Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

This helps reflect the opinion of people in Northern Ireland.

Yes, it is a British website, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. And Ireland (which I have always called Eire due to my heritage) is geographically part of the British Isles.

I am half Irish in the way Americans assess things. I was brought up Catholic - and only my brother and I have no faith. And I don't mean Christmas and Easter, I mean weekly Mass and fasting on Holy Days and denying yourself through Lent and reflecting through Advent and all the kit and caboodle. No, I don't believe a word of it, but if you're going to do it at least commit to it. And I heard not a word of support for the IRA from any of the priests or Nuns I was taught by.

I am far less tolerant than Dani. I already know that. I have admitted before that although I truly mean my liberal ideals, I am aware they are a veneer that can be scratched away. And I fight it. But even fighting it I have no acceptance of terrorists. We were set an assignment in Religion Education in class once, about how we would feel about the Romans if we were Jews - I was one of only two people that said they would not kill them. I might want to, but wouldn't. Because of my personal experience of terrorism

I know I am being reactionary here. I admit it. Of course I don't hate every pale skinned red-headed person. Or black headed person with wiry hair and freckles. Or anyone called Doyle. Literally, that is my family. And me (if I'd got the hair colour I deserved). But I hate people who kill innocents to get their way.

In my mind the bell tolls for the armed forces and the soldiers. But also for the pizza delivery mean. The builders. The taxi drivers. The people in pubs. The OAPs in Enniskillan who shined their medals up for Remembrance Day. The Dads out shopping with their kids for Mothers Day.

You had one attack in America.

How would you feel? How would you feel if it was your Grandad celebrating surviving WWII? Your Mum going into Woolworths in Omagh? Your sister's boyfriend in a pub in Birmingham? Your friend who was a pizza delivery man right up until last weekend?

I'll leave it to people more intelligent and balanced than me to argue the politics. I hate the fucking murderous bastards. Death is never a poltical tool , unless it's suicide (and even that I query).

I've posted this before. You might roll your eyes. But it was shown here at the time (in advance of the film Rattle & Hum). And I think it shows the true voice of the Irish. It was originally an atrocity by the British forces. So was Amritsah (look it up). But so was American treatment of fellow Americans who happened to have different coloured skin. We are all guilty by our ancestry. But those of us who do not believe we are damned by the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) can say, "I'm so sick of it!"

SG, I understand. I do. And I can honestly say I don't know how I would feel if we were under attack all the time. I can only say that I would hope I could overcome the hate in order to look at the issue objectively. Having said that, I do believe my country played some part in our being attacked, because of our foreign policies in other countries. I believe in cause and effect. Things do not happen in a vaccuum, and the actions we take in other countries have consequences for those of us here at home.

By the same token, the way we chose to handle the whole thing, by starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack, I believe ultimately that decision may come back and bite us on the ass. While Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, he did help stabalize that part of the world. In the end, I have to wonder if, after we finally leave, the very people we helped will turn on us. Because let's face it, that is exactly what happened with both Saddam Hussein and also with Osama bin Laden. If that does happen, I think we will have to examine our part in creating that reaction. But most people in this country, when talking about this issue, they don't want to look at where we are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur, because they don't want to think we are ever guilty of anything bad.

[Undertoad]

1) Don't quote the entire post.

2) Don't quote the entire post and then make an mostly unrelated point.

3) You don't know what the hell you're talking about, so consider not posting at all.

[Bullitt]

[Marv Albert] And in comes Undertoad with the backhand from downtown![Marv]

@ Sugar, your post delves into my area of interest/degree major of history and how it's done. You should look into John Gaddis' book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map The Past. It goes into detail of how chaos and complexity theory determines how we should view events in history. War is a great example of a complex system in which the macro-level behavior of the system as a whole is non-linear, meaning that there are so many variables that are so interdependent that calculating their effects on the course of the whole is near impossible. What if Cleopatra's nose had been ugly, would history have been different? Etc. "We are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur" is a particular generalization that relies upon the idea that all the phenomena within this complex system of The War on Terror is linear in nature, when in reality as said before, macro-level behavior of a complex system is in fact non-linear.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

1) Don't quote the entire post.

2) Don't quote the entire post and then make an mostly unrelated point.

3) You don't know what the hell you're talking about, so consider not posting at all.

1) I quoted the entire post out of respect to SG.

2) It was related, it's not my fault if you're too dense to connect the dots.

3) Whatever dude. I have a right to express my opinion, and I believe my opinion is VALID. Only stupid people don't learn from history.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

[Marv Albert] And in comes Undertoad with the backhand from downtown![Marv]

@ Sugar, your post delves into my area of interest/degree major of history and how it's done. You should look into John Gaddis' book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map The Past. It goes into detail of how chaos and complexity theory determines how we should view events in history. War is a great example of a complex system in which the macro-level behavior of the system as a whole is non-linear, meaning that there are so many variables that are so interdependent that calculating their effects on the course of the whole is near impossible. What if Cleopatra's nose had been ugly, would history have been different? Etc. "We are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur" is a particular generalization that relies upon the idea that all the phenomena within this complex system of The War on Terror is linear in nature, when in reality as said before, macro-level behavior of a complex system is in fact non-linear.

I will check it out when I get a chance, thanks.

I don't believe I was necessarily talking about linear vs non-linear though. I was talking more about human nature, cause and effect, and the clash of civilizations that have very, very different belief systems. When you don't take the time to try and understand or respect the other side and where they are coming from, you will never get anywhere.

One other thing about history- it is written by the winners. You can learn a lot by looking at it from the other side, because the winners will always write history so it is favorable to their actions and beliefs, so it is never completely accurate. Just look at how certain people are trying to rewrite the past 8 years...

I cant speak to the Brit's "homegrown" terrorist problem, but I do believe the US approach to terrorism has been woefully misguided for the past eight years.

IMO, a "war on terrorism" is no better than a 'war on drugs".....bombastic rhetoric that has no underlying strategic response and far too great a focus on military force...ie, the invasion/occupation of Iraq which by many measures only increased the world-wide recruitment by terrorists organizations.

The Rand Corp, a DoD contracted think tank published a report last year on "How Terrorist Groups End."

The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.




....military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

How Terrorist Groups End

The other focus that deserves far more attention IMO.....understanding and responding to the root causes of terrorism.

[HungLikeJesus]

Hey look, it's a peace sign.

[Undertoad]

but I do believe the US approach to terrorism has been woefully misguided for the past eight years.

2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.

Not quite as long as the number of days between the first World Trade Center bombing in '94 and 9/11/01.

I attribute it to better policing and intel, including implementing many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (with all its faults) and certainly not as a result of our "war on terrorism" in Iraq, which was the focus of US anti-terrorist actions from 2003-2008.

You may recall how Bush/Cheney initially opposed the 9/11 Commission and the creation of a Dept of Homeland Security.

added:

I also think the FBI/NSA/DHS "terrorist watch list" which is now over 1 million and increasing at a rate of 20,000/month, needs to be more carefully monitored to respect individual liberties and protected constitutional rights.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

1)
3) Whatever dude. I have a right to express my opinion, and I believe my opinion is VALID. Only stupid people don't learn from history.

Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas. I believe you believe that if we all just try hard we can all get along and make the planet a hunky dory place, but unfortunately interpersonal and international interactions don't quite work that way.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas....

You mean like the Bush administration, most notably Dick Cheney ("overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida"), insisting that Saddam Hussein had some nebulous connection to al queda and thus a role in the 9/11 attack?

As late as this week, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, in an exchange with Chris Mathews:

Fleischer: "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."

Matthews: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument...and the American people are too."

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas. I believe you believe that if we all just try hard we can all get along and make the planet a hunky dory place, but unfortunately interpersonal and international interactions don't quite work that way.

No. I KNOW that there are some people who, no matter what, will CHOOSE to continue fighting. I am not stupid. I know how human nature works. It's messy, and complicated, and things are rarely as simple as they seem. I am not trying to warp anything to fit my ideals. I am trying to look HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY at how OUR ACTIONS cause certain results. If people aren't ever willing to look at their own behavior, then how smart are they? I would say, not very.

You know how Albert Einstein defined insanity?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.

Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there? And if you recall, Osama bin Laden's target was our financial district. He even said, all they had to accomplish, was to get us to bankrupt ourselves, which we have done. We collapsed our own economy, which was his goal. We helped recruit more terrorists than he ever could have done without us. Fighting smart means getting your enemy to do to themselves what would be too difficult to do yourself. Isn't that part of the Art of War or something?

[Undertoad]

Redux: "The lack of attacks on US soil has nothing to do with the Iraq war."

sugar: "Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there?"

You two now get to work that one out.

[sugarpop]

Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? Hello!