Understanding terrorism
 

I am starting a fresh thread with optimism that we can leave some of the name calling and condescension in the other already butchered thread. (deluded SOB, huh?)

This morning I have heard newsstories talking about BBC's refusal to label bombers as terrorists and Time magazine's interview with the 20 year old suicidebomber in training. I have been hearing arguments for some time that the key to ending the conflict between western culture (us) and islamic extremists/terrorists/bombers/whatever (them) is that we must first understand what has caused them to do what they do. I have also heard that their beliefs and actions can be directly tied to poverty and lack of opportunity.

I agree we should try to understand what caused the movement, and do our best to create an immunization for the root. long term solution. I also believe we should attack and destroy the symptoms whereever we can find them now. short term fix.

my concern is that if we really believe that poverty and oppression are the reasons X number of individuals murdered some people in London last week, X individuals blew up some trains in Spain, and 19/20 individuals hijacked some planes a few years ago, then why are these perpetrators coming from upper middle/upper class families? surely they didn't feel the sting of poverty. with resources, education, and desire could they not stimulate change in a more meaningful, less destructive way? i think this is where the argument for understanding the "difficulties of their lives" argument breaks down. if the murderers were unemployed, poverty sticken individuals I think that argument would hold some water - I would still disagree - but it at least would be arguable.

I can't find the link now, but i read an article yesterday written about Al Queda's recruiting in the UK. they are targeting educated upper/middle class muslims with technical skills. these aren't oppressed people. they are people with opportunity in front of them. what then is their motivation to kill and destroy civilians?

The 20 year old bomber in training in the Time article mentioned that his family is not happy about his decision, but they understand they can't change his mind. uh, wait a second. if i knew that my son was preparing to murder people and i couldn't set him on the right track i would absolutely have him arrested. i would love and support him still, but i would not stand by and watch his quest to become a martyr via killing civilians. that is just passive terrorism.

yesterday, I read a blurb that one of the national Islamic councils had written a scathing rejection of terrorism and the Al Queda movement. Of course, I also read a blurb from another that said while they don't support killing people - it is important to remember that Islam doesn't distinguish between soldier and civilian so it isn't terrorism, per se. hmmm.

today a suicide bomber in Iraq killed @ 27 people. one of them was a US soldier. at least 7 were Iraqi children. their crime? accepting candy from the US soldier.

do you really believe that poverty and oppression are the root causes of these murders? even if you do, does it excuse these murders?

I think that poverty and oppression are the gasoline thrown on the fire of religious fervor and a culture that celebrates death by martyrdom.

It doesn't excuse the murders. If the culture of death is changed, it will be changed from within; that can't happen until the teeth of the monster are pulled by outside forces who have the strength to do so.

You need to get deeper. 2 levels. Lets look at communism and socialism. Where do the activists and radicals come from? The upper middle classes, they have the time and education to understand and the money to effect extreme change, at the time, revolution. However those revolutions would never have worked without the mass support caused by inequity and lack of social mobility at the time. Today, you'll still find the vast majority of far-left activists on uni campuses but you won't be seeing revolution anytime soon, why? No popular support.

Do I need to bother drawing the parallels?

There has and always will be extremists, dangerous extremists of every colour, stripe and creed, driven by fevours as diverse as humanity itself. In general they are importent becuase they lack mass support. When you create circumstances where many turn to their cause as the answer to their plight, then you have a real problem. Thats where the "difficulties of their lives" argument stand up.

As for the short term fix, sure, but every act retards change and the more heavy handed you are the more power and influence you bring to those who would rather see war than peace.

But even in your examples, poverty is not the cause of the revolution, it is the honey that draws the masses to follow a leader who has never felt the sting of the supposed cause.

for poverty to truly be the cause of a communist revolution or an islamic jihadist uprising then those who are actually being oppressed would have to one day wake up and say "i don't like this anymore, who wants to follow me." what we actually see are wealthy individuals who have a vision for how they want to see the world (worker's paradise or sh'ria rule), a vision which surprise surprise puts them on top once the current system is tossed aside. these wealthy individuals exploit and deceive the very people they are affecting concern for.

putting a lamb in every pot and a suburban in every driveway won't stop this, because the leaders of the movement will just find a different fear to exploit and motivate.

so what is the solution? have a complete hands-off policy in the middle east? that would appease radar, but few others. the fact is that from it's earliest days Al Queda has maneuverd for the overthrow of middle east gov'ts for the goal of a unified Arab nation ruled by Sh'ria law. leaving them to their own devices may not be the best course of action with that in mind.

This thread is predicated on assumptions that actually create the problem. For example (Point 1) we should identify and fix the reasons for the problems? After how many hundreds of years, if we don't understand the problem by now, then we are the problem.

The problem is found in a loosely organized Muslim Brotherhood. This 1400s organization continues into the twentieth century by murdering Sadat of Egypt, nearly toppling Asad of Syria, and threatening Saddam of Iraq. It has other faces such as terrorism in Chechnya. Now tell me how we are suddenly going to stop or fix what has been ongoing long before the United States even existed.

That assumption that we are going to fix the problem is part of the problem. But then more assumptions only make the problem worse. It was their problem. Why does the US have to fix things that are not US problems? The Muslim Brotherhood was a regional problem that would have remains a regional problem had we not decided to fix the region - impose democracy on those nations - remove a Saddam that was a diminishing threat even to his neighbors. A problem to be fixed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.; not the US. If we did as promised - rescue Kuwait and get out - then the Muslim Brotherhood would have nothing but antagonistic respect for the US. But the US lied. We did not leave. We therefore ensnarled ourselves into the quagmire.

We could have left. We could have left the region with Saddam in power - a diminishing threat that was only a regional problem. But somehow we have low intelligence, high testosterone leaders who always need to do things without any smoking gun reason. This mistake is why we are expected to read and learn from the Pentagon Papers; learn history so we don't make the same mistakes. This is why intelligent people routinely mock those whose only reasoning is sound bytes - ie Rush Limbaugh and George Jr.

Having followed leaders with many sound bytes and no intelligence, we are targets of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just a second reason that assumptions in this thread are really a reason for Islamic based terrorism. We insisted on fixing the region without even understanding the problem; instead of letting them fix their own region (Point 1). And then we lied about what our intentions were. We stayed when we said we would leave (Point 2). We stayed using some nonsensical reasoning that we are god's people and therefore could only do good? That we will fix things by imposing democracy? We even lie to ourselves!

A third assumption is its all about Al Qaeda. That's playing propaganda games to avoid the issue. It plays right into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood. Classic guerilla warfare tactics. Get us to attack a ghost enemy. It’s the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda was only one dandelion in a grassy field full of dandelions. If we are not going to be honest about whom we have antagonized, then we are right back in the Viet Nam syndrome all over again. Point 3 - Lookout123 has even assumed an enemy that does not physically exist as he has defined it. More reasons why his assumptions are the problem.

There is no master arch enemy called Al Qaeda. Calling Musab al-Zarquawi a member of Al Qaeda is to brainwash Americans into a concept they can better understand - an evil empire. That's why the Muslim Brotherhood survived so long. It is not a monolithic enemy in the sense that Lookout123's assumptions imply.

A fourth false assumption was to assume Saddam and Muslim Brotherhood are same. Or that they were all enemies of their people. Or that Saddam was a problem that needed fixing. We have created a perfect training ground for terrorism - Iraq. We destroyed a force that was keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in check. And now we have made it easy for these Islamic fundamentalists to not only train, but also recruit. We never first learned what the real threat was - instead inventing myths about weapons of mass destruction. We lied to ourselves - that is 70% of those reading this post. Muslim Brotherhood was never (in modern history) the growing threat that it is today. Every day the US stays in Iraq only provides the Muslim Brotherhood with more troops. Why? We even lies about what were threats to America.

So we declare victory at hand because we have killed more 'terrorists' this year than last. Vietnam all over again; where it was our own assumptions that created the problem. We repeatedly violate principles of warfare that were even well understood and written in 500 BC. How in hell do we ever expect a victory when we even deny basic concepts of war? Amb. Bremmer (who was given the Freedom Metal for making things worse) being a classic example of the Ugly American.

Some many years ago in a very contentious discussion with MaggieL, I was strongly forthright about the concept. You better damn well have a smoking gun before unilaterally attacking another nation. A point so obvious that the concept is better proven than god. Without a smoking gun, then no strategic objective can exist. Without a strategic objective, then no exit strategy and no goal to win. We have that in Iraq because no smoking gun existed. George Jr has no strategic objective other than to fix the region according to American assumptions - impose democracy.

We had no smoking gun. Therefore we have no strategic objective. All this while, we are only making more dandelions and providing those dandelions with a field to train and with anger to make them dangerous. And so we have a fifth assumption that creates more misunderstanding of a US / Islam conflict (which even our best friends the Saudis tried to warn us about). Fifth assumption - we are going to fix their society. Bull. Only they can murder one another in enough numbers to eventually want to fix their society. That is the history of democracy. Democracy or other stable government cannot be imposed. It must be earned.

Does the word "meddling" better summarize the real problem?

The assumptions posted and implied by Lookout123 are really the problem. It will only get worse until we confront the assumptions and myths - such as this monolithic enemy called Al Qaeda. Every week in Iraq means we will create more dandelions that become a new branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not a nice picture. Meanwhile, remember this date I constantly cite: when the world changed- 1 Aug 1990.

Poverty is nothing more than a symptom. Like famine, poverty is created first and foremost when the people do not even have a functioning government.

You can fix the symptoms of poverty - build infrastructure - and poverty remains. That is a conundrum that NGOs, World Bank, IMF, etc are all confronting. For even where poverty and famine have been successfully diminished (ie Uganda), corruption in government quickly reverses all the accomplishments.

Arguing poverty as a reason for conflict is bull. That assumption was long since buried by lessons of post WWII history. Poverty is only another symptom of the same problem that also creates revolution, terrorism, etc. Every attempt to solve poverty in a corrupt society has always failed. Any attempt to solve poverty without eliminating the reasons for revolution is stupidity. Learn from lessons taught by 1970s Thailand in their northern provinces. Unfortunately too many have opinions without first learning from where poverty was successfully diminished; where revolution was eliminated.

It's the same thing. There are always revolutionary would-be leaders wandering about, but there is no revolution, because people are relatively comfortable with the system as it is. A cadre of fanatics only becomes a revolutionary force when they attract popular support.

Oppression is the reason for the bombings. They want more oppression and they want to be the oppressors and the 1st world stands in their way. Arguing over whether that's because 1st world governments are less oppressive or that they want to do the oppressing themselves is beside the point.

You can talk about root causes, but if the root cause is basically that they -- the terrorists -- want Western governments to act in a way that isn't acceptable to anyone else, then the root cause can't be fixed. If they won't give in either, then the only solution to the problem is removing their ability to commit these acts in the first place.

ok, then what does that mean? how do we do that? what extremes are we willing to go to?

Cannot be done. History demonstrates you cannot stop the problem by killing more people, embargoing their supplies, restricting their actions, or forcing a new government upon them. All those solutions only make more enemies. Problem must be identified and its root cause must be eliminated. As demonstrated earlier, even the assumptions in Lookout123's original post are intentionally distorted to only promote or disguise a failed American leadership problem. Intentionally distorted as to even blame everything on some mythical Al Qaeda.

Furthermore, after the invasion, there is a one year grace period. The invading nation only has something like one year to change things for the better. This mental midget president (using the same intellectual brainstorming from Adm Bremmer, et al) had no plans for the peace until seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. Too little too late. We waited too long to solve anything. Our only solution lies in getting others to take over. Others who don't have the stigma of being ugly Americans.

Root cause, from the perspective of Americans, is that we decided to fix the region. Therefore we tried to fix a problem that was not a problem (Saddam), invented threats that did not exist (WMDs), empowered the real threat (Muslim Brotherhood), and made Americans a target (trying to force American ideals such as democracy down their throat).

Before 1 Aug 1990, America was not a target of Islamic fundamentals. What changed? It starts with the policy of intervention rather than the 'well proven by generations' policy of prevention or containment. This 'self serving' George Jr policy change caused America to become a target. Policy change is the mistake we made then and is the solution today - as our regional allies repeatedly remind us. Exercising that solution is difficult. Not difficult to execute. But difficult to get a leader with enough balls to do it.

In Vietnam, we could have left at any time. Instead we only doubled the American death count to protect a president's ego. When we finally did leave, then Vietnam was solved for the better. Leaving was the only solution for Vietnam. But self serving leaders such as Nixon did not have the balls to change an obviosly flawed policy - domino theory. Obviously the current president also does not have the balls nor intelligence. Everything for him is always so haaaarrrrdd.

While I agree with much of what you're saying, I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. You say that there is no "evil empire", that Al Qaeda is a false target. But you continue to cite the "Muslim Brotherhood". How is it not an enemy in the sense that Lookout123's assumptions imply? What, exactly, is the goal of this "Muslim Brotherhood"? It seems like a hazy "evil empire" Al Qaeda replacement. Please expound?

So... what made Bali a target?

What made Madrid a target?

What made New Delhi a target?

What made France a target?

What made Israel a target?

What made Riyadh a target?

What made Istanbul a target?

Lots of root causes to address here

Austin Bay quotes bits out of a NY Times story on the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Islamists. Why do they hate us? They don't really, emphasis mine:

Worked on Carthage. Troy, too. Also Germany after WWII. The American South. Examples abound.

And if the root cause is simply that they like killing Westerners? That they find our very infidel existence intolerable?

Or ugly Brits or ugly Spaniards or...

Nothing, that's a false premise; Islamic fundamentalists used to take (and kill) hostages rather than blow people up.

Numerous isolated cases to make a pre-ordained point. Examples selected to forget the so many other acts of terrorism that go unreported. Then we add the others that did get reported. For example, what destroyed the Air India 747 over the Indian Ocean? What destroyed a French 747 over Africa? Why were French ships routinely shelled as the left the southern end of the Red Sea? What about the bombing of a German nightclub? The bombing of US Marines and French troops in Lebanon. The bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem. Who almost took out the Radisson Hotel in Amman Jordan? And why?

Remember myths about electric lines causing strange childhood diseases? Yes, myths. The study selectively chose their examples. From those selected examples, a pre-ordained conclusion about childhood leukemia created by electric lines was obtained.

UT is doing same thing here with selective violence. Selected first to inflame. If UT really wanted to understand the answer, he would have started with all terrorist events back to 1400s when Muslim Brotherhood was founded (I believe it was in what is now Turkey). He would have included the so many acts of violence and bloody riots recently in the many Ka'stan countries north of Iran. He would have included Assad's massacre of 10,000 civilians because he so feared the Muslim Brotherhood - and for good reason. And don't forget the concentration camps by Serbs for Muslim Bosnians.

But again, that goes to phony assumptions posted up top. Invent an Al Qaeda to blame for everything. Then one gets mythical and simplistic conclusions that one seeks. By not ignoring the nonsense about Al Qaeda this and Al Qaeda that, then one still does not comprehend what, who, why, or where the enemy really is.

Add to that list the murder of Sadat of Egypt. Without a complete list, then the examples are useless for drawing conclusions. If you intentionally distort the examples as George Jr does - blame everything on Al Qaeda - then you get the monolithic enemy he promotes. You get the silly enemy promoted on an embarrassing TV show called NCIS. A show designed for the dumb, ass kicking, enlisted man we need hyped so that he can even become cannon fodder.

Want to stop the violence? Just like in Vietnam, stop inventing enemies such as we did in Vietnam. Suddenly the enemy was Russia, and China, and world wide Communism. In reality is was about a civil war inspired in part by a corrupt S Vietnam government combined with a silly fear of communism everywhere (called McCarthyism).

Until you can describe the actions, intentions, philosophy, etc of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you cannot even say who the enemy is, let alone stop it. This has been ongoing for hundreds of years. You want to stop it. First understand it. Start by understanding what the Muslim Brotherhood really is.

tw--and before I say anything, let me tell you how pretty I think you are--are you suggesting that your "Muslim Brotherhood" is an INVENTED enemy? How many Muslims do you know on a personal level? None? One? Two? You know, I hate Bush as much as the next guy, really, but trying to understand a person who would happily, joyfully blow himself up just to off some innocent civilians? That's a hatred I can't begin to know.

All this violence was long ongoing for hundreds of years before we decided to save them from themselves. Massacres in the name of fundamentalism and to eliminate fundamentalism occurred without even an historical footnote. Now we too are stuck in the quicksand because somehow we were going to fix something we did not even understand.

Only a misinformed fool would think Islamic Fundamentalism is only about killing westerners. Westerners were rarely a target until after 1 Aug 1990. In fact, some Islamic Fundamentalists once welcomed Americans as friends or honest brokers. What changed? Without that answer, then the whole thread started by Lookout123 will only be a waste of time.

Remember the crash of the Egypt Airliner? The co-pilot transcript as he was crashing the plane into the sea? My Arab friends kept saying the translation was completely inaccurate. That those exact same words would be said for a completely different meaning. You do remember that the US government finally admitted to some translation error - how long ago?

They also tell me the Koran is not properly represented in English. Another from Tunisia was just recently complained how an English translation had completely distorted the Arab intent. She said she did not even recognize the English version.

Now I don't understand this distortion in translation. I take their word for what they tell me because so many Arab friends (who don't even know one another) have told me the same thing. The actual meaning of the Koran is often distorted when not in Arabic. This from someone whose Arab is limited to words such as Shocrum. This is from someone who has no Arab friends?

BTW, I sometimes read some advanced math books. Who most often asks questions about all that messy math? Rarely the traditional Americans. Often those Arab friends get curious because they also took that math in Egypt or Morroco. Makes we wonder who in America really has enough technical knowledge to innovate.

But then I don't have Arab friends?

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood was not described as an invented enemy. Curiously, the Muslim Brotherhood is also a topic that my Arab friends seem to avoid discussing. Found it curious why they tend to avoid the topic.

it looks like you are slipping - you forgot to insert my name into that post. :stickpoke

So, what was the reported version vs. your friends' version?

Having read the Koran in it's entirety, I'm interested in this statement ... in what way is The Koran misrepresented? What is the flavor that it's supposed to have?

Arab/Islamic terrorism for political gain seems to have gotten started in the late 1960s, which is the time at which hijackers stopped demanding to go to Cuba (never quite understood that one, must have been the nice beaches) and started going to Syria

US planes have been hijacked by terrorists on multiple occasions through the 1970s. Iranian "students" took The US Embassy workers hostage in 1979, and things have escalated ever since.

Where'd you get the 1990 date?

Not al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda bomb link is confirmed

I thought I'd google the bro'hood to see what the skinny was on the outfit. It appears they had the goal of cranking up the wahabbi on all the Arab governments and own Saudi Arabia. According to this article they got a hold of bin Laden when it hurt to pee so he decided everyone else should be protected from such a life-style. Anybody else see a pattern among religous nuts who can't do personal responsibility? It seems the bro'hood spawns these outfits (al queda etc...) but are trying to be legit governmentals (oxymoronic eh?). Anyway, I'm on the outside of three fingers of the cheapest scotch known to man so I'll let others contribute.

I keep asking for specific examples of how the English version did not agree with the Arabic version. Instead I always get answers that are general; a specific example not cited. The Koran is on my reading list. And until I read it, I was not going to press them on specifics. Meanwhile, which English version of the Koran did you read?

1 Aug 1990 : the day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Previously, many right wing Americans such as Kilpatrick, Buchanan, Wolfovich, Quayle, etc were still insisting that the Cold War had not ended. A resulting new world order meant the US paid practically nothing to liberate Kuwait; Japan being the country that paid most for that war. Most every nation paid something to liberate Kuwait. How's that for just another example of how the world changed. A war authorized and legal without a national declaration of war. Even the American extreme right wing conceded that the Cold War was over due to what happened on 1 Aug 1990. It is one of the rare times in history where virtually the entire world came to the same conclusion. 1 Aug 1990 was a rare example of when the entire world was working for the benefit of the world's people. 1 Aug 1990 was a day the world changed.

Another noteworthy day (and I don't have the date) was when Hitler was elected by the German people.

And so, with the multi-national ejection of a secular dictator from a country ruled by an (Islamic) monarchy, all the Islamic fundamentalists who were formerly best buddies with the United States and the West in general were suddenly our sworn enemies. (and of course it's all George Bush's fault)

Damn, tw-world is sure a strange place. If the sky is blue there, it's a blue which has no relation to what the rest of us would call "blue".

There was no such date. Hitler was never elected by the German People, per se. Hindenberg appointed Hitler to the post of Chancellor on January 30, 1933. A general election would have taken place in March 1933, if the Reichstag hadn't conveniently burned down, and the Law for the Protection of the People and State was put into place.

On March 23, 1933 a meeting of the Reichstag was held in a temporary location (an opera house) and attendance was controlled by two factors ... communist and socialist factions had already been outlawed, and the SA made sure that members of parties likely to dissent wouldn't get it. That's where Hitler got handed dictatorial power through the Enabling Bill.

TW, you keep refering to the "Muslim Brotherhood". Obviously that's not what they call it but the English translation. In that Muslim countries speak many different languages, is there one name that they call themselves? :question:

The N.J. Dawood translation, published by Penguin.

Every time I try to have a conversation on this topic with the Pakistani doctor at work, there are too darn many patients to be seen and he doesn't have time to talk when I do. If I ever do get to talk to him, I'll let you know what his impressions are.

I was just talking to an Egyptian friend today. His concepts of Muslim Brotherhood are those who murdered Sadat. He also noted that Hosni Mubarak curiously was sitting right next to Sadat and yet was not killed. I would have to look again to be sure.

But the point is that the Muslim Brotherhood is really a vague, loosely defined, and not well understood concept. This is not how a US President can promote an enemy. Propaganda is to create an enemy that the public can better understand - Al Qaeda. Then blame everything on Al Qaeda. Do they really think bin Laden is still planning and executing against the US? Of course not. There is no central command. There is this murky concept called Muslim Brotherhood.

Our actions in Iraq and our intentions upon Iran would only serve to make the Muslim Brotherhood stronger and more dangerous even to our friends in that region.

Hamas is also listed as an example of the Muslim Brotherhood. And yet Hamas will not to attack Americans. Just makes the Muslim Brotherhood that much more murky. And yet to understand the region, one must first understand this strange concept so often called the Muslim Brotherhood.

To declare all terrorism or insurgency as Al Qaeda is to also call the Viet Minh a world wide communist conspiracy. America also made that mistake with the simple-minded reasoning of Lyndon Johnson and Gen LeMay. One would think Americans learned from their history and mistakes. And yet here we are again making the same mistake. Before one can defeat an enemy, one must first correctly define the enemy. Instead we let the propagandists blame everything on Al Qaeda.

How does one define a strategic objective WHEN the enemy is not even accurately defined? No strategic objective is why America has no exit strategy for Iraq. That was a lesson of Vietnam. How many learned that lesson - or instead believed White House propaganda that also blamed Saddam for the 11 Sept attacks?

I stand accurately corrected.

Sounds like the "Muslim Brotherhood" is like the Mafia. A loose confederation of "families" with the same objective but not neccessarily working together. "Families" will come and go so a lost family will not really affect the others. :idea:

I'm sure that the key people who matter know that the "war" is really on radical Islamism, not al Qaeda. I'm sure that many people who currently undertake various operations consider themselves to be al Qaeda "sympathizers" and take the name in order to feel more badass. Nevertheless,

Al Qaeda bomb link is confirmed

You may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public. :mad:

Since the BBC saw fit to print this, it stands to reason that the problem is actually much worse. Bright note: the majority of folks actually think suicide bombing is a bad thing.

30 some years previous, people would say that surely a man as smart as Gen William Westmoreland really knew more about Vietnam than he was saying. Guess what. His simplistic lies about Vietnam WERE what he knew. Westmoreland just died last week still insisting the war could have been won if he was just given enough support.

Don't believe for a minute that leaders know more than they are saying. This administration would blame everything on Al Qaeda because that is their knowledge. Complexities such as Muslim Brotherhood don't play well in the minds of those who also assume the region can be fixed. For if the region was as complex as it really is, then the region cannot be fixed by simply forcing democracy down their throat. Since we are going to fix the region, then those complexities cannot exist. A self fulfilling prophesy?

Frontline recently laid out the politics of Lebanon. Literally most of the country, at one point, had rallied in Beirut’s Martyr Square. So would the party of Hararri become the new leading party? Of course not. If you did not see that Frontline piece; if your knowledge of Lebanon politics is simply Lebanon’s nationalism verses Syrian dominance, then you have no idea what those demonstrations were really about. If your definition of Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then you are listening to too many Rush Limbaugh types.

Iraq is no different. The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?

Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.

There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. Preconceived notions have now become bad reality. Our current leaders only got what they wished for because they had no idea what they really wanted. And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.

Ironic. If they considered bin Laden as so evil, then why do we still not send a single division to get him? Because these same leaders had no plans for the peace (no concept even of lessons from 500 BC), even Afghanistan is slowly returning to the Taliban. Exactly what happens when there is no comprehension of who is the enemy, why he is an enemy, and no strategic objective (and therefore no exit strategy).

The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005: One year after America 'liberated' Afghanistan, still the promised water system was not even restored. IOW just like in Iraq, America had no plans for the peace. As a result, even the Arab Crescent (an Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) will not go in one half of Afghanistan's proviences. That much of the country has now been taken back by the Taliban since America had no plans (just a lot of talk) for the peace.

BTW, since our leaders had no idea of how Afghanistan works, well, where is the strategic objective and exit strategy for Afghanistan? Sounds just like the same mistake made by the British in Afghanistan. Sounds just like the exact same mistake made by these same leaders in Iraq. Ask yourself what will be the strategic objective when America attacks Iran and N Korea? Or will we the people have finally learned the lessons from Vietnam? We still don't even understand who the enemy is in Iraq. And our leaders apparently don't know it either. For if our leaders had any knowledge, then they would be admitting that Iraq is only becoming worse. (UT should be asking for numbers for that statement).

I'll tell you what. The current administration is indifferent to the niceties of religous and political innuendos in the Middle East. They don't know because they don't care. If ever there was a case of an administration wagging the dog, it would be a photo finish of that flap of the tail between the Nixon and George Jr. administrations. And I don't mean any Monica Lewinski's either.

Iraq is about oil. Forget religion, forget democracy, forget crimes against humanity (Jr. commits them all the time with little, if any public comment), forget the "war on terror."

Junior went into Iraq after 9/11 in order to make it appear to the public that he was making a response to terrorism. It didn't hurt things any that a strong American force in that region will be essential to securing US strategic oil reserves. It also didn't hurt that Jr.'s sidekick, Dick Chaney, has strong ties with Halliburten, Root and CO., and their ilk. Can anyone say "war profiteering"? Hitler had the Swiss banking system. The current administration has the Cayman Islands.

What nationality is Bin Ladin?

Class? Yes, you in the back, CORRECT!

WE DON'T CARE!

Iraq is about siezing strategic control of the most precious substance on the face (actually interior) of the earth - petroleum. Our military might would grind to a halt without it. He who controls the oil, controls the world's power and wealth. It is very, very simple. And it is a game played for high stakes without remorse or compassion on either side.

The Muslim members of the educated middle and upper class understand what is going on. That's why they are willing to become terrorists. The poverty stricken masses follow because they are poor and ignorant and Allah or Jesus via their local religous leader told them to do it.

More fools are we all.

Oil is a major part of the strategy. But it is a strategy that is Central Asia wide. For example, learn the politics behind the Caspian Sea oil pipeline. Pipeline intentionally routed so that the Russians have no influence. Carefully laid using detailed political considerations. The US is even talking about Georgia becoming part of the EU. It is why the pipeline does not run through both adversarial nations (ie. Armenia and Azerbaijan). It is why the US is courting so many K'stan nations.

It is why SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organization) exists. From The Economist of 9 July 2005: We would not be in this problem if our energy consumption industry would innovate. GM being the classic reason why Americans must now get into a conflict and the quagmire that is Middle East and Central Asia. With innovation, American would have no trade deficient and could reduce energy consumption by up to 50% (and not by everyone driving Pintos as right wing extremists and other power brokers hype). Indeed, this is the technology that will be developed and sold by others (the competition) in later decades if America does not innovate today. History only repeating itself.

Meanwhile, we have also stated intentions on Iran. More nations we must fix to address an energy, per capita, that is about double what the rest of the world requires. The word is called waste. Either we fix the waste at home or we waste American lives in those other nations.

Meanwhile, there is no way around religion, ethnic rivalries, etc. If we demand energy now, then we must invade what we don't like; those that might impede the energy flow. We must get them to think like us; impose democracy upon them. But we could curb our appetite using innovation and let those nations first solve their own problems.

Yes oil is a primary function of this new American Imperialism - to get the oil at all cost. It is not the only reason - but oil is clearly a dominate reason. A recent massacre in Kirgizstan would be totally irrelevant if we were not trying to cozy up even to corrupt regimes. Yes we even have military bases in those countries. Why? What is the threat?

Today we must fix their religion to exploit our interests. To walk in without even knowing what is and is not important - ie religion - are the same reasons why the US is making enemies even among some of what were once friends in the region (ie Syria)

Do you know about the gas pipeline from Russia into Turkey? If you have knowledge of regional politics, then you better understand the significance of that pipeline. More interesting are so many Americans with opinions - who did not even know about the Russian Turkey pipeline or the massive politics behind the Caspian Sea pipeline.

We state the nations we intend to invade. Iran is next. Curious - another oil nation that does not kowtow to American demands. No problem. We will fix their government? Clearly that is sufficient to the cannon fodder among us to hype a war. That is enough for our religious extremists to hype a mission of saving them from their evil religious extremists.

What happened to the simple explanations such as Weapons of Mass Destruction? The real reasons are too complex for the masses to understand especially when most 20 year olds don't even read or listen to real news. Did you know about the SCO? Did you understand the significance when China failed to find oil in their Xinjian province? Why didn't Rush Limbaugh discuss this?

China's failure to secure a strong domestic supply of its own combined with its quasi-capitalist economic upsurge makes it public enemy number one as far as the US is concerned. China remains strongly xenophobic and is bristling with apprehension at the unrest it sees on its western perimeters.

US strategy will be to use the K'stan nations, as you call them, for one purpose. This area will be the recipient of a massive flux of refugees from the on-going engagements that the US will have with the Middle East. While upper echelon members of the pentagon and the administration's inner circle may know little of the regional subtexts and history, they do know that the West will never win the hearts and minds of the East. We did learn at least that much from Vietnam.

With this reality, our petroleum interests in the Mid East will remain forever precarious ones. The solution will be to persue an ever more scorched earth policy in our Mid East "liberation" efforts and creating a massive outflux of displaced population from the area while stopping short of genocide.

Those remaining in their homelands will be the ones most amenable to "democracy," if you will. Their former countrymen turned refugees will completely destabilize the "K'stan" area with their influx. China will look most unkindly on this upheaval on its borders and will have little hesitation or remorse in resolving the problem in the most expedient manner.

We will have accomplished the American occupation of the oil producing nations and given our enemy something to occupy itself with, as it drains its military and economic strength with the expenditure of the energy required to enforce the safety of its western provinces. The resulting slaughter of innocents will make the US look like the good guy by comparison, and Jeb Bush will jubiliantly be inaugurated into his third term at the White House.

The above scenario was described to me by a retired Lt. Colonel who was a professor of Russian studies at the US Air Force Academy. He was half joking when he told it, but by the end of his narration, he got a serious look on his face and said, "Hell, I think they'll actually do it."

To appreciate the larger picture as describes by marichiko, one should be looking at a map. Oil fields in the Chechnyan side of the Caspian Sea are now obtained by the west using the recently completed Caspian Sea pipeline that terminates on Turkey's Med coast. This leaves the regions between the Caspian Sea and China; wedged in between Russia on the north, China on the east, and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran on the south: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kirgizstan. A race is ongoing for access.

Even though the region's oil tends to be rather bitter – requires significant additional refining - it is the region where thirsty manufacturing nations could collide if we all are not careful. As if it was not bad enough that powerful nations vie for control. The region is dominated by dictators of unsavory histories, and a ripe breeding ground for religious fundamentalist uprisings. Imagine Indiana Jones as an oilman - and even his American bosses are nothing but greedy.

It does not help Indiana when American reputation in Iraq makes life difficult for Americans everywhere else. You have not yet seen the fallout from Guantanamo and Abu Ghriad. You have seen all the phoney orange alerts created by torture. You have seen increasing insurgency that will only get worse. Now our poor hero, Indiana must go to other places where these American traditions (including torture) are widely rumored.

Having seperated the terrrorist and insurgent organizations from White House propaganda, we should now move on to who gets recruited as terrorists. Therein lies more problems with White House type propaganda. Terrorist typically are not just recruited by some ghostly organization called Al Qaeda. Most terrorists recruit themselves.

Take this example provided by The Economist on 14 July 2005: Most so called terrorists are not recruited as current government propaganda would have us all believe. Most go looking to be terrorists. If they get lucky, they encounter a real terrorist who can teach them. This is a nightmare for police. How do you locate and arrest an Al Qaeda recruiter when he does not actively recruit and when Al Qaeda does not exist as government tells its enforcement people?

The Economist also defines what a terrorist is as demonstrated by so many historical examples: Notice who most terrorists were. They are not recent immigrants. Often they are the second or third generation - citizens for their entire life - who often become estrangeed even from their own family and then somehow find purpose in an extremist religion. This is not just Islamics. Zionists who would openly steal Palestinian land in violation of Israeli law are really no different - except that this latter group is given a wink and nod from the Israeli government that says they are illegal. Religious christian extremists are increasing in western nations where early examples include the bombing of women health clinics and other institutions that violate their radical religous beliefs. IOW what we see from Islamic extremists may become a growing problem from other religions. Why? Their underlying purpose is to save us from ourselves. We somehow are the misguided and confused sheep. Somehow their actions in the name of a stupid concept called god will save us all. Organized religion rarely condemns and 'rats out' their extremist brethern.

First the potential terrorist starts by becoming fantantically religious. That alone does not make one a terrorist. However another factor is their inability to cope with life's complexities. Richard Reed is a classic example. So pathetic that he could not even give himself a hot foot - thereby explode a small shoe bomb. Others received even less knowledge sufficient to damage. IOW there are more terrorists among us who simply don't get much attention. But they consistently have common breeding ground - extremist religion. Any and all religion; not just Islam.

London's recent copy cat bombings may only be just that. Wanna-be extremists trying to accomplish what other religious extremists did not accomplish. Most interesting are the differences between Madrid bombings, those two weeks ago in London, and those just yesterday. This last copycat group hoped to just throw their bomb into a train as the train left the station - rather then blow themselves up. Even the Spanish bombs used a completely different system for triggering and more destructive composition. Most in common with these bombings is the reason for the will. Each apparently used different explosive. Each is typical of a terrorist organization that duplicates only what they read in the papers. But all are based in classic nonsense of religious doctrine.

No organized terrorist group exists as George Jr would preach when he talks about a 'war on terrorism'. The common factor is in cult lies - religion that can be interpreted however the human wants. Even worse, other cult members stay quiet rather than 'rat out' the enemies of mankind.

At least Muslim leaders in Europe are finally asking the question - "we think we see a problem". They finally discovered mirrors. Suddenly religious leaders are seeing a problem when the non-religious use reality to question the motives of the religious extreme. Funny how extremist religious leaders once could never see themselves in those mirrors.

The Economist also make one more interesting point: Mission Accomplished?

The Catholic Church is Pagan? Where, where have I been?
tw, you are truly a font of knowledge.

it's best not to rattle a troll's cage unless you want said troll to chew on your bones.

true. true. I've had too much :coffee:

I was just wondering from whence his transmissions come because his posts seem less like posts and more like some sort of remote-hypergraphia; like remote-viewing, only you need a keyboard. :alien:

Do they say that man was created in the image of god? Then god has human like characteristics - just like the Roman and Greek gods. IOW using Socrates logic, a Catholic Church god is a pagan god like Zeus and Apollo.

Notice that Lookout123 will only post insults. Weak minds are easily converted to religious right extremist doctrine. Oh. I' sorry. I just posted exactly like Lookout123. My mistake. I forget to post a supporting fact with my posts.

HOLY SHIT! What do the Prod's say? What do the Jews say?

tw, why do you hate people?

aw shucks tw, you sure danced circles around me again. i sure hope to be brilliant like you some day. i suppose if i barf the last book i read into a post, it would be a good start.

*just so you know - my troll comment was just to rattle your cage. this comment gets a little closer to an insult. *

People want their freedom. People respect others rights. They don't stifle innovation. They don't impose on others misguided preachings from an obsolete book. Good people don't let religion pervert them to the dark side of the force. The dark side - when religion becomes anything other than a relationship between you and your god.

Those who love people would condemn religions that would even create the Spanish Inquisition and condone pedophilia (and not even apologize for it), condone torture (as the American religious right does), and massacre innocent Spanish citizens only because their government participates in an unjustified crusade against another sovereign nation. All this done only because religion somehow knows better?

But you tell me. Show me how good a church is that even told us to hate Jews because of what happened to Jesus. How could I love people and be a part of such hatred? Hatred does not exist just in Islamic extremists. It exists in those who so hate as to stifle the advancement of mankind and innovation; such as stem cell research and kidney transplants. Those who love people do not fear innovation; so fear as to even hype an obvious myth called intelligent design. Good people would not put up with such hatred for mankind’s advancement.

Meanwhile, more people could have been killed in London yesterday. Why? Because religion is so good for people? You tell me who really promotes hate. I have simply carried the message - hatred promoted by religious concepts. Do these mythical gods really exist? Then why do their doctrines promote murder - a hatred for mankind?

*yawn* the only person i've heard who has a broader brush for their stereotyping would be your pal Rush.

Stepping in as devil's advocate for a moment, I, too, have heard the Catholic church described as pagan. If I can find a cite, I'll post it.

Ah, HERE it is.

You may now resume your squabble. :p

I'm not sure you can refer to the "Bible Discernment Ministries" as a reliable source.

I'm not disputing any claims that the Roman Catholic Church has pagan or paganized elements, but, well, the Catholic Church is what the Protestants were protesting about ...

I was lazy. It was the first one out of about 600 that popped up when I googled "catholic church" and "pagan."

Anyhow, I thought that was just sort of a given. Those clever early Christian missionaries just overlaid their doctrine on top of the pagan worship that was prevalent at the time, so we got Christmas instead of the winter solstice, Easter in place of the spring equinox, etc.

I forget what Martin Luther's exact bitch was when he nailed those 95 theses to the local Catholic university's door. I think mostly he was upset that the pope back there in Rome got to be the utilmate authority on the latest insider news from God. The Catholic Encyclopedia hints that Luther may have been a psychopath, but they're probably a bit biased.

Talk about thread drift! :3_eyes:

[quote=tw] Meanwhile, more people could have been killed in London yesterday. Why? Because religion is so good for people? You tell me who really promotes hate. I have simply carried the message - hatred promoted by religious concepts. Do these mythical gods really exist? Then why do their doctrines promote murder - a hatred for mankind?[/QUOT

I never intimated that religion was "good for people", I don't subscribe to any organized religion. I know that a lot of people promote hate and it's ususally the love of filthy lucre that drives it. They may wrap themselves in the robes of this-or-that religion, but it always comes down to money.

But you didn't answer the question. Why do YOU hate people? Not why do you hate religion. It's easy to hate religion. It's easy to generalize--you spank cellarites and say they are generalizing the beliefs of the muslims but then you go and generalize Catholics, right-wingers, etc. You do the very thing you say you despise.

There are several of the nuttier fundamentalist Protestant sects that think Catholics are Pagans or Satanists.

There was an excellent article in the Independent today (at the fairly insane price of 5.50SFr over here grr) from a columnist who lives and works in beruit. His hyphothisis on the motives for suicide bombers in this scenario makes more sense than any Iàve heard. Shortened right down, it goes something like this.

Like early western explorers were quite taken by idea of harems but disgusted by other practices in the east, many muslims today are very tempted by the sexual freedoms and other freedoms of and living in the west. His example was a turkish student that studied over here and slept with is girlfriend but then got mummy to find him a nice turkish virgin to marry when he went home. That's the happy ending to this cultural oddity. The unhappy one is when the desire leads to self-loathing and guilt, and a spell in an old-school pakistani madrasa doesn't hurt here. The person ends up wanting to punish the society they percieve as having led them astray as well as destroy themselves.

The bomb makers are of course, a slightly different story, they are that hard-core of extremists that exist around any ideology, from my earlier socialist/communist example to facism, christianity or animal rights. I think these two ideas togher paint the best picture of the mental landscape of islamic extremism, particularly in the UK and essentailly, most of europe I've seen yet.

Makes sense, Jag.
Here is manifests itself in slightly safer scenerios, every day.
I screw up.
I sue you.
I win money.
That proves it was your fault and I didn't really screw up. :rolleyes:
Of course if I don't win money I may have to blow stuff up.

I don't understand the part about terrorism that says that Muslim Extremists can gain some kind of advantage by blowing up 73 Egyptians and 10 folks from other countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Italy, and Great Britain.

blow up people from other countries sothat those other countries will place pressure on the US.

to do what exactly? it's frigging egypt. That incident and those like it are rooted in the state of egyptian politics or lack thereof.

Precisely my point ...