Understanding terrorism

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Indonesia as a terrorist nation is clearly absurd; only for those who blindly believe; reality be damned.

Read Allah's Torch, by Tracy Dahlby, you incompetent.

While the situation there looks defusable from the international relations viewpoint, I don't think we've heard the last of them.

After all, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to rant about any particular issue.

As evidenced by the worthy TW. Good thing I'm not going to take him seriously. He shows me yet another example of what leftism does to the weak-minded -- further data.

"Least" you forget? -- don't ever try hiring on as a copyeditor.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As evidenced by the worthy TW. Good thing I'm not going to take him seriously. He shows me yet another example of what leftism does to the weak-minded -- further data.

Urbane Guerrilla, as a typical left or right wing extremist must do, cannot admit he had no proof for his speculation "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". He admits, using silence, of no knowledge that "Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Silence is preferable to being honest when playing propaganda games.

Centrists first need facts before making a conclusion. Extremists will even lie to justify preordained agendas. Urbane Guerrilla will not admit it, but honesty appears to be not part of his character. That is the problem with having extremist and preordained agendas. Honesty no longer matters when propaganda and the agenda is more important.

Of course, UG still could demonstrate honesty. He still has the oppurtunity to prove his statement "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". He admits, by silence, of no knowledge that "Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". But he can't for two reasons. 1) No proof exists AND 2) that would be contrary to who Urbane Guerrilla is. Honesty and extremism are mutually exclusive.

But who is Urbane Guerrilla? Can Urbane Guerrilla name someone who is too right wing for him; more right wing then himself?

[richlevy]

Well, this being America, the difference is not really race, but economics. After all, OJ and Michael did find justice. Poor white kids and poor black kids join the Army. It is the employer of last resort and is a way to make some money and, if someone is ambitious, get training.

This war was slightly different in that there is a large National Guard and Reserve element. I would say that the Guard skews more towards middle class than the regular Army. Most of them have civilian jobs. A lot of them bought that 'The National Guard has not been called up since WWII' line.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

For the second time, TW: Case Closed was proof. It exists. You linked it here. You proved my case. And you just can't admit that non-democratic regimes have such a penchant for warmaking that they'll employ proxies as cat's-paws -- to make war. The dictatorships about which TW has such a blind spot continue to behave wrongfully unless firmly checked.

I am enjoying your demonstration of your neurotic thinking in your Fenimore Cooperesque verbiage, and as I said, you will fail in making me the issue. I enjoy seeing fanatics dig themselves in deeper: they are ineffectual, so. Whattaya know, honesty and extremism are mutually exclusive.

The Birchers are too right-wing for me. So are the LaRouchies. The KKK aren't really right-wing though -- their thinking isn't sane enough. Despite appearances, at their core Nazism and the other brands of fascism are really more leftist than rightist, with their "the State is all" philosophy: collectivism and aggrandizement of the State are of the left, not the right -- check von Kuhnelt-Liddehn for a rather impressive argument for this.

The Left is without virtue, TW. Don't whore after their false gods. I don't.

[Cyclefrance]

Cannot claim to have read every comment/view that went before, but have some obesrvations.

Terrorism is international because we make it appropriate for it to be that way - Israeli support/bias, Iraq regime change being prime culprits. Give a man a good enough reason (stimulus) to react and he will - the harsher the reason the stronger the reaction. That applies both ways. From the 'terrorist' angle, take foreign interference out of the equation and how long would international 'terrorist' reaction be justified, or better still supported? Sure there would always be regional 'terrorist' reaction to regional issues - Irish with UK, Basque with Spain, and so on - but the reason to take a local issue to another country would evaporate - to maintain the support needs ongoing 'in-the-face' reason (stimulus). Think of the product life cycle of anything and you will appreciate that interest will only be sustained in any product/situation so long as there is sufficient stimulus to do so. Remove this and over time the original reason will be surpassed by a more attractive/novel/original cause to support. Hence the fact that we cannot tar everything that happens with a common brush but must acknowledge and accept that there are specific factions that rise and then fall in popularity. Saddam doesn’t = terrorism, doesn’t = international threat, but take away Saddam and you create the vacuum that terrorism can fill where there is a deluded and wanting public. Add the international element that evicted Saddam and is seen as supporting Israel over Palestine, and mix that with a faction of terrorism that acts against international interference and you have the volatile recipe that has fuelled the current well-baked cake of disruption.

A key question then is: have we gone too far to achieve a return to local/regional reaction? The deeper you are entrenched the harder it is to extract yourself and it will be brave international leaders that have the courage and foresight to find the means and support to withdraw on an international level and overcome the short-term economic and strategic risks and consequences that such action precipitates.

Clearly the current aggressive approach is not working and serves only to escalate the crisis. Poverty has a link to the extent that it causes the local population to share an identity of common cause when there is nothing else to give them hope of changing their status - and of course they have time and will enough to follow the leaders that court their attention. The poor need one or both of: freedom from poverty and/or reason to support another doctrine.

Time now therefore to put effort, not into aggression, but to achieving the withdrawal of support for 'terrorist' reaction on an international scale while preserving the status quo in economic stability. Achieve that and international threats will reduce to local issues can be dealt with – byte sized pieces that can be attended to with the appropriate level of action and remedy locally, without requiring an international presence. A difficult objective but is there really any other way…?

[Bullitt]

That was just about the most sensible post in this thread I've seen thusfar.

[mrnoodle]

It is a thoughtful post, but it still ignores a few basic facts:

1) Extremist imams call the shots in much of the middle east.
2) These imams call for the eradication of ALL Jews.
3) Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.
4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.

By attacking Iraq, we have achieved the following:

1) Terrorist acts are not occurring here, as on 9/11; when they occur, they tend to happen there, where they can be contained, and the perpetrators can more easily be killed or captured.
2) Those acts that do occur internationally are directed at our allies, to reduce support. They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our soil will not reap the benefits it did in Spain. Britain's latest events were tests of resolve, which were passed with flying colors. They'll pick on another ally next time, unless I miss my guess.
3) Iraq is no longer a source of income and shelter for terrorists. It's a place for them to meet Allah, which achieves our strategic goals as well as their personal ones. Win-win! /sarcasm
4) When we pull out, Iraq will have a democratically elected government, and a police/military that is prepared and motivated to to fight their own war on terror. It will also serve as a buffer between extremist nations, hampering their ability to operate at will in that region.

Abandoning Iraq will scuttle any hope of freedom from terror for its citizens. The first wacko imam to the capitol building will take over, and every death will have been in vain. This is an acceptable alternative to our anti-war crowd because it gains them a domestic political victory. That's sickening.

We have to win in Iraq. It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents. That is the only way to get their cooperation. Diplomacy and sanctions only work to a point. They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.

[Hobbs]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.

IMO, were aren't being targeted because we are friends with Israel, but because we are the biggest and tuffest dude on the block who has thier fingers in everyone's counties. A lot of these extermists are young, unemployed, highly impressionable kids/young men who are looking for a better life. When you have someone telling you how you can have a dozen virgins feeding you moldy grapes for all eternity and become a local hero in the process, they want this. Since the Russians pulled out of Afganistan, they ran out of reasons to die for...enter the U.S. who is not going anywhere for a long time. We are high profile and can be viewed as bullies when it comes to implementing democracy on other contries. What better way to justify Jihad and get a few points under your belt than to take out a few hundred Americans.

They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our

I think the real reason why we haven't been attacked again is because Al Qeada is masters at biding thier time. They can wait months, years, even decades before striking. Time means nothing to them. True, we do have a better infastruction that has prevented some serious potential attacks but the majority of our Anti-terrorism machine is still covered up in bubble-wrap and located in some storage wharehouse somewhere. I don't think it's as effective as we are being led to believe.

It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents.

We can not eliminate terrorism, it has to run it's course. Eventually, the extermists will grow tired of this way of life and move on to something else (possibly more sinister). The only way it can be defeated externally is if the entire world grows tired of thier people dying in sensless and brutal deaths, bands together, and begins to erraticate all Muslims wholesale in an event that will make Milošević look like Walt Disney (not going to happen).

They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.

Excellent. This is the crux of the reason why conventional war/battle/force will not work in the defeat of terrorism. You can't threaten death to someone who is praying for death...literally. They got nothing to loose. You kill them, they become martyrs. You let them live, they become martyrs. You hit them with sactions, they become martyrs. You...well, you get the picture.

[Cyclefrance]

I cannot agree with a lot of what you say mrnoodle, but I suspect that would be stating the obvious. To give my reasons - your words first f/b mine hopefully in Italics if the programming works as it should::

1) Extremist imams call the shots in much of the middle east.
** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.

2) These imams call for the eradication of ALL Jews.
** as above

3) Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.
**Just because Israel is your ally does not mean that everything that your ally does is right. The strength of a friendship is in the ability for one party to influence the others actions for their benefit and the greater benefit of others. Rightly or wrongly Israel is seen as an aggravant whose actions appear to receive wholehearted US support. Change that view to change the view of the extremists

4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.
** Not true on both counts. Having lived through decades of our own 'terrorist' problem in Northern Ireland, I do not recall that the problems we faced extended beyond our shores. We may not have solved the Irish issue but we have achieved much more than many with a protracted ceasefire and a return to a level of normality in daily life that, whatever the differences might be, none of the affected parties is in a hurry to throw away. This was not achieved by the might of the sword but by the might of the word.

By attacking Iraq, we have achieved the following:

1) Terrorist acts are not occurring here, as on 9/11; when they occur, they tend to happen there, where they can be contained, and the perpetrators can more easily be killed or captured.
**Not sure I understand the logic here - on this basis the acts should be diminishing but they certainly are not

2) Those acts that do occur internationally are directed at our allies, to reduce support. They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our soil will not reap the benefits it did in Spain. Britain's latest events were tests of resolve, which were passed with flying colors. They'll pick on another ally next time, unless I miss my guess.
**The perpetrators are not afraid and as Hobbs says it is only a matter of time. The longer that aggression towards and destruction of the factions is the objective there will be counter-attack. I tend to agree with Hobbs that it might not be hitting US soil right now but that is not to say it won't. Also IMO the attacks on Britain are unlikely to be the last.

3) Iraq is no longer a source of income and shelter for terrorists. It's a place for them to meet Allah, which achieves our strategic goals as well as their personal ones. Win-win! /sarcasm
4) When we pull out, Iraq will have a democratically elected government, and a police/military that is prepared and motivated to to fight their own war on terror. It will also serve as a buffer between extremist nations, hampering their ability to operate at will in that region.
**Unfortunately the democratically elected goverbnment failed to attract a major section of the population who have not signed up to the new way. As a a result, there is more likelihood of ongoing civil unrest and even a splitting of the nation into two opposing and warring factions. You simply cannot force a way of life on to a people that does not recognise that way as being any part of their culture. They will rebel.

Abandoning Iraq will scuttle any hope of freedom from terror for its citizens. The first wacko imam to the capitol building will take over, and every death will have been in vain. This is an acceptable alternative to our anti-war crowd because it gains them a domestic political victory. That's sickening.

We have to win in Iraq. It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents. That is the only way to get their cooperation. Diplomacy and sanctions only work to a point. They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.[/quote]
** I can almost agree your words in the last two paragraphs, but I would be applying the words to a different concept. Diplomacy has to be the better answer (not the only answer) as foreign intervention of an aggressive and dictatorial nature certainly will never achieve longterm stable results. I certainly do not advocate abandoning the situation for the very reasons you state. However, eliminating terrorism does not mean killing the perpetrators, to my mind it means rendering them and their doctrine ineffective by making it unpalatable and unattractive to the highest possible proportion of the population. Winning in Iraq for me means achieving that.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.

The only way the US (or the West in general) could possibly give the population of such countries a civilized lifestyle is to first move in and take over from the governments who are currently there. Are you sure you want to support such overt imperialism?

**Just because Israel is your ally does not mean that everything that your ally does is right. The strength of a friendship is in the ability for one party to influence the others actions for their benefit and the greater benefit of others. Rightly or wrongly Israel is seen as an aggravant whose actions appear to receive wholehearted US support. Change that view to change the view of the extremists

Ridiculous. The extremists will hate Israel no matter what the US does, and they'll hate US support of Israel as long as it exists, whether or not that support appears "wholehearted" or not.

[Cyclefrance]

[quote=Cyclefrance]** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.

You raise an important point in your response to the above Russotto. It was not my intention that the example of 'civilised lifestyle' should be associated so directly as a solution to extremism in every case (it was supporting the European examples given) but the effect was that you made that connection. There you have it: intention vs. effect. How often is that behind the wrong result. No doubt the US intended/intends to make the US and world a safer place through its actions, but the effect has produced and continues to produce something else. The answer in such situations surely is a rethink and change, not more of the same.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

There you have it: intention vs. effect. How often is that behind the wrong result. No doubt the US intended/intends to make the US and world a safer place through its actions, but the effect has produced and continues to produce something else. The answer in such situations surely is a rethink and change, not more of the same.

Invoking the standard rule here, now that you have told us the policy is bad, and needs to be replaced, you absolutely must tell us your proposed policy.

Fair warning, we intend to tear it to shreds.

Tell us, how DO you get rid of a hornet's nest without getting stung?

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Invoking the standard rule here, now that you have told us the policy is bad, and needs to be replaced, you absolutely must tell us your proposed policy.

Fair warning, we intend to tear it to shreds.

Tell us, how DO you get rid of a hornet's nest without getting stung?

That’s fair enough Mr Undertoad. I don't/won’t pretend to have all the answers, though (if I have any at all it will be a miracle!) - in fact at this stage the idea of presenting a ready-to-go solution is simply not realistic. There is a process of analysis to undertake and, right now, this can only be taken so far. The situation currently is so sensitive and complex that any and every step needs to be taken carefully – even the best and most appropriate plan will likely be misconstrued and distrusted.

Given the opportunity to turn the clock back, Iraq should never have been invaded. Oh, that such a thing were possible. Why our PM supported the action only he knows, and is a subject that warrants separate discussion.

Alas there is no opportunity to change past events, so the question is what should we do now that we are in Iraq with all the problems that this has created and continues to create? Well, there's a saying that if you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging, and this is what we should be doing with regards to Iraq. No withdrawal, for reasons already stated in this thread, but no escalation of current planning and policy. We need to take on board that what is happening in Iraq now is a symptom of another, more demanding problem - the root problem that won't go away based on anything currently being proposed for Iraq. The best and least damaging course to take here, at the moment, will be to contain the current situation. That may not be very palatable, but the real energy and effort just has to be transferred to dealing with the root problem.

And the root problem is...?

Well everything points to the Israel/Palestine issue, and pivotal to that the perceived US approach to it. Policy therefore has to be to address this, as it looks pretty clear to me that the Middle East’s upwardly spiraling crisis is not going to reverse unless and until it is addressed. A military solution isn’t going to work, only a diplomatic one, irrespective of failures in the past. And time is relatively short. I think reports suggest that Iran will have a nuclear capability within ten years. The issue needs to be well on its way to being settled before that time arrives.

How to go about it? Ceasefire, negotiation, investment, independence. That on its own would sound a bit like a cop-out short answer in light of the request you made, so here are my expanded reasons.

There are five basic steps to follow to arrive at a solution to a crisis – these are essentially the same sequential steps that are used in any problem-solving situation:

1. Identify the root cause – which means looking beyond the symptoms to find out what is really driving the crisis. In this case taking on board that the Israel/Palestine issue is at the core and driving everything else. The current issues in Iraq are not there as a result of Saddam’s legacy, but because of the vacuum that his removal created. That vacuum has been filled by regimes driven by frustration and anger at the absence of a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the stance the US has taken towards it. The US presence in Iraq for them represents a store (further biased interference) on which they can draw as they sell their doctrine to dissatisfied segments of the population.
2. Subordinate all other crises – which means putting the real effort and energy into dealing with the root problem and certainly not devoting more to the symptomatic crises than to the root cause – extensive energy and effort spent other than on the root problem will effectively be ill-spent as these sub-crises can only be solved as and when the root cause is dealt with
3. Exploit the current situation – in other words, make the best out of the current Israel/Palestine situation. Most certainly the first action would need to be a ceasefire coupled with international effort to sustain that status and to bring the factions to the table. The process moves to understanding what needs to be changed to improve matters and getting all the parties concerned to acknowledge and accept that this change is necessary. This will be a lengthy process (but not as long as step 4) and at its heart must be the protection of the ceasefire. Any proposed step should only proceed provided that the ceasefire is upheld (and I accept it will be no easy matter achieving this first step). This becomes the anchor and ensures that all parties move forward at the speed that is appropriate to ensure and protect ongoing success. It also places responsibility on the relevant parties to act in the event of any violation of the ceasefire (bound to happen).
4. Elevate the crisis – taking the situation to a higher level. Real negotiation, formulation and execution of a long-term durable solution – a comprehensive plan and desired timescale that will undoubtedly include stages involving investment and ultimately independence from international involvement. There must be commitment to proceed, to review, and to revise to improve where and when necessary. The ceasefire continues to play its role. Movement on to a next step only proceeds when the preceding step is accepted by the parties to the plan as being satisfactorily completed or sufficiently advanced to warrant moving on sooner. This keeps everyone on board, and the longer they stay on board the stronger the relationship becomes allowing both sides to learn how much better it is to fight the problem rather than fight each other.
5. Revisit and be prepared to revise - if during the process of dealing with the root cause it transpires that the balance shifts such that something that was a subordinate crisis now predominates (because of progress with the original root crisis), or even a new crisis develops and this now becomes the superior problem, then the process starts again with what becomes (now) the new root cause.

In my view the policy now HAS to be to attend to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Proof that this is happening and progressing will be the cornerstone to reducing the influence of the regimes that use the current state of this conflict as their pitch to oppose and fight the West. The countries where they have infiltrated will need to be encouraged with investment and independence of government, and this needs to be made available at a time when its value and benefit has a real chance to be appreciated and to succeed.

As for not getting stung, at this stage of the proceedings that is impossible to achieve. Rather the course has to be first to take appropriate action to control and limit the amount of stinging, then, provided that unnecessary and unwarranted provocation doesn't follow, the incidents of stinging will reduce and, eventually, if this approach is maintained, the nest will present no real threat of danger. Alternatively this advice could be ignored, at worst resulting in the nest falling and breaking, and the occupants then becoming uncontrollable and unpredicatable.

I think I will leave it there for now. I hope I have gone some way to addressing your request – hopefully far enough to justify the onslaught of constructive criticism you promise....at least I trust that is what you had in mind when you mentioned tearing to shreds!

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

You raise an important point in your response to the above Russotto. It was not my intention that the example of 'civilised lifestyle' should be associated so directly as a solution to extremism in every case (it was supporting the European examples given) but the effect was that you made that connection.

Whether you intended or not, the issue is out there and you have refused to address it. If the solution to terrorism is to give the people who might support it a "civilised lifestyle", then how exactly do you intend to go about this, given that the governments of countries where terrorists do most of their recruiting aren't interested in allowing their people a "civilised lifestyle"? Your proposed abstract solution -- give the people a civilised lifestyle -- leads directly to attempting Bush's concrete one of forcibly removing the governments who keep the people from having an "uncivilised lifestyle". And no amount of listing American-installed previous dictators will change that.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It is a thoughtful post, but it still ignores a few basic facts:

4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.

Considering the fact that terrorists do not sit in one place waiting to be attacked, how does the 'threat of our might' stop them. After 4 years we still can't find Bin Laden, the most wanted fugitive in the world. We can raid all the houses and caves in Iraq, but have still failed to lower the number of terrorist attacks.

Terrorists (and rebels, insurgents, etc) do not fight from fixed bases or capitals. They cannot be invaded. They hide in neutral or allied countries.

It's possible that our improved security has made it harder to attack the US, but it's really not possible for Bin Laden or Al Qaeda to become even more wanted by us, so I don't believe that they are holding back out of fear that we will want to kill them even more than we do now.