Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Al-quaida the 1st threat against USA ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Al-quaida the 1st threat against USA ?

    1St to avoid unproductive posts, this question is not a provocation.
    This said we can go a step further now.

    Why this question ?

    I ask myself if terrorist groups as Al quaida are a real danger for USA and Western countries. Except shock exploited by mass media to make public opinion more scared, I know that the 4000 deads in WTC is far for nothing at all. But going the deeper possible in fact analysis, how many people are killed each day due to criminality in USA ?. How many young people died due to drug adiction ?

    Now let's go to an other direction in fact analysis. What are the terrorist groups ?
    at maximum 20.000 guys decided to wound USA and western countries. Yes but are those wounds so dangerous ?. Some of you will tell me that they can pour Radio active material or BioHazards products over our towns.
    But could they destroy our way of living ? Could they destroy the NATO forces ? Will they invade our beloved cities and eradicate them from the surface of the earth as the towns bombing during the 2nd WW.

    For me Al Quaida is an epiphenomena, a resultant of a more deeper constraint managed by powerty and the search of justice.

    Gloops you say, JL is mad

    No, for third world population, we, westerners are the hell and heaven.

    Heaven as, us the rich, we represent the eldorado the end of powerty end, of starvation, it is why they try to immigrate in our countries. Lot of request few elected to join us.

    Hell as we exploit them and their ressources without giving them the just return on invest. As we support very often corrupted governements.
    So they can quench their thirst of justice and happyness.
    This frustation is an open door to Maadis, Mollahs and other religious extremists who can seed hatred on this frustation crop.

    So for me the increasing gap betwen rich countries and poor one is the real major threat for us.Even inside our countriesthe gap between poor and rich will become a true problem.

    This gap is the motor of all future terrorists who will want to punish us to be what they can't be

    And other major problem is the world organised criminality, as they have an occult power which can overbalance the one of our laws.

    Imagine now that poor upset of their lifes decide to move in mass to western countries, what could we do, open fire over them.
    I've no figures for USA but illegal immigration in France increase more and more and it create a poulation "out of law" and it creates a compost for future criminals and terrorist.

    Many of those loosed guys have not the real notion of good and bad can be easily manipulated. Worst if they became themselves charismatics leaders they can lead their people to accept as just values the right to kill, to rape etc... At the end those leaders will betray values of their religion, without a twinge of remorse.

    Here are my thoughts, terrorism is a real threat but it won't be defeated if poor get poorer nad they don't have any hope than to be martyr and heroes in their heaven.

    Der WanderIsThereHope
    Last edited by jlbetin; 22 Jul 04, 07:29.
    The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
    JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
    The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

  • #2
    I don't really understand where your hope for the worlds poor lays JB. The present system/culture/way of life/capitalism isn't going to give them a break any time soon.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      break

      indeed no break for the world poor. as usual.

      we had the chance in the last 50 years to build a better world, fair to all, and missed it.

      now with energy crisis looming, with enviromental collapse probable, watch the concepts like "human rights", etc. go to the dust bin.

      I think the worst danger to the US itself are its own wrong policies, whichever these may be. Ditto for any country, by the way, only that the USA is such a big country (not anymore a superpower, imho) it will affect more.
      "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Temujin
        I don't really understand where your hope for the worlds poor lays JB. The present system/culture/way of life/capitalism isn't going to give them a break any time soon.
        In this case WE ARE IN TROUBLE.
        Lack of hope is mother of desesperate actions.

        Der WanderSocialismLastHopeOfHumanity?
        The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
        JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
        The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jlbetin
          1St to avoid unproductive posts, this question is not a provocation.
          It's a healthy thing to bring this dialogue to the table and ask the tough questions. I see your post in the best of terms.

          I ask myself if terrorist groups as Al quaida are a real danger for USA and Western countries. Except shock exploited by mass media to make public opinion more scared, I know that the 4000 deads in WTC is far for nothing at all. But going the deeper possible in fact analysis, how many people are killed each day due to criminality in USA ?. How many young people died due to drug adiction ?
          It is true that death happens every day, and that when you total up the figures on a country-wide scale, those figures can seem quite alarming, especially deaths due to crime, drug addiction, and other undesirable incidents. However, such cumulative statistics can be deceiving when taken out of context.

          The attack carried out on the morning of September 11th, 2001 was unprecedented in its calculated malice and sheer worldwide horror as we were able to watch on the TV screen two of the world's most enormous structures toppled in one of the world's largest cities using some of the largest flying vehicles the world has seen hurtling many innocent people to their deaths. Reports of the Pentagon being hit (must not forget this) as well as another plane going down around the same time meant that many of us spent that day and many weeks afterward looking up at the sky wondering if we were next to get hit.

          That's terror folks, and it was sudden and unexpected and it far outweighs the day-to-day deaths that occur due to the inevitable faults of man in society because of its visibility, its targetted focus, and the scale of loss in a single incident. The kind of destruction and threat that terrorism and sabotage brings to a peacetime superpower has the potential to be very destabilizing and can generate any number of reactions from its political base.

          As Americans, our reaction was to fight back.


          Now let's go to an other direction in fact analysis. What are the terrorist groups ?
          at maximum 20.000 guys decided to wound USA and western countries. Yes but are those wounds so dangerous ?. Some of you will tell me that they can pour Radio active material or BioHazards products over our towns.
          But could they destroy our way of living?
          Potentially, yes. Because the way of living in free, prosperous countries is one of not living daily in fear. Fear of survival, fear of safety, fear of loss of property. Fear results in all kinds of destabilizing reactions among the populace because self-preservation begins to take over. People start taking up arms, form bands or gangs, and spend more time hoarding and protecting what's theirs than contributing to science, the arts, the furthering of society and mankind, and most of all, appreciating life and experiencing happiness.

          Could they destroy the NATO forces? Will they invade our beloved cities and eradicate them from the surface of the earth as the towns bombing during the 2nd WW.
          It would take a major army to do something like this, though nuclear weapons do present the possibility of eradicating whole cities.

          For me Al Quaida is an epiphenomena, a resultant of a more deeper constraint managed by powerty and the search of justice.
          Such groups do tend to arise on conditions of poverty and unrest, but that's because such conditions provide opportunity for megalomaniacs to gather a large number of followers. Your statement sounds like more of an excuse for their outlook and their methods, than a recognition that such unrest sowed the seeds of militant assembly bent on criminal acts against the free world. Some would say that Nazi Germany was an epiphenomena as a result of the stranglehold of the Versailles Treaty. Yet, would you say that the acts of Hitler and Nazi Germany were justified as a result?

          Hell as we exploit them and their ressources without giving them the just return on invest. As we support very often corrupted governements.
          If we exploited other countries for their resources, we wouldn't be exporting billions of dollars back to them. We would take from them and not do business. The fact is that we prop up many of these countries on such business, being their biggest and best customer. The only exploitation I see occurring happens within the sovereign state and is not the fault of the business partner.

          As for supporting corrupt governments, it's usually because there is not a better alternative. The first order of business is to ensure that a country can keep order and ensure stability in the region. The ideals of non-corruption have to be addressed gingerly through diplomacy. To not support some of these governments can mean the emergence of something worse, such as warlordism and anarchy, as well as opportunities for terrorism to flourish.

          So they can quench their thirst of justice and happyness.
          This frustation is an open door to Maadis, Mollahs and other religious extremists who can seed hatred on this frustation crop.
          Yes, but the justice you speak of is really tantamount to revenge, and frankly it's misguided and directed at the wrong people. Because of their plight, they want to see others hurt. This is the mind of a criminal, and it's the opposite of justice.

          So for me the increasing gap betwen rich countries and poor one is the real major threat for us.Even inside our countriesthe gap between poor and rich will become a true problem.
          This gap is the motor of all future terrorists who will want to punish us to be what they can't be
          Again, this is how a criminal thinks. They take what they can't have, or punish those who have it. This happens in a free society as well. Poverty can be recognized as a possible cause, but the fact that criminality is chosen as the course of action is the real issue here. A just society enforces against such behavior to maintain stability and safety of the populace. To try to level out the have's and the have-nots has been attempted before, in the form of Communism, which historically has proven to not work. In the end, each individual still struggles to get ahead of everyone else. It's human nature that cannot be repressed. A free society rewards such competitive striving and punishes criminal acts that tries to circumvent or disrupt the process.

          And other major problem is the world organised criminality, as they have an occult power which can overbalance the one of our laws.
          And al Qaeda simply represents another form of organized crime, so by your admission, they are a major world problem.

          Imagine now that poor upset of their lifes decide to move in mass to western countries, what could we do, open fire over them.
          I've no figures for USA but illegal immigration in France increase more and more and it create a poulation "out of law" and it creates a compost for future criminals and terrorist.
          That is why the US has tight border and immigration controls. It's not to be mean or oppressive. We simply can't take everyone who wants to get in and a sudden influx can cause the outlaw conditions you describe. If anything, France and the US are a victim of their own success in this regard. Does that make us evil?

          Many of those loosed guys have not the real notion of good and bad can be easily manipulated. Worst if they became themselves charismatics leaders they can lead their people to accept as just values the right to kill, to rape etc... At the end those leaders will betray values of their religion, without a twinge of remorse.
          This is very true and does represent a worldwide problem. It's very difficult to counter this upheaval while countries continue to oppress their own population, where ideals of freedom, equality, and liberty are effectively blacked out.

          Here are my thoughts, terrorism is a real threat but it won't be defeated if poor get poorer nad they don't have any hope than to be martyr and heroes in their heaven.
          Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It is good to recognize that the plight in many areas, the lack of freedom and prosperousness in many countries, is a destabilizing condition that threatens the world with unrest like never before. However, there is only so much we can do so fast to solve a problem that is as old as mankind itself. To demonize countries like the US, France, and the UK because they haven't come up with the magic solution to erase poverty and suppress violence is placing too much expectation on a single country or group of nations to attain. This problem won't be solved overnight, and it won't happen without the cooperation of the impoverished nations in question.
          "...patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
          O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander, 1970.

          Comment


          • #6
            Now let's go to an other direction in fact analysis. What are the terrorist groups ? at maximum 20.000 guys decided to wound USA and western countries. Yes but are those wounds so dangerous ?. Some of you will tell me that they can pour Radio active material or BioHazards products over our towns. But could they destroy our way of living ? Could they destroy the NATO forces ? Will they invade our beloved cities and eradicate them from the surface of the earth as the towns bombing during the 2nd WW.
            Bosnian prison inmate says he was Al-Qa'idah member, offers to testify

            Well, you have said a lot and there are a lot of things happening around Al Qaeda that suggest they and their cause occupy the mind of the US, even if nobody else should care. And certainly France has nothing to worry about. The attack of 9/11 said a lot about the US "way of life" and none of it was good news. Part of what makes the US so vulnerable to people like Al Qaeda is its bloated, hypertrophic industrial system so perfectly represented in the WTC Towers and even the aircraft themselves. Nobody else with any sense in the world and especially Europe puts up useless monstrocities like those two towers. There is a respectable speculation that the towers were on their way down anyway. These vast skyscrapers represent an obsolete economic model that had little going for it in the first place. But this is no suprise really to their architects who put them up only to inflate the labor roles anyway. If somebody pushes them over, it will just mean a new building project to employ people who are just taking up space. We get this crap all the time going up in our unceasing urban sprawl where the middle class of this country is betting its future on plant fiber construction while the corporate cracker commune gets concrete and steel.

            Could Al Qaeda destroy "our" way of life? Absolutely! And if they do, it will be an inside job, enabled by the very people who engineered it against our will and against our best interests. Could they destroy NATO? Well that is an ironic speculation since NATO can't seem to rouse itself very much against it and in fact seems to ally itself with it in the most unlikely places. It offers up a lot of lip service unless it has its hand out. It is all further evidence that NATO is a derelict treaty and needs to be dissolved to be replaced with something better.
            Get the US out of NATO, now!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SparceMatrix
              Well, you have said a lot and there are a lot of things happening around Al Qaeda that suggest they and their cause occupy the mind of the US, even if nobody else should care. And certainly France has nothing to worry about.
              So we will just disregard incidents such as the discovery of ricin in a Paris railway station. This is a known threat in the UK as well. The US is not the only target of terrorist schemes. It seems to be evenly spread toward any Western interests. It's an anti-Western sentiment where the US is simply the biggest target.

              The attack of 9/11 said a lot about the US "way of life" and none of it was good news. Part of what makes the US so vulnerable to people like Al Qaeda is its bloated, hypertrophic industrial system so perfectly represented in the WTC Towers and even the aircraft themselves. Nobody else with any sense in the world and especially Europe puts up useless monstrocities like those two towers.
              Such negativity towards symbols of prosperity amaze me. The twin towers was not just a symbol of industrial and economic might, it served as a centerpiece for world exchange and was a place of work and thriving business, which I feel is the true hallmark of the US way of life. It was a large hand extended to the world in peace only to be slapped down by a band of international malcontents.

              An Europe has its large structures as well. Two notable ones are the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Berliner Fernsehturm in Berlin. The structures to rival what the US has built is happening in Asia. The US is far and away not the only country to create such large structures. And you only have to look at ancient history to see that great wonders were routinely built and many have remained to this day.

              There is a respectable speculation that the towers were on their way down anyway. These vast skyscrapers represent an obsolete economic model that had little going for it in the first place.
              They're called wonders of the world for a reason. Do you think the Eiffel tower has any economic significance, other than it draws throngs of visitors? Nations should be able to take comfort in expressing themselves in grand, non-pragmatic ways without drawing threats of destruction on its shores.

              But this is no suprise really to their architects who put them up only to inflate the labor roles anyway. If somebody pushes them over, it will just mean a new building project to employ people who are just taking up space. We get this crap all the time going up in our unceasing urban sprawl where the middle class of this country is betting its future on plant fiber construction while the corporate cracker commune gets concrete and steel.
              So we should just all return to the land and take up subsistence farming, is that it? Urban centers and urban sprawl are a natural outcome of growing centers of commerce. You have to have a center some place to have any exchange with others. It's how societies grow. And thank goodness for the architects that bring us such wonders to marvel at. It's our striving to better ourselves and our experiences that results in these wonders being created.

              Could Al Qaeda destroy "our" way of life? Absolutely! And if they do, it will be an inside job, enabled by the very people who engineered it against our will and against our best interests.
              Sounds like a conspiracy theory without basis.

              Could they destroy NATO? Well that is an ironic speculation since NATO can't seem to rouse itself very much against it and in fact seems to ally itself with it in the most unlikely places. It offers up a lot of lip service unless it has its hand out. It is all further evidence that NATO is a derelict treaty and needs to be dissolved to be replaced with something better.
              We shouldn't forget that NATO stepped in to help patrol the skies over the US shortly after the attacks. They come to the defense of its neighbors when attacked...that's their charter. They don't do the work of the UN.
              "...patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
              O'Brian, Patrick. Master and Commander, 1970.

              Comment


              • #8
                Is Al Quaida a very big Danger or the most Dangerous threat to USA and I add this now for Western Countries too .( this include Australia and New Zealand ).

                That Al Quaida is a threat for all of us is obvious, but is it really the worst one ??

                The fact that Peace is (at now) nearly impossible between Israel and Palestinian people, could be a worst one (Could be is the verb I chose once again to avoid civil war here )

                I won't speak of Iraq as I'm tired to hear that France is good enough to surrender that France is a traitor for USA etc... etc.... etc....

                SparceMatrix here is Paris we live the Twin destruction "live" as you and French people have been as shoked as you.
                I still told it here but in 1994 an Algerian Terrorist group have hijacked and Airbus with the goal to crash it over Paris, hopefully our GIGN ( French Gendarmerie SWAT) kill the pirats at Marseille airport. So this could have occured to us too.

                So I return to my preceding questions, could Al quaida block your democratic life ?, could they block your industrial production, block your money and business moves round the world ?. The security forces and tools needed to protect airports implies investments, obliges to have drastic security measures but you can still travel freely.

                I ask myself if the 9/11 was not an electrochoc which makes you aware that the world problems could reach you directly on your soil. You were no more in a sanctuary and this fact make you so bitter that you want to punish the harder possible the ones who awoke you so widely. This 9/11 make you fell to be at war but for me it must be treated at a police level. I consider Afghanistan fights as a police action, not as a war one as it has been made in IRAQ.

                Fight against powerty and injustice is the answer.
                An example look at AIDS in Africa, many laboratories have refused to let African countries to produce low cost drugs, and many people there saw the Western Companies as pure selfish just looking for profit.

                This are the facts which make third world hating us the people of rich countries

                This is for me the real threat we will have to face in the next few decades.

                You can transpose this to poors of our countries , unemployed or badly paid, with no social security, they hate the society which can't take care of them.

                Remember racial riots in L.A. some years ago. It could be worse now with gangs!! Why, just find a charismatic leader which will be able to federate them in an armed power, brrr frightning no ?

                Friends it is late I'm going to bed, I'll be pleased to read you again

                Der WanderGoToBed
                The Best weapon ever:a good Joke. The Best shield ever: Humour
                JLBETIN© Aka Der Wanderer TOAW Section Leader is a █ WHQ/SZO/XG/Gamesquad® product since 01/2003
                The Birth of European Army Tournament round Three is opened

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you for starting this thread.

                  You are correct in identifying social and economic problems as the root of terrorism. Today, as the 9/11 Commission report is discussed, I've heard numerous experts commenting that we have to understand that Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups have issues and grievances that drive their efforts.

                  It has not been helpful, in my opinion, to have a President who repeatedly asserts that "Al Quaeda hates America because we are free"... uh, yea... To view our enemies as deranged madmen who attack us without reason just because we are "free" terminates any chance of intelligently understanding, countering, and defeating the threat.

                  In another thread we talked about definitions of "terrorism" and I argued there that the term is meaningless. To quote a cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

                  Al Quaeda (and allies) are our enemy. They are upset about our military, political, economic, and cultural incursions into Islamic culture as well as their political systems. They are also clearly upset about the form of government and the role of Islam in the Middle East so their ultimate target is revolution and a restructuring of Arab society and government to suit their own conceptualizations. In this, they are no different than the Bolsheviks, the IRA, the Basque separatists, and every other revolutionary movement of the 20th (and now 21st) century.

                  What is different with Al Quaeda is that this new revolutionary movement is not restricted geographically. They can now strike anywhere and since we have a global economy, the possible targets are everywhere. Technology allows communication and coordination on a worldwide basis so "the Revolution" is no longer narrowly confined to barren mountains or lush jungles where it can be effectively ignored by most of the world. They are also linking with other movements so that isolated local grievances are elevated to an international crusade against the major western powers.

                  An example of the "old style" system is the various civil wars and genocides which have and are occuring in Africa. We can read about massacres in Rwanda and Nigeria, sigh about how terrible it all is, and then head to McDonalds for a Big Mac. We can know that 300,000 to 1,000,000 black islamic Sudanese are going to die of starvation in the coming months, but what leverage do they have? None. The United Nations and all of the major powers can waffle and discuss as usual while people die. Could you really blame them if a movement arose that would adopt Al Quaeda style tactics and blow something up just to get our attention that there is a problem? And to demand that something be done... or else everyone shares their pain?

                  My point is that we need to drop the rhetoric and start confronting "terrorist" movements in terms of their objectives and goals while identifying their base of support. We should then move to address the issues that drive them and deprive them of popular support. There will always have to be a some degree of coercive component to defeat their plans and neutralize their operations (I'm not an abject pacifist... honest). However, when those operations just fire up their supporters and generate more recruits for the movement, we better start thinking about alternatives.

                  My "magic plan"??? Well, there are no easy answers, but the beginning is to respect your enemy and to understand his motivations and goals. The "end of the beginning" (to paraphrase Churchill) will be when we drop the rhetoric about "cowards, madmen, and fanatics" who "hate freedom" and start talking about the real geo-political issues:

                  1. What does Al Quaeda want? What are their specific grievances and objectives. What "victory" are they seeking? What will they settle for?

                  2. Where does Al Quaeda get its recruits? What are the local issues? Can we intervene in some way to defuse them?

                  3. Where does Al Quaeda get its financing? Why do people and governments support the movement? Intervene to address the reason for that support and then neutralize it. Use diplomatic, economic, and military force as required to shut it down.

                  4. Can a negotiated settlement be reached? Is it possible to sit down at a neutral site and have open discussions with representatives of Al Quaeda?

                  This thread has raised the global issues of political, cultural, and economic conflicts and the growing disparity of wealth and power between nations (and within nations) that raise the spectre of a form of global civil war - the "haves" vs the "have-nots" and the immigration issue that will possibly bring real civil war within nations as they become overwhelmed by imported cultures that threaten their national identity.

                  I hope I've stimulated some thinking here. I am so frustrated over hearing platitudes on Cable News instead of rational discussion.
                  Love & Peace,

                  Far Dareis Mai

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RhondaBrwn
                    1. What does Al Qaeda wants? What are their specific grievances and objectives? What “victory” are they seeking? What will they settle for?
                    Al Qaeda has several political objectives. First, they want to kick out all US soldiers from the holy land, which is Sandi Arabia. Second, they want to establish a far more pure Islamic government in Sandi Arabia, and eliminate the corrupt monarchy once for all. Third, they also want to force the United States to cease supporting Israel in her “terrorist” activities, i.e., expanding her settlements or killing Palestinian militants in Gaza strip and West Bank. Fourth, they wish to wage a jihad against all that represents the Western culture; after all, the United States is not the only target. The United Kingdoms and France were also intended targets.

                    2. Where does Al Qaeda get its recruits? What are the local issues? Can we intervene in some ways to defuse them?
                    The recruits come from all kinds of background. Some have fought the Soviets during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the others come from strict religious backgrounds. It is true some were recruited out of poverty and desperation or frustration over their supposedly inability to fight the perceived opponents, i.e., Israeli soldiers or the West due to her cultural influences.

                    I don’t think poverty or inability to influence the events more directly than the West should be used as excuses to address them. If one wants to fight poverty, he needn’t to crash a hijacked plane into a building to express his anger over some of those who have money or power to use for good or bad reasons.

                    In fact, I have no wish or motivations to address these issues, because it would signal the acknowledgement in some ways that the terrorists have won our attention to find a suitable solution that meets some of their demands. I prefer to crush their hopes. I prefer them dead than alive. I prefer to deny them the satisfaction that they’re forcing the United States to address something important to them.

                    Sorry, Al Qaeda isn’t going to get what it wants at all. Ever.

                    3. Where does Al Qaeda get its financing? Why do people and governments support the movement? Intervene to address the reason for that support and then neutralize it. Use diplomatic, economic, and military force as required shut it down.
                    Al Qaeda receives the funding from the Arab street or wealthy people who wish to avoid clashing with them in exchange for hefty bribes. Omasa bin Laden is also a savvy businessman, he used to be in construction industry, he built some major civilian infrastructures in Sudan and other countries as well in order to allow Al Qaeda to transport and operate with impunity. He also has some major dealings with various officials, which helps Al Qaeda a lot. Taliban is just one of many examples of Al Qaeda’s relationships with the outside world.

                    We are already addressing these issues mainly by using the military force, which includes the use of Special Forces. We can freely assume that they are very actively involved, and since the covert operations are kept secret, we are not always aware of their successes or failures. I think the war on terrorism is more of a less visible war than we’ve been accustomed in America’s history. We are also using diplomatic or economic pressures on various countries to accommodate our demands or cooperating with either our military or law enforcement agents to eliminate the troublesome Al Qaeda sources.

                    However, if you are hoping for a far more visible role or diplomatic niceties, you’re going to be very disappointed. I don’t think having a more visible role will help the war on terrorism any more than it has already done so.

                    4. Can a negotiated settlement be reached? Is it possible to sit down at a neutral site and have open discussions with representatives of Al Qaeda?
                    Listen to me very carefully, if should the president of the United States, be it Bush or Kerry or whosoever it is, agrees to a negotiated settlement, he would be promptly brought before the House of Representatives for impeachment charges. Then the Senate will surely vote to convict him of impeachment charges. Finally, he will face the most devastating condemnation by the public.

                    If not, then he would be voted out by the public should he ever send his people to negotiate with the terrorists. We consider Al Qaeda a terrorist organization, why provide it with an ounce of legitimacy? There’s a lot of reasons not to do this.

                    In short, there’s no way we would ever have a negotiated settlement at all. We’re not going to meet their representatives for one very simple reason; we do not negotiate with the terrorists at all.

                    Finally, we’re not Spain or Philippines; we refuse to back down in the face of terrorist demands. We’re not going to reason with them. We’re going to eliminate them by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. In short, it is our duty or mission to wipe them off from this planet. Let’s not have mercy on them at all. Let them screw on our missiles, bombs, bullets, and the determination of American people not to allow them gain an edge or victory over us.

                    In fact, we should increase our pressure on Al Qaeda to capitulate, if at all, or to annihilate them completely.

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree[edit: with Rhonda], but i ask myself is the US capable (not in capacity of will or material) of dealing with the problem on its various levels. The 'Understanding America' essay i posted in another thread was valuable in highlighting the how the US sees the world and reacts to it, at the social as well as political level. So, is it changeable? We can come up with all the answers and strategies to attempt a clear resolution of the problem but if it isn't supported by the people and the government its absolutely useless.

                      Change in ideas can come from both parties, society or government. I think the first place to start is to realize that the theoretical frameworks that insists material dominance and might is right (realism, neo-realism, positivism or any other ism associated with it) is now a defunct ideology in the increasingly socially complex world we live in today.

                      Ironically, the 'terrorists' are not a nation or a state, yet the only answer we have is attacking states and nations. Our tunnel vision only allows us to see conflict as something that states, and to an extent nations, paractice. Look at Vietnam, instead of a nationalist struggle by the Vietnamese it was seen as a Soviet dominated power struggle for the region.

                      The world is changing at an unprecedented rate in social terms (information age) and we are still using outdated barbaric methods to deal with problems. Until theres a change here i can't see the situation getting much better, time may prove me wrong, but i'll stick with this outlook for now.
                      Last edited by Temujin; 22 Jul 04, 22:51.
                      Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Such negativity towards symbols of prosperity amaze me. The twin towers was not just a symbol of industrial and economic might, it served as a centerpiece for world exchange and was a place of work and thriving business, which I feel is the true hallmark of the US way of life. It was a large hand extended to the world in peace only to be slapped down by a band of international malcontents.
                        The twin towers were nothing of the kind, they were a huge money sucking waste of space. Please note that nobody is interested in financing anything like a replacement of the towers on a strictly economic basis alone.

                        An Europe has its large structures as well. Two notable ones are the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Berliner Fernsehturm in Berlin. The structures to rival what the US has built is happening in Asia. The US is far and away not the only country to create such large structures. And you only have to look at ancient history to see that great wonders were routinely built and many have remained to this day.

                        They're called wonders of the world for a reason. Do you think the Eiffel tower has any economic significance, other than it draws throngs of visitors? Nations should be able to take comfort in expressing themselves in grand, non-pragmatic ways without drawing threats of destruction on its shores.
                        If ancient history is anything like an example of the kind of respect we should pay for these kind of projects, then you have no argument at all. Big structures like we see in the "wonders of the world" were huge wastes of time and resources that did nothing for the civilizations that fostered them. Monumental architecture has its place, but the WTC Towers were not monuments to anything. The Statue of Liberty is also an monument of awesome proportion and a respectable achievement that can argue for its existence on its own merits, the Eiffel Tower is another such achievement. I support such efforts as long as the government is not obligated.

                        So we should just all return to the land and take up subsistence farming, is that it? Urban centers and urban sprawl are a natural outcome of growing centers of commerce. You have to have a center some place to have any exchange with others. It's how societies grow. And thank goodness for the architects that bring us such wonders to marvel at. It's our striving to better ourselves and our experiences that results in these wonders being created.
                        It is amazing that this "roots and berries" argument is always the reaction to any observation of the abysmal lack of overt planning in suburban development. Suburbun and urban sprawl are a complete mess and a looming disaster too as we see here in California where nobody wants to pay for any of this useless ****. Despite a brand new rat in the governer's office, we still can't get anything like a budget.

                        Sounds like a conspiracy theory without basis.
                        It has more basis then the popularly expressed notion that it was all a Zionist conspiracy -- oh wait, that's no longer fashionable. Now it's a Bush/Saudi conspiracy ... or something. It'll come back into fashion if Kerry wins the presidency.

                        We shouldn't forget that NATO stepped in to help patrol the skies over the US shortly after the attacks. They come to the defense of its neighbors when attacked...that's their charter. They don't do the work of the UN.
                        NATO didn't do **** except wander around sucking up cash and going on airplane rides. And meanwhile we do real work expanding NATO in Europe. After we get enough dead Americans in Iraq, NATO will take over like they intended to do from the very beginning after which the NATO countries will slap us around for being there first.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RhondaBrwn
                          You are correct in identifying social and economic problems as the root of terrorism. Today, as the 9/11 Commission report is discussed, I've heard numerous experts commenting that we have to understand that Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups have issues and grievances that drive their efforts.
                          There are a number of root causes for terrorism. For example: Psychological profiles of Bin Laden suggest his hatred for the US is motivated by his need to suppress "Western tendacies" which conflict with his beliefs. Bin Laden came from a wealthy family, and like a number of terrorists spent time living a Western Playboy lifestyle. Upon returning to a more religious environment, he found it difficult to suppress his desires, and eventually decided that distance and elimination of the source of those desires was justified.

                          Furthermore, Bin Laden likely equates America's abandonment of Afghanistan in the late 1980's to the rejection of his father, who didn't have alot of time for the young OBL.

                          I'm not trying to suggest economic and social issues are not relevant. They are. However, I think Bin Laden is probably not concerned with promoting human rights, and improving the economies of Arab states.

                          Poverty, social, and political issues contribute to many deaths around the world. While providing aid and support is important, we must also realize that people have to want a better life to achieve it. If factions in Africa can not find ways to resolve their differences, poverty will and other tradegies will continue.

                          (I would write more, but I'm tired.)
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            There are a number of root causes for terrorism. For example: Psychological profiles of Bin Laden suggest his hatred for the US is motivated by his need to suppress "Western tendacies" which conflict with his beliefs. Bin Laden came from a wealthy family, and like a number of terrorists spent time living a Western Playboy lifestyle. Upon returning to a more religious environment, he found it difficult to suppress his desires, and eventually decided that distance and elimination of the source of those desires was justified.

                            Furthermore, Bin Laden likely equates America's abandonment of Afghanistan in the late 1980's to the rejection of his father, who didn't have alot of time for the young OBL.

                            I'm not trying to suggest economic and social issues are not relevant. They are. However, I think Bin Laden is probably not concerned with promoting human rights, and improving the economies of Arab states.

                            Poverty, social, and political issues contribute to many deaths around the world. While providing aid and support is important, we must also realize that people have to want a better life to achieve it. If factions in Africa can not find ways to resolve their differences, poverty will and other tradegies will continue.

                            (I would write more, but I'm tired.)

                            Its ok saying the terrorist leadership are nutjobs as much as it is saying the nazi leadership were too, but its the following and legitimacy they create and is reinforced by the actions of the west. The people they influence to carry out the 'deeds' that is the worry. lets not beat around the bush, powerful political elites are able to form and shape opinion, we are not totally free in thought, neither are the destitute who are influenced by the elite 'evil' few.

                            Im sure the majority in Africa want to be better off, hard to do when you are bombarded with crap about this and that then violence erupts that you have no control over your 7-10 year old kids are kidnapped and return a couple a days later at gunpoint and are forced to murder you and rape their sisters as part of a brainwashing method. Na sorry dont blame the 'people' please. Its greed and power thats screws the world over not some uneducated society with hardly any means to live let alone attempt to better their situation.

                            There will always be nutjobs in the world, but if there was no one living in hopeless poverty i doubt they'd get much support.
                            Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                              NATO didn't do **** except wander around sucking up cash and going on airplane rides. And meanwhile we do real work expanding NATO in Europe. After we get enough dead Americans in Iraq, NATO will take over like they intended to do from the very beginning after which the NATO countries will slap us around for being there first.
                              Now I know you do not like NATO , but I think you are being a tiny bit unfair, to the organization. The organization is a defensive organization meant to cooperate on the defense of member states. The operation in Iraq was not a defensive operation and certain member states had no intention of helping.

                              However of the 26 member states in NATO fully 17 (including the US) has been or are currently active in Iraq. Two of the remaining states has got no armed forces (Luxembourg and Iceland), so they cannot really be blamed.

                              I know that it is mostly small countries with small contributions, but I feel it is unfair to blame the entire organization, when in reality it is a small number of countries who refuse to help out.

                              Just my two cents.
                              ...the troops of love are pulling out... (D.A.D.)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X