. They offered to send him to be tried by an Islamic court under Sharia law. And Al Queda suffered badly from the Afghan invasion, its camps and training was disrupted, its leadership clipped and sent fleeing and its state sponsor was toppled.

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It.

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Sand wrote:

The only Islamic fundamentalists who benefitted were Iranians who had a fanatic Sunni fundamentalist regime on its border crushed. I find it odd that people are unable to admit that the enemies propaganda and recruitment drives are really their own concern, and that victory is usually achieved by....finding the enemy and killing him. I struggle to think how wars would have been won if generals had been paralysed by avoiding killing enemy soldiers for fear their friends and families would join up to continue the fight.

US report says Iraq fuels terror.

The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.

The document reportedly blames the three-year-old conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.

Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

Sand

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It.

Oh I stand corrected - a uncorroborated account by a disgruntled former go-between from a non-partizan site like leftwingloonies.com does the distorting of reality for you...Watch Fox News much?

US report says Iraq fuels terror.

I was referring to Afghanistan, what with the whole Taliban and surrendering of Bin Laden you were arguing about? Iraq has been far more costly, but it has only made terrorism worse in that it has been front page news whereas it was in the backpages if reported at all throughout the 90s. Essentially Saddam and his ilk have to go, one way or the other - what fuels terrorism is discontent with the failure of the Islamic world - symbolised by the corrupt dictatorships, like Saddam. Ignoring the elephant in the corner didnt work prior to 9/11.

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

The cost of elections held far, far, far too early before civil institutions could be developed and stress tested or a non-radical political landscape could be developed. That and the exceedinly low quality of the Iraqi leadership.

Sgt. Sensible

Oh I stand corrected - a uncorroborated account by a disgruntled former go-between from a non-partizan site like leftwingloonies.com does the distorting of reality for you...Watch Fox News much?

Well we know you had no arguments cos we’ve had Hitler and the nazis already so I’m not surprised we’ve reached the lame insult stage. Actually, the story was originally the subject of a documentary on German tv station ZDF and parts of it were corroborated by CNN and declassified state department documents.

I was referring to Afghanistan, what with the whole Taliban and surrendering of Bin Laden you were arguing about? Iraq has been far more costly, but it has only made terrorism worse in that it has been front page news whereas it was in the backpages if reported at all throughout the 90s. Essentially Saddam and his ilk have to go, one way or the other - what fuels terrorism is discontent with the failure of the Islamic world - symbolised by the corrupt dictatorships, like Saddam. Ignoring the elephant in the corner didnt work prior to 9/11.

We’re discussing terrorism. Iraq is now awash with terrorism, some of it from AQ; 12500 people killed since May, 2700 US soldiers dead, and massacres in London and Madrid as a direct consequence. These deaths aren’t your fault of course. But you’re one of the people who wanted this carnage and you’re being incredibly naïve if you believe the invasion had anything to do with any happy clappy idealist rubbish about democracy, and still less about WMD (ho ho). Surely that’s obvious by now? Even to you? Surely? Hmm?

The cost of elections held far, far, far too early before civil institutions could be developed and stress tested or a non-radical political landscape could be developed. That and the exceedinly low quality of the Iraqi leadership.

The current outcome was predicted by just about everyone who was opposed to the invasion. In fact it’s actually much worse than I thought it would be.

Sand

Well we know you had no arguments cos we’ve had Hitler and the nazis already so I’m not surprised we’ve reached the lame insult stage. Actually, the story was originally the subject of a documentary on German tv station ZDF and parts of it were corroborated by CNN and declassified state department documents.

If someone was supplying links to you from some crazed right wing conspiracy site would you accept it verbatim? I mean, cmon - I watched a documentary only two weeks ago where former CIA operatives were bitching about Clinton claiming they had countless opportunities to assassinate or capture Bin Laden but Clinton always cancelled the operations when they were sent for his approval.

What does that say, other than noting that Clinton simply didnt recognise the threat and no-one else did either? Hence the view of the 90s as an era of absolutely zero international terrorism and post 2001 suddenly the world is engulfed with terrorism.

Youre really hung up on the Orwell quote arent you? Build a bridge and get over it.

We’re discussing terrorism. Iraq is now awash with terrorism, some of it from AQ; 12500 people killed since May, 2700 US soldiers dead, and massacres in London and Madrid as a direct consequence. These deaths aren’t your fault of course. But you’re one of the people who wanted this carnage and you’re being incredibly naïve if you believe the invasion had anything to do with any happy clappy idealist rubbish about democracy, and still less about WMD (ho ho). Surely that’s obvious by now? Even to you? Surely? Hmm?

Couple of points.

From my view, Iraq was a vile dictatorship which had troops deployed in Saudi Arabia imposing no fly zones to protect Shias and Kurds from Saddam. He was weak and easily toppled. I definitly wanted that.

I take it from the logic underling your view that I wanted a Sunni insurgency and Shia deathsquads to duke it out in post Saddam Iraq that you, being against the war, wanted Saddam and his dictatorship to continue oppressing his people, for his sons to continue abducting brides, raping them and burning their faces with acid.

London and Madrid in direct consequence? Balls - just simply more terrorist attacks by a terrorist movement thats been launching attacks on Western targets ever since the early 90s and even before. Look at events in Germany, remember them, opposed the Iraq war and all that? Yeah, theyre still having screwballs trying to bomb their trains.

And the London bombings were carried out by born and bred British people. Not Iraqis. IF youre British and you disagree with the Iraq war does that mean youre likely to suicide bomb a London Underground tube filled with other British people?

The current outcome was predicted by just about everyone who was opposed to the invasion. In fact it’s actually much worse than I thought it would be.

Its worse than I thought it would be, but then I had imagined that elections wouldnt be held until institutions had been developed and local politics had developed Iraqi politicians with at least some experience ready to gradually ramp up their control. Of course, elections were rushed to appease Ali Sistani and the UN.

I dont accept the current situation is the end of history however. You might, but I wouldnt. And I know you dislike Orwell, but to quote again...

The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people ...The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory. But there was more to it than that. There was also the disaffection of large numbers of intellectuals, which made it difficult for them not to side with any country hostile to Britain.....One would find, also, the same people advocating a compromise peace in 1940 and approving the dismemberment of Germany in 1945. .... Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo; if the Russians are in Berlin, it will not be long before they are in London: and so on.

In short I wouldnt make a snap judgements on Iraq. The post war occupation was ballsed up, but that doesnt neccessarily imply the Iraqi people cannot build a prosperous, relatively free society. It is essentially up to them - the US and the coalition can remove Saddam but its up to Iraqis to replace him- but they have the opportunity to do so now. Which they didnt have under Saddam whose reign you seem to support by the logic you laid out above.

And If Iraq can develop into a non-dictatorial state with Kings or Generals running the show, with a responsive political system, then it will be a positive step in addressing the root cause of Jihadist terrorism - the real cause - the failure of the Islamic world.