Understanding terrorism

[Undertoad]

Cyc, that's good karma by you, stating up front that you don't have all the answers. I don't either.

I don't think Israel/Palestine is the root of any of this. I think it's just the most visible flashpoint. It fails to explain things like Bali and Chechnya.

I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think Israel/Palestine is the root of any of this. I think it's just the most visible flashpoint. It fails to explain things like Bali and Chechnya.

I accept that there is no direct link. I think Bali still counts as an attack against the west, and Chechnya against foreign government interference. However, I don't really know too much about the detail of these to make further comment. Middle east for middle east, I still hold an Israel/Palestine solution as the key for neutralising support for the regimes that are causing disruptions there, and related disruptions elsewhere - also if we look back over the past few decades then a hell of a lot of terrorist acts have been linked to this conflict. Also I am not saying that Isreal/Palestine is responsible for every problem just that it is the root of the middle east and I would find it hard to argue that this was not the most damaging and dangerous at the present time. Prove that you can negate support for the perpetrators middle east wise, and there is good reason for applying the same approach in other situations..

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"

I should have included the point in my original reply to you that I made later to Bruce namely that there needs to be agreement on a common objective first and throughout - you can't move forward if one side doesn't share the same objective - clearly Arafat had a separate agenda. Nonetheless, it is possible to turn a dissenter around to accept that change for the common good is valid - there are plenty of strong arguments involving big prizes to win (e.g. the carrot of staged substantial investment in return for and in line with results, the opportunity for longterm stability, and so on). Also that change brings with it big win/wins, not big win for one and big lose for the other. Always one step at a time and moving ahead another stage only when it is right to do so, otherwise it is unnecessarily courting risk of failure when there is no need to.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"

Just remember that Sharon did his part to help that along, also. I'm glad that he is now making up for lost time in trying to work on the settlement.

In the end, peace requires not only the big stick, but 'speaking softly'. I think Bush learned that too late. You can't threaten someone and then ask them to disarm. "Crusade" and "axis of evil" have really set him back.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

snip~~ It starts with a common acceptance from all sides that change for improvement is necessary - once you have that denominator then you can and will move ahead. ~~snip

That's my point, terrorists don't want a point of common acceptance. That would cause an erosion of their ability to impose their will on their targets. It could also cause cause them to lose their power base.

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Just remember that Sharon did his part to help that along, also. I'm glad that he is now making up for lost time in trying to work on the settlement.

In the end, peace requires not only the big stick, but 'speaking softly'. I think Bush learned that too late. You can't threaten someone and then ask them to disarm. "Crusade" and "axis of evil" have really set him back.

Unfortunately as he is moving people out of Gaza and token parts of West Bank, so he is building new settlements on the outskirts of Jerusalem. On top of that Israel will not be relinquishing control of Gaza. So net result he doesn't move anything forward so far as the Palestinians are concerned. Sceptisism remains and is not addressed. Lost opportunity. But then, if I am reading it right, it appears to be a one-off, high profile initiative with no comprehesive agreed plan behind it. One-sided solutions don't work. The other party has to be involved. If you want to be cynical, maybe this is behind Sharon's effort - 'Look, I did all this in Gaza and still they attack us.' If you want to be optimistic, the withdrawal in Gaza could provide the jolt needed to allow Abbas to address terrorist activities as a means and reason to push Israel to extend disengagement even further. It really shouldn't be a guessing game, though.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You misunderstood me. I mean: When listing all the countries that the US brought freedom and democracy to, don't forget Europe. I'm not talking about WW2. I know it has been too long to expect leftover gratitude for that. I'm talking about the cold war and the events of the last 20 years.

Quite difficult to understand each other, maybe because we disagree somehow.

I wasn’t talking about WW2 neither. I have written my point of view about gratitude in the thread “why do we hate French again”.

About cold war and after in Europe, I think it’s the same logic that what I said in my first post (most of time interests versus URSS, and to control “free” countries with puppets).
Why do you imagine Italia, Spain (before Zapatero), Poland !!!! (I’m dreaming, wake me up), send troupes to Irak despite their folks are opponents to this war. Italia has been under US control since WW2. Former Soviet republics under US control are weakening Russia.
Divide in order to control !
Meanwhile I think that most of Eastern Europe people felt really better once they were no more under Soviet domination despite the transition is difficult.

“State institution needs war for its wellbeing” (author ?).
“I would welcome every war so much I think this country (US) needs one” Theodore Roosevelt 1897
Thus I think a threat is useful for a State. Of course not for folks.

We can also consider that THANKS TO his Soviet opponent, US increased their territory and economical domination. So did URSS in the first part, they lost the second one. And the terror balance was useful to perpetuate these conquests on both sides. It’s my opinion : In fact I think that, because of common interests US and SU were the world best allies during this period ! Look at the results, not at what politicians say.
Finally US won Cold War against URSS.

PS : if I was making war I wouldn’t chose the same symbol as my enemy :
US plane Corsaire : http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgur...lr%3D%26sa%3DG
SU plane L11 : (bottom of page) : http://users.belgacom.net/avion1/avion1/80.html#1362
US tank : Sherman M10 : http://www.photoway.com/fr/dest/NORM02_34.html
SU tank : KV1 (bottom of page) : http://worldwartwo.free.fr/v%E9hicul...20I/KV%201.htm

And after cold war, there were no more excuse to present to US folk in order to motivate other conquests. Perhaps it’s the main reason that made this time quite cool ? They took time to find a new threat : Muslim terrorism. Petrol is a visible economical purpose, maybe not the only one.
PS : Some Muslims leaders, at least some Arabian leaders, are also glad to be pointed out as powerful enemies. They finally can be unified. (but they do against US or Western Countries)

I could discuss with you about Europe if you show me more precise examples (who, when, how ?) in order to develop your idea.

Bring freedom and democracy :
Democracy : in order to be controlled by school, medias, and chose between two identical candidates ? (as in US, France…)
It can be seen like a kind of more subtle and stable dictatorship.
Freedom : Nobody is more slave than someone feeling free without being so (Goethe).

I’ve found Star Wars 2 and 3 excellent in showing how a democracy can give birth to a dictatorship :
You look like a good democrat (Palpatine) waiting for your hour and wanting to be a dictator, you need an army that obey without thinking but that your folk would refuse :
Create, use or strengthen an existing problem (separatists, terrorists) --> Use the full powers given legally by the parliament in promise you’ll defend fatherland and give them back after the problem is resolved (better when you buy senators before) --> Bring the solution (clones army) --> eliminate your former friends and actual enemies (Jedi) in accusing them of betrayal --> transform the Republic in an Empire under general applause --> eliminate your actual enemies and former friends (separatists) --> keep the power as a life emperor under terror when you’re the last one. --> Be careful of your pupil !

“Tell them the truth, they won’t believe you !”……

If fiction looks like reality, maybe it’s because reality looks like fiction !

For example I wouldn’t feel me safe if US were victim of a bacteriological attack, alleged terrorist, that would officially allow US Army to take the power. I read that during 911’s events US army took control of a bacteriological lab : Fort Detrick (Maryland), officially it is a medical lab. It was the only military base evacuated this day. True info ? ??

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And the responsibility.

If that could be true, I would be really glad. I used to agree.
Responsibility to sign protocols of Tokyo, to wait for ONU decisions before bombing Irak…

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Right, except for the "lost the election" part. The vote re-counters in Florida continued counting for the hell of it even once the Supreme Court told them the results would be ignored. They determined that even after the recount, Bush did in fact win Florida.

I can’t find info about that ?!

Bye

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by bargalunan

I can’t find info about that ?!

Here's a quick little BBC article on it.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Here's a quick little BBC article on it.

Thanks
My info was just saying that “some” American Newspapers (which ones ?) recounted ballots in Broward county, and declared Gore winner in this county (with how many ballots ?) and thus Gore won the US presidency as well.
Yours is more accurate.

Could we recount to be sure ?!?!

[Undertoad]

barg, way too many "conspiracy theories" in your post. Italia and Poland under the control of the US? I don't think so!

Do you believe in Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book?

[mricytoast]

Originally Posted by bargalunan

I’ve found Star Wars 2 and 3 excellent in showing how a democracy can give birth to a dictatorship :
You look like a good democrat (Palpatine) waiting for your hour and wanting to be a dictator, you need an army that obey without thinking but that your folk would refuse :
Create, use or strengthen an existing problem (separatists, terrorists) --> Use the full powers given legally by the parliament in promise you’ll defend fatherland and give them back after the problem is resolved (better when you buy senators before) --> Bring the solution (clones army) --> eliminate your former friends and actual enemies (Jedi) in accusing them of betrayal --> transform the Republic in an Empire under general applause --> eliminate your actual enemies and former friends (separatists) --> keep the power as a life emperor under terror when you’re the last one. --> Be careful of your pupil !

First thing I thought of there was Julius Caesar (Although whether he was going to stay a dictator was a question). Or, for that matter, any supposed "free" country that becomes a dictatorship. I think our good friend the Naturalist in Master and Commander said it best... "... Authority Corrupts". And in all honesty, it does. Oliver Cromwell: fought for freedom against the monarch, right? Ended up being a dictator. Stalin: Okay, negative picture here for a negative guy, but it's the same principle. And it isn't a democracy, but, he took power from the powerless to just be plain wicked.

I know it probably does sound fictitious and unrealistic. But it's happened before in history. It sounds conspiracy theoristic, but that's generally how such coups of liberty take place. slowly and surely. First it's unwarranted searches on subways, then its unwarranted searches on the streets, then it's unwarranted searches of homes. See the general direction? I find it quite scary that we are voting away our freedoms. Or rather, those lovely senators and represenatives are voting away our freedoms. I think our good friend Ben Franklin summed it up best when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

barg, way too many "conspiracy theories" in your post. Italia and Poland under the control of the US? I don't think so!
Do you believe in Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book?

I know these theories are crazy for somebody who is well intentioned. I wasn’t believing them before and sometimes I feel safer in front of somebody who doesn’t agree.

About Italy : look for “Gladio” operation, US “Stay behind”
About Poland : I don’t remember precisely, see “freedom house”, National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Poland is member of OTAN (ruled by US) since 1999, what could be Polish interests in Irak ?
About Thierry Meyssan :
- A friend of mine is Ukrainian. She said me : “I don’t understand why in French TV you always present Yushchenko (Orange Revolution) as a good pro occidental democrat ? In Ukraine he’s our Le Pen (French extreme right)”. She said also his pro Russian opponent wasn’t better.
You can agree with me : when you trust your friend who’s moderate, living in this country, her information is the best you can find.
I looked for confirmation in French newspapers, TV info, web sites, and I only found this opinion on Thierry Meyssan’s site…
- I’ve read Thierry Meyssan's “Pentagate”, I believe in it until somebody shows me it’s false : no problem.
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article25.html

Did you read Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book ? When is he wrong / right ?… with significant exemples.


Another conspiracy theorie :

- Hitler LEGALLY became chancellor of the Weimar Republic ! (30th jan 1933)
He was popular among Germans thanks to his rearming politics, his first economical success, his theory saying the others are enemies : Jewish, Tzigane, Black, other religions… (Aryan race is the best) THE GOOD VERSUS THE BAD AXIS
- He raised the power despite the Nazi party never received majority vote.
- Thanks to the Reichstag (parliament) burning organised by Nazis themselves (27th feb 1933), he sent his political opponents to prison and limited freedom drastically.
- The Reichstag gave him LEGALLY the full power (23th march 1933) : he immediately forbid trade unions and other political groups. He made killed his opponents during the “long knifes night” (French translation)
- when president Hindenburg died (2 aug 1934), Hitler became LEGALLY the new president because German constitution was saying the chancellor would temporary take the place. The Reichstag made a law in order to merge presidency and military power : he became LEGALLY “Fuhrer”

He made everything LEGALLY !

In 1939 German army organised a false invasion of eastern German border, by alleged Polish soldiers. Thanks to this pretext allowing him to be a VICTIM Hitler attacked Poland ---> WW2
England and France did declare war to Germany. Hitler didn’t !

If you find similar events in our actuality nowadays…
Watch over laws evolution because Hitler acted LEGALLY.

Even when they were in Auschwitz, Jewish people couldn’t believe Hitler’s aim.

It’s like car accidents : it’s always for other people ! So be careful !


I believe world peace begins by ourselves. Politician and other leaders symbolise the major part of people.

Bye

[bargalunan]

About 911 : It looks like Thierry Meyssan but it's not Thierry Meyssan. I find it interesting, it's the most precise info I've found, a lot of explanations.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

There are references of books.

[Undertoad]

Useful if you need a laugh.

[mrnoodle]

I forgot I had posted in here recently, and now there's too many pages between my bit and the end to dredge it all up again. But I'm curious -- rather than tell us what's wrong with the war Iraq (while ignoring what's right), why won't someone offer an alternative?

In glancing over this thread, I think I've identified what appear to be the opposition's main points:

1. We shouldn't be in Iraq, and the common Iraqi doesn't want us there. Instead, we should all come home and send out individuals to find Osama bin Laden. Once he's caught, the books are balanced for 9/11, and we can resume our pre-9/11 lives
2. Without catching bin Laden, terrorism can't be eliminated, we just have to wait until it goes away.
3. We're just trying to get oil, anything said to the contrary is just a Bush 3-card monte game.
4. Terrorists aren't enemy combatants, they're criminals who should be shuffled through the justice system with the full legal rights and representation of any other criminal.
5. If we would stop doing things to make terrorists mad, they wouldn't bomb us any more. Terrorism doesn't exist unless bred by oppression (specifically, Jew-American), poverty, and lack of opportunity. No one really believes all that jihad nonsense -- they just need to know someone loves them.
6. "Extremist Islam" is a catchphrase designed by the right to justify racism and warmongering. It doesn't exist; if it does exist, it's only in small pockets.
7. We "support" our volunteer military by saying their mission is unjust, their actions in theater are criminal, and their volunteerism is actually ignorance that they are simply pawns for an evil madman.

little editorializing in that last one, but have I hit all the salient points?

Where's the solution? Let's assume that we're wrong in taking the fight to them, rather than sitting back and hoping everything will turn out okay. If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

1. We shouldn't be in Iraq, and the common Iraqi doesn't want us there. Instead, we should all come home and send out individuals to find Osama bin Laden. Once he's caught, the books are balanced for 9/11, and we can resume our pre-9/11 lives

That's not accurate, but even if it were, it's better than "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."

2. Without catching bin Laden, terrorism can't be eliminated, we just have to wait until it goes away.

No, terrorism can't be eliminated at all. It will never go away. But catching bin Laden is important.

3. We're just trying to get oil, anything said to the contrary is just a Bush 3-card monte game.

There is also the point of pride, with his dad's history. And also the desire to set up a military staging point in the area.

4. Terrorists aren't enemy combatants, they're criminals who should be shuffled through the justice system with the full legal rights and representation of any other criminal.

Are you talking about terrorists here, or people accused of being terrorists?

5. If we would stop doing things to make terrorists mad, they wouldn't bomb us any more. Terrorism doesn't exist unless bred by oppression (specifically, Jew-American), poverty, and lack of opportunity. No one really believes all that jihad nonsense -- they just need to know someone loves them.

There will always be a few terrorists. Oppression increases the numbers. If we actually do what they say we want to do, people on the cusp will join them.

7. We "support" our volunteer military by saying their mission is unjust, their actions in theater are criminal, and their volunteerism is actually ignorance that they are simply pawns for an evil madman.

1) Troops aren't responsible for what the mission is.
2) Individual troops are responsible for criminal actions, but not as responsible as people who ordered them to commit them.
3) Their volunteerism is noble, but it is being exploited. Most volunteered before they knew how they were to be used. As for others, there are any number of reasons to volunteer, including a desire not to let someone else go in your place.

If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?

There's nothing you can do about someone raised that way. You have to decrease the number of people who are willing to raise their kids that way.