[Troll]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3193248.stm

When the US vetoed the resolution condemning Israel's plans to assassinate Arafat, some of us predicted that Palestinian groups might soon take off the gloves and start attacking the US. Today, the US vetoed a resolution condemning the wall Israel is building and hours later, 4 US officials (apparently CIA) are killed in the West Bank.

Has the rubicon been crossed? It would appear so. Hamas et al have held back on targetting the US in the hopes that the US might help them out. Looks like the gloves are off - Americans seem to be fair game now. Add another group of militant fundamentalists to the list of people prepared to kill Americans. How long before they tie up with Al Qaeda? Nice one Mr. Bush. Your War on Terror is a real success.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
How long before they tie up with Al Qaeda? Nice one Mr. Bush. Your War on Terror is a real success.

Given the lack of terroristic attacks, it would be hard to call the war on terror a failure, no?

Regardless, I agree with you -- the US should condemn building the wall (which Mr. Bush actually did, in meek tones, he stated that the wall was a "problem"). The US should also condemn the building of settlements, and the lack of dismantling them.

That said, attacking the US outright would be probably the dumbest thing Hamas, et al, could possibly do. The US has restrained Israel again and again, if the gloves really do come off, there's little doubt that it'd be a bloodbath.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Given the lack of terroristic attacks, it would be hard to call the war on terror a failure, no?

From The Simpsons:

Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh? How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: (Exasperated) But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer ponders this, then pulls out some money.]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
From The Simpsons:

Sure, I understand your point -- but seriously, how are you going to measure such a thing? The answer is that there is no good way to measure the "success" of the war on terrorism, it largely depends on your opinion.

The only facts we have is that there have been no terroristic attacks on the US since the war on terror began, and plenty of people have been killed or taken into custody. That certain has to make a difference.

If I knew with certainty that a particular action would without a doubt reduce terrorism, I would take that path in a heartbeat, even if it went contrary to my preconceived notions. But no such certainty exists.

[icruise]

Originally posted by eklipse:
From The Simpsons:

Thinking back on it, that episode was almost scarily prescient, wasn't it?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
The only facts we have is that there have been no terroristic attacks on the US since the war on terror began, and plenty of people have been killed or taken into custody. That certain has to make a difference.

I think you mean "no terroristic attacks on US TERRITORY".

If not, I'm quite certain you're living in a very different world from mine.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I think you mean "no terroristic attacks on US TERRITORY".

Correct. That's what I meant.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Correct. That's what I meant.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "success", there.

-s*

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:

The only facts we have is that there have been no terroristic attacks on the US since the war on terror began, and plenty of people have been killed or taken into custody. That certain has to make a difference.

...except for the anthrax attacks.

and as noted, you're looking only at U.S. soil. Since the war on Iraq began, (which is argued to be part of the war on terror, but reasonable people disagree), dozens of Americans and Westerners have been killed in terrorist attacks...

Of course, there weren't (foreign) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for 20 years under Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan, either -- and under Clinton, the attempted millenium bomber was apprehended outside of Seattle. So perhaps those efforts worked pretty well too?


ANYWAY, as I've said before, moki, you seem to have joined the administration in conflating the War On Terror with the Wars Wherever We Go, rather than considering each action independently. Some actions might help reduce terror, like strengthening repressive police forces in Indonesia. Others, like war in Iraq, may not.

Let me ask you: Did Israel's invasion of Lebanon reduce terror?

[Troll]

The longer this action goes unclaimed, the more I'm thinking maybe this isn't an attack by a Palestinian group. Don't Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the boys usually claim responsibility for attacks relatively promptly?

If it isn't them, then who? Iraqis? This roadside bomb thing certainly fits in with the modus operandi of the Iraqi guerilla fighters. Or Al Qaeda? I wonder if Al Qaeda would interfere in Palestine.

Still, either scenario is worrying.

P.S. - "Terroristic" is not a word folks. It's a terrorist attack.

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Of course, there weren't (foreign) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for 20 years under Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan, either -- and under Clinton, the attempted millenium bomber was apprehended outside of Seattle. So perhaps those efforts worked pretty well too?

uh... you sure about that? I seem to recall the WTC being bombed the first time, don't you?

[Spliffdaddy]

There would need to be tigers present BEFORE the rock could keep them away.

Just like there were terrorist attacks BEFORE Dubya stopped them.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
uh... you sure about that? I seem to recall the WTC being bombed the first time, don't you?

You're right, sorry. How could a New Yorker forget?
We did apprehend those (most likely) responsible, though.

The rest of my post stands.

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You're right, sorry. How could a New Yorker forget?
We did apprehend those (most likely) responsible, though.

The rest of my post stands.

Didn't seem to make much of a dent though, did it, playing passive? They came back and leveled the towers for good the second time around.

So a different tactic is being tried now, because diplomacy, smiling, and shaking hands didn't work. We'll see how this goes over.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Didn't seem to make much of a dent though, did it, playing passive? They came back and leveled the towers for good the second time around.

So a different tactic is being tried now, because diplomacy, smiling, and shaking hands didn't work. We'll see how this goes over.

well, you also have a missing spot in your memory banks....is it your recollection that diplomacy, smiling, and shaking hands were the only actions taken by previous administrations vs. Al Qaida?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Just like there were terrorist attacks BEFORE Dubya stopped them.

Interesting. Which attacks did he stop?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Troll:
The longer this action goes unclaimed, the more I'm thinking maybe this isn't an attack by a Palestinian group. Don't Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the boys usually claim responsibility for attacks relatively promptly?

If it isn't them, then who? Iraqis? This roadside bomb thing certainly fits in with the modus operandi of the Iraqi guerilla fighters. Or Al Qaeda? I wonder if Al Qaeda would interfere in Palestine.

Still, either scenario is worrying.

P.S. - "Terroristic" is not a word folks. It's a terrorist attack.

I've been wrestling with the same questions. Palestinian groups haven't targeted Americans since the 80's. This would be a radical and shattering change in tactics. Not to mention pathologically suicidal.

If I were a cynic, I'd think someone was purposely trying to lure the US into an even more active role in the region which could be easily portrayed as "anti-arab". Nothing will help the Al'Queda cause more than the US fully endorsing Sharon's Wall or even, heaven forbid, taking an active military role against Palestine.

Someone is trying to drive a wedge between the US and Arabs even further. Its hard to me to think that Palestinian groups would do this to themsevles (they just might be crazy enough but historically they have been remarkably shrewd) but there are plenty of non-Palestinian factions that would love to see the US brutalizing some Arabs so they can rally the Jihadis against them.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by moki:
Didn't seem to make much of a dent though, did it, playing passive? They came back and leveled the towers for good the second time around.

So a different tactic is being tried now, because diplomacy, smiling, and shaking hands didn't work. We'll see how this goes over.

I think that you're wearing a pair of rose colored glasses right now if you think that everything the U.S. did was as innocent as "diplomacy, smiling, and shaking hands."

Not to mention forgetting things like the "Monica missiles."

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I've been wrestling with the same questions. Palestinian groups haven't targeted Americans since the 80's. This would be a radical and shattering change in tactics. Not to mention pathologically suicidal.

If I were a cynic, I'd think someone was purposely trying to lure the US into an even more active role in the region which could be easily portrayed as "anti-arab". Nothing will help the Al'Queda cause more than the US fully endorsing Sharon's Wall or even, heaven forbid, taking an active military role against Palestine.

Someone is trying to drive a wedge between the US and Arabs even further. Its hard to me to think that Palestinian groups would do this to themsevles (they just might be crazy enough but historically they have been remarkably shrewd) but there are plenty of non-Palestinian factions that would love to see the US brutalizing some Arabs so they can rally the Jihadis against them.

Yeah, one almost wonders whether Sharon wouldn't pull a stunt like this.

BUT, US investigators who went to the scene were stoned by Palestinians and forced to leave. It seems that there's a definite shift in the Palestinian psyche. Pacts with the devil never last. There was no real reason why the Palestinians and the Americans should get on. The US has done very little concrete for Palestinians and it has shown its true colours whenever the going got tough.

I don't think the US is being the handbrake on Israeli policy that some think it is. I'm not sure it would be suicidal for the Palestinians to take on the US at this point. The US is pretty weak right now on this issue. It doesn't have much room to manoeuvre. The Middle East is too much of a powder keg for them to take drastic action and I don't think they can support Israel much more than they already are.

I think this was par for the course given the US's last two exercises of its veto.

[Troll]

From the BBC:
"The US embassy convoy was on its way to interview people for a scholarship in the US when it was hit by what is believed to have been a remotely-detonated roadside bomb just inside Gaza."

Dear oh dear oh dear - that place is so f$cked up! I despair...

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Sure, I understand your point -- but seriously, how are you going to measure such a thing? The answer is that there is no good way to measure the "success" of the war on terrorism, it largely depends on your opinion.

The only facts we have is that there have been no terroristic attacks on the US since the war on terror began, and plenty of people have been killed or taken into custody. That certain has to make a difference.

If I knew with certainty that a particular action would without a doubt reduce terrorism, I would take that path in a heartbeat, even if it went contrary to my preconceived notions. But no such certainty exists.

I don't know about you or Bush, but if I were to commit tax-payers money and peoples lives to wage war on something, I would make damn sure that there would be a measurable observation of success once the dust settles - otherwise you might as well pick some coordinates at random and launch a tactical nuclear strike on 'something' and hope for the best.

America, like Homer, has bought itself a multi-billion dollar rock, it has had one 'tiger attack' today, let's hope it doesn't become a trend, eh?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
Didn't seem to make much of a dent though, did it, playing passive? They came back and leveled the towers for good the second time around.

moki, i wish you'd take a deep breath before posting something like that. "playing passive"? "leveled the towers for good"? that is hurtful, and mean, in addition to being incorrect.

*plonk*

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
moki, i wish you'd take a deep breath before posting something like that. that is hurtful, mean, irresponsible, and wrong.

*plonk*

Well, it wasn't intended to be any of the above, apologies if I offended you. My point was simply that terrorists have attacked us before, and playing nice-nice clearly didn't bring about the desired results, so now it's time to try something different, which is, seeking them out and killing them.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
Has the rubicon been crossed?

Ou boet, moenie nou kyk nie, maar ek sien PW in die spiël

(This is a South African thing based on the title of the post, which was a speech given once by the last hard core Apartheid primeminister)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
My point was simply that terrorists have attacked us before, and playing nice-nice clearly didn't bring about the desired results, so now it's time to try something different, which is, seeking them out and killing them.

Hmmm. I think I've spotted the problem. Which US policy in the Arab world would would you put under the category of "playing nice-nice"?

Arming Israel no matter what atrocities it commits? Arming Turkey no matter what atrocities it commits? Arming Saddam? Arming the Saud family? Supporting the Shah? Propping up brutal dictators no matter what they do to the population as long as they play ball economically? Our endless proxy wars? The Iraqi sanctions? East Timor?

I'm constantly amazed at those who seem to labor under the misaprehension that the US didn't even know the middle east existed (and certainly never meddled, manipulated, exploited, terrorized, etc) until 9/11.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, it wasn't intended to be any of the above, apologies if I offended you. My point was simply that terrorists have attacked us before, and playing nice-nice clearly didn't bring about the desired results, so now it's time to try something different, which is, seeking them out and killing them.

Thanks, I was thin-skinned. Sorry for overreacting, and I've de-plonked you.

But I don't know how you can talk about "playing passive" and "playing nice-nice":
* "Our Target Was Terror"
* U.S. missile strike against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan
* Clinton ordered Bin Laden killed

* Embassy bombings trial informat names alleged conspirators
* World Trade Center bombing conspirator gets 240 year prison term
* Jury convicts 2 in Trade Center blast

* Clinton backs anti-terror clampdown
* Clinton anti-terror summit: President seeks expanded wiretapping authority, chemical tracers

Yes, September 11 happened -- I was here, so I don't need reminding.

But turning it into a simple "we did badly before, we're doing well now" is silly. The Clinton and Bush Sr. administration definitely made mistakes, and in hindsight we can see clearly what should have been done differently.

But force alone does not end terror - ask an Irishman. It takes politics, economics, and culture to stem terrorism.

And this is an administration that is walking around with the hammer of military force, and sees an awful lot of nails out there.

Oh, and now that we've derailed the thread completely:
If you want to talk about "playing nice-nice", let's talk about this:

[moki]

Originally posted by Mithras:
But force alone does not end terror - ask an Irishman. It takes politics, economics, and culture to stem terrorism.

I agree, but I'd also argue that while the above will help fix the problem for future generations, many current terrorists are too far gone, and should simply be killed.

As I've said before, I think it takes a balanced approach of killing the terrorists who are simply beyond reproach, and the soft tactics you mentioned above to prevent further terrorists. Doing either one without the other is foolhardy beyond belief.

I believe that Iraq is actually all about the soft tactics you mention, but in a different way than you might think. Certainly the war is brutal, but an example of a prosperous, democratic regime will go a long way towards modernizing many countries in the area, and eliminating the problem at its roots in a way nothing else can.

I'll also say that there will always be fringe nutballs, or people who feel disenfranchised, just as there will always be common criminals. Nothing will eliminate terrorism, not ever -- but we can reduce its effectiveness and impact.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, it wasn't intended to be any of the above, apologies if I offended you. My point was simply that terrorists have attacked us before, and playing nice-nice clearly didn't bring about the desired results, so now it's time to try something different, which is, seeking them out and killing them.

again, this missing spot in your memory. Clinton bombed al-Qaida camps and several other places....not exactly "nice-nice". In fact, as we saw, violent reprisals against violence does not stop violence. Why you think it does is beyond me.
You are conveniently forgetting things here.
In fact, when Clinton bombed, he was accused of "wagging the dog" at the time by the republicans who felt he SHOULDN"T have taken such a hard line approach.
Its very interesting that now republicans conveniently forget that and criticize him for not being hard line enough or inaccurately proclaiming he only played "nice nice".

Can't have it both ways.

I, for one, did not approve when Clinton used bombing retaliations at the time, merely because, as we see, it does not stop terrorists.

[moki]

You are conveniently forgetting things here.
In fact, when Clinton bombed, he was accused of "wagging the dog" at the time by the republicans who felt he SHOULDN"T have taken such a hard line approach.

Actually, what I recall is people stating that lobbing some cruise missiles would do nothing (which it did). In other words, do it right, don't just toss some missiles around for show. Regardless, I didn't condemn the action then, I just wish he had more cahojones and did the job right.

Regardless, the timing was a wee bit suspicious, I'd say, and the nature of the attack seemed designed more for show.

But I think you confuse me with someone who had a major problem with Clinton. I didn't, it just seemed to me that he talked a good game about many things, but in actuality did very little.

I, for one, did not approve when Clinton used bombing retaliations at the time, merely because, as we see, it does not stop terrorists.

I dunno, when they are dead, it's pretty hard for them to do anything...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I dunno, when they are dead, it's pretty hard for them to do anything...

yes, and we've killed quite a few of them (supposedly) and as we see today, that doesn't really stop them, does it?

The problem with your logic is it assumes that the terrorists exist in a finite number in a vacuum. Does executing murderers end murder? No, because others will murder even after you kill x number of them.
If the original reasons for terrorism continue to exist, then killing individual terrorists accomplishes little, except the galvanize the remaining terrorists and help recruit new terrorists.
When you use violence to attack terrorism, you fall into the trap they've set. Remember, they WANT to be martyrs. When we act as we have been we allow them to be.

[Face Ache]

I think it's become clear after the recent Israeli attack on Syria that the US and Israel are one. Until very recently I thought Israel was pulling strings within the US. Now I believe the two countries simply share a vision - perhaps a vision of peace but a vision that requires the suppression of all arab states.

Once the arabs catch on things will really get interesting.

Look, the people that run the US aren't interested in freedom for Palestinians or Iraqis. It's not their job. The people in power in the US are charged with ensuring a prosperous and safe future for the US. That is all. It all comes back to the Project for the New American Century. It really does.

If the nations that roll over (or get rolled over) play nice, they'll get Coke and Levis. If not, they'll get crushed.

All this talk of "humanitarian causes" is just self-serving twaddle.

Meanwhile, 30 years of "progress":

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I think it's become clear after the recent Israeli attack on Syria that the US and Israel are one. Until very recently I thought Israel was pulling strings within the US. Now I believe the two countries simply share a vision - perhaps a vision of peace but a vision that requires the suppression of all arab states.

Once the arabs catch on things will really get interesting.

Look, the people that run the US aren't interested in freedom for Palestinians or Iraqis. It's not their job. The people in power in the US are charged with ensuring a prosperous and safe future for the US. That is all. It all comes back to the Project for the New American Century. It really does.

If the nations that roll over (or get rolled over) play nice, they'll get Coke and Levis. If not, they'll get crushed.

All this talk of "humanitarian causes" is just self-serving twaddle.

Meanwhile, 30 years of "progress":

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

yup. this is prong three: reshape the middle east into a more western-palatable region.

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
Ou boet, moenie nou kyk nie, maar ek sien PW in die spiël

(This is a South African thing based on the title of the post, which was a speech given once by the last hard core Apartheid primeminister)

;-) - that one was specially for you.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The problem with your logic is it assumes that the terrorists exist in a finite number in a vacuum. Does executing murderers end murder? No, because others will murder even after you kill x number of them.
If the original reasons for terrorism continue to exist, then killing individual terrorists accomplishes little, except the galvanize the remaining terrorists and help recruit new terrorists.
When you use violence to attack terrorism, you fall into the trap they've set. Remember, they WANT to be martyrs. When we act as we have been we allow them to be.

Well said!

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
I dunno, when they are dead, it's pretty hard for them to do anything...

That was something where Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heidrich were all in agreement with you. And they almost achieved their goal as well. Sieg heil!*













*Yup, that was a little wind up exersize, the point of which is that you should be more careful when you start advocating killing. You just by luck happen to live in the country that is doing a fair amount of the killing at the moment (whether or not that's justified is beyond this comment). The luck of the draw in time and space could have had you born as a luckless Mohammed in the Gaza strip, just in time to get your head shot off by an errant Israeli bullet in exchange for a suicide bombing the day before.

Where does killing the few bad ones stop and genocide start? How do you know who's the bad one? Ask him? Torture enough of them until the little towelhead ****ers admit it? You know why your and my countries hated the English so much prior to and after independence? Because that's the kind of things the English did back then. I went to a high school built on top of an old concentration camp as a testimony to English wisdom prior to it's loss of Empire, and history has a knack of repeating itself.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by theolein:
*Yup, that was a little wind up exersize, the point of which is that you should be more careful when you start advocating killing. You just by luck happen to live in the country that is doing a fair amount of the killing at the moment (whether or not that's justified is beyond this comment). The luck of the draw in time and space could have had you born as a luckless Mohammed in the Gaza strip, just in time to get your head shot off by an errant Israeli bullet in exchange for a suicide bombing the day before.

Where does killing the few bad ones stop and genocide start? How do you know who's the bad one? Ask him? Torture enough of them until the little towelhead ****ers admit it? You know why your and my countries hated the English so much prior to and after independence? Because that's the kind of things the English did back then. I went to a high school built on top of an old concentration camp as a testimony to English wisdom prior to it's loss of Empire, and history has a knack of repeating itself.

Well said.