Understanding terrorism

[Happy Monkey]

Well, yeah. Zacharia's point was that Islam is organized more along protestant lines than Catholic. If there was a single hierarchy, as with the Catholics, the leadership would have much more influence, for good or ill. As it is, any one imam has no more influence than a random Baptist preacher.

[tw]

Previously the enemy was bin Laden and his ally Saddam. They must be allies because WE must see everything in terms of a common enemy. Meanwhile, the Chechnyan insurgents who even murder Beslam children are described by Russia as Al Qaeda. Still Putin, et al think (and may just know) that Americans, et al are so ignorant as to insist a common enemy must exist. Chechnyan rebels are (often) Islamic. Does that mean it is Al Qaeda? Does that mean it is even Muslim Brotherhood? Of course not. For that matter, clearly the Bosnian were Al Qaeda - who were also victims of ethnic cleansing. We could take it even farther using administration logic. After all, a center for manufacturing counterfeit documents (ie passports) was discovered near Albania. Clearly that too must be Al Qaeda.

The example was posted weeks ago in this topic:

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. ... 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.

So now we don't blame bin Laden? We blame fundamentalist Islam. Again, we are looking for a common enemy in symptoms that have little in common. Often the terrorist at one point finds his mission in life in fundamental Islamic beliefs. Or did he really find his mission in westernized bachelor whoring?

Too many blame Islamic leaders. As I noted weeks ago, the Islamic leaders in western countries have had a sort of epiphany. Therefore they recently decided that these distorted religious believers who pass through their mosques (leave as quickly as they arrive) should be warned about perverted interpretations of the Koran. Yes, they have finally decided (just as Catholic Church finally decided that pedophilia is a problem) to address the fundamentalist extremist recruiting that occurs in mosques.

But it not Islam alone that creates the problem - as so much simplistic Rush Limbaugh type propaganda would have us believe. As far as western nations are concerned, the problem did not exist until western nations decided to 'fix' the region; were not honest about leaving. It is these little details that America was warned about after 1 Aug 1990. And since we did not understand the region, we stayed.

It is those little details even lost in the translation of the Koran that can cause problems. The region should have been left to first fix itself. If we had done as we did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - left when it was over - then we would not have problems that we now blame exclusively and simplistically on Al Qaeda. Problems that we are now trying to blame on fundamentalist Islam.

To appreciate the problem, use a wider perspective.

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.

Don't fall for administration propaganda that now blames fundamentalist Islam. Quicksand is not just sand. We stay out of quicksand because there is no common enemy and no simple solution. However we have now decided to fix the quicksand. Now we are trying to blame its deceiving looks, trying to blame the water, then blame the muck, then the sand, then the geology, ..... instead of staying out until we really understood what it was.

Don't fall for the myth that Saddam was a threat to America - let alone even a threat to his neighbors. Don't fall for the myth that they are all Al Qaeda. Don't fall for the myth that is it fundamentalist Islam. Don't be so myopic. It is the Arab world. It is as complicated as the presidential politics of Lebanon. The minute that George Jr, Rumsfeld, or Rush Limbaugh try to define one common enemy, then they are lying.

Welcome to the quagmire that is the Middle East and Central Asia. We now suffer terrorism because for some silly reason, we decided at the presidential level to institute "prevention" of an enemy that did not exist rather than the well proven (by generations) policy of "containment". We got the problem we wanted. We have met the enemy and he is us. We couldn’t just let the region fix its own minor problems. We had to fix it rather than learn from the lessons of history. Deja Vue.

So now there is no common enemy. There is no pope to lead the Arabs against the infidels. And somehow, this thread continues to search for only one common factor - because of White House propaganda faxed daily to the Rush Limbaugh types?

[Trilby]

The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people. They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan. I don't need to understand them to know they, and their tactics, are WRONG. I don't blame fundie muslims, either. Who are you directing your comments to? Or are you just bored, tw?

Oh, and by the by--I don't see you offering any sort of solution to anything, you just drudge up what you've already told us. WHAT'S NEW, TW???

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people. They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan. I don't need to understand them to know they, and their tactics, are WRONG. I don't blame fundie muslims, either. Who are you directing your comments to?

A new White House propaganda line is being tested. Stop blaming Al Qaeda. Now blame fundamentalist Islam. Neither is valid even though a large number of Americans tend to believe the propaganda.

I have defined some frameworks for ending the Iraq quagmire. None are politically correct - and yet are realistic.

How politically incorrect? For example, how do we end the Palestine - Israeli conflict? Make sure both sides cause equally high numbers of deaths on the other side. Suddenly being a centrist is acceptable - and peace occurs. What happened the last time a centrist solved a Middle East problem? Likud called for and got the assassination of Rabin. The best solutions are not politically correct. Dangerous because the solution disempowers extremists who may take revenge.

One of the possible scenarios I posted was credited to Brent Scowcroft. If seeking a soundbyte solution, then you never remembered any of those possible Iraq solutions. There is no soundbyte solution for Iraq as there was no soundbyte solution for the US defeat in Vietnam.

[Trilby]

I'm not asking you for a soundbyte. I'm asking for your solutions since you know so much about the whole thing. Someone like yourself should be able to do more than point out the obvious, right? And are you advocating assasinations?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brianna

The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people.

You in particular don't have to. But we have to hope that someone running the "Struggle Against Global Extremism" or whatever it is is trying to understand them, or we will never win. You can't cure a disease without understanding it.

They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan.

There's no need to understand the Klan. They're not a threat anymore. And the reason for that is that the level of understanding was raised enough to starve them of recruits.

[Trilby]

I used the Klan as an example only.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I'm not asking you for a soundbyte. I'm asking for your solutions since you know so much about the whole thing. Someone like yourself should be able to do more than point out the obvious, right? And are you advocating assasinations?

Some possible solutions were posted elsewhere and previously. Search on Brent Scowcroft to maybe find those frameworks.

Clearly just trying to define the enemy is a topic too large already. Solutions? They were already defined elsewhere. Resurrect those threads if they really have 'religious like' significance.

Meanwhile I did not advocate assassinations. Please read again. Solutions that drive people back into the ranks of centrists are so dangerous that, for example, the Likud party called for and got the assassination of Rabin. You do know that history? The right wing extremist party of Netanyahu (educated near The Cellar) and Sharon called for and got the murder of their prime minister because he signed onto the Oslo Accords - peace with the Palestinians and a surrender of the occupied territories to the Palestinians. It is dangerous to actually solve such problems when not enough people on both sides have been killed. That should be well understood by anyone who learns from history.

Obviously I did not call for an assassination. But what I posted assumes basic knowledge of history. The things that Rush Limbaugh types hope we never learn so that their sound bytes can "lie by telling half truths".

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I used the Klan as an example only.

And your Klan example only demonstrated why the enemy must be properly defined before it can be defeated. An idea that labeling someone as a murderer is sufficient to define an enemy is simply foolish. Some of the world's great leaders were once terrorists or muderers. How can it be? The answer lies first and foremost in understanding the person - the whys behind his motivation. Never make myopic conclusions based only upon his 'headline grabbing' actions. To defeat the enemy in Iraq or in western streets, first, understanding a person beyond just being a bomber maker is essential. What really is his strategic objective? If you cannot answer that, then you have not learned from history AND have no idea who really is the 'evil one'.

How to lie to yourself: know an actor is evil without first understanding the actor as defined above.

What did Sen. Mitchell do that so significantly broke a stalemate between the IRA and the British Government? Learn from history. Just because the IRA set off bombs means the IRA was all evil? Nonsense. As has been stated so many times before, there is no such thing as good and evil. There are many perspectives.

First ask, “What is his strategic objective?” The Klan was easily defeated once the people asked that simple question. If you cannot answer that first and simple question, then you have no idea who the enemy really is. Again, lessons from history. So boring that many of us are doomed to repeat it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I used the Klan as an example only.

Me, too. An example of a former terrorist organization that has been defanged.

(sigh) We sure like to complicate stuff. But I guess that gives all those op ed writers and Rush Limbaugh something to do.

Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture.

Great Britain, Palestine, T.E. Lawrence, WWI, the Turks and the Arabs. Broken promises starting almost a 100 years ago. Throw in the Holocaust and the Jews and the formation of Israel. More frightened people, land grabs and broken promises.

Throw in OPEC and the West's dependency on foreign oil reserves. More fear. Add a sprinkling of sociopathic leaders both East and West. Viola! Everyone on both sides of the equation is terrified and to soothe their fears they want to take that brand of valium called control and power.

The US has military might. The Middle East has a zillion crazed factions of killers. We fear and hate one another and the Saudi Royal Family and the Dick Cheney's and the George Jr.'s and the Bin Ladens move their chess pieces on the board, take a valium, and sleep soundly at night.

Everybody else debates arcane questions of faith and motive and sends their sons off to join the 3/3 ACR or the jihad.

Hatred is palmed off as the act of a patriot. To quote Samuel Adams, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Pleasant dreams.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

Oil is a major part of the strategy. But it is a strategy that is Central Asia wide. ... 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:

Now a new twist in the K'stan drama. From the Washington Post of 30 July 2005

U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, ...
Scores of flights have used K2 monthly. It has been a landing base to transfer humanitarian goods that then are taken by road into northern Afghanistan, particularly to Mazar-e Sharif -- with no alternative for a region difficult to reach in the winter. K2 is also a refueling base with a runway long enough for large military aircraft.... Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld returned this week from Central Asia, where he won assurances from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the United States can use its bases for operations in Afghanistan. U.S. forces use Tajikistan for emergency landings and occasional refueling, but it lacks good roads into Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan does not border Afghanistan.

[Undertoad]

Why does Britain produce terrorists?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why does Britain produce terrorists?

The Brits have PTSD from the Thatcher era? They hate the French? They're terrified of what Prince Andrew might do next?

I give up. Why?

[Undertoad]

You said "Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture."

You seem to be the expert so why does Britain produce terrorists?