wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Appeasement, Part II Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Appeasement, Part II" Watch "Appeasement, Part II" New topic
Author

Appeasement, Part II

frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
Let's ask Herb Slocomb: If Aznar had won those elections, would Al-queda have stopped hating the US for its presence in Saudi Arabia?

No, the issue is not one of hate, but of probabilities of specific future actions. The correct question that should have been asked is, "In light of the result of the Spanish election, did Al-Queda believe they influenced the result, and if yes, would this encourage similar actions in the future?"
The answer is most likely "Yes" in both cases and this causes concern to some of us.
Each time there has been a recent bombing, intelligence has been gathered on AL-Queda. This intellgience threatens to cause a certain amount of damage (exposing part of a network of financing or supporters, etc) or have an effect that requires them to change operations (constant change causing lessening of efficiency and reducing their options). Bombings are thus not risk free or cost free to Al-Queda. They must, and are, chosing and planning their attacks carefully. But now there is additional target worthy of attack and worth the risk of increasing and stepping up their bombing/planning schedule : Targeting countries on the everge of elections.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
I just did a quick scan of his posts and I didnt see anything like that. He did ask a few questions that seemed to poke in the eye but nothing to the effect that "Joe, your posts are nonsense".
Paul, try reading it again.
BM said: "The bloodthirsty terrorists will kill anyone they think they can get away with killing, regardless of whether their targets are brave Americans or coward Spainards."
This statement through its sarcasm indicates his opinion of my statement that the actions of Spain are likely to cause more terrorism. He is saying I am wrong, that my position does not make sense.
He used sarcasm, I siad it straight out. My words offend your delicate sensibilities and you decide to be the freakin' Politeness Police. This is why I don't post here anymore. Picayune nitpicking like this.
Joe
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
One other lesson the terrorists learned from their attack in Spain: Spain isn't likely to launch a military effort against terrorist forces outside their country. The significance of this being it factors into the cost/benefit ration of mounting further operations against Spain and countries they expect to behave similarly.
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Joe King:

The idea that Europeans like to see Palestinians kill Israelis is as much a myth as the idea that Americans like to see Israelis kill Palestinians.

No it's not. There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.
There's a lot of people cheering every Jew killed by them, and ever more openly too.
Anyone who supports the PLO in their goals of creating their own state where Israel is now supports their methods of doing so or at least condones those methods.
Isn't it strange that every Israeli action to apprehend or eliminate terrorists is harshly condemned while PLO terrorist attacks are glossed over as "retribution", "revenge", "they had it coming", etc. etc.?
In France and Belgium there were some attacks against mosques after 9/11, those were vigorously prosecuted and the perpatrators arrested and convicted.
Attacks against synagoges in 2002 and 2003 were glossed over and no action taken at all to apprehend the guilty.
Terrorist cells are free to recruit and raise funds in most EU countries as long as they don't attack targets in those countries.
Most notable of these are France, Belgium and the Netherlands (IRA, PKK, PLO and I think ETA have offices here, Al Qaeda recruiters work almost openly as they need not fear arrest).


42
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Warren Dew:

What makes you think that's a myth?
Even here in left wing Massachusetts, I think that at least 5% of the population likes to see Israelis kill palestinians - I know a couple personally. I suspect the percentage is much higher elsewhere in the U.S.
Many Americans believe that Israeli killings of Palestinians civilians are qualitatively different from Palestinian killings of Israeli civilians because Israel is a recognized state and has is protecting legitimate state interests in its actions. I personally disagree with that view, but I often feel like I'm in the minority here on it.

Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people who actually like to see Palestinians being killed. Now I've got no objection to terrorists being acted against (I dont agree with killing them unless its totally unavoidable), but that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Terrorist cells are free to recruit and raise funds in most EU countries as long as they don't attack targets in those countries.
Most notable of these are France, Belgium and the Netherlands (IRA, PKK, PLO and I think ETA have offices here, Al Qaeda recruiters work almost openly as they need not fear arrest).

Thats very strange! It would be terrible if this is true. If you have any sources to backup this, can you share it with us please?
I know LTTE, a separatist terrorist movement from SriLanka was (is?) a legally registered organisation in UK, but recently EU (Norway in particular) took active role in solving the crisis and after many years hard work, they have a cease-fire on in SriLanka, and a solution to the crisis that's been going on and on for decades is now in sight (hopefully). This contradicts to what you mentioned earlier, but my knowledge of the matter is limited.


[ flickr ]
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

The terrorists know we'll blow them up. They know the Spaniards won't. Who do you think a coward is more likely to attack?

This could well be true, but there are also other factors that make Spain more likely to be attacked than the USA. A higher percentage of the population of Spain is Islamic, which makes it more likely that Islamic terrorist groups would be able to find support there.
Spain is also closer to Islamic countries like Algeria, Tunisia etc, and its not that hard for them to slip accross the straits of Gibralter to get into the country. Its probably a lot harder for known Islamic terrorists to get into USA then into Spain.
There is also a lot of history involved - much of Spain used to be part of an Islamic nation until the Spanish had a "crusade" to force them out. This is probably used as a factor in the brainwashing process needed to get people to want to blow themselves up - a person is far more likely to kill themselves to protect a land that is theirs not someone elses.
Most of these reasons probably also apply to Turkey which also suffered several attackes recently. These are probably why Spain has been recently targetted several times and the UK has not yet been successfully attacked - the UK is a bit harder to attack.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

No it's not. There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.

Do you have any proof of this? You tend to be quick to blame the socialists for just about anything that goes wrong.

There's a lot of people cheering every Jew killed by them, and ever more openly too.
Anyone who supports the PLO in their goals of creating their own state where Israel is now supports their methods of doing so or at least condones those methods.

People who support a Palestinian state being gained through terrorism are indeed supporting terrorism, but that is not the case for all people who support the Palestinians having a state of their own. There have been numerous politicians, including many of the leaders in the war on terrorism, who have suggested that the ideal route to peace would be an Israeli state next door to a Palestinian state.
I don't think many would agree with the idea of doing away with Israel, as some Palestinian groups would like to do, but a Palestinian state of some kind is a valid view point for a person to have without them being a supporter of terrorism.

Isn't it strange that every Israeli action to apprehend or eliminate terrorists is harshly condemned while PLO terrorist attacks are glossed over as "retribution", "revenge", "they had it coming", etc. etc.?

That is certainly not the case here in the UK.

Terrorist cells are free to recruit and raise funds in most EU countries as long as they don't attack targets in those countries.
Most notable of these are France, Belgium and the Netherlands (IRA, PKK, PLO and I think ETA have offices here, Al Qaeda recruiters work almost openly as they need not fear arrest).

This is also not true - there have been many arrests recently in the UK of suspected members of Al Qaeda. There has recently been a European summit on how to improve sharing of intelligence used to stop terrorism.
Seeing as you mentioned the IRA above, and how they raise funds in the EU, its strange that you haven't mentioned the large amount of funding that the IRA has received from the US (civilians, not the government) over the years.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
One other lesson the terrorists learned from their attack in Spain: Spain isn't likely to launch a military effort against terrorist forces outside their country.

May I know after 9/11, in how many countries, which supoorts terrorism, US has launched militry operation ??
What names come to my mind is Afghanistan only.
Did I hear Iraq war was part of anti-terrorism war ??
So I would like to know, how many terrorist TILL now US has captured or killed in Iraq ??


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Joe King:

Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people who actually like to see Palestinians being killed. Now I've got no objection to terrorists being acted against (I dont agree with killing them unless its totally unavoidable), but that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

Interesting what you choose to accept at face value and what you demand proof of.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
The PKK are registered here as political groups representing governments in exile... ETA and IRA may be too.
When the IRA blew up a pub in Germany in the 1990s the terrorists fled to the Netherlands, they could not be extradited because they claimed being persecuted for their beliefs which the courts here considered a valid claim...
There's a joke here that the US need look no further for OBL than a Dutch refugee center, they'll find him right there under a false name waiting for his application as a political refugee to be processed.
Things are slowly starting to change here, but it's still fact that the main reason we've not yet been targetted is because we're a safe place for them to hide and recruit.
As to the IRA being funded from the US, that's true. But their fundraising their was under false pretenses, people were led to believe they were funding cultural exchange programs. Their fundraising in Europe was far more open.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Interesting what you choose to accept at face value and what you demand proof of.

I didn't accept anything, face value or not. In this kind of discussion, we probably need proof of just about any and everything.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
The PKK are registered here as political groups representing governments in exile... ETA and IRA may be too.
When the IRA blew up a pub in Germany in the 1990s the terrorists fled to the Netherlands, they could not be extradited because they claimed being persecuted for their beliefs which the courts here considered a valid claim...
There's a joke here that the US need look no further for OBL than a Dutch refugee center, they'll find him right there under a false name waiting for his application as a political refugee to be processed.
Things are slowly starting to change here, but it's still fact that the main reason we've not yet been targetted is because we're a safe place for them to hide and recruit.
As to the IRA being funded from the US, that's true. But their fundraising their was under false pretenses, people were led to believe they were funding cultural exchange programs. Their fundraising in Europe was far more open.

With any luck the European summits on stopping terrorism can do something about situations like this. I think we've now got EU arrest warrants (or something similar), that makes it easier to extradite criminals between EU countries. The number of recent successful and unsuccessful attacks in Europe means that we (the European states) really need to get our act together and sort out sharing intelligence etc. There were some reports that before Sept 11th, different departments of the CIA didnt share vital information that could have stopped an attack... my worry is that some European countries may be not sharing intelligence (by not realising that it is wanted by another country) that could stop an attack in another European country.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Joe King:

I didn't accept anything, face value or not. In this kind of discussion, we probably need proof of just about any and everything.

Looked like it to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
No it's not. There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.
Do you have any proof of this? You tend to be quick to blame the socialists for just about anything that goes wrong.

Here you demanded proof.
quote:
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
What makes you think that's a myth?
Even here in left wing Massachusetts, I think that at least 5% of the population likes to see Israelis kill palestinians - I know a couple personally. I suspect the percentage is much higher elsewhere in the U.S.
Many Americans believe that Israeli killings of Palestinians civilians are qualitatively different from Palestinian killings of Israeli civilians because Israel is a recognized state and has is protecting legitimate state interests in its actions. I personally disagree with that view, but I often feel like I'm in the minority here on it.
Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people who actually like to see Palestinians being killed. Now I've got no objection to terrorists being acted against (I dont agree with killing them unless its totally unavoidable), but that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.
Here you basically accepted it. You sort of questioned it then treated it like it was reallity.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Joe King:
Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people who actually like to see Palestinians being killed. Now I've got no objection to terrorists being acted against (I dont agree with killing them unless its totally unavoidable), but that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.

Warren's claim cannot be supported and as far as I can tell he is making up those numbers. Being a New Englander myself, I would strongly disagree with his assertion. As his claim can be considered to be false, your claim of racism would be equally false.
Just to be a little more disagreeable, I do believe that terrorists should be killed whether or not it is avoidable. Germany once again has shown how civilian courts of law are not equipped to deal with these people. So since the civilian courts are unable to deal with them effectively, then the only remaining choices are military tribunal or to not be too careful with their lives when their being apprehended.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Looked like it to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
No it's not. There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.
Do you have any proof of this? You tend to be quick to blame the socialists for just about anything that goes wrong.

Here you demanded proof.

Yes, it was an outragous claim.

quote:
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
What makes you think that's a myth?
Even here in left wing Massachusetts, I think that at least 5% of the population likes to see Israelis kill palestinians - I know a couple personally. I suspect the percentage is much higher elsewhere in the U.S.
Many Americans believe that Israeli killings of Palestinians civilians are qualitatively different from Palestinian killings of Israeli civilians because Israel is a recognized state and has is protecting legitimate state interests in its actions. I personally disagree with that view, but I often feel like I'm in the minority here on it.
Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people who actually like to see Palestinians being killed. Now I've got no objection to terrorists being acted against (I dont agree with killing them unless its totally unavoidable), but that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.
Here you basically accepted it. You sort of questioned it then treated it like it was reallity.

I did not accept it at all. I said "it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that...". What I was saying was that if the figure he gave was true, then it would be quite bad - I didn't ever say that I believed it or didn't believe it. Having never been to Massachusetts, I've got no idea if its true or not.
I may not have written it in the clearest way, but I didn't accept it as true or not - 90% of the time you should never trust a statistic given on the internet
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Warren's claim cannot be supported and as far as I can tell he is making up those numbers. Being a New Englander myself, I would strongly disagree with his assertion. As his claim can be considered to be false, your claim of racism would be equally false.

What I was trying to say was not that people from there are racists, but the idea that "all Palestinians are terrorists" is racist.

Germany once again has shown how civilian courts of law are not equipped to deal with these people. So since the civilian courts are unable to deal with them effectively, then the only remaining choices are military tribunal or to not be too careful with their lives when their being apprehended.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Um. In the case of the German decision, its kind of hard to comment having not been in the court and having not seen all of the evidence. I admit that its a little odd to give a suspected terrorist bail (I'm not sure if people should ever be given bail whilst awaiting retrial), but I couldn't really say if he innocent or not.

Just to be a little more disagreeable, I do believe that terrorists should be killed whether or not it is avoidable.

My disagreement with this is more to do with a general disagreement with the death penalty. Firstly there are too many cases where people are found innocent years after being found guilty, through new evidence etc. Secondly, I'm not sure that the death penalty is a severe enough punishment for some people- a far worse punishment would be life long imprisonment in a harsh prison. Thirdly, in the case of high profile terrorists, there is a danger that killing them can make them martyrs.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
JW: There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.
JK: Do you have any proof of this? You tend to be quick to blame the socialists for just about anything that goes wrong.
PS: Here you demanded proof.
JK: Yes, it was an outragous claim.

Hmmm.... doesn't seem so outrageous to me that these groups find a lot of support in Europe.
Turning a Blind Eye To Hamas in London
Europe can do more to shut down terrorist funds
Arafat Bombs, Europe Pays
Palestinian Authority funds go to militants
International Terrorist Support Groups Thrive in Belgium and Netherlands
America, Israel and Europe
Really I could go on with this all day. Taken together, the information in those articles, even if you're cynical enough to only believe a fraction of it, indicates a definite pattern of support within Europe in various ways (public opinion, monetary support, governmental support), and not only for the Palestinian "cause". Inforamtion is readily available indicating that Europe is green pastures for Islamic terrorist organizations, including those not directly related to the Palestinians, to recruit and plan terrorist operations. I mean really, you guys have mass protests supporting the Palestinians over there, despite the fact that their chief means of "resistance" is to target civilians. That in itself is tacit approval for their methods.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
An interesting article on the history of terrorist appeasement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,788465,00.html
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
JW: There's a lot of support for Hamas and the PLO in Europe mainly from socialist groups.
JK: Do you have any proof of this? You tend to be quick to blame the socialists for just about anything that goes wrong.
PS: Here you demanded proof.
JK: Yes, it was an outragous claim.

Hmmm.... doesn't seem so outrageous to me that these groups find a lot of support in Europe.

What I clearly said was outrageous was your claim that support for Hammas and the PLO comes mainly from socialist groups.

Really I could go on with this all day. Taken together, the information in those articles, even if you're cynical enough to only believe a fraction of it, indicates a definite pattern of support within Europe in various ways (public opinion, monetary support, governmental support), and not only for the Palestinian "cause". Inforamtion is readily available indicating that Europe is green pastures for Islamic terrorist organizations, including those not directly related to the Palestinians, to recruit and plan terrorist operations.

Yes there are a number of people in Europe who support terrorism, but they are at the lunatic fringe. I still stand by my comment that less than 1% of Europeans condone terrorism. By saying "these groups find a lot of support in Europe" you seem to think that a lot more than that do support terrorism (unless you count 1% as a lot). Do you really think that more than 6.5 million people (approx 1% of European population) support terrorism? If not, then its hardly a lot - less than 1% of a population is a very small minority. If you do think that more than 6.5 million people in Europe support blowing people up, then try coming here to see the reality - we do not like terrorism.
I mean really, you guys have mass protests supporting the Palestinians over there, despite the fact that their chief means of "resistance" is to target civilians. That in itself is tacit approval for their methods.

You seem to be under the impression that all Palestians are terrorists. When people march in support of Palestinians (something I haven't done BTW), they are marching in support of average Palestinian person, in support of a state for Palestinians and against what they see as human rights violations by the Israelis. They (apart from a very small minority) are not marching in favour of terrorism.
To consider all Palestinians to be terrorists, is, as I said above, bordering on racism. I truely hope I've misunderstood your intention in writing "protests supporting the Palestinians over there, despite the fact that their chief means of 'resistance' is to target civilians", as it does seem to suggest that all Palestinians are terrorists.
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Joe: Are you purposely trying not to understand? I'm not calling the Spaniards cowards
Bhau: I know are you not. Some others did. So I summed it up all in one sentence by saying let 'me' add to what you said.
Joe: I'm saying that the election makes them "appear to be bowing" under the pressure of the terrorists.
Bhau:They "appear to be bowing". To whom? To us? Or to the terrorists?
a) If to us, then you and I both agreed that they are not cowards. They will fight back. They may not fight in Iraq, but they will fight right there where they were hit, in Madrid.
b) If that appears as cowardice to the terrorists, then that is what I was pointing out. They will strike anywhere they can, regardless of whether the targets are brave (according to them) or cowards (again, according to them). It does not matter to them.
Joe: That sort of behavior will definitely make them more of a target.
Bhau: They were already decided as a target 'before' that sort of behavior.
Joe: The terrorists know we'll blow them up. They know the Spaniards won't. Who do you think a coward is more likely to attack?
Bhau: Here's an example. Even after being almost completely wiped out from Afghanistan, they still had the guts to plan attacks in US, and the threat level was raised to orange. They still went ahead with their plans in Bali. They were not deterred by US retaliation in Kabul. Canberra did not appease them either. But regardless of how Canberra reacted, they had already planned Madrid. Reason? Not one, but many reasons. They are not one single entity. They are different cells, operating individually, in parallel. The results and after effects of the previos target by a different cell, does not matter to other cells. They are on a suicide mission. So you'll blow them up is not their concern. Also, it is not one single money trail. Some originate from Saudi, some from Europe, and probably some from US, some other places, we may not even know.
Joe: Anyway, we're going over the same territory again and again. As usual, I'm amazed at the lack of common sense by otherwise intelligent people, but by this time I'm no longer surprised that it happens. Every common sense position I've ever proposed has always had at least one otherwise sensible person absolutely insisting that up is down. In this case, it is you.
Bhau: Now is that a comment or a compliment? Thanks if it is later. Well, actaully, thanks either way.
=================================================================================
Herb: The correct question that should have been asked is, "In light of the result of the Spanish election, did Al-Queda believe they influenced the result
Bhau: Al-Queda most probably did believe they influenced the result. That was their aim after all. Stop Spain from supporting US actions in Mid-East.
Herb: and if yes, would this encourage similar actions in the future?"
Bhau: They were and are already motivated and encouraged enough to strike anywhere they can. The results of Spain made them happy because US lost an ally. But I doubt that their next game plan is based on the outcome of Spanish elections. It will be based on how Spanish people tighten up their internal security.
Herb: Each time there has been a recent bombing, intelligence has been gathered on Al-Queda. This intellgience threatens to cause a certain amount of damage (exposing part of a network of financing or supporters, etc) or have an effect that requires them to change operations (constant change causing lessening of efficiency and reducing their options). Bombings are thus not risk free or cost free to Al-Queda. They must, and are, chosing and planning their attacks carefully.
Bhau: Agreed. Absolutely correct. Spain must fight terrorism. Find the money trail. Freeze their bank accounts. Round up extremists and put them in jail. Fingerprint all visitors. But the question for the people of Spain is, WHERE? Where should Spain do all this? The answer is - in Spain, of course. Not in Iraq. Probably, they thought that Al-queda was an imminent threat to them. Not Saddam. So Aznar should have protected his own citizens at home first instead of liberating Iraq. Aznar's government claimed to be fighting terrorism world-wide but failed to protect citizens at home. What good was he to them?
Herb: But now there is additional target worthy of attack and worth the risk of increasing and stepping up their bombing/planning schedule : Targeting countries on the everge of elections.
Bhau: Not now. It always was. And I thought so too in this thread.


-Mumbai cha Bhau
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
JK: What I clearly said was outrageous was your claim that support for Hammas and the PLO comes mainly from socialist groups.
I never made that claim.
You seem to be under the impression that all Palestians are terrorists.
You are reading too much into things then if that's what it seems to you. I don't think anyone anywhere has made the claim that all Palestinians are terrorists. The only one has ever brought up that line of reasoning is you. While clearly not all Palestinians are terrorists, distasteful as it may be to civilized people, it is a fact that the majority of Palestinians support attacks targeted at Israeli civillians. Where is the line between terrorist and terrorist supporter? Does it matter if one isn't willing to carry out the acts themself, yet whole heartedly supports their acts?
62 percent of Palestinians support suicide attacks � poll
Palestinian Attitudes on Terrorism
Palestinian support for suicide bombers
To consider all Palestinians to be terrorists, is, as I said above, bordering on racism.
Again, nobody has ever made such claims and you are merely projecting this line of reasoning on people. Please stop trying to play the racism card when it doesn't exist. It's a cheap, albeit common, liberal tactic.
I truely hope I've misunderstood your intention in writing "protests supporting the Palestinians over there, despite the fact that their chief means of 'resistance' is to target civilians", as it does seem to suggest that all Palestinians are terrorists.
I think I've already addressed this point. Are you trying to argue though that the chief means of Palestinian resistance (aside from a fierce media campaign, fought very effectively in Europe among other places) is not through targetting civilians?
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Bhau: Now is that a comment or a compliment?
It was a compliment in general along with a comment on your current sentiment. But maybe I now see your point: is it your opinion that the "War on Terror" has up until now done little or nothing to deter terrorism? It seems you're saying that invading Iraq did little to help in that regard; Afghanistan was perhaps better, and that the elections in Spain, other than allowing the terrorists to claim a victory, didn't really change any of their plans.
If that's your point, I can understand it. I disagree a bit in that I think that whacking Iraq and stabilizing Libya is a step toward reducing terrorism simply by removing some of the money and some of the training camps. But let's say you were the leader of the United World Anti-Terrorism Council and had complete authority to order action (and counries would actually comply )... what would you do to stop terror?
Joe
Sadanand Murthy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 382
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
is it your opinion that the "War on Terror" has up until now done little or nothing to deter terrorism? It seems you're saying that invading Iraq did little to help in that regard; Afghanistan was perhaps better, and that the elections in Spain, other than allowing the terrorists to claim a victory, didn't really change any of their plans.

I certainly believe this. It is true that terrorists have been apprehended & some have even been killed. Even though it has its cells & leaders & pawns & others inbetween, terrorism is an amorphous entity, it is an idea. And that is the difficulty that we face today in winning against terrorism. We will certainly win against terrorists, but winning against terrorism is an altogether different animal & we have not come close to winning this latter war. Terrorist groups need fodder aka willing recruits. Now, what has happened is, IMHO, this war in Iraq, however laudable it may be for having removed Saddam, has given rise to fresh, fertile source of this fodder. And that is why I believe that going into Iraq has not helped the anti-terrorism cause. I saw a piece of news today that US helicopters have fired rockets at a mosque in Fallujah or Ramadi killing 40 worshippers. Whether all 40 were truly pious worshippers or some of them were terrorists hiding amongst the worshippers is perhaps up for some investigation. But this act of firing at the mosque will probably give the terrorists more ammo in their war against the West, and especially against US. This will give them more justification to villify US as anti-Islam. Well, you may say that nothing we do will change that perception. True. And if this is true, then what Bhau said is also true. Nothing that Spaniards did/could have done as regards their election would have changed their (terrorists) actions.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If that's your point, I can understand it. I disagree a bit in that I think that whacking Iraq and stabilizing Libya is a step toward reducing terrorism simply by removing some of the money and some of the training camps. But let's say you were the leader of the United World Anti-Terrorism Council and had complete authority to order action (and counries would actually comply )... what would you do to stop terror?
Joe

Terrorism is like a hydra. I fear that we will never win this war against terrorism (against some terrorists, yes we will win). Personally, I've no clue how to stop this terror. It is very easy to go with heavy artillery against it, just as it is equally easy to not do anything in its face. But these terrorists are unlike any army, any military that any country in recent history has fought against. When religion is injected into then they have absolutely no fear of anything. Death is actually welomed by them. So, I wring my hands and pray that somehow, someone who has more wisdom than I, can come up with a sure-fire plan to eradicate it.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Sadanand Murthy ]

Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
I read an article the other day that talked about finding a permanent resolution to the middle east. The author analyzed some of the causes behind the mind set of middle easterners and came up with an interesting observation. The muslims of middle east seem to be more radical when compared to their asian counterparts or european counterparts. The author attributed this to the presence of a wealth generating resource in that area, namely oil. The radicalism can be attributed in part to the want of those in power in the middle east to try and preserve those resources. If oil did not exist in the middle east then the wealthy Imams and Princes of Arab nations would have no choice but to try and educate their population in order to develop their countries. But their existing wealth and the presence of oil prevents them from education their own populace in the fear that an educated Arab nation would displace them from their status quo. Thereby leading to democracy etc. and other evils of west.
Therefore, the weaning off of oil or the drying up of oil can be one of the best solutions for ending this kind of radicalism. There may be many flaws in this theory but it seems plausible, IMHO


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I saw a piece of news today that US helicopters have fired rockets at a mosque in Fallujah or Ramadi killing 40 worshippers. Whether all 40 were truly pious worshippers or some of them were terrorists hiding amongst the worshippers is perhaps up for some investigation.

US Says Iraq Guerrillas Fired from Falluja Mosque
"The ACF (anti-coalition forces) firing from the mosque wrongfully violated the law of war by conducting offensive military operations from a protected structure," the statement said.
"As a result, the mosque lost its protected status and therefore became a lawful military target. Nevertheless, the Marines only targeted the wall surrounding the compound in order to prevent damage to the mosque."

But this act of firing at the mosque will probably give the terrorists more ammo in their war against the West, and especially against US.

It could also make them think twice about hiding in mosques. It is a favorite tactic of these people to conduct operations from inside schools, hospitals, and mosques, hoping to take advantage of our reluctance to go after them there, as well as what they see as good PR if we do. What we need to start doing is begin leveling every single building they use for these purposes, particularly the ones they view as protected. We would be perfectly within our right to do so, and maybe, just maybe, it would teach them why such facilities are off-limits according to the international laws of armed conflict, and force them to change their tactics a bit.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Sadanand Murthy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 382
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
US Says Iraq Guerrillas Fired from Falluja Mosque

This wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

It could also make them think twice about hiding in mosques. It is a favorite tactic of these people to conduct operations from inside schools, hospitals, and mosques, hoping to take advantage of our reluctance to go after them there, as well as what they see as good PR if we do.

I doubt if this would make them think twice about hiding in mosques & other such places. I believe that this will only encourage them to do so because of its potency as a recruitment incentive "against enemies of Islam". I think that many westeners think/believe/hope that these terrorists think & behave as they themselves would in the same situation. Time and again the terrorists have proved them wrong.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What we need to start doing is begin leveling every single building they use for these purposes, particularly the ones they view as protected. We would be perfectly within our right to do so

I don't think that anyone will or can deny US this right. It is just a matter of effectiveness of their strategies in their war on terrorists.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

and maybe, just maybe, it would teach them why such facilities are off-limits according to the international laws of armed conflict, and force them to change their tactics a bit.
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Since when have the terrorists abided by the international laws of armed conflict? They haven't done so thus far; and I don't see them doing so ever. Their way of thinking, their mentality is very, very different from those of the rest; that's why they will not learn the same lesson that you and I may learn.
US has an extremely difficult and an even more extremely delicate situation with nothing but a hobson's choice for alternatives - damned if they do one thing, damned if they do a different thing, damned if they don't anything.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Originally posted by Joe King:
Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?

I'm not sure exactly what they think. I once had a roommate, otherwise a great guy, where we'd have conversations like:
Roommate: "Great! The Israelis got another terrorist!"
Me: [looking at newspaper article] "But it says here that they killed eight bystanders and only one suspected terrorist, and another suspect got away."
Roommate: "Well, they were probably all terrorism supporters anyway."
Me: "Even the six year old girl?"
Roommate: "She would probably have grown up to be a terrorist. Besides, we should support Israel because they've always been a good ally of ours."
Generally around then I would figure it was pointless to continue the discussion.
I've just looked up the population of Massachusetts, and it seems like the 5% figure you gave indicates that there are approx 317,454 people ...

... which is a much smaller number than the 6.5 million which is being argued is a "tiny fraction" of the European population.
My point, really, is that it's important to recognize that in any sizeable population, there are likely to be small fractions of that population that hold extreme views - and when we're at enough of a distance that the internal variation in those populations isn't always obvious, we should still keep in mind that those variations do exist, and be careful when generalizing to the overall population of, say, "Americans" or "Europeans". It also helps to keep in mind that sometimes when someone says, say, "Americans", they mean "all Americans", and sometimes they mean "at least two Americans"; if in doubt, it can help to ask for clarification.
Sadanand Murthy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 382
Originally posted by Warren Dew:

Roommate: "Great! The Israelis got another terrorist!"
Me: [looking at newspaper article] "But it says here that they killed eight bystanders and only one suspected terrorist, and another suspect got away."
Roommate: "Well, they were probably all terrorism supporters anyway."
Me: "Even the six year old girl?"
Roommate: "She would probably have grown up to be a terrorist. Besides, we should support Israel because they've always been a good ally of ours."

I saw a video clip on CNN just a few days ago. There is a group (some type of a human rights group the name of which eludes me at this time) in Israel that goes to the Israeli-Palestine checkpoints and videos how the Israeli troops treat the Palestinians. I saw that one of the Israeli soldiers (rather young) said that the animals were in cage referring to the Palestinians who had been put in a truck to be hauled off to the jail. Then he said that "We are humans, they are animals". This was the english subtitle to what he had said in Hebrew.
I'm sure there are Israelis who subscribe to this POV just as there are Israelis who don't. The problem with POV is that now that a person has been dehumanized into an animal, then it doesn't matter how you treat that person. The same is true for Palestinians, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis... What I want to point out is that in the ME at this time, Israelis are no saints. This POV clearly demonstrates that. One could argue that the Palestinian terrorism is the cause of such a POV. But that doesn't mitigate the dehumanization of Palestinians. I think this is a perpetual cycle of hatred and violence that the ME has got stuck in.
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Joe: is it your opinion that the "War on Terror" has up until now done little or nothing to deter terrorism?
Bhau: The "War on Terror" has done a pretty good job recently in many geographical areas. And I hope it continues further till its end, not just till Nov/Dec 2004.
Joe: It seems you're saying that invading Iraq did little to help in that regard;
Bhau: Ousted an evil dictator and his brutal regime to liberate Iraqi people was a VERY VERY good thing. (Okay, Ravish, we'll save it for a different thread whether they asked for it or not.) and I agree that stabilizing Libya is a step toward reducing terrorism simply by removing some of the money and some of the training camps.
Joe: But let's say you were the leader of the United World Anti-Terrorism Council and had complete authority to order action (and counries would actually comply )...
Bhau: It would have been a beautiful world if all the countries in the world would actually comply on such things, wouldn't it?
Joe: what would you do to stop terror?
Bhau: Since I 'm not the leader, and all the required information is not avaliable to me for analysis, the kind of information that was/is avaliable to Bush, Blair, Aznar, or Zapatero, both pre and post 9/11, my answer is - I don't know. I am still learning.
But one thing that I think I have understood is that Al-queda may attack different countries to swing their elections results, but they don't plan future attacks based on previous election results. They struck US when it turned left in 1993, and they struck US at the same spot again, when it turned right in 2001.
It's a war. Same game. Same tactics. America cuts-off Al-queda's money and weapons supply by freezing their accounts and containing hostile nations. Al-Queda cuts-off allies' support by terrorising them. For America, attacking Iraq, Libya, ... is just a part of the bigger game. For Al-queda, attacking Spain, Riyadh, Karachi, Bali, Madrid, ...is just part of the bigger game. They will not stop at Madird, be it Zapatero, be it Aznar. The current aim mentioned in fatwah is US.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
I saw that one of the Israeli soldiers (rather young) said that the animals were in cage referring to the Palestinians who had been put in a truck to be hauled off to the jail. Then he said that "We are humans, they are animals". This was the english subtitle to what he had said in Hebrew.

You can't really judge much based on this. The Israeli soldiers who man checkpoints face death daily and have grown extremely callous towards the Palesinians. They pretty much view every one of them as someone likely to kill them. These attitudes come as a result of the job they're forced to do.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Few years ago the Dutch government (then socialist (oops, "social democrat") donated a large amount of weapons and explosives to the PLO.
Officially this was for their "police" but the numbers were far larger than that "police" needed.
Over a thousand assault rifles with copious amounts of ammunition (our own police officers get arrested for attempted murder if they fire their pistols, which are the most powerful weapons they have, in anger and hit someone), hundreds of kilos of plastic explosives (for a police force???), military uniforms, etc. etc.
All or most came from our own army surplus, either because the weapons had been replaced (we were at the time replacing our rifles with a new model) or because they'd been made surplus due to cutbacks.
If you look today the PLO "police" doesn't use those weapons or uniforms, I wonder where they ended up but in the hands of terrorists?
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
JK: What I clearly said was outrageous was your claim that support for Hammas and the PLO comes mainly from socialist groups.
I never made that claim.

I apologise. Change the word "your" to "the", and the statement makes a bit more sense....

You seem to be under the impression that all Palestians are terrorists.
You are reading too much into things then if that's what it seems to you. I don't think anyone anywhere has made the claim that all Palestinians are terrorists. The only one has ever brought up that line of reasoning is you.


Again, nobody has ever made such claims and you are merely projecting this line of reasoning on people.

Warren Dew said "Even here in left wing Massachusetts, I think that at least 5% of the population likes to see Israelis kill palestinians - I know a couple personally. I suspect the percentage is much higher elsewhere in the U.S."
I then replied "Thats quite shocking actually. Is it really true that there are a lot of people in America who think that all Palestinians are terrorists?...that many people like to see Palestinians getting killed, not specifically terrorists getting killed is bordering on racist.". This was because his post specifically mentioned Palestinians not terrorists.
I then said "What I was trying to say was not that people from there are racists, but the idea that 'all Palestinians are terrorists' is racist.". Yes, I raised the subject, but had not attributed the statement to anyone - I was saying that the idea was racist, not a specific statement made by anyone.
You then said "protests supporting the Palestinians over there, despite the fact that their chief means of 'resistance' is to target civilians". You seemed to be indicating that its the Palestinians who are targetting civilians, not terrorists. At this point you seemed to be supporting the idea I mentioned above. I didn't "project" the line of reasoning on you - you appeared to project it upon yourself.
I then said " truely hope I've misunderstood your intention". This indicates that it wasn't entirely clear if you did have the view point or not. I still hope that you haven't and that I misubderstood your post. What I was saying was that your comment may be interpretted in a racist way.

Please stop trying to play the racism card when it doesn't exist. It's a cheap, albeit common, liberal tactic.

I saw a statement that I though could be racist. I stated that it seems to be racist. Its not a "cheap liberal" tactic, its mearly a statement of what I think your statement could mean. As I said above, I did not say that your statement was racist, but appeared that it could be.

Are you trying to argue though that the chief means of Palestinian resistance (aside from a fierce media campaign, fought very effectively in Europe among other places) is not through targetting civilians?

Yes. The chief method of the terrorists is through targetting civilians.
Jon McDonald
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2001
Posts: 167
Originally posted by R K Singh:

May I know after 9/11, in how many countries, which supoorts terrorism, US has launched militry operation ??
What names come to my mind is Afghanistan only.
Did I hear Iraq war was part of anti-terrorism war ??

The US is currently running military operations in several countries other than Afgahnistan and Iraq. We haven't formally invaded those countries as we did the other 2 because their governments are cooperating with us. I know that we are in the phillipines right now, and I think troops are also in Indonesia, Malaysia, and other countries in SE Asia. We've have a base in Yemen now, and even though we have closed our bases in Saudi Arabia, we still have "advisors" there.
The thing is that in these other countries, we are not sending in entire Infantry divisions to battle government armies. Rather, we have sent hundreds, if not thousands, of special operations personnel to these countries to coordinate operations with foriegn governments. This includes, but is not limited to, training of foriegn troops, providing logistical support, intelligence gathering, and joint military operations against terrorists within their country. It is happening just the way it should be happening, quietly. There are also rumors that the defense department may start (if they haven't already) sending Special Mission Units (Delta Force, SEAL Team 6) into countries such as Somalia to take out specific terrorists or terrorist cells.
Just because the mainstream media is not reporting things like this on the evening news, doesn't mean that the US is not running counter-terrorist operations far outside of Iraq and Afgahnistan.
Jon


SCJP<br/>
"I study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy in order to give their children a right to study painting poetry and music."<br />--John Adams
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Correct. And don't forget the longterm US commitment to battle drugs related groups (drugs are a major financing pipeline for terrorist groups as well as a means to get weapons and people into countries) in central and south America.
This mainly means supporting the local governments with equipment, training and intelligence but also small special forces teams and the occasional quick action to grab a dictator ).
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Speaking of appeasement and nonappeasement, the three Japanese hostages have been released:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/106/world/Militants_free_three_Japanese_:.shtml
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
yup, and not because the Japanese gave in but because they told the terrorists they'd never give in.
Feck with a race that has a warrior ethic as old as the Japanese and you're in for a long fight...
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
 
subject: Appeasement, Part II
 
Similar Threads
Programming is the worst job for US citizens
Who is first ?
This is just the beginning
Off-shoring is not just in IT
Wilma most intense Atlantic storm on record