Understanding terrorism

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Monkey, the solidest and most objective evidence out there is that our Middle East policy is not and never was all about oil.

I'm glad you put the word "all" in there. Because otherwise it would have been one of the most ridiculous things you've said, and that's saying a lot. As it is, with the "all" in there, you essentially said nothing.

[bargalunan]

When US bring democracy in other countries :

Mossadegh prime minister was elected in Iran in 1952 and wanted to nationalize petrol.
Eisenhower said something like “ eliminate the problem called Mossadegh and get our petrol back “ (french translation…)
CIA organized communist bomb attacks, riots (operation Ajax) in order to raise the Shah to power and his prime minister nazi general Fazlollah Zahédi (his political police : Savak highly influenced by Gestapo)
Mossadegh died in prison in 1967.

Salvator Allende was elected president of Chile in 1970, CIA raised dictator Pinochet in 1973.
Salvator Allende was executed in 1973.

Hugo Chavez is elected in Venezuela (petrol). US always try to eliminate this president who invests his petrol benefits for his country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Is elected in Iran in august 2005 and launch again a civil nuclear program (that could lead to military program ?…)
When there will be no more petrol in Iran, what kind of energy will this country be allowed to use ? If western countries were Iran, what would they do ? They’ll also try to anticipate future. I know may be he isn’t a saint, I just keep occidental logic.
What will GW Bush decide ? He’s waiting for the first reason to declare war in end August or beginning September 2005 ! US military bases have already been set around Iran (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kirghistan, Ouzbékistan, Irak, Koweït and Qatar) for months.

(It would be also ironical that US let now Irak attack Koweit since Irak is under US political control : the 02 aug 2005 Irakian deputies declared Koweit was infringing Irak/Koweit border line. I just make a free nightmare without any evidence of this intention ! But the last time it happened, Saddam Hussein overran Koweit.

GW Bush lost the election in Florida in 2000 and was declared president by the Supreme court (justice) with members named by G W Bush’s father.
Bush declared war to Irak and Afghanistan, change their governments without catching Ben Laden, without finding links between Irak and Ben Laden, without finding mass destruction weapons in Irak.
US own civil and military nuclear. US launched a program of miniaturised nuclear bombs “mini-nukes”. And remember what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in history ?

Recalling WW2 :
Before the nuclear bombing, unlike other Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had never been attacked by US because it would have altered the results in order to establish liable statistics of the nuclear efficiency !! (French and British TV broadcast last week)
Japan had already decided to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and US leaders knew all about that. Thanks to Little Boy and Fat Man, Japan will surrender to US and not to URSS ! Thus Japan became under US control and not URSS control.
Tokyo 70.000, Hiroshima 140.000, Nagasaki 70.000 at the end 1945. Multiply per 2 after for the two last ones victims of radiations.

We should do something to bring democracy and freedom in United States !

After
- a century of oil pillage in middle east, by the western world (France, GB as well),
- manipulations in order to keep these Arabian countries divided, and thus keep the power
(you can extend to Asia, Africa and South America). French and British are also responsible in having cutting the border lines throw ethnic people according to their economical interests, and divide these new countries in several different ethnic trends.
Divide in order to rule !
- years of food blockade in Irak,
I don’t think virgins are necessary to motivate people to become terrorists and fight against US ! (French members of Resistance were seen like terrorists in WW2.)

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's imperialism if you're determined to stay and exact tribute from the resulting subjects. Absent staying...

When the domination is obvious, people have an easy objective to fight (some French against nazis…). When you put a puppet, stemmed for this country, you command it, and you control the main companies, it’s less easy for folks to react. But this country is still under your control. It will follow your orders and interests.

For example it’s also useful to control countries producing petrol in order to keep dollar as the main international trade money… Otherwise it would lead to an economical breaking down
that threatens US (and the world) because economically they aren’t really so mighty. Look at the economical deficit.

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

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.

I often agree with you, but in this case I doubt whether it’s true: Just look at the results. Leaders aren’t crazy in their logic (but humanely, emotionally they are), I think they want these effects.

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

Give a man a good enough reason (stimulus) to react and he will - the harsher the reason the stronger the reaction.

I agree 500%. It’s the reason they act like this with several stages (economical crisis, food blockade… à reaction (terrorist, war) à action (war that you are surely going to win) to get the power justified as being seen as victim of terrorism)
For exemple : US iron and petrol blockade against Japan before WW2, food blockade against Irak before Gulf War (hundred thousand civil victims)………..

After war Iran / Irak, Irak was ruined. But Saddam could be an important force in Middle East. US incited Koweit to provoke it in extracting oil at the border line and in requiring repayment of military help. US promised with ambassador April Glaspie that US wouldn’t interfere because before British decolonisation Koweit was part of Irak. à Saddam attacked Koweit à US Gulf war 1

When you want a result, create the problem that your result will resolve ! Thus the population will accept it and thank you !

I think in politic there’s no friend, no enemy, only just interests. Just look back at history.

I disagree with countries politic not people.

Bye

[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?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by bargalunan

When US bring democracy in other countries :

Don't forget all of Europe in this list.

How'd that work out, BTW?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think in politic there’s no friend, no enemy, only just interests. Just look back at history.

You know, that's one of the wisest things I've ever heard(read), are you sure you're French?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by bargalunan

GW Bush lost the election in Florida in 2000 and was declared president by the Supreme court (justice) with members named by G W Bush’s father.

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.

He did not receive a majority of the popular vote, to be sure, but that is not how our election system works. He is not the first president to win with less of the popular vote than his opponent.

But don't feel bad, most of the American media ignored that part of the story too.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Don't forget all of Europe in this list.

I really don’t forget Europe. Sorry if you’ve understood that in my post. I’ve mentioned some examples and used words like “western world”. Meanwhile I think US are the most active nowadays. Aren’t they ? It’s the privilege of the world champions.
If you want some more about France :
- France responsible of genocide in Madagascar in 1947 : 300.000 dead people.
- France made war in Algeria (1954-1962) : about 300.000 Algerians dead
- Mitterrand was chosen in 1990 to negociate peace with Saddam Hussein before Gulf War 1. Saddam Hussein answered positively and accepted to free the hostages. After suddenly Mitterrand closed negotiations (to join US point of view) and the war began. : > 100.000 dead
- France and Mitterrand (I hate this man) responsible of genocide in Rwanda in 1994 : 800.000 dead Tutsis.
- …..

We can easily find others for England, Russia…

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

are you sure you're French?

Sure I’m French. May be I was an American in a former life ! :p
But I’ve forgotten a lot of my English when I was in heaven.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by bargalunan

I really don’t forget Europe. Sorry if you’ve understood that in my post.

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.

Meanwhile I think US are the most active nowadays. Aren’t they ? It’s the privilege of the world champions.

And the responsibility.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm glad you put the word "all" in there. Because otherwise it would have been one of the most ridiculous things you've said, and that's saying a lot. As it is, with the "all" in there, you essentially said nothing.

Codswallop. I finished the thought in the rest of that post. You are being extremely dishonest. That should not satisfy you.

[Happy Monkey]

What was the thought that you finished? That Israel is also a major influence on our Middle Eastern foreign policy? Thanks for the heads up. That you found an example of a time we didn't out-and-out take oil during a war? The whole Iraq/Kuwait war was about the Rumaila oil feild.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Don't forget all of Europe in this list.

Except spain.

[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.

[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!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Very eloquent, Cycleman…..to bad it won’t work.
When you sit down to discuss/negotiate a solution with terrorists like Mazen, Sharon and Urbane Guerrilla you’re doomed before you start. These fools would kill you before they would consider listening to a solution they don’t dictate.

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Very eloquent, Cycleman…..to bad it won’t work.
When you sit down to discuss/negotiate a solution with terrorists like Mazen, Sharon and Urbane Guerrilla you’re doomed before you start. These fools would kill you before they would consider listening to a solution they don’t dictate.

They said the same thing about the IRA - but the situation has progressed and improved albeit very slowly (inevitably two steps forward one step back but overall moving, still, in the right direction) - but then the speed of the result should not be the objective but the durability, and if that takes time, so be it (with a 100 years of troubles and legacy to cure vis-a-vis Northern Ireland that's understandable). 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.

Maybe the likes of you and me could not turn the tide in respect of Israel/Palestine, but I believe that there are people (professional negotiators)who can. What else would you propose because I honestly do not see another route that has the power to deliver?