| Author |
The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time. |
boto43
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Trnava-Nitra,Pardubice CSSR
PM |
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq
yeah thats true.
ja cejtim se bejt esatem sk podvedenej  | |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-11 22:31:43, boto43 wrote:
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq
yeah thats true.
|
|
I would disagree with that statement for the following reasons:
Those willing to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. already hate America, the fact that the U.S. invaded Iraq would almost certainly have had little influence in their decision to oppose the U.S.
The insurgency in Iraq not breeding international terrorism by Iraqis, the insurgency is confined to Iraq. The acts of terrorism we have seen abroad i.e. Madrid, were committed by Al Qaeda, not Iraqi based terror groups.
The main cause of Islamic terrorism is the continued support given to Israel by the U.S.
Saddam's government had very few links with Osama bin Laden and indeed turned him away.
If anything the U.S. presence in Iraq is actually reducing terrorism by concentrating Al Qaeda's resources and fighters against American troops in Iraq and not Western targets. I suspect that Al Qaeda would have launched several more attacks against Western targets if they were not preoccupied with directing attacks against Coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
@scotsboy - just a thought - the Iraq situation is perhaps giving all those who hate the US a reason to hate them and to shoot at US troops?
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Those who hate the U.S. don't need Iraq as an excuse, those willing to die fighting the U.S. don't need Iraq as an excuse and they certainly don't need Iraq as an excuse to shoot at U.S. troops or civilians. The fundamental problem is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that situation has done more than anything else to foster hatred towards the West and to promote terrorism as a legitimate means of opposing both the U.S. and Israel.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
And on a completely different note......
OJ Simpson joins WMD hunt 
Los Angeles, Saturday - Controversial former football star and actor OJ Simpson has announced that he has volunteered to travel to Iraq to join in the hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), allegedly stockpiled by the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Simpson said that he was perfectly qualified for this mission because of the dogged persistence he had shown in hunting for the "real killers" of his estranged wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, and the detective skills that he had honed during the nine-year search for the murderers.
After his acquittal in 1995 on charges of murdering Brown and Goldman, the former star running back pledged to devote the rest of his life to tracking down and catching the "real killers". Yesterday, Simpson declared it was his patriotic duty to interrupt that search to help US intelligence services locate Saddam Hussein's hitherto elusive WMDs. Eighteen months after the US-led coalition invaded Iraq, no WMD stockpiles have been found. OJ Simpson declared himself undaunted by the task.
"I know they're out there, they've got to be", Simpson explained. "Just like Nicole's killers. George Bush says the WMDs were there, and that's good enough for me. If you can't trust a fellow golfer, who can you trust?"
Simpson said he was unfazed by the possible dangers of the mission, despite renewed outbreaks of armed conflict in Iraq. "I can handle myself in dangerous situations: look at me in Killer Force and The Klansman", Simpson stated, referring to movies in which he featured in the 1970s. "The real downside is there aren't any good golf courses in Iraq yet. That's a bummer", Simpson continued, identifying a key priority for US reconstruction efforts in the ravaged country. "Bottom line is, though, I think my President really needs me now."
_________________
<<<+TIMELINE+>>>
<<<+9/11 for the truth+>>>
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-08-15 14:22 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
| On 2004-08-12 00:54:23, Sammy_boy wrote:
@scotsboy - just a thought - the Iraq situation is perhaps giving all those who hate the US a reason to hate them and to shoot at US troops? |
|
Hi again Sammy_boy and everyone else. There are a lot of people here in the US saying just what you just said. They honestly feel that the US being in Iraq is a reason to hate the US and shoot US troops (not to mention blow up their own and murder anyone who they see as supporting the US).
Does this stand to reason?
I think it has been said best that the support for Israel by the US is the main reason that anti-Jew countries and fundamentalist Muslims hate the US. But is it even a good reason. And isn't that what we should be concerned about? A GOOD reason?
Year after year the US and western countries suffer attack after attack by fundamentalist Muslim terrorists and for the most part nothing is done in return. Did that stop them from hating us? Did our lack of response to their attacks against innocent civilians abroad and at home make them say, "Good - we hit them and they do not respond! We can go home now and not hate them anymore!" ???
To the contrary - they started out small and worked on making their attacks ever more deadly. The terrorists were not just going to stop hating us (us being the US and its allies). I believe this ramping up was to provoke a response. And 9/11 was quite enough to provoke us.
But why Iraq? Just like in World War II - beachheads needed to be secured to retake Europe. But this is a different kind of war. A global war on terrorism requires that "factories" of terrorism be dismantled. Many will disagree how to best do this - but I believe that the US actions in Iraq send a clear and unmistakable message to the enemies of the US and would be terrorist supporters that we will do what it takes to defeat them. Maybe I'm over-thinking this - or maybe I'm just to simple of a person to grasp the nuances of it all - but it seems rather reasonable to me that the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other states known to harbor and support anti-Jew/anti-western terrorists are trying to figure out how to rid themselves of these elements before they become the next US target. HOW AWFUL, you say! The Next US TARGETS!!! How dare we! Yes - I stand behind that. Support, harbor, aid, fund terrorism - and you're a US target.
And what of Iraq. Will change happen in the snap of a finger? Some seem to think it should or else it is all just a failure and we should all just pack our bags and go home with our tails between our legs. Hogwash!!! It took years to re-establish self rule, independence and stable democracy to the war torn countries of Europe and Japan after World War II. Anything worthwhile is worth the sacrifice, the effort, and the time. To those who say we should cut and run because after a whole year the people of Iraq aren't as accustomed to democracy as the people of the UK are - I say "How silly". Even if Kerry is elected, and Bush is no longer in power - the US isn't going anywhere and Iraq will know democracy - even if the US has to sit on it for as long as it did Germany and Japan.
But - after all is said and done - the haters will still hate until they decide they no longer want to hate any more. But I'm open to discussion - tell me what actions you would suggest to make the haters not hate us any more. Let's discuss.
P.S.: The discussion here is much more engaging and educated than in the G.W.Bush Resume thread.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
I suspect there's no right answer to this. Doing nothing is obviously not an option. And invading various countries, which would demolish terrorist training camps, would simply create more sympathy for the terrorist cause. Perhaps not necessarily for logical reasons, clerics and relious leaders like Al-Sadr would twist and distort what was being done into some kind of crusade against Islam and whip up religious hatred. Which is hard to then persuade these people otherwise - perhaps some get brainwashed? Just some thoughts there, may or may not have some substance to them.
What's needed is some kind of third way - the problem is, I have no idea what this would be, and I suspect no-one else does, either sadly!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-16 06:19:55, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Maybe I'm over-thinking this - or maybe I'm just to simple of a person to grasp the nuances of it all - but it seems rather reasonable to me that the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other states known to harbor and support anti-Jew/anti-western terrorists are trying to figure out how to rid themselves of these elements before they become the next US target. HOW AWFUL, you say! The Next US TARGETS!!! How dare we! Yes - I stand behind that. Support, harbor, aid, fund terrorism - and you're a US target.
|
|
Although I would agree with your sentiment on fighting terrorism I would like to suggest that you might not be so moralising when it comes to deciding, which nations support terrorism; after all the U.S. harbours many people supporting terrorism. The British government has, for years, requested that several groups, which fundraise for the I.R.A., be banned by the U.S. government and yet very little has been done about this situation. Even today, post 9/11, there are still groups in the U.S., which raise money for Republican terrorist causes. Britain has had to live with this violence for decades, long before the U.S. was a target for terrorism, and although the I.R.A. have never committed an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 they have still killed scores of innocent people, as have Loyalist terror groups.
The only way for the U.S. to actually win the war is for it to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am of the opinion that if the Israelies cannot bring themselves to withdraw from the occupied territories and the Palestinians cannot stop the terrorist attacks on Israel, then a peace settlement should be force dupon them by the international community. I for one am sick of hearing that yet more innocent people have been blown up by Palestinian terrorists or Israeli missiles. If the two sides involved cannot sort things out then I think that the rest of the world should jolly well sort it out for them.
I would also like to comment on your statement about democracy in Iraq; I couldn't help but get the impression that you were saying that Iraq will have democracy whether it has to be forced upon them or not. Surely the point of democracy is that people want it, I don't think one can force democracy on someone. I think it quite prudent for the West to realise that perhaps not everyone wants to live in a democratic society modelled on Western lines.
I would agree with your comments regarding the lack of response from the West with regards to terrorist attacks. The sad thing is that the West has more than enough power to defeat the terrorists in a military conflict, but there are political considerations to consider too. The Saudi government doesn't want terrorism anymore than the U.S. does; terrorism damages the Saudi economy and threatens the stability of the government there, I hardly think the Saudi Royal Family would support people wishing to overthrow them! Israel on the othe rhand has flouted international law for some time and continues to do so, we cannot go around decrying certain nations and not others. The terrorists find a lot of their ammunition in the injustices of the world, until the West tries to actually improve the lot of the world's poor the terrorists will continue to have that ammunition.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-08-17 14:45 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Medical professionals complicit in Abu Ghraib torture, says bioethicist
Dr. Stephen Miles wrote a scathing editorial for UK medical journal The Lancet which says that U.S. military medical personnel were complicit in detainee torture incidents that took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to the University of Minnesota bioethicist, "The US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings." Based on data gleaned from government documents, he details cases of alleged abuse participation by medical personnel, and calls for a formal inquiry.
There are isolated reports that medical personnel directly abused detainees. Two detainees' depositions describe an incident where a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to suture a prisoner's lacertation from being beaten. The medical system failed to accurately report illnesses and injuries. Abu Ghraib authorities did not notify families of deaths, sicknesses, or transfers to medical facilities as required by the Convention. A medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital. In another case, an Iraqi man, taken into custody by US soldiers was found months later by his family in an Iraqi hospital. He was comatose, had three skull fractures, a severe thumb fracture, and burns on the bottoms of his feet. An accompanying US medical report stated that heat stroke had triggered a heart attack that put him in a coma; it did not mention the injuries.
Death certificates of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq were falsified or their release or completion was delayed for months. Medical investigators either failed to investigate unexpected deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan or performed cursory evaluations and physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke, or natural causes without noting the unnatural aetiology of the death. In one example, soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated that he died of "natural causes . . . during his sleep." After news media coverage, the Pentagon revised the certificate to say that the death was a "homicide" caused by "blunt force injuries and asphyxia."
via:thelancet.com
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-17 15:41:26, scotsboyuk wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-16 06:19:55, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Maybe I'm over-thinking this - or maybe I'm just to simple of a person to grasp the nuances of it all - but it seems rather reasonable to me that the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other states known to harbor and support anti-Jew/anti-western terrorists are trying to figure out how to rid themselves of these elements before they become the next US target. HOW AWFUL, you say! The Next US TARGETS!!! How dare we! Yes - I stand behind that. Support, harbor, aid, fund terrorism - and you're a US target.
|
|
Although I would agree with your sentiment on fighting terrorism I would like to suggest that you might not be so moralising when it comes to deciding, which nations support terrorism; after all the U.S. harbours many people supporting terrorism.
The British government has, for years, requested that several groups, which fundraise for the I.R.A., be banned by the U.S. government and yet very little has been done about this situation. Even today, post 9/11, there are still groups in the U.S., which raise money for Republican terrorist causes. Britain has had to live with this violence for decades, long before the U.S. was a target for terrorism, and although the I.R.A. have never committed an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 they have still killed scores of innocent people, as have Loyalist terror groups. |
|
There is a difference between People supporting terrorism and government/state support of terrorism and terrorists. This does not diminish your observation. You are right. I happen to be of Irish heritage and I happen to know that some of my family members are, at a minimum, sympathetic to the IRA and I suspect they may support them with more than just their voice. Is this okay? No. Should the US crack down on individuals and private organizations that sponsor terrorist organizations of any ilk? YES. Is this hypocritical? Yes. As much as loyalists getting support from extreme nationalists in England? Perhaps. How much effort does UK Law Enforcement agencies put into shutting down the support lines for those who would commit terrorist acts against those who support Northern Irish Independence? Maybe as much as the US extends to those who support the IRA? Hard to tell. Worth debate I suppose.
Quote:
| The only way for the U.S. to actually win the war is for it to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am of the opinion that if the Israelies cannot bring themselves to withdraw from the occupied territories and the Palestinians cannot stop the terrorist attacks on Israel, then a peace settlement should be force dupon them by the international community. I for one am sick of hearing that yet more innocent people have been blown up by Palestinian terrorists or Israeli missiles. If the two sides involved cannot sort things out then I think that the rest of the world should jolly well sort it out for them. |
|
If Muslim fundamentalist extremism/terrorism is a tree than I would agree that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be the major "root". However, at this time, the Israelis support a separate and autonomous Palestine - but major factions of the Palestinian side continue to demand that Israel be eradicated. And I know the death of an innocent child is never acceptable or reasonable - but if people can't see the difference between one dying because they were unintentionally caught in the crossfire AND one dying because they were intentionally targeted with other civilians then I'm afraid the terrorists have won. How can we stand up and defend ourselves against those who would murder us for political reasons when they can simply accuse us of being the same as them when they use innocent civilians as shields to hide behind? With this mentality - the whole world and all nations are hypocritical terrorists.
Greater minds than yours and mine have been working for decades to sort out this situation - and I pray that some day they will succeed. Frankly - I have no affinity for Israel. I wouldn't mind pulling up with our Naval and supporting commercial shipping fleets and simply announce that the US will no longer financially or militarily support Israel -- Allow all Israeli refugees to enter US Ships which will take them back to the US -- And let the Palestinians have all the land back. I'm not a religious person. The Holy Land is not Holy to me. But that is just my opinion. Reality is something quite different. But as I claimed before - I continue to assert that the conflict over Israel is not a good or valid reason to justify targeting innocent civilians going about their daily lives and slaughtering them with bombs or airplanes.
Quote:
| I would also like to comment on your statement about democracy in Iraq; I couldn't help but get the impression that you were saying that Iraq will have democracy whether it has to be forced upon them or not. Surely the point of democracy is that people want it, I don't think one can force democracy on someone. I think it quite prudent for the West to realise that perhaps not everyone wants to live in a democratic society modelled on Western lines. |
|
For years the US has flip-flopped on supporting the popular anti-Saddam movement in Iraq. It has, to my horror and disgust, cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. At the end of the first Gulf War we sent signals to resistance/opposition groups that we would back them if they rose up against Saddam. We failed to follow through and a blood bath ensued. I would hope our will to stand our ground now is not so easily changed. I think, despite our distaste for extended periods of armed conflict, the American People will not turn our backs again on Iraq and walk away.
And for Democracy? Is it to be forced upon a nation? Many in Iraq clearly don't want democracy. However, as has been stated over and over again - Iraq is now under its own control. Iraq is now sovereign. If we are asked to leave, we will leave. The people of Iraq will soon choose the kind of government it will have. Democracy, Republic, Dictatorship, Theocracy? Ultimately is will be up to the people of Iraq to determine. The US I suppose will support any type of government in Iraq that doesn't threaten our interests or national security. It is my sincere wish that the US remain there and push as hard as possible for a western style democracy/republic as it can. I think it is worth the long term investment. However, since I'm not a member of the US State Department nor a decision maker in the current administration, my wish is simply that. We, of course, could simply remove Bush from office, elect John Kerry, and turn tail and run - leaving Baghdad to sort out all its problems on its own - wishing the people of Iraq the best of luck. I hope not.
Quote:
| I would agree with your comments regarding the lack of response from the West with regards to terrorist attacks. The sad thing is that the West has more than enough power to defeat the terrorists in a military conflict, but there are political considerations to consider too. |
|
AgreedQuote:
| The Saudi government doesn't want terrorism anymore than the U.S. does; terrorism damages the Saudi economy and threatens the stability of the government there, I hardly think the Saudi Royal Family would support people wishing to overthrow them! |
|
Are you sure? How do you know the Saudi Royals didn't make an agreement with the terrorists that if they don't pursue them, then the terrorists will not act against them? I think the Saudi's are not as able to deal with these terrorists organizations as you seem to think they are. I happen to think they are dealing with these terrorists in the best way they can that ensures they are able to stay in power. This may mean that they will work with terrorists, or at least turn a blind eye to them.
Quote:
| Israel on the othe rhand has flouted international law for some time and continues to do so, we cannot go around decrying certain nations and not others. |
|
Yes we can. We do it all the time and there is no real way to do otherwise. Besides, Israel isn't the bad guy here. Every country in the world has the right as well as the natural desire to protect itself. And would you mind, I'm sure there are a lot of sources out there you can reference to show what "international laws" Israel has violated. Please, if you don't mind, post some for us to see.
Quote:
| The terrorists find a lot of their ammunition in the injustices of the world, until the West tries to actually improve the lot of the world's poor the terrorists will continue to have that ammunition. |
|
The terrorists, as I've mentioned before, will find a reason to do what they do any way they can. Ultimately they do not fight injustices (which they have visited upon their own) but for an ideology that demands that anything secular must be destroyed and Islam be imposed upon everyone.
And to your socialistic idea that the Western World is responsible for terrorism because we aren't doing enough to improve the lot of the world's poor I say --- with all the back-woods, hick, white-trailer-trash, toe-back-oh spittin', rho-D-oh watchin', pecker-wood style I can muster --- HOGWASH! You think the terrorists give a rat's a$$ if "western" countries spend trillions and trillions of dollars trying to feed the poor, cure aids, re-plant the rain forest, save the whales, conserve energy, promote vegetarianism, inoculate the children for small-pox, teach thousands of people in hundreds of villages in underdeveloped and unindustrialized countries how to read and write and grow their own food, fight for Muslims who are being persecuted, protect Muslims from "ethnic cleansing", or any of the innumerable things we do around the world?!?!? Please be real. Please ...
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
What A Mess
Remember what it was like just before the war? Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- Colin Powell told us to the pound how many tons of this, that and the other -- Saddam had a reconstituted nuclear program, he had numerous ties to Al Qaeda, and he was an imminent threat.
As the president put it, we couldn't afford to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud.
"To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man... Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect."
The quote is from Thucydides, the Father of History, writing about the day in 415 B.C. when Athens sent its glorious fleet off to destruction in Sicily. I have not been re-reading Thucydides, but found the quote in a footnote in a splendid little book called "Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy" by Lewis Lapham, in my opinion the most incisive essayist in America.
I bring this up only because it doesn't look as if anyone else is gonna. John Kerry is running such a cautious campaign that George W. Bush can get away with falsely claiming that Kerry would have supported the war even if he had known then what he knows today. This does, of course, raise the awkward question of whether George W. Bush -- had he known then there were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, no ties to All Qaeda and no imminent threat -- would have gone to war himself. The one legitimate excuse they always had -- that Saddam Hussein was a miserable s.o.b. -- was the one they specifically rejected before the war.
It is so painful to read about what is happening in Iraq today (can we put the old dog about how the news media are ignoring "the good news" to rest now?), it is not clear whether we should barf or go blind. With the best will in the world, one cannot pull a positive outlook out of this tragedy. I never advocate despair, but ignoring reality is just as destructive. What. A. Mess.
Still trying for something useful, I'm on the Lessons to Be Learned program. It took the Bush administration months and months and months of false claims to persuade a majority of the American people that declaring war on a country that had done nothing to us was a necessary thing to do. Almost to the day the fighting started, polls showed most Americans had grave doubts about the enterprise. Then most of us went along because, hell, if our people are over there fighting, then we're behind them.
What we need to figure out is why so many of us then became so invested in this awful enterprise. As the president says, fool me once, shame on, uh, somebody or other. John Kerry isn't going to remind any of us we were wrong -- that would be rude. (Sooner or later, someone is going to ask Kerry the question he so famously asked about Vietnam: "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" He'd better have an answer ready.) The reason Kerry won't "blame America first," as the Rush Limbaughs would put it, is not just because none of us likes to have our nose rubbed in our mistakes, it's a political calculation. In case you hadn't noticed, John Kerry is winning this presidential race -- that's why he's running such a cautious campaign.
The patriotic bullying that went on in this country over Iraq should not be forgotten. It is brilliantly described and dissected in Chris Hedges' important little book, "War Is a Force That Gives Life Meaning." In one of the great ironies of the Iraq War, Hedges himself became the victim of the very group-think he had analyzed after starting a speech with the observation, "War in the end is always about betrayal; betrayal of the young by the old, soldiers by politicians, and idealists by cynics." He was booed off the stage.
Wretched excess always accompanies war fever -- in World War I, "patriots" used to go around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that they were "German dogs." As I have noted elsewhere, people like that do not go around kicking German shepherds.
Some of that bullying, swaggering tone remains with us, in our politics. To treat with contempt any effort at "nuance" or "sensitivity" -- in one of the most fraught and sensitive situations we've ever been in -- is just ugly know-nothingism. As Republicans used to say to Democrats abut the election debacle in Florida last time, "Get over it."
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
State sponsorship of terrorism and state inaction against groups supporting terrorism, operating within that state, are very much the same thing, allowing individuals and groups to support terrorist organisations through inaction is as good as direct state sponsorship in my opinion.
UK intelligence agencies and police/military forces have long used Loyalist terror groups to oppose Republican terror groups, this came about more because of desperation. I have always thought it wrong for the government to ally with such forces. The point I am making is that one does not expect one's closest ally to do 'inadvertantly' support one's enemies, I wonder what U.S. public opinion would be if Britain allowed anti-American groups to fundraise here?
As for Israel I stand by my comments, if the people involved cannot sort things out then it will have to be sorted out for them. Israel only supports a Palestinian State because international pressure has forced them too, not because they desperately want one. The Palestinian authority has no real power over the terror groups so it isn't able to riegn them in unless they want to be riegned in.
I don't believe I insinuated that Israel was " the bad guy" so I am unsure why you mentioned this, but I can assure you lhat I have no preference for sides. I do understand Israel's need to defend itself, every nation has a right to protect itself and its people, but both the Israelis and Palestinians target places where there will almost certainly be civilian casualties, refugee camps and restaurants respectively.
Your view of Saudi Arabia is oxymoronic to say the least. The Saudi Royal Family depend on oil revenue to keep themselves in power, terrorism (whether sponsored by the Saudi Royal Family or not) prompts foriegn companies to abandon Saudi Arabia thus harming its oil industry. There is the addded complication of both Bush and Kerry are committed to the U.S. being less reliant on Saudi oil, in light of this it would seem strange, to say the least, for Saudi Arabia to sponsor any form of anti-American movemen.
You don't seem to have fully understood my point regarding the root causes of terrorism and providing aid to the world's poor. The West is responsible for the current terrorist situation because the West has let it get to this stage rather than nipping it in the bud, of course the West is not responsible for fanatics who seek to use religion as reason enough to kill people. You seem somewhat right-wing, but spending a lot of money to help the world's poor not only helps to create societies of educated affluent people less prone to being sucked into fanatical terror groups through poverty, desperation and resentment, it is also the right thing to do. Perhaps this sounds socialist to you, but in Europe at least, we believe in helping as many people as possible whether they have the capacity to repay it or not. Even if people are not grateful for what we do for them, even if they try to kill us, we must still help them because that is what seperates us from the terrorists, kindness, compassion and good will. The terrorists may very well not care about any of the good we do, but that is not what is important, ensuring that the children, the terrorists hope to recruit one day, grow up knowing that the West is not their enemy is.
The West must fight with all its military power and its humanatarian abilities too to ensure that any peace won is a lasting peace.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
Just a quick thought (about to go out!)
If I was a terrorist, I'd be very happy right about now. With oil prices soaring (seems to be a record new high set every day), and some papers reporting a world recession soon, I'd say that my work has been sucessful. By destabilising the situation in Iraq (I don't care what anyone says, oil must have been a major factor in Gulf War 2 happening), prices have been pushed up. Economies will start teetering on the brink of recession, western oil dependent countries, which I despise as a terrorist will be devastated economically. And the the 'infadel' countries don't seem to be able to do a damned thing about it. Hooray! Where are my virgins?
Perhaps a small silver lining to all this - we will all be forced to be more environmentally friendly to eke out what resources we do have, and more alternative energy cars and transport will have to be developed quickly to stop western civilisation grinding to a spluttering, out-of-petrol halt. Perhaps we will eventually all become more environmentally friendly, whether we like it or not!
War is obviously not a realistic option for solving all this, neither is giving in to these terrorists so what do we do? I am beginning to wonder whether we should have to take a bit of a hit on our human rights (but not our freedom) in order to stop this menace. They fight dirty, I wonder if we are going to have to fight (metaphorically speaking!) just as dirty to compensate?
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Western nations are already looking to alternate sources me oil so as to minimise the effects me unfriendly Arab nations on the global economy e.g. Russia, Nigeria and Venezuala.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-21 15:37:00, scotsboyuk wrote:
@Patrick-in-CA
State sponsorship of terrorism and state inaction against groups supporting terrorism, operating within that state, are very much the same thing, allowing individuals and groups to support terrorist organisations through inaction is as good as direct state sponsorship in my opinion.
UK intelligence agencies and police/military forces have long used Loyalist terror groups to oppose Republican terror groups, this came about more because of desperation. I have always thought it wrong for the government to ally with such forces. The point I am making is that one does not expect one's closest ally to do 'inadvertantly' support one's enemies, I wonder what U.S. public opinion would be if Britain allowed anti-American groups to fundraise here? |
|
So - you think that a country that is unable (for lack of money, resources, intelligence, or training) to act against terrorist organizations within their borders is JUST AS GUILTY as states that use their national resources to fund, provide sanctuary, training, and political cover for terrorism? I guess I'll just have to disagree with you - I'm not sure how to argue against such an asinine assertion.
And, for your information, the US Government has never allied itself with the IRA in any way whatsoever - unlike the UK government agencies have with loyalist groups as you have stated. You also might want to keep in mind that it is difficult to find every penny gathered by private individuals and organizations that are raised for the benefit of the IRA. I admit that government agencies are frequently frustrating to deal with but your assertion that the US is doing nothing about the IRA is patently false. Please see this article (do a search for IRA). Even in an article critical of the United States you will find Quote:
| The governments of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland have been working together closely in the peace process for this region, with the help of the United States government. Indeed, the Real IRA has been placed on a list of organisations for which Americans can not legally raise funds. |
|
The only thing you can accuse the US government of is doing too little. To this charge - I agree. It is time to do more!
Quote:
| As for Israel I stand by my comments, if the people involved cannot sort things out then it will have to be sorted out for them. Israel only supports a Palestinian State because international pressure has forced them too, not because they desperately want one. The Palestinian authority has no real power over the terror groups so it isn't able to riegn them in unless they want to be riegned in. |
|
I have no problem with this at all.
Quote:
| I don't believe I insinuated that Israel was " the bad guy" so I am unsure why you mentioned this, but I can assure you lhat I have no preference for sides. |
|
Ah but you did insinuate. You said that Israel has violated so many UN sanctions and alluded to human rights violations by bringing up the death of innocent children - all while failing to mention how the Palestinian terrorist groups targeting of innocent civilians while Israel targets, as best it can, military assets and high profile terrorist figures. Please remember there are two sides to this issue.
Quote:
| I do understand Israel's need to defend itself, every nation has a right to protect itself and its people, but both the Israelis and Palestinians target places where there will almost certainly be civilian casualties, refugee camps and restaurants respectively. |
|
You have conveniently twisted this around to imply that Israel hits targets the same way the Palestinians do. You are blatantly wrong again. I repeat - it is the Palestinians who intentionally target civilians in busses, restaurants, and other non-military places with suicide bombers. Conversely, Israel goes after valid targets (even if they hide amongst civilians like cowards) and military assets (even if they are placed near civilian centers by leaders who don't seem to give a rat's a$$ about their own people). There IS a difference
Quote:
| Your view of Saudi Arabia is oxymoronic to say the least. The Saudi Royal Family depend on oil revenue to keep themselves in power, terrorism (whether sponsored by the Saudi Royal Family or not) prompts foriegn companies to abandon Saudi Arabia thus harming its oil industry. There is the addded complication of both Bush and Kerry are committed to the U.S. being less reliant on Saudi oil, in light of this it would seem strange, to say the least, for Saudi Arabia to sponsor any form of anti-American movemen. |
|
I believe my view of the relationship between the Saudi Royal Family and Terrorism is dead on. You may think the Royal family has no desire to deal with terrorists - and they don't - but that is completely different from being forced to deal with them. It is precisely for the reasons you state above:
- The Saudi Royal Family depends on Oil to say in power
- Terrorists can disrupt this oil supply if they want to
That is precisely why the Royal family has had to deal with terrorist organizations in their country -- TO KEEP THEM FROM CAUSING THE KIND OF HAVOC AND CHAOS WHICH WOULD THREATEN THEIR RULE. This is so obvious. You cannot deny terrorist organizations exist in Saudi Arabia, can you? The royal family is not powerful enough to expel them - so they have to find a way to keep the terrorists appeased. So, while not necessarily wanting to work with these organizations, they provide concessions and look the other way IN EXCHANGE FOR the terrorists allowing them to keep a firm grip on their rule of Saudi Arabia.
This will, however, change - as terrorists become more and more desperate to find safe harbor and Saudi Arabia is less and less able to hold oil reserves over the heads of western nations. I think it is a good thing.
Quote:
| You don't seem to have fully understood my point regarding the root causes of terrorism and providing aid to the world's poor. The West is responsible for the current terrorist situation because the West has let it get to this stage rather than nipping it in the bud, of course the West is not responsible for fanatics who seek to use religion as reason enough to kill people. |
|
Which is it??? We are responsible or we are not? It is a socialistic view that believes that just because one is well of they are responsible for everyone else who isn't. We may disagree and argue about this and who is ultimately correct - but it is a socialistic/liberal view. I happen to be conservative (right wing if you will). I believe charity is what people do volutarilly - not forced at the point of a gun or under threat of loss of liberty or property. I believe that individuals hold most of the responsiblity for their place in life. I holeheartedly reject the idea that somehow these terrorists will ever respond to kindness or charity on our behalf. The fact is no civilization has been as generous (in terms of percentage of their wealth OR actual monetary amount spent) than Western Civilizations - the United States in particular. THAT IS A FACT. Every year we give more money to world charity and benovelant interests than all other nations combined. And we do it despite the world criticizing us of being stingy, greedy, pigs. Well - I'm sick of it. We are a kind and generous people and we will continue to be. But WE were attacked. We were attacked long before 9/11. We tried and tried - gave and gave. It isn't our charity these fanitics want - it is our extermination. Tell me otherwise.
Quote:
| You seem somewhat right-wing, |
|
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT
Quote:
| but spending a lot of money to help the world's poor not only helps to create societies of educated affluent people less prone to being sucked into fanatical terror groups through poverty, desperation and resentment, it is also the right thing to do. |
|
And we have spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars and will spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS more to do just that. Of course you won't recognize this, and the terrorists will care about this fact even less than you seem to. Roads are being built, schools are going up, infrastructure is being expanded, information is being desiminated - because of our money. Maybe a "Thanks" is in order instead of a bashing, back handed insults and resentment.
Quote:
| Perhaps this sounds socialist to you, but in Europe at least, we believe in helping as many people as possible whether they have the capacity to repay it or not. Even if people are not grateful for what we do for them, even if they try to kill us, we must still help them because that is what seperates us from the terrorists, kindness, compassion and good will. |
|
What separates us from terrorists is the fact we want people to be free and we want to be free ourselves. That's it. Know why Hammas is so popular with Palestinians? Not only because they blow up Israeli civilians ... they also build schools and support communities. Terrorists do kind and compassionate things too. Just as long as you goose-step to their command. And if you want to give your money to people who are trying to kill you - that's your business. Just don't come to me and demand that I give them money too!
Quote:
| The terrorists may very well not care about any of the good we do, but that is not what is important, ensuring that the children, the terrorists hope to recruit one day, grow up knowing that the West is not their enemy is.
The West must fight with all its military power and its humanatarian abilities too to ensure that any peace won is a lasting peace. |
|
What is so disgusting about this is WE (all of us) ARE DOING JUST THAT but you can't seem to see that.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-08-11 22:31
