A View from the Eye of the Storm

[Seeker]

A well written speech.


But as has been pointed out; a little biased.

His point about the concentric circles of terrorism is well made. But how do we starve them of funds? The industrial West is in the position of a junkie that hates his dealer - the only way to starve these people is not to buy their oil. Can we do that?


And... to add to his list of dilemmas:

Do you support insurgents in a hostile regime?

To my knowledge (and I'd love to be shown wrong); while the USA and Britain have condemmed terrorism; niether have defined it nor publicaly said they won't support it - and both regimes have in the past supported terror groups.


It's a very difficult formulation; but we need to find a way of defining freedom fighter from terrorist; if indeed it can be done; and making dam sure which we support.

[lada]

Originally posted by ravells

(3) Arabs actually spend a large amount of their time and energy fighting amongst themselves. Well....they do.  That sort of behaviour is not going to improve their economies any.

What exactly do you mean Ravs ?

[lada]

Originally posted by Seeker
It's a very difficult formulation; but we need to find a way of defining freedom fighter from terrorist; if indeed it can be done; and making dam sure which we support.

i think Tronsky has wrote.:

Terrorist are freedom figters who we do not support.
Freedom fighters are terrorist who we do support.

[Seeker]

Lada wrote:

"i think Tronsky has wrote.:

Terrorist are freedom figters who we do not support.
Freedom fighters are terrorist who we do support."

Which is an extension of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; which to my mind is a thoroughly discredited theory.

How much American support did the Afghani Mujadeen recieve because they were the enemy of America's enemy back in the 80's? I think there was even a Rambo film made.. How happy are we now that those people were supported? No; for me at least; such a simple philosophy as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is out dated.

That would be tantamount to supporting Protestant Irish Terrorists because they kill republican Irish terrorists; a bankrupt notion if one's aim is to stop terrorism altogether: there can be no "good" terrorism.



Anyway; an unusually thought provoking post; Toad.


This may get a laugh (or not)...

An ABC of Terrorism

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
And what does that have to do with the translation of books?

 

Nothing. Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.

But somehow you think that's key.

******************

Seeker, I don't know that he offers solutions. Rather, I think he highlights problems with a bit of a (his) view on cause and effect.

It's not likely that these problems are going away anytime soon. If he's right and they grow and spread, encompassing even Europe, it will have everyone's attention.

[NUKE]

The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".

A main point he makes is that we have to be on the offensive and go after the countries ( top of the pyramid) that support, finance or harbor terrorists, then the "family" will die.

He also makes a point that Europe doesn't get it yet, that they need to wake up to the fact that this is a war.... a world war that needs unity and an offensive effort.

I believe we need to make plans for Syria and Iran next..... maybe a couple others. If we do not take the threat seriously, we will one day have a WMD attack as our reward for doing nothing.

We need Europe and Russia to help.

[NUKE]

Another point I'd like to make is that some of our allies and the UN sent the wrong message in the years of the Iraq situation.

They waffled on Iraq and sent a message to Syria and Iran that they could count on the world to turn a blind eye.

With Europe, the US and Russia united and willing to use force against these nutz, this war could be over relatively quickly.

As it is, France, Germany, Russia, and the UN only give the nutz hope.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
Nothing. Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.

But somehow you think that's key

We support a regime that oppresses it's people from knowledge, I would say that's relevant.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by NUKE
A main point he makes is that we have to be on the offensive and go after the countries ( top of the pyramid) that support, finance or harbor terrorists, then the "family" will die.

He also makes a point that Europe doesn't get it yet, that they need to wake up to the fact that this is a war.... a world war that needs unity and an offensive effort.

I believe we need to make plans for Syria and Iran next..... maybe a couple others. If we do not take the threat seriously, we will one day have a WMD attack as our reward for doing nothing.

We need Europe and Russia to help.

I totally agree with the speech that was presented and this view on it.  I actually think both Syria and Iran believe the same thing.

As for the "Pallistinian overtones", I agree with Toad.  These are things that may have been made "popular" by pallestinians, but are also being used in Iraq with great effectiveness... and with complete media support.

MiniD

[Toad]

Go ahead, make the case that it is only the oppressiveness of the US-supported Saudi regime that accounts for the lack of interest in acquiring new knowledge and a better view of the "outside world" in Saudi Arabia.

Then extend this case to show that the Evil USA is the reason the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates

Six, you're just a fixated drive-by. You haven't really addressed the theme of this guy's speech in the least.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

Go ahead, make the case that it is only the oppressiveness of the US-supported Saudi regime that accounts for the lack of interest in acquiring new knowledge and a better view of the "outside world" in Saudi Arabia.

Did I make the case it is the only one? I would say that saudi arabia holds alot of influence in the region, and we support them. How's this for knowledge, you know what they teach in their schools? That armageddon is when God comes down and kills all the Jews, no kidding. You call it a lack of interest, and I say you are wrong, I say their government will not allow them to have that interest. What human, just by nature, does not want to know about the rest of the world they live in? Unless, of course, you will be beat to a pulp if you try to gain that knowledge.

Then extend this case to show that the Evil USA is the reason the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates

Lol, the evil USA, very good, you are beginning to reach now. I do not believe in our policy towards saudi arabia, so therefor I am calling the USA evil, a clear sign of a lost argument. So if this translation thing holds true to form, then any nation that does not translate books is a threat to our security? You have got to be kidding.

Six, you're just a fixated drive-by.

Fight fire with fire I always say.

You haven't really addressed the theme of this guy's speech in the least.

Oh, I think I have. He paints the the region, as a whole, "dysfuntional" I think that is a slap in the face to countries such as Jordan, that are at least trying to live in peace with Isreal, but because they are muslim, get painted as "dysfunctional". If this speach were by a muslim listing all of Isreal's faults, would it be bias? Of course it would. Just as much as his speach is.

[NUKE]

Sixpense, you can't carry on an argument if you do not even comprehend the speach.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by NUKE
Sixpense, you can't carry on an argument if you do not even comprehend the speach.

Explain



"The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional"

Now my comprehension may not be good, but it seems he is painting with a pretty broad brush, no?

"Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago."

Now, again, my comprehension is not that good, but this, I think would include saudi arabia, a government we support.

"If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many are afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty or by a miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and so will terrorism. The United States understands this now, after September 11."

I don't think we do, almost all of TWC hijackers were saudi, millions of dollars from saudi arabia went to al-qeada. But no one takes a hard stance against them, is this not what this guy is trying to say? As long as we support saudi arabia, we, inadvertently give support to terrorism. You can try to explain it away or tolerate what saudi arabia is about, but that's the way it is. And until we take a hard line with the saudis, terrorism will thrive.

"It is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance, arm and dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in English in front of western TV cameras, talking to a world audience, which even partly believes them. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world. Incitement by Arab TV, accompanied by horror pictures of mutilated bodies, has become a powerful weapon of those who lie, distort and want to destroy everything. Little children are raised on deep hatred and on admiration of so-called martyrs, and the Western World does not notice it because its own TV sets are mostly tuned to soap operas and game shows. I recommend to you, even though most of you do not understand Arabic, to watch Al Jazeera, from time to time."

Hmmm, and what government does this sound like?

"The outer circle is largely financed by Saudi Arabia"

Wow, who would have thought that?

"The outer circle cannot be eliminated by force"

And it sure will not be eliminated by supporting those who support it.

Again, how can we fight something that, at it's root, we tolerate and support? If you comprehend this man's speach, then how can you stand by our policy towards saudi arabia?

[Nash]

I think Sandman nailed it when he said this should be called "The War against Militant Islam". Calling it the "War or Terror" is like saying WWII should have been called "The War on Blitzkrieg Tactics" or some such.

It would make things a hell of a lot more clear... and the goals, tactics as well as who the allies/enemies really are would become much more appearent.

I think they don't do this for the very reason Sixpence points out. Merely changing the term would put them immediately into confrontation with some current allies of the US, such as the Saudis.

So what's left is half measures, with half results. It's like agreeing to fight with one arm tied behind your back.

And it's just one of the things that make the Iraq war seem so dubious. You want people to be "with you" in the "war on terror" yet you go after a country with insignificant ties to it and ignore those countries with more blatant connections. The result is that it makes "the war on terror" itself seem rather suspect. Do you actually want to win it or not?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
I think Sandman nailed it when he said this should be called "The War against Militant Islam". Calling it the "War or Terror" is like saying WWII should have been called "The War on Blitzkrieg Tactics" or some such.

It would make things a hell of a lot more clear... and the goals, tactics as well as who the allies/enemies really are would become much more appearent.

I think they don't do this for the very reason Sixpence points out. Merely changing the term would put them immediately into confrontation with some current allies of the US, such as the Saudis.

So what's left is half measures, with half results. It's like agreeing to fight with one arm tied behind your back.

And it's just one of the things that make the Iraq war seem so dubious. You want people to be "with you" in the "war on terror" yet you go after a country with insignificant ties to it and ignore those countries with more blatant connections. The result is that it makes "the war on terror" itself seem rather suspect. Do you actually want to win it or not?

The "name" means little to me. People know what the war on "terror" means.

I know it, you know it, Sandman knows it......everyone knows it.