Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Delirium on August 10, 2006, 01:53:56 AM
-
(from BBC, link pasted below)
'Plot to blow up planes' foiled
All airports have been put under the restrictions
A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.
It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months.
Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are expected. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical - the highest possible.
According to MI5's website, critical threat level means "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK".
BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford says he does not think the police believe an attack is imminent.
I was handed a piece of paper saying that pretty much nothing could be taken on board the plane
Joe Lynam
BBC journalist at Gatwick
In full: Transport advice
"The reason for raising the threat level is in case there is some other sub-plot, back-up plot around this that the police aren't aware of," he said.
Scotland Yard said in a statement that their investigation into the alleged plot was a "major operation" which would be "lengthy and complex".
"We would like to reassure the public that this operation was carried out with public safety uppermost in our minds."
Home Secretary John Reid confirmed that there had been a plot "to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions causing a considerable loss of life".
Transparent bags
The Department for Transport set out the details of the security measures at UK airports.
THREAT LEVEL
The current threat level is assessed as critical as of 10th August 2006 - this means that an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK
MI5 statement
Passengers will not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said.
Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - will be allowed to be carried on board in transparent plastic bags.
"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only," the statement said.
BBC journalist Joe Lynam encountered the increased security measures at Gatwick airport.
"I was handed a piece of paper saying that pretty much nothing could be taken on board the plane," he said.
"Everything had to be checked in and that includes mobile phones, ipods, wallets - even spectacle cases had to be checked in."
David Learmount from Flight International Magazine said he expected passengers to be searched much more carefully.
He added: "This is the first time this measure has actually been taken. Certainly I've never seen hand luggage banned."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm
-
watching that on the news now.... WTG Brits, chalk one up for the good guys.... i wonder how this is going to effect flights in the US.. i have to conduct a military funeral this weekend and i normally check in a box of M16s on to the flight... this is going to be interesting..
-
Apparently liquid explosives were to be used, smuggled in with the carry-on luggage.
-
On the news now...Scottland Yard busted the diaper-heads before they could pull off their plan. They are withholding many details so far but they were going to blow up multiple trans-atlantic flights out of Heathrow (and possibly JFK).
-
Way to F***ing go Scottland Yard! :aok
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/10/uk.terror/index.html)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- British police say they have arrested 21 people in connection with a terrorist plot to blow up aircraft flying from the United Kingdom to the United States.
The plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said. The UK's threat warning level has been raised to "critical" -- meaning "an attack is expected imminently."
London's Heathrow airport was closed to most European flights Thursday morning, causing chaos for thousands of travelers. The closure to incoming traffic at the world's busiest international airport applied to flights of three hours or less, a spokesman said. (Full story)
The plot involved hiding masked liquid explosives in carry-on luggage, a U.S. government official told CNN. A U.S. administration official said United, Continental and American airlines were believed to be among airlines targeted by the plot.
British and U.S. security agencies quickly moved to limit carry-on items, causing extended delays at airport security checkpoints. The British Airports Authority said no hand luggage would be allowed onto planes leaving UK airports. (Full story)
Stephenson said the plot involved a plan to blow up passenger jets flying between the United Kingdom and the United States.
He said 21 people were arrested by London, Birmingham and Thames Valley police overnight in an ongoing operation.
"This is about people who are desperate ... who want to do things that no right-minded citizen of this country or any other country would want to tolerate," Stephenson said.
The arrests were the result of a "covert counter-terrorist operation," police said. "It is believed that the aim was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board the aircraft in hand luggage."
Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said: "We are doing everything possible to disrupt any other terrorist activity. This will mean major disruptions from all UK airports."
In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security raised the terror threat to the highest level of "severe," or red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States.
In addition, the threat level has been raised to "high," or orange for all commercial flights operating in or coming to the United States, a DHS statement said.
"Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane," the statement said."
A U.S. Transporation Safety Adminstration official said travelers should show up at least two hours ahead of their flights and bring plenty of patience. According to the DHS, there is no indication the plot involved American counterparts.
The alleged terror plot comes more than five years after Briton Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his sneakers on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, only a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
Passengers thwarted his plan, and the plane landed safely in Boston. Reid pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in October 2002 and is serving a life sentence at the nation's super-maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.
-
Congrats to Scotland Yard. :aok To hell with the "jihad".
-
'Airlines terror plot' disrupted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm)
It would have been horrific if the plan would have gone undiscovered & had been carried out
wtg MPS !!
-
Who was actually behind the plot the text doesn't say. Local Londoners? :huh
-C+
-
Third thread on this.
-
I blame boosh. Blair too. What the heck, it's probably Lieberman's fault as well. It's pretty clear neither of the Clintons or Carter had anything to do with it.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Who was actually behind the plot the text doesn't say. Local Londoners? :huh
-C+
more then likely young nubile Laplander girls obviously.
-
What Masherbrum said.:aok
-
Oh boy, now I have little dogs gnawing my heels... :rolleyes:
-C+
-
All of those arrested were Born in the UK, apparently inspired by Jihadi preachers/websites with Al Qaeda ties.
I've been wondering for quite some time why those who preach jihad in the Mosques are not being rounded up and prosecuted, and for that matter why the ISPs and co-lo facilities that house Jihadi websites are not shut down if domestic or blown to smithereens if foreign. We blew up Joseph Goebels' radio stations didn't we?
-
Seems to be the time to require all muslims who fly to wear skintight pink jumpsuits with a picture of arnold the pig on them and have no luggage.
-
Young men again? Maybe they are strongly driven by the promise of numerous virgins at their disposal after a martyr death. Maybe they should be provided with enough p***y while they live to calm them down? :D
That worked for me all right...
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Young men again? Maybe they are strongly driven by the promise of numerous virgins at their disposal after a martyr death. Maybe they should be provided with enough p***y while they live to calm them down? :D
That worked for me all right...
-C+
:rofl :rofl LMAO Charge
Good point Edbert1
-
WTG Intelligence...It looks like the UK is taking the brunt of this...The entire state of Great Britain is at terror level "critical"...Cable news is now saying all forms of liquid will be banned from the time being from all flights...
-
Liquid explosaives in carry on luggage, lets say a mens shaving kit, and addetonator in a cell phone or laptop all assembled in a bathroom is something I have worried about for several years as the terrorists next way to bring down a passenger plane. Good that they got em.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Who was actually behind the plot the text doesn't say. Local Londoners? :huh -C+
As per the London bombings. British born of Pakistani descent and obviously Muslim and yes probably local Londoners. Traitors one and all.
-
clip from news story, passenger comment:
yes , very inconvenient to do without ones iPod. oh, how shall i survive?
:rolleyes:
and yes , way to go UK, you da man.
-
You mean they weren't Iraeli's?
I think it is time for random full cavity searches berfore boarding planes.
Do Londoners walk around in their airports in their stocking feet?
lazs
-
John,
I could be wrong because there is no context for the quote, but it sounds like that person wasn't complaining about the lack of an ipod, rather that if the worst inconvenience was a flight without an ipod, then it's not really all that much of a hassle for the passengers.
But I could be misreading it...
-
Lazs I still think it's the little old ladies in wheelchairs we need to be worried about. Just because pretty much all the terrorsts except our own home grown McVeigh match the same profile doesn't mean that the NEXT islamic terrorist won't be a 90 year old disgruntled white lady from Iowa, or even a US senator or ex-president. Strip search them all and confiscate their viagra as a weapon of mass somethingtion.
-
all liquids are banned on all flights in the US.
tons of huge lines is the report I'm hearing, Ohare in chicago is at a standstill with the delays according to the local news.
gonna be interesting to fly for the next few weeks. :eek:
-
My parents laugh when my wife, kid and I DRIVE to Florida. :O
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
My parents laugh when my wife, kid and I DRIVE to Florida. :O
If terrorists killed as many people as drivers did every year. There would be uproar. It's time for a jihad on bad drivers.
-
I drive because so far... It makes me feel less like I live in some old black and white movie of a police state than I do when I go to the airport. I will avoid commercial airlines and airports like the plague.
anyone remmember how scared we all were watching those old movies of nazis or whatever carrying sub guns in their black uniforms and stopping and searching civilians boarding trains or at checkpoints at random? Now.... we ask for it to happen to us. Difference is that our black clad guys wear masks too.
lazs
-
Just got this:
Red Alert: The Plot to Attack British Airliners
Scotland Yard successfully penetrated the plotters of a mass terrorist attack against airliners bound from the United Kingdom to the United States on Aug. 10 British time, resulting in the capture of nine people who planned to use liquid explosives contained in carry-on luggage to down the planes. Current reports indicate at least 21 people have been arrested in total, and perhaps the cell contains as many as 50 people.
There are four takeaway lessons from this incident:
First, while there obviously remains a threat from those not only sympathetic to al Qaeda, but actually participating in planning with those in the al Qaeda apex leadership, their ability to launch successful attacks outside of the Middle East is severely degraded.
Second, if the cell truly does have 50 people and 21 have already been detained, then al Qaeda might have lost its ability to operate below the radar of Western -- or at least U.K. -- intelligence agencies. Al Qaeda's defining characteristic has always been its ability to maintain operational security. If that has been compromised, then al Qaeda's importance as a force has diminished greatly.
Third, though further attacks could occur, it appears al Qaeda has lost the ability to alter the political decision-making of its targets. The Sept. 11 attack changed the world. The Madrid train attacks changed a government. This failed airliner attack only succeeded in closing an airport temporarily.
Fourth, the vanguard of militant Islam appears to have passed from Sunni/Wahhabi al Qaeda to *****e Iran and Hezbollah. It is Iran that is shaping Western policies on the Middle East, and Hezbollah who is directly engaged with Israel. Al Qaeda, in contrast, appears unable to do significantly more than issue snazzy videos.
This shift will obviously refocus Western -- and particularly U.S. -- foreign policy from the old threat to the new threat.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
-
cpxxx, I'm patient, but I refuse to wait in those lines to fly. Plus, I've got to juggle, two carry ons, large and small roller stacked up, while the wife carries "her purse". It's more like a f**king satchel, she just throws watermelon in it and goes. Receipts from a year out, and chit.
-
Liquid explosives in hand luggage has been used before. One of those irritating 'Seconds to disaster' type programmes covered the terrorist bombing of I think a Japanese airliner. He took all the bits on board and assembled it in the toilet and shoved it under a seat with a timer before getting off at the next airport.
-
coddammit. I have to fly back to friggen Oregon on the 24th. and I shall be danged if I have to pay 4 euro for liquid refreshment. They better be showing more in the way of entertainment on the way back then some Antonio Banderas crap, and Lindsey Lohans crap. If I cant take my laptop and a book.:mad: :mad:
-
Remember guys, they're only acting out of desperation. These tactics are their only means to get ahead in the war that the West started, and perpetuates. The brave, honorable jihadists need to be respected, statues need to be erected in their names. Allah be praised.
Now we play the waiting game. See how many ways reasonable, intelligent people can find to blame Israel and the West for forcing these fine human beings into a state of such hopeless oppression.
PS: WTG UK <>
-
While carpooling with my wife to work this morning listening to the news she commented; "that's it we should just nuke them all". I looked over at her and said; "that's why woman cannot be president, you are to emotional on these matters. It's not the right time yet for nukes".
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
While carpooling with my wife to work this morning listening to the news she commented; "that's it we should just nuke them all". I looked over at her and said; "that's why woman cannot be president, you are to emotional on these matters. It's not the right time yet for nukes".
I dunno. I think that provoking us is actually their main objective. They care little for the casualities or the damage they inflict, because while spectacular, it's still insignificant in the grand scheme of things. They care more about polarizing the world, turning this into a universal battle of Muslim vs. Infidel. They do us another 9/11, we nuke them. Our nukes then turn every moderate and passive Muslim in the world into a paranoid fanatic. The problem multiplies geometrically overnight. The world becomes a bloody couldron.
That's what the fanatic leaders want. With nothing to lose, and no respect for human life, their biggest goal is to generate the most fear, the most hatred and, ultimately, the biggest all-out conflict. They chant Jihad at the drop of a dime, but, in the end, it will be our actions that make the true Jihad a reality. I'd say they came close with 9/11. And with every act of senseless violence, they come closer, because they know that when all else fails, they can count on one thing--an all-out reaction from us.
I hate to repeat myself, but the only way to win this war is to stop buying their stinking fuel. If we last the ten or so years it will take those billionaire cretins to dry up their bank accounts, they won't have enough cash or will to carry this thing any further. Devoid of good-old cash, their lifeblood, they'll be left to rot in their desert cesspit.
Feasible? Who knows. But nothing else seems to work, and this has yet to be tried... Just imagine where the alternative fuel technologies would be if we just used that 200 or so billion for R&D. Instead we bomb Iraq into the stone age--where they'd been living all along.
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
It's not the right time yet for nukes".
I agree, so far it has not reached the point where we should abandon more conventional means. I think much can be accomplished with simple TNT...
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/black_and_white/fly_over.sized.jpg)
-
You know, the sad thing is because it was thwarted, this plot will be mostly forgotten in a few months time and once again we'll be stuck in the bizarre situation of having people ask "why do we need all these irritating security measures and intelligence gathering exercises and warnings and so on."
How many people in the US even remember the recent plot to attack the Canadian government for instance?
I sometimes think we might be in a stronger position to fight the war on the Jihadis if we weren't providentially detecting and dismantling their latest attrocities before they occur.
But I'm not sad that this didn't come to pass, just sad that we don't have memories longer than one media cycle.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I drive because so far... It makes me feel less like I live in some old black and white movie of a police state than I do when I go to the airport. I will avoid commercial airlines and airports like the plague.
anyone remmember how scared we all were watching those old movies of nazis or whatever carrying sub guns in their black uniforms and stopping and searching civilians boarding trains or at checkpoints at random? Now.... we ask for it to happen to us. Difference is that our black clad guys wear masks too.
lazs
I gotta say...Not once, have I ever remotely felt this going to an airport..
:noid :noid :noid
-
Nor have I.
-
Well done Metropolitan Police and MI5.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Third thread on this.
Too bad this one was first... I even checked 3 times before I posted it.
-
Even though these terrorists were UK citizens of Pakistani extraction, as I said in another thread, I have to wonder if this was to be Iran's "fire in the sky". Or maybe it was Al Queada since they seem to hide in Pakistan fairly regularly.
WTFG UK intelligence and police.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
You know, the sad thing is because it was thwarted, this plot will be mostly forgotten in a few months time and once again we'll be stuck in the bizarre situation of having people ask "why do we need all these irritating security measures and intelligence gathering exercises and warnings and so on."
How many people in the US even remember the recent plot to attack the Canadian government for instance?
I sometimes think we might be in a stronger position to fight the war on the Jihadis if we weren't providentially detecting and dismantling their latest attrocities before they occur.
But I'm not sad that this didn't come to pass, just sad that we don't have memories longer than one media cycle.
- SEAGOON
What pisses me off more is that as these things happen, those countries STILL want to "sweep it under the rug".
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
What pisses me off more is that as these things happen, those countries STILL want to "sweep it under the rug".
Hell bud, our OWN country, at least some of those in it, want to sweep this under the rug as well. I'll leave it to the readers as to decide who that might be.
-
Perfect timing for me as i'm flying to the Uk with my wife and inlaws on continental...
Here's what I think should be done:
1. Intern all muslims
2. give the muslim community 5 days to turn over bin laden and his Egyptian boyfriend and ALL other suspects.
3. If nothing after 5 days then drop a bomb on day 1 on the dome on the rock.
4. Day 2. Drop a bomb on Medina
5. Day 3. Drop a bomb on Mecca
Issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, syria and any others I've forgotten about and tell them that they are either for us or against us and we expect/demand Arrests
This is not a time for appeasement, not a time to "sit round a table and talk about it" guns and bombs work well in getting Muslims to listen, lets play by their rules and strike them hard where ever they may be hiding.
-
Send in...
Omega Force.
-
"Sir, the Helms amendment and NSC order 725 both specifically prohibit the use of Omega Force against Caucasians."
-
You wont see it but lets pretend in the streets of the free world, people are crowded together singing the praises of Scotalnd Yard and burning symbols of those that wish to do us harm. And on the television sets of the guilty, dirty faces watch with great disappointment and saddness.
-
WTG Scotland Yard!!!
:aok
Mac
-
Bloody hell, Seagoon
I sometimes think we might be in a stronger position to fight the war on the Jihadis if we weren't providentially detecting and dismantling their latest attrocities before they occur.
You want them to let the atrocities happen? Surely 9/11, the London bombings and all the other attacks are enough?
The British security services have had great success in thwarting attacks in Britain with the exception of the 7th of July last year. They need to be. The REAL question as I see is why Britain is such a nest of Islamic terrorists. Other countries have had security scares and attacks. But the British have foiled several that I can recall. A second bombing attack on London, A gas attack and several others I vaguely remember.
What is the problem with Britain and their Muslims?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I drive because so far... It makes me feel less like I live in some old black and white movie of a police state than I do when I go to the airport. I will avoid commercial airlines and airports like the plague.
anyone remmember how scared we all were watching those old movies of nazis or whatever carrying sub guns in their black uniforms and stopping and searching civilians boarding trains or at checkpoints at random? Now.... we ask for it to happen to us. Difference is that our black clad guys wear masks too.
lazs
Bingo. Fuel prices aren't the only reason airlines are going bankrupt.
-
"I think it is time for random full cavity searches berfore boarding planes."
A joke? Not necessarily if you think about it. That is a dangerous possibility.
"Excuse me sir, I need to "go"..off..*
-C+
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Perfect timing for me as i'm flying to the Uk with my wife and inlaws on continental...
Here's what I think should be done:
1. Intern all muslims
2. give the muslim community 5 days to turn over bin laden and his Egyptian boyfriend and ALL other suspects.
3. If nothing after 5 days then drop a bomb on day 1 on the dome on the rock.
4. Day 2. Drop a bomb on Medina
5. Day 3. Drop a bomb on Mecca
Issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, syria and any others I've forgotten about and tell them that they are either for us or against us and we expect/demand Arrests
This is not a time for appeasement, not a time to "sit round a table and talk about it" guns and bombs work well in getting Muslims to listen, lets play by their rules and strike them hard where ever they may be hiding.
Wow... we have become that which we abhor... terrorists.
-
Sandy, were our wartime actions in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo acts of terrorism to you?
-
If I remember right, treason is the only action for which the death penalty can still be applied in the UK.
STRING THEM UP.
[edit] Oops wrong -
"The death penalty for murder was abolished nearly 40 years ago by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, and replaced with a mandatory life sentence. The passing of the Act followed a great deal of debate both inside and outside Parliament over the death penalty.
The death penalty was retained for the capital offences of treason and piracy with violence, however it was abolished in 1998 under the Crime and Disorder Act.
In 1999 the home secretary signed the sixth protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights which formally abolished the death penalty in the UK and ensured it could not be brought back."
WTG Tony, you arnold.
-
"Sandy, were our wartime actions in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo acts of terrorism to you?"
You were i n w a r with Germans and Japanese.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Sandy, were our wartime actions in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo acts of terrorism to you?
Absolutely. Certainly there were targets of military value, but there was the added benefit of terrorizing the populace and testing the resolve of their governments.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hell bud, our OWN country, at least some of those in it, want to sweep this under the rug as well. I'll leave it to the readers as to decide who that might be.
Trust me, you saw through my sarcasm and we are BOTH on the same page. A shame we're both correct though.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Sandy, were our wartime actions in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo acts of terrorism to you?"
You were i n w a r with Germans and Japanese.
Agreed, and being in a state of declared war changes the definitions applied to one's actions. Right?
I definitely recall our president declaring war on all nations that support/harbor/encourage terrorists, and that congress voted nearly unanimously in support of that. Right?
I'm assuming you'll say "right" to those...so...follow the logic here...
How is dropping bombs on the cities of those, with whom you are currently engaged in a declared war with, acts of terrorism?
I guess if you say "wrong" to either of those then we do not have enough common ground to further explore this discussion.
[edit]Posted after reading Sandy's reply...
While he and I disagree (strongly) I can fully respect Sandy's position on this and admire him for his intellectual honesty.
-
"Agreed, and being in a state of declared war changes the definitions applied to one's actions. Right?"
Right.
"I definitely recall our president declaring war on all nations that support/harbor/encourage terrorists, and that congress voted nearly unanimously in support of that. Right?"
Right.
"I'm assuming you'll say "right" to those...so...follow the logic here...
How is dropping bombs on the cities of those, with whom you are currently engaged in a declared war with, acts of terrorism?"
Have you declared war with those countries in question, I mean, officially?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Have you declared war with those countries in question, I mean, officially? -C+
It is my understanding that the last country the US declared war on was Germany in WWII. I could be wrong though.
-
so cav.... how bad does it have to get "security" wise till you feel that you are in one of those old black and white movies?
How much freedom you willing to give up to feel "safe"?
Anyone who can recall going to an airport of even 10 years ago knows that those people would be apaled at being treated like criminals in an occupied nation like we are today.
when I look at the people in an airport... I get the impression that the terrorists are winning... when I see the patriot act... I feel they are winning.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charge
Have you declared war with those countries in question, I mean, officially?
Hmmm...good question...since none were named individually.....I thought the "all nations that" part covered them...I guess it is a subject open to debate.
[edit]
Jarred my (failing) memory hard enough to make me go look it up...dang you! Here's a transcript (snippage only, the speech was long, entire text to be found here http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/) of the president's own words issued before congress and the American public...
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.
We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.
We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"
We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack.
(bold text added by me in an attempt to answer a just question)
He didn't say "all" he said "any", my misquote.
-
Hi Cpxxx,
Originally posted by cpxxx
Bloody hell, Seagoon
You want them to let the atrocities happen? Surely 9/11, the London bombings and all the other attacks are enough?
Obviously not, which is why I wrote: "I'm not sad that this didn't come to pass, just sad that we don't have memories longer than one media cycle."
My problem is the general desire to forget that there are currently thousands of Jihadis feverishly plotting worldwide to blow up, poison, incinerate, or behead every non-Muslim they can and to act as though there was no danger. The only times we see a brief interruption of that desire is when we don't catch the bad guys, then for a little while Westerners act almost as though there are people out to kill them. Otherwise, its petty party politics as usual in Britain and the USA.
As to "what is the problem with Britain's Muslims" the answer is that Britain's Muslim population is disproportianately drawn from countries with a strong Jihadi presence and did little or nothing to control the more radical Masjids. If you want to learn more about Britain's growing problems in particular, pick up a book written by British Author Melanie Phillips called Londonistan: How Britian is Creating a Terror State Within (Gibson Square Books Ltd, June, 2006)
- SEAGOON
-
quote:Originally posted by lazs2
I drive because so far... It makes me feel less like I live in some old black and white movie of a police state than I do when I go to the airport. I will avoid commercial airlines and airports like the plague.
anyone remmember how scared we all were watching those old movies of nazis or whatever carrying sub guns in their black uniforms and stopping and searching civilians boarding trains or at checkpoints at random? Now.... we ask for it to happen to us. Difference is that our black clad guys wear masks too.
lazs
Bingo. Fuel prices aren't the only reason airlines are going bankrupt.
Seriously guys...Modern medicine has done wonders for people like you! Get some prozac!
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Perfect timing for me as i'm flying to the Uk with my wife and inlaws on continental...
Here's what I think should be done:
1. Intern all muslims
2. give the muslim community 5 days to turn over bin laden and his Egyptian boyfriend and ALL other suspects.
3. If nothing after 5 days then drop a bomb on day 1 on the dome on the rock.
4. Day 2. Drop a bomb on Medina
5. Day 3. Drop a bomb on Mecca
Issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, syria and any others I've forgotten about and tell them that they are either for us or against us and we expect/demand Arrests
This is not a time for appeasement, not a time to "sit round a table and talk about it" guns and bombs work well in getting Muslims to listen, lets play by their rules and strike them hard where ever they may be hiding.
I second that...
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Sandy, were our wartime actions in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo acts of terrorism to you?"
You were i n w a r with Germans and Japanese.
-C+
You can declare a war against a nation, whose soldiers carry flags and do their job out in the open. Not so easy to declare a war against a cockroach who hides in the shadows, and under rocks.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Seriously guys...Modern medicine has done wonders for people like you! Get some prozac!
It's reality. Airport security as all but killed the business commuter market. There's no point spending 2+ hours to get on an airplane that's only going to fly for an hour or less. It's faster and cheaper to simply drive.
-
The company I'm at now has done a look at their "typical" customer. Owners of the airplanes that are part 91 (owner used) flights were not considered. It was no surprise but especially since September 11th the business travel segment keeps growing and growing. Seeing as it makes up most of the 135 (charter) trips business keeps growing and growing.
Chartering an entry level jet such as a Citation 500 series airplane at $1500-$2000/flt hr starts to get economical especially when time en route is considered. Just weigh your options. Folks NEED to be someplace, they don't need to be standing in line.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's reality. Airport security as all but killed the business commuter market. There's no point spending 2+ hours to get on an airplane that's only going to fly for an hour or less. It's faster and cheaper to simply drive.
I am with Sandy and Laz here, security has gotten to the point I would rather driver for 8 hours then fly for 1.
Not to mention the service on planes sucks. The seats suck. Being packing in next to some ******* who is sick sucks. Being stuck on a plane with some *******s crying baby for 3 hours sucks. Air travel sucks ass.
All the added BS security makes it even worse.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Remember guys, they're only acting out of desperation. These tactics are their only means to get ahead in the war that the West started, and perpetuates. The brave, honorable jihadists need to be respected, statues need to be erected in their names. Allah be praised.
Now we play the waiting game. See how many ways reasonable, intelligent people can find to blame Israel and the West for forcing these fine human beings into a state of such hopeless oppression.
PS: WTG UK <>
Some undoubtedly will blame the West, the London bombers blamed UK foreign policy for their actions in a martyr video. They said the UK people had voted the govt into power and so were directly responsible for British troops killing their muslim brothers and sisters and therefore legitimate targets.
22% of UK Muslims believe the bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror, which to me is just mind boggling.
Research, for what its worth, is suggesting most suicide bombers are politically motivated and not crazed religious fanatics, some aren’t even particularly religious.
We do need more, dare I say it, understanding of what causes them to do what they do, not only to prevent them like today but also long term. True democracy will always defeat fanaticism, but governments need to wake up and start serving the people who elected them, not the lobbyists or the select few, maybe start telling the truth for once.
Blair stands up and says, Ok ok you win, we’re all in the middle east for the oil, we’re gonna lose a few, they’re gonna lose plenty, but its good for business and frankly, the British public wouldn’t be able to cope it if we didn’t go in.
Public says ‘Nooooo! Think of the children! Its immoral!
Blair – Ok troops back on Monday. Every household is allowed one car, to be used every 2nd week for 50 miles only. All non seasonal or foreign food is beyond the reach of all except the super rich elite, you’ve had your last Australian prawns. Holidays will now be on rotation and restricted to mainland UK only. Because BP and various other British companies have been paying an ungodly amount of money in taxes to all your pensions, and now of course wont, you all have to work a bit longer before getting your lovely pensions. OK?
Public – Bloody hell!
-
First off------ Way to freaking go Brits!!!!! Outfreakinstanding bit of work there!!!!
Secondly,
The Brits were able to find a plot that would have sailed right through securuty as we had known it. They had to go to a rather esoteric method of explosives and a rather cumbersome method of assembly and ignition. Why did they have to go to that extreme? Because there IS security at airports.
I recall when the planes were hijacked and the results of 9/11. I recall some of the things asked was how could that happen? How did they get those weapons ON airplanes? Why didn't THEY stop them before the terrosts got on the plane? Why didn't THEY find them before they finshed the preperation for this act?
Well it's been some time and ANOTHER plot involving airlines has come about. What's the biggest complaint about this?
WHY do we have to go through all this _)(*&^$&^%$#&^)*&^%!!!! security at the airport???? WWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! we are SO infringed, inconvenienced and it's so bad, poor poor me!!!!!
GROW THE FREAK UP PEOPLE!!!! You whine when the security is lax and bad things happen. You whined when that hugahunk got the "shoebomb" got on the airplane. Most of all you WHINE because there is security in the airport and you are SO inconvenienced. Too damn bad! The world is obviously NOT a friendly place. Get over it. Drive then if you just can't bear security at airports but start being an adult and STFU about it.
-
Excellent job by the Brits...
Now somebody tell me how the Iraq war helped in all this? I wonder how much easier it would be to fight "terror" if we had all those resources actually fighting "terror".
-
The small minded ****s didn't think it through. I wonder how much terror they expected to extract by knocking down 10 aircraft.
Big ****ing deal. If this is the best that they can come up with, they are doomed.
-
This is a rather ominous wake up call.
The public has been steadily going back to sleep for the last four years.
Many Americans have some dangerous attitude about all this. With every successful interdiction against terrorist plots, their arrogance grows, and they start to underestimate the enemy.
But the growing apathy of the public is even more dangerous.
-
I'd rather have them thinking small rather than big.
The last thing we need is something like September 11th again. 3000 dead the first time around was enough for me to have enough resolve to see through to the end. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Excellent job by the Brits...
Now somebody tell me how the Iraq war helped in all this? I wonder how much easier it would be to fight "terror" if we had all those resources actually fighting "terror".
The war on terror is larger then the physical attacks of September 11th...It is against the entire ideology of anti west, placing fear, and hatred....
And for all of you who care complaining about your civil libs, and how they have been infringed....
Less you not forget, "The pursuit of LIFE, liberty and happiness (sp)...Notice LIFE coming first...Whenever I hear you people say we are losing so much by adding security, over freedom's, I really think you are forgetting what it would be like to lose "so much"...To lose everything....WHICH IS YOUR LIFE...
Take the United Kingdom for example...There laws allow much easier investigation into terror...Instead of probable cause, they can use probable suspicion...If Joe has recently been associating with Ned, and Ned is a known extremist, the United Kingdon uses that suspicon(sp) as grounds for search and possibly seizure...
Many would argue thats infringing on civil liberties, but I wouldnt say that the people of the UK are living in fear of a government invading their privacy
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Excellent job by the Brits...
Now somebody tell me how the Iraq war helped in all this? I wonder how much easier it would be to fight "terror" if we had all those resources actually fighting "terror".
This is just an observation, but obviously resource allocation goes both ways.
For the last 3 years, Iraq has been a whirlpool sucking in hordes of eager Jihadis, wads of terrorist cash, and tons of high explosives. These "assets" which have been expended at a rather staggering loss rate against our military would have been allocated elsewhere and more than likely used against softer civilian targets. Yes, we are devastated to have lost 2,500 troops (and that includes friends and acquaintances in my case) but one of the reasons AQ and other organizations haven't been too successfull in the West since 9/11 is that the majority of their assets have been committed to Iraq.
Frankly, if there is any value to the conflict in Iraq, it has been that we've been able to fight the Jihadis in a sandbox far from home rather than having to constantly guess where they will be attacking next in Europe and North America.
Also, from a strategic point of view, it has kept the Jihadis themselves divided. Currently within the Muslim brotherhood organizations, there is a huge argument over whether the emphasis should be on ejecting the infidels from the Dar-El-Islam or immediately carrying the Jihad to their territories. AQ is in favor of doing both at the same time, most however favor a purge of the middle east first before moving on to the "cleansing" of the West. If there was no infidel presence in the Dar-El-Islam, the argument over "kill them at home or away" wouldn't exist.
- SEAGOON
-
You can't just nuke Mecca off the face of the earth. Mecca is the most holy place in the entire world to many, many Americans.
Kind of easy to forget that, huh?
-
Oh for Heaven's sake. The U.S. isn't going to NUKE anybody...unless they nuke us first.
Those suggesting that middle eastern countries be nuked are just spouting off to make a point. They're not serious.
If Mecca is ever turned into a sheet of radioactive glass it will not be us that does it.
If an Isamic government in the middle east ever develops a nuke and a delivery system, and believes they can get away with it, they will bomb Tel Aviv.
Count on it.
-
2 be honest, I actually question whether the US would respond from a nuclear terror attack with nukes?????? Country has gone so far left, and it seems like collateral damage, or casualty's of war (foreign) are more important then our well being.....I just dont see how we could do it
-
Hell...With all the bleeding heart socialists, and liberals, I question whether the US could even fight, on its own terms, a conventional war if attacked by another nation state...What happen's when we bomb their weapons and logistic factory's, and "workers" are killed...Will the bleeding hearts side with them, as they do in this war? Are the bleeding heart liberals really limiting the countrys ability to wage war? I really hope not, but I fear we may already be experiencing it
-
NEVAR FORGET!!!
(http://www.mikewaltz.net/stuff/dogwtc.jpg)
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
*edit* Nvm, Seagoon beat me to it ;)
-
Originally posted by Trikky
Some undoubtedly will blame the West,
Democrat Harry Reid already blames Bush! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207869,00.html)
Anyone suprised?
-
Originally posted by Golfer
I'd rather have them thinking small rather than big.
The last thing we need is something like September 11th again. 3000 dead the first time around was enough for me to have enough resolve to see through to the end. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.
If they popped 10 intercontinental wide-bodies (as was their reported goal) the death toll would be above that figure. perhpas not the finacial hit to infrastructure/companies/banking/etc. as 9-11 but death toll would certainly be equal or greater.
Originally posted by Shuckins
If an Isamic government in the middle east ever develops a nuke and a delivery system, and believes they can get away with it, they will bomb Tel Aviv.
I agree, minus the "get away with it" part, they don't intend to get away with anything, they're obviously suicidal.
-
"I agree, minus the "get away with it" part, they don't intend to get away with anything, they're obviously suicidal."
Well, I doubt that. The masterminds are not going to sacrifice themselves in any circumstance but are eager to find morons who will.
-C+
-
heard it could have been as many as 4000 dead which would have topped 9/11
the terror of the unknown as to how it had happened if they'd blown them up mid flight over the atlantic would have caused as much of an uproar as the attacks themselves
I have a solution to future airline bombings/hijackings:
Muslim Airways
"We take one as close to Allah as one can get without a bomb belt"
If a muslim wants to fly, he/she has to fly on that airlines, flown by muslim pilots. Each plane would have a self destruct mechanism on board so if anything funny happened, ie a u turn towards the White House, with a push of a button from the ground controller, the threat is neutralized. I do not believe they would want to explode themselves over the atlantic if the plane was full of their brothers but if they did, all the better...
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
For the last 3 years, Iraq has been a whirlpool sucking in hordes of eager Jihadis, wads of terrorist cash, and tons of high explosives. These "assets" which have been expended at a rather staggering loss rate against our military would have been allocated elsewhere and more than likely used against softer civilian targets. Yes, we are devastated to have lost 2,500 troops (and that includes friends and acquaintances in my case) but one of the reasons AQ and other organizations haven't been too successfull in the West since 9/11 is that the majority of their assets have been committed to Iraq.
Frankly, if there is any value to the conflict in Iraq, it has been that we've been able to fight the Jihadis in a sandbox far from home rather than having to constantly guess where they will be attacking next in Europe and North America.
The "flypaper" thesis is bunk I'm afraid Seagoon. The majority (90% +) of Iraqi insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign global jihadists. Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html). Of course, this begs the question; if Iraq was such a hotbed of jihadis before the invasion, how come comparatively few if any Iraqis have ever been implicated in any major terrorist plot outside of Iraq? The answer is of course that what is happening in Iraq by and large a local reaction to the occupation, and is only related to a so-called global jihad in the minds of certain people whose agenda is served by that supposition.
Moreover, the report that underlines the low incidence of foreigners in Iraq as a proportion of the insugents there has this to say on the subject of Saudi insurgents there.
..the vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
So rather that attracting militants who would have otherwise attacked the west, the invasion actually created militants who otherwise may not have taken up arms at all, just as many people warned back in 2002.
So much for that dubious theory I'm afraid.
Currently within the Muslim brotherhood organizations, there is a huge argument over whether the emphasis should be on ejecting the infidels from the Dar-El-Islam or immediately carrying the Jihad to their territories. AQ is in favor of doing both at the same time, most however favor a purge of the middle east first before moving on to the "cleansing" of the West.
You know what's coming here don't you......?
Source please. :)
-
Whatever it takes to get the diaperheads to attack an M1 Abrams instead of commercial airliners is a good stragey in my book.
I'd hazard a guess that the crew of the Abrams would agree as well.
-
Maybe you should take the time to read and digest the sources kindly provided for you before responding?
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of CSIS...Extremists in Iraq are "exposed to international networks from around the world," said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. "They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play."
-
Read, digest, consider, and reject the failed policies of European appeasement, okay...done.
I can see it now..."Peace in our time"...kum-buy-yah...woot!
-
You're not very quick on the uptake are you? The 9/11 attacks were carried out by radicals who used Afghanistan as a staging and training base before returning to europe to plan the attacks. As a consequence, Afganistan was invaded and the environment that enabled the preparation for the attacks was eliminated. However, in attacking Iraq for no good reason other than a neo-conservative fantasy, another Afghanistan may have been created, only a bigger, meaner version. We may as well not have invaded Afgahistan at all. Do you think your brainless policies might actually be part of the cause of the problem? Starting to get it yet?
-
so momus... you are saying that the guys who are terrorists in iraq now would have just remained law abiding non threatening little fundamentalists forever if we wouldn't have pushed em over the edge?
maybe a few but... these guys are darn easy to push over the edge in my opinon... they are going to another country to blow the citizens of that country to bits with car bombs in market places and strapped to their bodies... they are trying to take down the airplanes that they are sitting in..
Would that not indicate that these were some pretty whacked out nutjobs by any defenition?
I guess you are saying that if we don't stir em up most of em will just starve to death or be butchered under their own leaders (or do the butchering) and not be a problem for us?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
all liquids are banned on all flights in the US.
except perhaps fuel when the plane is in a hurry to get places
-
Oh I get it alright. Anyone who doesn't see things your way is (using your words here):
"bunk"
"not quick on the uptake"
"brainless"
"[living in a] fantasy"
Thats okay though, continue hurling your personal attacks.
-
wasn't Iraq paying families of the pal belt bomber cheekboness 25 grand a "pop"?
nah, no hint of terrorist activity in Iraq before crazy bush "invaded" that utopia with his "occupation" bound armed forces
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so momus... you are saying that the guys who are terrorists in iraq now would have just remained law abiding non threatening little fundamentalists forever if we wouldn't have pushed em over the edge?
If someone bombed and invaded your country would you just roll over and play nice or would you resist? (I think you'd roll-over and suck it up)
these guys are darn easy to push over the edge in my opinon... they are going to another country to blow the citizens of that country to bits with car bombs in market places and strapped to their bodies... they are trying to take down the airplanes that they are sitting in..
Yes, and the previous government was doing a really good job of stopping these nutjobs before we arrived.
I guess you are saying that if we don't stir em up most of em will just starve to death or be butchered under their own leaders (or do the butchering) and not be a problem for us?
No, that's a straw man of your own making.
Funny Edbert. Yes I used those exact words. I also provided a series of fact based arguments that you once again have totally failed to answer other than to go "OMG EURO APPEESER LOLLOLOLOL!!111" Should we try again later when mommy has given you your ritalin?
Yes Eagler, Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. So do US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar and a host of other muslim nations. Are you arguing that we invaded Iraq and spent $300+ billion to save a few Israelis? Wouldn't it just have been cheaper and more effective to pay the Palestinians NOT to bomb Israel, say double what Saddam was offering? Or maybe just tell Saddam to stop doing paying them or else? Why hasn't Bush made an issue of the Saudis doing the same thing? What do ya reckon?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You're not very quick on the uptake are you? Starting to get it yet?
Munich Olympic Massacre, Sept. 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany.
Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973: US Ambassador to Sudan Cleo A. Noel and other diplomats were assassinated at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum by members of the Black September organization.
Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader -- Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the airplane to land in Uganda, where on July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.
Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release Jan. 20, 1981.
Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov. 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.
Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct. 6, 1981: Soldiers who were secretly members of the Takfir Wal-Hajira sect attacked and killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during a troop review.
Assassination of Lebanese President, Sept. 14, 1982: Premier Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by a car bomb parked outside his party's Beirut headquarters.
Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-three people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were killed and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Oct. 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the US compound, killed 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: The Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered political officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. Other US citizens not connected to the US government were seized over a succeeding two-year period.
Restaurant Bombing, April 12, 1984: Eighteen US servicemen were killed and 83 people were injured in a bomb attack on a restaurant near a US air base in Torrejon, Spain. Responsibility was claimed by Hezbollah.
TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a US Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.
Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, Sept. 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. One was killed, and three were later released.
Achille Lauro Hijacking, Oct. 7, 1985: Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One US passenger was murdered before the Egyptian government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom.
Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov. 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several US citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal group.
Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four US citizens.
Berlin Discotheque Bombing, April 5, 1986: Two US soldiers were killed and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin. In retaliation, US military jets bombed targets in and around Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya.
Kidnapping of William Higgins, Feb. 17, 1988: US Marine Corps Lt. Col. W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian -- backed Hezbollah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.
Pan Am 103 Bombing, Dec. 21, 1988: Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft in Frankfurt, West Germany, by Libyan terrorists. All 259 people on board were killed.
Attempted Iraqi Attacks on US Posts, Jan. 18 -- 19, 1991: Iraqi agents planted bombs at the US ambassador to Indonesia's home residence and at the US Information Service library in Manila.
Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hezbollah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.
World Trade Center Bombing, Feb. 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left six people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.
Hebron Massacre, Feb. 25, 1994: Jewish right-wing extremist and US citizen Baruch Goldstein machine-gunned Moslem worshipers at a mosque in the West Bank town of Hebron, killing 29 and wounding about 150.
FARC Hostage-taking, Sept. 23, 1994: FARC rebels kidnapped US citizen Thomas Hargrove in Colombia.
Air France Hijacking, Dec. 24, 1994: Members of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) seized an Air France flight. The four terrorists were killed during the rescue effort.
Jerusalem Bus Attack, Aug. 21, 1995: Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several US citizens.
Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov. 13, 1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one US citizen, several foreign national employees of the US government, and more than 40 others.
Egyptian Embassy Attack, Nov. 19, 1995: A suicide bomber drove a vehicle into the Egyptian Embassy compound in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 16 and injuring 60 persons. Three militant Islamic groups claimed responsibility.
Hamas Bus Attack, Feb. 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three US citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.
Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including two US citizens.
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 US military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 US personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.
Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, Aug. 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the archbishop's meeting with the French foreign minister. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.
PUK Kidnapping, Sept. 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis.
Paris Subway Explosion, Dec. 3, 1996: A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a Canadian and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were one US citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected.
Egyptian Letter Bombs, Jan. 2 -- 13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, D.C., New York City, London, and Riyadh.
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, Feb. 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the US, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."
Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept. 4, 1997: Three suicide bombers of Hamas detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual US -- Israeli citizen was among the dead, and seven US citizens were wounded.
-
Tourist Killings in Egypt, Nov. 17, 1997: Al-Gama' at al-Islamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor.
Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a US citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a subclan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.
US Embassy Bombings in East Africa, Aug. 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 US citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. About 5,000 Kenyans, six US citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The US Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing seven FSNs and three Tanzanian citizens and injuring one US citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the US Embassy facility. The US government held Osama bin Laden responsible.
Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, Aug. 12, 2000: In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four US citizens hostage. The Americans escaped Aug. 12.
Attack on USS Cole, Oct. 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dinghy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Osama bin Laden were suspected.
Manila Bombing, Dec. 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the US Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.
Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of Hamas detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in K far Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.
Tel Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing of a popular Israeli nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.
Hamas Restaurant Bombing, Aug. 9, 2001: A Hamas -- planted bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 people and wounding more than 90.
Terrorist Attacks on US Homeland, Sept. 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked airplane, and a fourth hijacked airplane crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. More than 5,000 US citizens and other nationals were killed as a result of these acts.
I got it a long time ago. Personally the ONLY negotiator for the Terrorists in this world, should be a bullet in their head.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Funny Edbert. Yes I used those exact words. I also provided a series of fact based arguments that you once again have totally failed to answer other than to go "OMG EURO APPEESER LOLLOLOLOL!!111" Should we try again later when mommy has given you your ritalin?
Sheesh, can we stop the personal attacks already, don;t need an MP here do we?
I see not one single fact in your post, nothing more than opinions, which of course you are entitled to, just like everyone else. I have found that it is usually preferable to attack an oponents policy with common sense rather than personal attacks is all. I attacked the "policy of appeasement", as history is replete with examples of it's (the policy's) failure; I did not attack those who hold to said policy. I guess if you see me adding the term "European" in front of the term "policy of appeasement" as an insult or attack then you're the one who needs to do some soul-searching.
Edited to add quote at top for context, it appeared I was referring my friend the floyd-fan Karaya
-
Masherbrum, I bow to your elite cut and paste skills. You unfortunately forgot to include a point though.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Masherbrum, I bow to your elite cut and paste skills. You unfortunately forgot to include a point though.
You should set down the watermelon shovel, you look a little tired. Take a shower, looks like you went swimming while trying to find your shovel. How's that for a point?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Masherbrum, I bow to your elite cut and paste skills. You unfortunately forgot to include a point though.
The point is obvious, the region was replete with terrorism before we invaded and that these whackos are not of our creation as you maintain. It's not that hard to figure out, you're a relatively intelligent person, keep trying, you'll get there.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
The point is obvious, the region was replete with terrorism before we invaded and that these whackos are not of our creation as you maintain. It's not that hard to figure out, you're a relatively intelligent person, keep trying, you'll get there.
He is FAR from intelligent. But the rest of your post speaks volumes and obviously the "intelligent one" missed it. :aok
-
Would you like me to cut and paste a hundred line non-sequitur in response or are you actually going to explain the point of your spam?
-
I see you're both having trouble with your reading comprehension. My intial post was in response to Seagoon's comment regarding activity specifically in Iraq. It quoted a fairly detailed report from a quite credible agency that directly undermines Seagoons assertion. A source for the information was provided. None of what either of you have subsequently posted comes even near to addressing that argument.
Care to try again?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Would you like me to cut and paste a hundred line non-sequitur in response or are you actually going to explain the point of your spam?
His point is simple. Your position that the invasion of Iraq created more terrorism is complete and utter Bravo Sierra. Even the latest incident has nothing to do with Iraq. The perpetrators appear to be UK citizens of Pakistani extraction, either 1st or 2nd generation.
As to who would roll over and suck what up, we know exactly what you'd do, you've covered that pretty well.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I see you're both having trouble with your reading comprehension.
Sigh...
Originally posted by Momus--
My intial post was in response to Seagoon's comment regarding activity specifically in Iraq. It quoted a fairly detailed report from a quite credible agency that directly undermines Seagoons assertion. A source for the information was provided.
I read it, nothing there other than opinion, and I am NOT invalidating opinion, just recognizing that opinion does not equal fact. Karaya's post on the other hand it almost entirely fact without one person's opinion being interjected and you discount it as being pointless.
Originally posted by Momus--
None of what either of you have subsequently posted comes even near to addressing that argument.
In your opinion...fine. But I'm sure that many who read this will see otherwise. Let me summarize...
1.) You say that Islamofascists are the result of our invasion of Iraq.
2.) You paste an op-ed peice to support that theory.
3.) We say they existed before said invasion.
4.) You hurl personal insults.
5.) I call you out for resorting to personal insults.
6.) I say that appeasing terrorists will fail since appeasing violent sociopaths has never worked before.
7.) You hurl more personal attacks.
8.) Karaya posts a long list of HISTORICAL FACTS to support the notion that there were terrorists before we invade Iraq.
9.) You fail to see the point.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
-
Within the context of Iraq Virgil, I think you're certainly wrong. Why don't you you look at the evidence I linked to and tell me why you think the CSIS is mistaken. Here are direct links to the reports I quoted.
Link (http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,2789/type,1/), Link (http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,2366/type,1/)
Now, regarding the question as to whether invading Iraq has caused terrorism in general to increase, that is also arguable. Certainly, terrorism has increased hugely across the globe since the invasion, even according to the US State Department's own figures and excluding the attacks by the Iraqi insurgents. I've provided links to these reports previously and can dig them out if you would like to see them again.
Now, we can argue as to whether the Iraq invasion has caused this increase or not; there is certainly some evidence to suggest that that might be the case anyway. The main point however is that, after five years of the pursuit of the war on terror, the problem has been made an order of magnitude worse, not better. Now why do you think that is?
Edbert,
That wasn't an Op-Ed but an article summarising other reports on the subject. Judging by the amount of time it took for you to post I don't believe you even looked beyond the first page.
You say that Islamofascists are the result of our invasion of Iraq.
No. I said the insurgency in Iraq has created militants where non existed previously and that most of these are not global jihadists but home-grown Iraqis. The reports cited bear this out.
You paste an op-ed peice to support that theory.
No, I posted an article that linked to a specialist agency that had reported on the subject.
We say they existed before said invasion.
Which is an opinion for which you haven't offered a shred of supporting evidence. I'll ask again. How many Iraqis were implicated in any of the attacks Masherbrum listed?
You hurl personal insults.
And labelling someone an appeaser without even directing your efforts towards their argument isn't a personal attack?
I say that appeasing terrorists will fail since appeasing violent sociopaths has never worked before.
You're really the only one talking about appeasement. Great straw man you've got there.
You hurl more personal attacks.
If you can't take it don't dish it out to start with.
Karaya posts a long list of HISTORICAL FACTS to support the notion that there were terrorists before we invade Iraq.
Which is a total nonsense because not once ever have I suggested that there was no terrorism before Iraq was invaded. If I have you should be able to find a quote. Go for it.
You fail to see the point.
I see it all to clearly thanks.
-
i think CSIS is wrong, source, ME
-
Given the Metropolitan Police force's recent record in counter-terrorism, I'd hold off on the congratulations until their latest suspects have actually been tried and found guilty.
IIRC there was much rejoicing in here when they excuted that Brazilian electrician. Strike one for The War On Terror (TWOT) there: his only crime appears to have been looking a bit foreign.
There was no doubt wooting aplenty in here when they shot that Bangladeshi guy in the chest before releasing him and his brother without charges.
Perhaps we should all heed the wise words of the President: "Fool me once shame on... shame on you... fool me... can't get fooled again."
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Which is an opinion for which you haven't offered a shred of supporting evidence. I'll ask again. How many Iraqis were implicated in any of the attacks Masherbrum listed?
I see it all to clearly thanks.
Tell that to the Iraqi families who are falling victim to the Suicide Attacks. They appreciate the US being there and deposing Saddam. But then again, what do I know? I only have 3 friends serving over there in different regions and all say the same thing. The Iraqi people WANT us here.
But, you are a different breed. You will "by hook or by crook" try to be right no matter how wrong you are.
As far as Reading Comprehension, I read 1700 words a minute with 100% comprehension. What's next, a spelling contest?
-
I take it that in spite of your reading comprehension skills you can't actually answer the question then Masherbrum? Ok, I won't dwell on it.
Incidentally, it isn't just the CSIS that takes the view that most insurgents in Iraq are actually Iraqis and not foreigners. Senior figures in the US military apparently share the same view.
Link for your review. (http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/06/09/168406.html)
I'm not going to disagree that many locals your soldier friends meet welcome the US presence in Iraq. Serving british army friends of mine tell me the same thing. They also tell me though that the insugency is very much a consequence of the occupation, which is exactly what the US Major General admits in the article I've linked to above. This was the central point I was making before we descended into mud flinging
Now you can assume I'm post on this subject because of political partisanship or to score points but you are totally wrong. I am posting this because whatever the actual scale of the threat, I want to see militant Islam beaten and because I think the policies being pursued are illogical, counter-productive and wasteful of both lives and material. Moreover, I think that the situation nearly five years on from the 9/11 attacks demonstrates this succinctly.
-
Momus,
You want to see militant islamics beaten. Ok, how?
As to the premise that the war in iraq has created vast numbers of terrorists. Please show the population figures for terrorists before the war. Until you can show that population has increased over what was already there, the statement is rather specious.
One thing that has been documented is the amount of weapons and munition they have expended and the number of insurgents of all nationalities that have been killed or captured. One might draw the conclusion that the number of terrorists in the world has been dropping rather than rising since there is no such census data that I am aware of for terrorists.
I'm not arguing either way, I just want to see the debate kept relevent.
-
Better. Link was a good read. My question of the "99.9%", are these *****e or Suuni? I understand the two groups quarrel constantly and have for a long time. I do understand that Western Values aren't liked by the cultures of the Middle East. I have read of instances that during the Gulf War, buses taking the US Troops to the front staging areas had no US Flags on them because the Saudis wouldn't allow it. So in a way, I could definately see some issues with some Iraqi's wishing "them to go away" per se.
I've called a truce on the mud slinging. <>
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You want to see militant islamics beaten. Ok, how?
There's no simple answer but here is a very quick and dirty summary of how I would maybe go about it.
1. Encourage political and economic liberalisation in as many Arab states as possible. By this, I don't mean *forcing* democracy on them. That has to develop as a natural consequence of the liberalisation process or else it risks implosion. One of the elements most fundamental for a secular liberal democracy is a large and prosperous middle-class, which is a natural consequence of economic development. This is why there are so many problems in Iraq today, because the Ba'ath Party had largely co-opted the secular, professional classes, who then lost all their social status when the regime collapsed. This was the biggest single failure of the Iraqi operation; what we should have done was allied ourselves with the Ba'athists; not the Saddams but the mid level professionals, soldiers, civil servants, all the people who make a modern state function. Iraq is an unknown quantity now; the best we can hope for is that it remains stable long enough for civil society to take root again. Nevertheless, this should be the attitude to take with regard to places like Syria and Egypt. Economic development is what the west and the USA in particular does best; prosperous people don't turn easily to extremism, so focus on incentives that help raise the lives of ordinary people.
2. Kill as many of the extremist leaders as possible but do it quietly and without fuss. Don't go announcing our intentions on CNN or Fox, and don't claim credit when we kill one. The west holds all the aces when it comes to special forces, so use them. Otherwise train secularly-inclined muslims to kill them for us. I would also look at killing-off all of the Wahabist clerics in Saudi Arabia and I'd serve notice on the Saudi Royal family that the good times are over and unless they liberalise the Kingdom, we arm the Syrians, the Iraqis and the Egyptians and let them loose on the Sauds. The Saudi Sheiks are probably one of the most despised groups in the region; the other Arab states wouldn't need much encouragement, and most importantly of all, the rest of the Muslim world would see it as an internal arab matter and not the west imposing it's will on the muslims. This is important.
3. Get used to expensive oil. It isn't going to get any cheaper with a liberalised middle-east milking extraction for tax revenue. It's going to run out sooner or later anyway, so get used to using less or even better using alternatives. Stop propping up corrupt local elites for the purpose of guaranteeing cheap oil. That is one of the main causes of today's problems.
4. Cut the link between the hardcore of extremists and the masses from which they recruit. This means removing the percieved injustices with which they rally support. If they can't recruit they will whither and die. Solve the Israel-Palestinian problem once and for all. Use some of the $billions currently being spent on a Iraq to compensate all the jews displaced from arab countries and the arabs displaced from Israel. Stop worrying about who started the conflict and instead focus on what is needed to end it. This would undermine people like Hamas who depend on arabs being rat-poor and desperate for their popular support. As well as undermining the Islamists massively, it would also hurt the few the Israeli ideologues who like to keep a low-level conflict going in order to maintain their colonisation of the West Bank under the pretext of security. Both these groups want the conflict to on for as long as possible, so deal with it ASAP.
5. Recognise that when dealing with the Arabs, perception is everything. The main message of the jihadis is that Islam is under attack by the west. Unfortunateley, we have a habit of acting in ways that confirm this message. At every step of the way, it must appear that change is being driven internally, and that if blood needs to be shed, it must be presented as a muslim vs muslim affair.
6. Offer the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran in return for the ending of their nuclear program. The resulting economic stimulus would spell the end of the mullah's stranglehold over the urban poor and the impoverished middle-classes and you'd see genuine internal regime change there within a decade.
7. Have faith in western culture and its power to spread into the lives of these people, but don't force it down their throats. They must feel that they are adopting our ways of their own volition.
Like I said, quick and dirty, but It's Friday night and there's beer in the refrigerator. :)
-
Momus,
I would have thought that following violent rioting throughout the Islamic world following the publication cartoons in a Danish newspaper, which featured average Muslims not affiliated with terrorist groups carrying signs like "Behead all Blasphemers" that the intelligentsia's darling "tiny minority of extremists" theory would have been shredded and it would have become clear even in Europe that we are dealing with a movement that is set on eliminating any competing worldview by whatever means necessary. But apparently the Western "it must be political and all our fault" self-loathing theory dies hard.
Alright then, lets take the example of a July 28th survey of Indonesian Muslims in the Jakarta post. As you are well aware, Indonesia is about as far from Iraq as it is possible to be and still be in a predominantly Muslim nation. Indonesians certainly aren't fighting any "foriegn invasion" and yet here are the results of the survey:
Up to 1.3 percent of Indonesian Muslims nationwide admit using violence against people or objects they consider contradictory to their beliefs, a survey found, with more than 40 percent ready to wage war for their faith.
Acts of violence in the survey on religion and violence by the Center for Islamic and Social Studies (PPIM) ranged from 0.1 percent of respondents admitting their involvement in demolishing or arson of churches constructed without official permits, to 1.3 percent who committed "intimidation" against those they considered had blasphemed Islam.
The survey spanned 1,200 Muslims in 30 of the country's 33 provinces.
And exactly how is the Islamic insurgency in Thailand which has claimed 1,500 lives the fault of America and England? (or Indonesia, Or Sudan, or Darfur, or Northern Nigeria, or Chechnya, or Western China, or etc., etc., etc.) Is it even remotely possible that the existence of a worldwide Jihad since the seventh century might just have something to do with Islam? Maybe?
As far as the ongoing Muslim Brotherhood argument over here or there, that's the result of reading the Jihadists and organizations like SITE that monitor them. The argument naturally flows from Hasan al Bana's two stage manifesto for the Muslim brotherhood groups:
"Our task in general is to stand against the flood of modernist civilization overflowing from the swamp of materialistic and sinful desires. This flood has swept the Muslim nation away from the Prophet’s leadership and Koranic guidance and deprived the world of its guiding light. Western secularism moved into a Muslim world already estranged from its Koranic roots, and delayed its advancement for centuries, and will continue to do so until we drive it from our lands. Moreover, we will not stop at this point, but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world. Only then will Muslims achieve their fundamental goal, and there will be no more 'persecution’ and all religion will be exclusively for Allah….”
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, none of what you're posting in anyway undermines the information I posted on Iraq and the insurgency. You think it's a manifestation of a global jihad. The facts apparently say it's a local affair.
Regarding the rest of your post, supply the source you're citing and I'll get back to you.
Beer calling now.
-
I imagine Seagoon that you would be highly disappointed if only 40% of Christians were ready to fight for their religion.
-
Momus,
Exactly how arew you going to solve the Isreal / Palistinian problem? By paying the population to be happy? I don't see that as happening as one side wants the other side wiped out.
Frankly I see no way of changing the "perceptions" of the muslim population since they get most of them home grown from their rather slanted media and imams.
I believe sanctions were threatened for iran unless they stopped their nuke program. Are you saying there were significant sanctions already in place? How are you going to insure they really really do stop their nuke development even if sanctions, if any, are dropped?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, none of what you're posting in anyway undermines the information I posted on Iraq and the insurgency. You think it's a manifestation of a global jihad. The facts apparently say it's a local affair.
Regarding the rest of your post, supply the source you're citing and I'll get back to you.
Beer calling now.
There was another thread with information about the insurgency in Iraq titled *Iraq's current situation (analysis)* started by Edbert. His opening posts include to much info to copy and paste, but gives a good analysis of the insurgency as it stands now.
As far as Seagoon's post goes, he is simply showing that this isnt just a problem in Iraq. It is rapidly becoming a worldwide issue. Just look at the issues Great Britain is having with it's muslims and the riots in France and you can see that this issue is already affecting Europe.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Exactly how arew you going to solve the Isreal / Palistinian problem? By paying the population to be happy?
Yes basically. Wouldn't you be happy if someone gave you a load of cash?
Frankly I see no way of changing the "perceptions" of the muslim population since they get most of them home grown from their rather slanted media and imams.
Like I said, have more faith in western culture. The Imams only hold sway because they exploit feelings of victimhood in their followers. Show me one prosperous modern society where islam in the vein of Hamas or Hezbollah is predominant. There are none.
I believe sanctions were threatened for iran unless they stopped their nuke program. Are you saying there were significant sanctions already in place?
Yes. The USA maintains unilateral trade sanctions against Iran that also penalise foreign firms that do business with Iran.
How are you going to insure they really really do stop their nuke development even if sanctions, if any, are dropped?
Via the same means that we found out they had restarted their program in the first place, IAEA monitoring.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As far as Seagoon's post goes, he is simply showing that this isnt just a problem in Iraq. It is rapidly becoming a worldwide issue. Just look at the issues Great Britain is having with it's muslims and the riots in France and you can see that this issue is already affecting Europe.
Ok firstly, yes this is occurring all over the world to a greater or lesser extent. In most cases though it is just local issues being expressed through in a religious frame of reference. We must try to keep a sense of proportion. One of the main hopes of the jihadist leaders is that we over-react and further reinforce their key message that we are out to get all muslims. However, if the proportion of muslims that certain people like to claim really hold an existential desire to kill the infidel was really correct, we would be seeing attacks on a huges scale instead of comparatively infrequent attacks in western country. It only took 19 to pull off the 9/11 attacks after all.
Secondly, in the case of France, the riots to which you refer were not religious riots, they were social in nature. Islam was not the driving force; that is just the way elements of the media spun it. As for Britain, we has long experience of dealing with terrorist threats - we will deal with our problem I am sure.
-
Momus,
I too have Friday night stuff to get to so I don't have time for a long reply, though the beer will have to wait till after the pastoral visiting is done.
But just one observation in your agenda for success above. It suffers from the central, fatal misunderstanding most Western politically minded secularists have regarding the middle-east. It doesn't take into account that religion and not politics or even money or oil is the central and most important factor in the Middle-East. As a result we grievously underestimate the importance of faith in our "strategery."
Just as you could offer me any "economic incentive package" if I would stop evangelizing for Christ and I'd still turn it down or even threaten me with the harshest penalties and I still wouldn't stop, the west can offer Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah or Al Sadr any amount of money or economic benefits to stop working towards the victory of Islam and the appearance of the 12th Mahdi and they'd turn it down as well. That to them would be a compromise of their faith and an act of unbelief. Their objective is not the Western objective of personal peace and prosperity. Their objective is paradise, and they feel that they are pursuing the course that most surely leads to it. It is literally more likely that you and Nash would become die-hard Bush supporters than that men like Ahmadinejad would really become docile secularists.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
I imagine Seagoon that you would be highly disappointed if only 40% of Christians were ready to fight for their religion.
You couldn't be more wrong. I'd be appalled if 40% of Christians were willing to fight and kill for Christianity as we have no calling to do so.
What I'd like to see is 100% of all Christians willing to suffer persecution and die for their faith as the Apostles were. Christ calls upon his disciples to be willing to take up their cross and follow Him in the way of suffering. That's one of the central differences between the teaching of Muhammad and Christ. Muhammad taught his followers to fight for Islam, Christ taught his followers the blessedness of suffering for His sake.
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake." (Matt. 5:11)
- SEAGOON
-
Sorry Seagoon but I believe that you're wrong and you're only looking at it in religious terms because you see most things in religious terms. I don't mean to be rude but thats what I think.
Why was the arguably most popular muslim of the 20th Centrury a Secular Arab Nationalist (Nasser?)
Why did it take the Palestinian Arabs over forty years to move from supporting the secular PLO to a group like Hamas.
Like I said earlier, show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway? Consider then how history shows fundamentalism flourishing in under poverty or oppression. Many examples, no?
-
Hi Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
Sorry Seagoon but I believe that you're wrong and you're only looking at it in religious terms because you see most things in religious terms. I don't mean to be rude but thats what I think.
Actually Momus looking at the M.E. through the lens of Islam was something I learned long before I became a Christian. It was while I was studying Arabic History at St. Andrews and was something drummed into me by one of the profs and then reinforced by secular histories like Faith and Power and interestingly enough the writings of men like the aforementioned Bernard Lewis. I tend to find its actually the modern western tendency to frame everything in terms of the Marxist "Political Struggle" dialectic and distaste towards serious religion that has hamstrung our interpretation.
Why was the arguably most popular muslim of the 20th Centrury a Secular Arab Nationalist (Nasser?)
The time of the secular Pan-Arab and nationalist movements has come and gone, it was a Western inspired flash in the pan and an oddity in terms of middle eastern terms. Despite our attempts to divert them into political channels, the river has returned to its course and the current thinking is once again Pan-Islamic and apolitical not nationalist. The heroes of the current age are all decidedly religious. To the Arab street the secularist leaders are now the enemy.
Why did it take the Palestinian Arabs over forty years to move from supporting the secular PLO to a group like Hamas.
Momus, this is disingenuous, the conflict in Israel has never been political. The so called Palestinians don't hate the Israelis because the are socialist or capitalist, conservative or liberal, the conflict exists because they are Jews.
Like I said earlier, show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway? Consider then how history shows fundamentalism flourishing in under poverty or oppression. Many examples, no?
The worlds largest exporter of Wahabbism is also one of the worlds most prosperous nations - Saudi Arabia. Also you might take note of the fact that men like Zarqawi were from Jordan, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and so on. I know its convenient to lump all "fundametalists" of every religion together and then pronounce Karl's magic "Pancea of the Masses" dictum and assume it is because they are poor and uneducated. But this is a smashing flat of the facts and ignores the fact that one of that two of the most prosperous and educated nations on earth - Korea and the USA have huge fundamentalist evangelical populations.
Try not to strain everything through the European political lens, not everything can be understood in terms of a class struggle to control the means of production, old boy.
Off to work I go...
- SEAGOON
-
Heard a rumor that this plot was detected by the government using means and methods that would not be legal in the US.
Is that a correct rumor? Anyone know?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so momus... you are saying that the guys who are terrorists in iraq now would have just remained law abiding non threatening little fundamentalists forever if we wouldn't have pushed em over the edge?
maybe a few but... these guys are darn easy to push over the edge in my opinon... they are going to another country to blow the citizens of that country to bits with car bombs in market places and strapped to their bodies... they are trying to take down the airplanes that they are sitting in..
Would that not indicate that these were some pretty whacked out nutjobs by any defenition?
I guess you are saying that if we don't stir em up most of em will just starve to death or be butchered under their own leaders (or do the butchering) and not be a problem for us?
lazs
I Agree Laz...Whether our actions influenced them or not, it doesnt matter...they are terrorist....
The attacks of 911 have had a life changing influence on me...It is pushed me in the direction of the US Army....A uniformed military with command and structure...
One does not just become a mass murderer that kills innocent women and children over night because of provacation...The evil was within this person long before...Maybe we helped bring that evil out, but regardless, they are better off dead
-
Originally posted by Toad
Heard a rumor that this plot was detected by the government using means and methods that would not be legal in the US.
Is that a correct rumor? Anyone know?
Yep..but the source I ain't looking up. Just listend to the talking heads on the news today where several made that statment.
The U.S. will never be that way. Which is to bad. But you can bet your bottom dollar that WHEN...not if ...WHEN we are attacked again...those people that wouldnn't allow it..will be screaming to high heaven.
-
The time of the secular Pan-Arab and nationalist movements has come and gone, it was a Western inspired flash in the pan and an oddity in terms of middle eastern terms.
The point is that the arabs have already shown the capacity to see things in terms other than Islamic and that it is not the inevitablity that you keep portraying.
Despite our attempts to divert them into political channels, the river has returned to its course and the current thinking is once again Pan-Islamic and apolitical not nationalist.
By what measure? Post some examples. I'm geting bored of asking you for sources also. Twice today already you've ignored this.
Momus, this is disingenuous, the conflict in Israel has never been political. The so called Palestinians don't hate the Israelis because the are socialist or capitalist, conservative or liberal, the conflict exists because they are Jews.
No. The conflict actually exists because two groups of people of largely differing faiths each believe they have exclusive title to the same piece of desert. It would still be going on whatever the religion of the antagonists. Some of the prime movers in the Palestinian cause were Christians not muslims, and the PLO was a largely secular organisation - you've already ignored that fact once already.
The worlds largest exporter of Wahabbism is also one of the worlds most prosperous nations - Saudi Arabia.
It certainly is not one of the most prosperous. Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a ruling oligarchy, despite that vast wealth per capita income is around a third of the UK's.
Korea and the USA have huge fundamentalist evangelical populations
Well its telling that you bring up fundamentalist christianity in comparsion, but the fact is that the USA is still a secular society, so that's a terrible example.
Try not to strain everything through the European political lens, not everything can be understood in terms of a class struggle to control the means of production, old boy.
That's just the type of remark one expects from the neo-con/religious right axis these days. You'd better call me an anti-semite as well as a communist just to make sure.
None of the societies we are describing exist in a vaccuum. These are all local issues addressed in religious terms, not religious issues. Hamas got power because Israel marginalised the PLO. Iran was pushed towards the Mullahs in reaction to a western backed dictatorship. Hezbollah arose to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and to fill the social gap left by the civil war.
I've asked you before and I'll try again now. If such a large (Tens or hundreds of millions using your figures I think?) proportion of the planet's muslims harbour extremist inclinations, where the hell are all these militants who want to kill us for not being Muslims (which is basically your argument when all is said and done)? They are nowhere, they are just a phantom of a threat that does not exist on the scale you are claiming. They pull off a handful of high profile attacks and suddenly you're seeing them in every dark corner. Bernard Lewis himself said in that article you referred to in the other thread:
In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Heard a rumor that this plot was detected by the government using means and methods that would not be legal in the US.
Is that a correct rumor? Anyone know?
Govt here is saying very little, most of the facts being discussed are released by the US and Pakistan. Phone tap evidence is still inadmissible in court and theres been some talk about that but nothing else I've seen or heard.
Concern is rising that the authorities got it right this time, not sure if thats just the usual endless conjecture or not, but they have stuffed up badly in the past.
-
Hello Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
By what measure? Post some examples. I'm geting bored of asking you for sources also. Twice today already you've ignored this.
By any objective measure, but I'll just quote two "fer instances" -
"In a May 2004 poll, conducted by Zogby International and Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, a majority of Arab respondents in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and a plurality in Morocco and Jordan, identified themselves as Muslims, not Saudis or Jordanians.
Only in Egypt and Lebanon did a majority claim nationality as their primary identity. Substantial pluralities in Jordan, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia felt that the clergy should play a greater role in the political system. In Egypt, the respondents were almost evenly split, while only in Lebanon and Morocco did slight majorities feel that the clergy "should not dictate the political system." In every country polled a substantial majority felt that the clergy played "too little" a role or a "just right role." " (Source - Middle East Institute)
and
"Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France." (Source - Pew Research Center)
By comparison we in the west can't even conceive of a majority identifying themselves not as Americans, or Englishmen, or Dutch but as Christians.
Regarding the PLO, you'll recall that I'm arguing that what we are currently seeing is a massive resurrgence or revival of Islamic power and identity. For several hundred years, the West was ascendent and essentially "sat" on the middle-eastern powers during which time we attempted to get them to act Western. As colonial control was released, and the direct influence of the Western powers over the Islamic nations evaporated we've seen the revival of Islam as the organizing force in Islamic society. When the PLO was first organized, the Arab nations were still passing through the post-colonial period when the super-powers were encouraging nationalism and trying to get them into their respective spheres of influence. Now that that period is over the Palestinian people have once again turned to Islam, not politics as the primary unifying force in the struggle.
It certainly is not one of the most prosperous. Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a ruling oligarchy, despite that vast wealth per capita income is around a third of the UK's.
I was counting prosperity by GDP not by per capita income. Prosperity in Saudi Arabia can hardly be assessed by per capita income because out of a population of 27 million, 5.5 million are mostly poorly paid foreign laborers. But in any event Saudi Jihadis have overwhelmingly come from the well-off indigenous population.
But set aside that example. I'll give you a better example to show that it has almost nothing to do with economics and everything to do with religion. The Jihadis recently busted in England were second generation Pakistani Muslims and at least two caucasian converts. Clearly economic oppression or lack of education wasn't the driving factor. It wasn't even sex as some of the conspirators were women. Momus, you keep fishing around for an alternative explanation for the modern Jihad phenomenon that will somehow lay the blame at the doorstep of the West when in fact recent events in your own country have shown that the actual culprit is in fact a movement born not in Washington, or London, but the Arabian peninsula a little under 14 centuries ago.
Well its telling that you bring up fundamentalist christianity in comparsion, but the fact is that the USA is still a secular society, so that's a terrible example.
Actually, I didn't bring it up, your statement was ", show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway I pointed out that evangelicalism (which is fundamentalist Christianity) has a proportianately large number of adherents and continues to grow in two of the most prosperous modern societies in the world. Unlike Islam, most fundamentalist religions don't have an integrated political theory so they don't have the capacity or the desire to "hold sway."
That's just the type of remark one expects from the neo-con/religious right axis these days. You'd better call me an anti-semite as well as a communist just to make sure.
Momus, I wasn't calling you a Communist, I was just assuming you realized that most modern secular political theory derives in some way from the theories of Marx and Engels. I don't know what you are, but I'd imagine you're politically probably some variety of the standard liberal/materialist/modified-socialist like most modern Europeans. Oh and thanks for the Neo-Con/religious right jab, and here I was thinking I was a paleo-con rather than a neo.
None of the societies we are describing exist in a vaccuum. These are all local issues addressed in religious terms, not religious issues. Hamas got power because Israel marginalised the PLO. Iran was pushed towards the Mullahs in reaction to a western backed dictatorship. Hezbollah arose to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and to fill the social gap left by the civil war.
Notice how in every theory above the blame lies at the doorstep of the West and Israel, you know come to think of it you're right, we are the problem! If the Dar-El-Harb would just cease to exist, we'd have worldwide peace and tranquility under the reign of a single Caliphate ruled according to Sharia. Our continued willful refusal to submit really is the big impediment to peace.
I've asked you before and I'll try again now. If such a large (Tens or hundreds of millions using your figures I think?) proportion of the planet's muslims harbour extremist inclinations, where the hell are all these militants who want to kill us for not being Muslims (which is basically your argument when all is said and done)? They are nowhere, they are just a phantom of a threat that does not exist on the scale you are claiming. They pull off a handful of high profile attacks and suddenly you're seeing them in every dark corner. Bernard Lewis himself said in that article you referred to in the other thread:
Oy, yeah its all a figment of my imagination, along with the 40% mentioned in the Jakarta post, the rioting crowds carrying banners saying behead all blasphemers, the missiles raining down on Israel, the thousands of dead in Darfur, Thailand, Iraq, Chechnya, Beslan, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Phillipines, England, Spain, and NYC. I know, I know, its a coincidence that almost everywhere in the world we have people being slaughtered Islam is a factor. Somehow the Neo-Cons are to blame everywhere. It's the beaten wife syndrome - "I must be doing something to make him so violent, if only I could stop."
I'll freely admit that not every Muslim is a violent "extremist."
But not every National Socialist was violent or extemist, some baked cookies and had nice little gardens and said please and thank you and smiled. That doesn't change the fact that we found out the hard way co-existance with Nazism is impossible.
- SEAGOON
-
sooo.. the momus solution is to do nothing except....
put in a bunch of death squads?
encourage liberalism? how exactly do you do that in a dictator controlled country?
You got nothing momus except to criticize. Your solutions are laughable.
Here is the real crux of the thing. So long as we need oil and are willing to pay for it...
We will have well funded terrorists who's only interest is in destroying the west and anyone not nutjob fundamentalist.
Cut off their funds and they become harmless whackjobs stuck in the desert...
Till then... a war in any of their countries is as good or as bad as any other.
The sadman had worked on getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie... he had nuke ambitions... he was dangerous. They all are.
death squads won't do it. death squads won't make us any more loved...
promoting "liberalism" won't.
Until we get off the juice we don't have a lot of choices.
lazs
-
Laz,
I'm not saying that our dependence on foriegn oil isn't a problem, and I agree that killing a few selected heads of terrorist organizations won't solve the problem (especially given that many cells are now either entirely home grown, as was the case in the U.K., or autonomous). But how will dealing with our addiction to M.E. oil solve the problem with Islamic terror in Europe, or the USA, or Thailand, or the Phillipines, or Sub-Saharan Africa, etc? I'm not sure I see how drilling in ANWAR is going to stop a night club filled with Australians in Bali from being bombed.
- SEAGOON
-
See rule #5
-
Gets rougher when the diaper heads have their arms from US hating N-Korea....
No O-pean country needed for that.
-
Im so sick of the whole "we armed the terrorist, and now they are using our weapons against us" arguement....
We also helped arm the russian's in WWII with full sale, and the lend lease programs...At the time it was a strategic interest, and in the best interest in defeating our shared enemy....Little did we know that within weeks of the fall of Germany, political hostility's would be escelating into a full cold war which engulfed the world for half of a century!
In retrospect when we look back, was arming the Russian's during WWII, even though some of our technology may have worked against us post war, a bad idea? Hell to the no!
Nor was their any fault in the 1980's
-
Hi Cav,
I believe Angus was pointing out that the N.K.s are currently arming rogue regimes like Iran and assisting them with their Nuclear and Missile programs and that it is difficult to cut off that particular flow.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Cav,
I believe Angus was pointing out that the N.K.s are currently arming rogue regimes like Iran and assisting them with their Nuclear and Missile programs and that it is difficult to cut off that particular flow.
- SEAGOON
I wonder who helped the North Koreans build their nulcear reactor? Couldnt have been Billy Clinton in an act of appeasement could it? :furious
-
It sure was mr.BJ Clinton that concluded that we could take a oppressive dictator's word...A decade later and look what happened...
Who's to say mahojablaka derka derka (President of Iran) won't do the same? There is no negotiaing with these people...There is no compromise or barganing that can be done...
-
Well Seagoon, I thought it faintly ridiculous that you (and Lazs but he doesn't really count) condemned as socialist my suggested solution based on a massive expansion of capitalist prosperity into the region. I also find it funny that you frequently bring up your academic credentials as relevant when you're openly a member of a profession that by any measure elevates faith above reason. For example, can you tell me on which course at St Andrews you learnt that:
..we know that Islam is a religion of demon worship (1 Corinthians 10:20-21) created by a frustrated would-be conqueror named Muhammad. Muhammad claimed that the contents of the Koran where dictated to him by an angel; I fully believe that it is conceivable that either Satan or one of his fallen angels was an agent by which part or all of this "new revelation" was transferred.
Your words? (http://www.ccpca.net/articles/2001-1127_webb_islam.htm)
Just so we know where you're really coming from..right?
Ok, Iraq. You've stated that the insurgency there has attracted all the global jihadis who would otherwise be attacking the west. The so-called flypaper theory. More than one person but most recently myself has posted sources that undermine this assertion; that being that the insurgency is almost overwelmingly being run by Iraqis themselves, not some kind of jihadist international brigade, and that it is largely the consequence of the invasion and occupation. You still haven't even tried to deal with this point. Please do so before digressing again.
Staying with Iraq, another question that has been previously put to you that you haven't answered. Assuming your scenario is correct, and that it is Islam per se that poses a threat to the West on the scale you are suggesting, how do you reconcile this alleged threat with the fact that the most likely outcome from our enforced regime change in Iraq will be an Islamic state dominated by pro-Iranian shia Islamists, and under your scenario, how is this a good outcome? Again, reasonably straightforward question, please could you answer it?
Palestine. It appears that you think this is religious conflict and that all other considerations are secondary. I disagree and here is why.
Firstly, as previously mentioned, the role of Arab Christians in the resistance movement certainly detracts from the fact that this is just a jew vs muslim issue, and that for the arabs at least the conflict only took on an overtly religious tinge with the emergence of Hamas some four decades into the conflict. Of course, there's no mention of obviously religious motivation of the other side in this conflict, but they seemingly get a pass once again for reasons I can easily imagine.
Secondly, to see that this remains a conflict over land and political rights expressed in religious terms, once has to look no further than the Arab Israelis. Those muslims who were not disposessed of their land nor denied most political rights by the subsequent jewish state have singularly failed to imitate the violent actions of their disposessed co-religionists. Again, how do you reconcile this fact with your thesis regarding the Palestinian arab attitude to Israel?
Now for some of your points.
In a May 2004 poll, conducted by Zogby International and Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, a majority of Arab respondents in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and a plurality in Morocco and Jordan, identified themselves as Muslims, not Saudis or Jordanians.
Frankly, so what if people elevate religion above nationality? How does this have a relation to whether they support violent attacks against non-believers? Oh wait, it doesn't ; its a total red herring.
Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France."
It would make it easier if you linked directly to the article in question but I did manage to track it down. I find it ironic that you label me as disingenuous when you omit some fairly relevant findings from the same article that actually undermine your argument. Did you think I would be too lazy to look for it or did you just not read the whole thing beofre cutting and pasting?
The poll finds that Muslims themselves are generally positive about conditions in their host nation. In fact, they are more positive than the general publics in all four European countries about the way things are going in their countries.
That just passed you by did it? Also:
The greatest concern among Muslim minorities in all four countries is unemployment. Islamic extremism emerges as the number-two worry generally, a concern shared by Western publics as well as Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan.
European Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam. ... they tend to see a struggle being waged between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists.
Muslims in France, Great Britain, and Spain are substantially more likely than their general publics to say that Muslims want to adopt the customs and way of life of the country into which they immigrate.
Thanks for the reference, it's a goldmine. Moving on..
I was counting prosperity by GDP not by per capita income. Prosperity in Saudi Arabia can hardly be assessed by per capita income because out of a population of 27 million, 5.5 million are mostly poorly paid foreign laborers. But in any event Saudi Jihadis have overwhelmingly come from the well-off indigenous population.
Ok, well apart from begging the question as to why no action has been taken against the Sauds for their role in the proliferation of extremism, I still don't think that Saudi Arabia qualifies as a modern prosperous state in the sense any reasonable person might understand.
But set aside that example. I'll give you a better example to show that it has almost nothing to do with economics and everything to do with religion. The Jihadis recently busted in England were second generation Pakistani Muslims and at least two caucasian converts. Clearly economic oppression or lack of education wasn't the driving factor.
No, if the accounts relating to the 07/07 bombings are anything to go by, radicalisation stemming primarily from the invasion of Iraq may have been to blame, which was a point I made in my first post in this thread that you largely still haven't answered.
Actually, I didn't bring it up, your statement was ", show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway I pointed out that evangelicalism (which is fundamentalist Christianity) has a proportianately large number of adherents and continues to grow in two of the most prosperous modern societies in the world. Unlike Islam, most fundamentalist religions don't have an integrated political theory so they don't have the capacity or the desire to "hold sway."
The point (which you missed again) being that US fundamentalist christianity, although popular, doesn't form part of the basis for the running of the country (despite the best efforts of some of its adherents).
Notice how in every theory above the blame lies at the doorstep of the West and Israel, you know come to think of it you're right, we are the problem! If the Dar-El-Harb would just cease to exist, we'd have worldwide peace and tranquility under the reign of a single Caliphate ruled according to Sharia. Our continued willful refusal to submit really is the big impediment to peace.
Yes, why should we let reality get in the way of dogma? The problem for you is that the foundation of Israel DID create a huge refugee problem that festers to this day. Support for the Shah DID contribute to the ascendence of the iranian mullahs. Both are uncomfortable truths for you because they undermine your underlying position that the entirety of muslims are evil by nature and not at all a product of the context in which they occur. That's why you dismiss it out of hand I assume?
..along with the 40% mentioned in the Jakarta post../
A source for which you still haven't provided any reference. Have that 40% indicated a willingness to commit violence against non-believers? If not it's a moot point really.
the rioting crowds carrying banners saying behead all blasphemers
For which you still can't provide any source at all to suggest represents anything more than a disturbed minority.
I know, I know, its a coincidence that almost everywhere in the world we have people being slaughtered Islam is a factor..
You forgot to mention the thousands of dead in Iraq killed by allied air action, the huge casualties sustained over years of fighting in Sri Lanka, the Rwandan genocide, the mass killings of muslims at the hands of christian serbs, sectarian violence at the hands of Indian hindus, many thousands of dead to decades of political violence in Latin America, massacres of muslims by christians in Nigeria etc etc.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You got nothing momus except to criticize. Your solutions are laughable.
No Lazs, what is laughable is that judging by your posts you're an expert on everything under the sun but only really have a clue about guns and maybe cars..
Funny guy aren't ya? :D
-
Okay, I bowed out of this TFH for a few days to let the vitriol subside a bit, it was really flowing too much for my tastes. But this quote should be a sticky for these conversations.
Originally posted by Seagoon
And exactly how is the Islamic insurgency in Thailand which has claimed 1,500 lives the fault of America and England? (or Indonesia, Or Sudan, or Darfur, or Northern Nigeria, or Chechnya, or Western China, or etc., etc., etc.) Is it even remotely possible that the existence of a worldwide Jihad since the seventh century might just have something to do with Islam? Maybe?
Every time I hear a western politician/diplomat/officer/reporter say that Islam is a peacefull religion I feel like setting my hair on fire. Why are so many so blind to what is clear in front of our eyes? It has to be that what is clearly true is simply so distasteful that we decline to acknowlege it. Sort of like a few million German citizens who failed to beleive that the awful smell was the result of a inhumanity so evil as to be unfathomable, even though they knew in their hearts it was true.
-
momus... I say you got nothing because...
you got nothing. You say we should promote socialism... now capitalism whatever.
How do we do that? How do we get a people who's core... who's religion calls for the destruction or anyone who won't convert... how do we get these people to get along with anyone?
You write a lot and you do a good job of criticizing any plan that is out there but... you offer nothing in return.
Some nebulous "promote socialism (or capitalism)" is not a plan.
We are promoting democracy and capitalism rigth now. How should we do it differently?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you got nothing. You say we should promote socialism... now capitalism whatever.
No Lazs. You were the one who brought up socialism, remember? I do understand that it is just a blanket label you apply to anything you don't understand, but please try to keep up.
How do we get a people who's core... who's religion calls for the destruction or anyone who won't convert... how do we get these people to get along with anyone?
You're basing your objection on the assumption that the majority of these people hold the sentiment that you're alleging. Smarter people than you can't prove that case; not that that's ever stopped you expressing an opinion...
You write a lot and you do a good job of criticizing any plan that is out there but... you offer nothing in return.
I doubt you read more than 5% of what I write, and you clearly comprehend less than 5% of that. What are you offering apart from blind adherence to a policy that is obviously not delivering any results? All you do is defend the party line, which is quite funny coming from someone who poses as suspicious of the government.
Some nebulous "promote socialism (or capitalism)" is not a plan.
Translation: You didn't read most of my post and the parts you did read went right over your head.
We are promoting democracy and capitalism rigth now.
Maybe, but in the wrong place and in the wrong way. I've already spelt this out once; I'm not going to repeat myself because you're too lazy or obtuse to get the point first time around.
-
Momus, with all due respect, you come accross as attacking the person rather than the policy/POV/beleif. I don't know you well enough to say if that is simply the way it appears or the way it was intended, but it is certainly counterproductive.
-
Edbert, there no point talking to Lazs in any other way; he's basically a thinly veiled troll who gets cheap thrills out of taking positions he has no intention of defending. You know the saying about the empty vessel, yes?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You know the saying about the empty vessel, yes?
oh great wise one , enlighten us poor unworthy souls with the wisdom of the ages.