Israeli General Derides Findings On Iraq
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
in Discussions
Things are starting to become more interesting.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iraq_intelligence_3' target='_blank'>Israeli General Derides Findings on Iraq</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
By PETER ENAV, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM - A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq.
The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army.
Career officers in Israel traditionally maintain close ties with military colleagues even after retirement. Brom's research was conducted under the aegis of Israel's leading strategic affairs think tank, Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center.
Brom said he was directing his remarks at Military Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the Mossad intelligence agency.
The army declined to comment. The Mossad did not immediately return a message.
Brom first raised his concerns in a report, "The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?" The article was published this week in "Strategic Assessment," the quarterly bulletin the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, where he works as a researcher.
American and British leaders used the purported existence of the weapons, including chemical and biological agents, as one of the main justifications for going to war with Iraq earlier this year.
Stuart A. Cohen, the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, wrote last month that with all the evidence the U.S. government possessed, "no reasonable person could have ... reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached."
Cohen was the acting chairman of the council when he oversaw the production of a National Intelligence Estimate summarizing U.S. evidence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, concluding that Iraq possessed prohibited biological and chemical weapons and missiles and was producing more.
Since ousting Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led coalition's technical experts have continued a futile search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
"Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the U.S. and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability," Brom said. "It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."
Brom said a lack of professionalism and poor supervision were major reasons for the Israeli intelligence failure.
"Even if Iraq had any Scud missiles left, I can't understand how Israeli intelligence officers came to believe they threatened Israel, particularly when they hadn't been used in more than 10 years," Brom said. "It's a clear example of how an inability to think clearly is undermining the Israeli intelligence community."
Israeli leaders said on the eve of the Iraq war there was an outside chance that Saddam Hussein might arm Scud missiles with chemical or biological agents and attack the country. Partially based on the precedent of the 39 Iraqi Scuds that hit Israel during the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), the warning resulted in the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars and disrupted daily life.
Brom also cited the bitter memories of the 1973 Middle East War, when Israeli intelligence failed to anticipate an attack by Egypt and Syria, and the country suffered thousands of casualties.
"Israeli intelligence agencies have tended to overstate the threat the country faces ever since 1973," he said.
Following the publication of Brom's article, opposition lawmaker Yossi Sarid called for a parliamentary inquiry on the performance of Israeli intelligence services.
Sarid told Israel Radio the article proved that Israeli intelligence assessments on Iraq caused Israel considerable damage by compelling it to prepare for "threats that did not exist."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd go so far as to say it's more a matter of malfeasance than just the Israeli intelligence community's "inability to think clearly." But that's just me.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iraq_intelligence_3' target='_blank'>Israeli General Derides Findings on Iraq</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
By PETER ENAV, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM - A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq.
The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army.
Career officers in Israel traditionally maintain close ties with military colleagues even after retirement. Brom's research was conducted under the aegis of Israel's leading strategic affairs think tank, Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center.
Brom said he was directing his remarks at Military Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the Mossad intelligence agency.
The army declined to comment. The Mossad did not immediately return a message.
Brom first raised his concerns in a report, "The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?" The article was published this week in "Strategic Assessment," the quarterly bulletin the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, where he works as a researcher.
American and British leaders used the purported existence of the weapons, including chemical and biological agents, as one of the main justifications for going to war with Iraq earlier this year.
Stuart A. Cohen, the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, wrote last month that with all the evidence the U.S. government possessed, "no reasonable person could have ... reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached."
Cohen was the acting chairman of the council when he oversaw the production of a National Intelligence Estimate summarizing U.S. evidence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, concluding that Iraq possessed prohibited biological and chemical weapons and missiles and was producing more.
Since ousting Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led coalition's technical experts have continued a futile search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
"Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the U.S. and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability," Brom said. "It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."
Brom said a lack of professionalism and poor supervision were major reasons for the Israeli intelligence failure.
"Even if Iraq had any Scud missiles left, I can't understand how Israeli intelligence officers came to believe they threatened Israel, particularly when they hadn't been used in more than 10 years," Brom said. "It's a clear example of how an inability to think clearly is undermining the Israeli intelligence community."
Israeli leaders said on the eve of the Iraq war there was an outside chance that Saddam Hussein might arm Scud missiles with chemical or biological agents and attack the country. Partially based on the precedent of the 39 Iraqi Scuds that hit Israel during the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), the warning resulted in the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars and disrupted daily life.
Brom also cited the bitter memories of the 1973 Middle East War, when Israeli intelligence failed to anticipate an attack by Egypt and Syria, and the country suffered thousands of casualties.
"Israeli intelligence agencies have tended to overstate the threat the country faces ever since 1973," he said.
Following the publication of Brom's article, opposition lawmaker Yossi Sarid called for a parliamentary inquiry on the performance of Israeli intelligence services.
Sarid told Israel Radio the article proved that Israeli intelligence assessments on Iraq caused Israel considerable damage by compelling it to prepare for "threats that did not exist."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd go so far as to say it's more a matter of malfeasance than just the Israeli intelligence community's "inability to think clearly." But that's just me.
Comments
Don't be mistaken though; just becasue it was in Israel's self interest does not mean it was bad. Saddam sponsored terrorism against Israel.
Also Ryo- in America at least, the "Where are the weapons!?" chant is falling on deaf ears. Americans are concerned with troop deaths, and not the justification of the war. Bush has spun thing goal as 'freeing the Iraqi people'. Most Americans are very romantic about the ideas of freedom and liberty, so Bush has manipulated that into protecting his **** from ridiculously bad intelligence.
I, of course, support the President's actions regardless of the WMD threat.
Whilst your leader may have somehow extricated himself from the Iraq mess, the Australian and British people were told that we went into Iraq because of WMD, and we don't have the same romantic notions as the American people. We want to know that billions of our tax money went into removing a threat to us. So far, seeing as the current tally of WMD is running at around about zero, a lot of people are getting **** off. And rightly so. We don't like being lied to.
<i>"Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. I think the United States must be humble . . . in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."</i>
People here cry that Saddam and Al Qaida are good buddies, yet the evidence for such a statement is extremely weak and tenuous at best. It is common knowledge that Saddam and Osama despise each other. These same people quickly forget that most of the 19 alleged hijackers they've named (even those that are still alive) were/are from Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida operates in many countries on many continents... Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia... yet here we are mired in Iraq. I think the reasons for why we're there are very easy to figure out. These extremely thin veils they keep whipping out and trying on are starting to be questioned by even the most ardent supporters of war.
We were not and are not romantic about freeing Iraq. In fact, without anyone telling the people here that Iraq was the place to start dropping bombs, no one would give two shits about them. The pro-war people of today did not spend the last decade romanticizing about freeing the poor Iraqi people ravaged by incredibly harsh sanctions. We were told that Iraq possessed WMD and was going to use them... immediately. Bush, Cheney, Powell, they all got up in front of the world and told us this. That was the reason for going to war, not some romantic idea about liberating the people of Iraq. This is purely an excuse for people so they don't feel so bad about what we've done, and for supporting Bush in his war.
People here want revenge for 9/11... they want to see others die. Especially Muslims/Arabs, since that's who they think attacked us. This is the American enemy right now, and it doesn't matter whether we're going after the right Muslims or not... if they're Arab, they're guilty and their lives are not as valuable as our own. We've booted tens of thousands of Muslims from this country since the Patriot Act became law. Hasn't turned up a single terrorist. I have many friends who have said "just nuke them all and get it over with." They don't even discern who "them all" is. I could share with you the racial slurs they choose to use in defining "them all" but I'd probably get into trouble.
I'm sure Israel is very happy that we feel this way. I'm also very sure the energy companies like Halliburton are glad we feel this way.
Most people see the Arabs as a under educated, poor angry mob lashing out at anyone or anything that differs from them. And for <i>many</i> of them this is true. They are bombard with more propaganda, and false statements then we are (Baghdad Bob for example) and most of them lack the education to filter out the bs that <i>many</i> of us do everyday. This in some respects can generate allot of contempt from people around the world who just don't have the ability to care whether the Shiite?s or the Sunni's can get along, and consider this kind of fighting Civil war era crap that should not have to be dealt with.
I just want to clarify that Bush, Israel or any major companies are hardly the main reasons people have a dislike towards the people of the Middle East.
step outside yourself and your country and ask yourself one question.
which country will feed its population the most propaganda, the poor one with few government TV stations, or the rich one with many corporate TV networks?
there is absolutly no doubt in my mind that we get just as much BS if not more than they do.
consider that your judgement of bias will affect how you see your own and 'their' 'propaganda levels', and then see how your statement fits in with my question.
also, everything you know about their systems is also filtered through our system (unless you directly watch arabic television, in which case I am somewhat offbase).
Al-Jazeera off the internet, and unless it was edited some of the crap in there makes FOX news look almost reliable. You only need one TV network to dish out the same amount of crap that we can, not to mention we have allot to distract us from the news, they are it.
Listen to the things the terrorists say in their video tapes, the things the extremists say. The propaganda has glorified being a martyr in Palestine, and I think it's safe to say it's been responsible for more then one bombing. These people are so much more susceptible to this then we are, because there conditions are so much worse then ours. But most people don't stop to think about why, they just think their stupid, their not stupid they just don't have educations, or a chance.
Which I can tie in with our invasion of Iraq being a good thing, it's not just some "romantic idea turned into propaganda to make us feel better" we really are helping them, these attacks on our forces won't last and in the end Iraq well be a better place. But no one wants to wait, stay the course, we want results now now now, Rome wasn't built in a day and hell the Romans were united, the Arabs don't even like each other and you expect Iraq to be on it's feet in even a year? Not likely.
step outside yourself and your country and ask yourself one question.
which country will feed its population the most propaganda, the poor one with few government TV stations, or the rich one with many corporate TV networks?
there is absolutly no doubt in my mind that we get just as much BS if not more than they do.
consider that your judgement of bias will affect how you see your own and 'their' 'propaganda levels', and then see how your statement fits in with my question.
also, everything you know about their systems is also filtered through our system (unless you directly watch arabic television, in which case I am somewhat offbase). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not so sure your conclusion follows from your premise.
Consider a poor country. It will of course use propaganda as much as it can, since it is a cheap and easy way to control (or at least influence) popular opinion. Unfortunately for the government, its people are jaded and are always suspicious of the government's motives, but they have no other source of information so they are forced to accept the propaganda.
Consider a rich country, with many corporate TV networks. It will of course use propaganda as much as it can, but unfortunately for the government the TV networks themselves work on a basis of viewership. And stories about such-and-such thing that the government did wrong draws much more viewership than stories about such-and-such thing that the government did right.
Sure, we may get as much BS as they do. But unfortunately for them (and your argument), that's the only thing they get.
You could have argued about Al Jazeera, which seems to be a fairly credible source of news, but it does have some very distinct anti-Western bias, and I'm not exactly sure how much of the Arab world watches it.
I won't include the bulk of that link, since it's not the topic of this thread and it's really too long for it. But here are some excerpts:
<i>"<b>Q. Why should suicide terrorism be the object of a scientific investigation?</b>
A: Within a few days of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I started listening to the stuff that was in the media and from the administration--for example, President Bush's speech on September 11th and the next he gave on September 20th before Congress. I thought, 'What utter nonsense'--this idea that these people were crazed or they're doing it out of despair or hopelessness. The whole history of these kinds of acts goes against this. I decided to write an article and get it into the scientific press, because governments, I believe, would take up what their scientists tell them, since there is a huge respect for science.
<b>Q. Why do you regard the popular stereotype of the suicide terrorist as nonsense?</b>
A: The CIA released a report in 2001 on the psychology and sociology of terrorism, and they basically said these people are perfectly sane. If you look at the history of these kinds of extreme acts, they're pretty much directed by middle-class or higher-middle-class intellectuals. They always have been. Never have they been directed by wacky, crazed, homicidal nuts. The Japanese kamikaze of World War II were, by the way, extremely intelligent guys. If you read their diaries, they were German romantics, reading Goethe and Schiller, and quite conscious of the efforts of the state to manipulate them.
<b>Q. What sort of scientific research indicates that suicide bombers are sane?</b>
A: Some of the earlier research was by Ariel Merari, who is a psychologist at Tel Aviv University and also a terrorism expert. He interviewed suicide bombers--survivors who were wounded and didn't die or whose bombs didn't go off--as well as their families or recruiters. Like most psychologists in the 1980s, he thought that this was individual pathology, like the idea that racists come from fatherless families or have a history of family trouble. He made a 180-degree turn and found out that no, the bombers span the normal distribution and were slightly above it in terms of education and in income.
Nasra Hassan, who is a Pakistani relief worker working in Gaza for a number of years, interviewed about 250 family members, recruiters, and survivors, completely independently. She was not aware of Merari's work, and she found exactly the same thing. Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University, has done long-term studies with Hezbollah and Hamas. <b>His research shows that not only are suicide terrorists significantly more educated than their peers, they are also significantly better off. </b> According to Krueger, although one-third of Palestinians live in poverty, only 13 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers do; 57 percent of bombers have education beyond high school versus 15 percent of the population of comparable age.
"</i>
For examples of this, look no further than the most wanted Arab of all... Osama Bin Laden. This guy is incredibly wealthy being from a well-to-do family that has made and still makes a lot of money. He has degrees in civil engineering and public administration. He is not some crazed person who hates us for what <b>we</b> do. He hates the US government because of what <b>it</b> does... sanctions against Iraq, the murder of Arabs, using Saudi Arabia (Muslim Holy Land) as a military base, and the biggest of all: support Israel and our hypocritical stance on Israel's wrongdoings against Muslims. Arabs might detest the US for backing Israel, but it truly is Israel that they hate the most.
His objective is to stop the US and Israel from afflicting his fellow Muslims. He could care less about the American people and their silly consumer-driven ways. The 1998 manifesto from Al Qaida makes this clear. His goal will be accomplished if the US pulls out of all Islamic lands and stops supporting Israel. His goal is not to destroy our way of life or our people, despite what most people here think. The stereotypes and understandings most Americans have of Muslim terrorists and their motives are flat-out wrong. It's not hard to see why, since the source of their information happens to be the media; a biased, censored, and easily-influenced propaganda machine. The answer to winning the war on terrorism is simple... pull out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else then cut off ties to Israel. Why can't we do this? Ahh yes, I know exactly why we can't seem to do this.
Consider a poor country. It will of course use propaganda as much as it can, since it is a cheap and easy way to control (or at least influence) popular opinion. Unfortunately for the government, its people are jaded and are always suspicious of the government's motives, but they have no other source of information so they are forced to accept the propaganda.
Consider a rich country, with many corporate TV networks. It will of course use propaganda as much as it can, but unfortunately for the government the TV networks themselves work on a basis of viewership. And stories about such-and-such thing that the government did wrong draws much more viewership than stories about such-and-such thing that the government did right.
Sure, we may get as much BS as they do. But unfortunately for them (and your argument), that's the only thing they get.
You could have argued about Al Jazeera, which seems to be a fairly credible source of news, but it does have some very distinct anti-Western bias, and I'm not exactly sure how much of the Arab world watches it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, my argument does kind of fall down there.
but then dont forget that in the west international ignorance rains supreme, the majority of people out there chose to ignore the accessable alternate news, seeing it as conspiratorial, or overly left wing and instead tune into Fox. And that in the east people could and can communicate by word of mouth (not to mention seeing what is happening around them) for an alternate point of view.
His objective is to stop the US and Israel from afflicting his fellow Muslims. He could care less about the American people and their silly consumer-driven ways. The 1998 manifesto from Al Qaida makes this clear. His goal will be accomplished if the US pulls out of all Islamic lands and stops supporting Israel. His goal is not to destroy our way of life or our people, despite what most people here think. The stereotypes and understandings most Americans have of Muslim terrorists and their motives are flat-out wrong. It's not hard to see why, since the source of their information happens to be the media; a biased, censored, and easily-influenced propaganda machine. The answer to winning the war on terrorism is simple... pull out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else then cut off ties to Israel. Why can't we do this? Ahh yes, I know exactly why we can't seem to do this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, Bin Laden is no moron, most leaders aren't (including Bush before you think anything) but notice Bin Laden isn't the one blowing him self up, or flying planes into buildings. He uses the big M word to get people to do the dirty work for him. His "martyrs" many of which are mindless hench men, poorly trained in combat or anything else for that matter, any idiot can shoot a guy in the head and then run like hell, or place a bomb somewhere. Naturally I'm sure he sent the smarter ones over here for 9/11, you don't want a moron doing something like that.
As for Israel, I know why we can't do that ether, because they are our only true ally in the Middle East, and the only one with a stable, guarantied non terrorist supporting, government. Not to mention we have been helping them for years now, to just stop would be like just leavening Iraq now. Honestly, I know this will sound like classic American arrogance (which all the smaller less powerful countries love to say....because their smaller and less powerful <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) but were the most powerful country in the world, if we want to support Israel we have every damn right, if we want to build bases in Arab countries, and the governments lets us we more then have every damn right. We are the "world police" we need our stations.
I think you'd have to be crazy to kill people. Whether it is a plot to take over the world or to kill several thousand Americans by colliding planes into the sides of large skyscrapers, you *can't* be as sane as you or I.
I could never commit such an act, nor could I approve of such an act. I'm pretty sure most of you couldn't either. However, if you would, I'm sure there is a good psychiatrist out there somewhere who deals with reality issues in some insane assylum somewhere since life isn't a game.
He may come from a well-to-do family and have lots of money. It doesn't make him sane. He could read countless intellectual books and still be insane. INSANE does not mean HOMELESS! Nor does it mean one of the following words: intelligent, stupid, happy, sad, rich, poor, dog, cat. Anyone can be insane. As far as I'm concerned, if he was capable of killing so many people, he's off his rocker since any sane person would not.
1. Though the organizer behind terrorist activitys is often wealthy the ones who carry them out are not unless they get money from the organization itself.
2. Evis, as MANY of your posts have proven to be (IMO) biased in the past I am reluctant to take any of your statements as fact yet.
3. I am from a well to do family and I am sane. Murderers can come from all backrounds.
4. If OBL was oh so intent on only getting US troops to pull out why did he kill so many civilians at the WTC? Ghandi got Britain to leave India through non violent protest.
Hawkeye, check out that Discover article. These suicide bombers are not insane lunatics. Anthropologists have done a lot of research on suicide bombers, from Kamikazes to Hamas to Hezbollah. They are on average more intelligent, more sane, and more wealthy than their peers. US Soldiers are not insane people, yet they have no problem killing for their cause. It's <b>exactly</b> the same reasoning. In one case, it's a military operation. In another case, it's terrorism. Simple as that. Read the article, it explains why they have to resort to such extreme measures as suicide bombings.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the pilots of the Enola G4y were insane? Every soldier who has ever fought is crazy? Within every person lies the capacity to kill, and the fact that in every society across the planet perfectly sane people kill other people every day shows us that those capacities can rise to the fore quite easily. I have no doubt that the s-11 hijackers knew exactly what they were doing and were prefectly sane and rather intelligant educated men. Come on, they flew airliners! Someone with only a high school education and an IQ of 80 doesn't hop behind the controls of a 767 and fly it just about perfectly.
Evis, I respect you but please, we've been over this whole Israeli conspiracy tangent before. You've gotta provide some more convincing proof otherwise no-one is going to take it seriously. The false intelligance report though does seem to hold some water.
Hawkeye, check out that Discover article. These suicide bombers are not insane lunatics. Anthropologists have done a lot of research on suicide bombers, from Kamikazes to Hamas to Hezbollah. They are on average more intelligent, more sane, and more wealthy than their peers. US Soldiers are not insane people, yet they have no problem killing for their cause. It's <b>exactly</b> the same reasoning. In one case, it's a military operation. In another case, it's terrorism. Simple as that. Read the article, it explains why they have to resort to such extreme measures as suicide bombings. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Osama had everything to do with 9/11, and you have yet to prove otherwise to me, I'll leave it at that.
What "intelligent, sane" person would blow himself up to kill what 14 Jews in a restaurant? What intelligent person would waste his life on something that in the greater scheme of things is utterly meaningless?
Their fools, an intelligent person would realize that blowing himself up on a bus is not going to fix anything, or make his country any better. They do it because they are poor, filled to the brim with anti-Jewish propaganda, their families will get money from Saudi princes, and hell if he's the lucky one to get his name picked out of a hat his picture will be plastered on the side of the largest hut in Palestine. These people have ideals, that does not make them sane, or intelligent.
Their fools, an intelligent person would realize that blowing himself up on a bus is not going to fix anything, or make his country any better. They do it because they are poor, filled to the brim with anti-Jewish propaganda, their families will get money from Saudi princes, and hell if he's the lucky one to get his name picked out of a hat his picture will be plastered on the side of the largest hut in Palestine. These people have ideals, that does not make them sane, or intelligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're not following what I've been trying to say. That Discover article answers all of the questions you are asking, and then some. Here is one such question and answer:
<i>
"Q. What sort of scientific research indicates that suicide bombers are sane?
...
The Defense Intelligence Agency also gave me profiles of all these people they were interrogating at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. They divide them into Yemenis and Saudis. The Yemenis are sort of the foot soldiers. And they found that the Saudis, their leaders especially, are from high-status families. A surprising number have graduate degrees. And they are willing to give up everything. They give up well-paying jobs, they give up their families, whom they really adore, to sacrifice themselves because they really believe that it's the only way they're going to change the world.
Q. How on earth does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up, together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?
A: Exactly the same way that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved 'brothers' who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological evolution. In fact, I think most culture is a manipulation of innate desires. It's the same way that our fast-food industry manipulates our desires for sugars and fats, or the way the pornography industry manipulates people to get all hot about pixels on a screen or on wood pulp.
Q. So what's the root cause of suicide terrorism?
A: As a tactical weapon, it emerges when an ideologically devoted people find that they cannot possibly obtain their ends in a sort of fair fight, and when they know they're in a very weak position, and they have to use these kinds of extreme methods."</i>
Suicide terrorists have come to be because they understand it is impossible to fight the US on "fair" terms. Nearly all other countries, especially second or third-world, can ever possibly afford the technology and weaponry to combat the US on a level playing field. This is especially true in Muslim countries. Israel could not afford to fight their wars without our financial aid and without our military training and exports. Muslim countries in the Middle East see the US suppressing them in unfair fights (particularly Iraq in Gulf War I,) and giving additional weapons and aid to Israel who continues to do the same. Is it any wonder they resort to such extreme tactics? They aren't willing to just give in, they fight for what they believe in. Just as our forefathers did hundreds of years ago. Except in their case, they can't fight at the same level as their enemies.
These people are not fools, they are not poor, they are not filled to the brim with propaganda, and their families get nothing. Nearly all of your assumptions about terrorist motives are simply wrong. Please, just read that article. It's from Discover.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Evis, I respect you but please, we've been over this whole Israeli conspiracy tangent before. You've gotta provide some more convincing proof otherwise no-one is going to take it seriously. The false intelligance report though does seem to hold some water.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, sometimes it just slips. Forget I said it, I don't want to go down that track with this thread for fear of it getting locked. That's merely my opinion so we'll leave it as that. I'll steer clear of that direct issue and try instead to keep building a case with other pieces of information. This is one such thread. I've had a few others, particularly the ones about FOX news, PR campaigns, etc. I'll start another one at some point detailing historical references, beginning with WWI. Just need to finish my research.
Just to add my bias in to this thread, I didn't see much evidence against Osama, spare that he is 'evil'.
"747 crashed in to this building so hard that even the black boxes melted and yet we found a terrorist passport from the rubble!" *cough* believable evidence?
"These people managed to make the most succesful terrorist hit ever but they left their car on the parking lot with Koran and flightmanual." Duh.
I'm not saying Osama did it or didn't, but I just missed all the real evidence that USA's intelligence gathered. Though this thread is not about that, so if you want to link me some evidence just PM me.
Ontopic: Seems like Israel has the motive to do something like that but even if the coalition knew about it, they would probably do jack. Having defended their allies for so long time, I don't think USA is going to turn against Israel. Also people don't like to be lied to, so it's smart to keep this down.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That article, as far as I can see does not pertain to the Palestinian suicide bombers in anyway, and only relates to a few terrorists that have been examined at Guantanamo. The majority of the world’s suicide bombers seem to be originating in Palestine, at least ones that actually go through with it.
I still stand by what I said, an intelligent sane person would not blow himself up, for almost no reason. These attacks in Israel, while having a great psychological effect, do very little real damage.
Now I don't know what you thought I was talking about but the Palestine’s get allot of anti-Jewish propaganda, and I think it's been proven their families get money when the blow themselves up, not to mention they get to be a blessed "martyr".
A soldier throwing himself on a grenade to cover others or a soldier who runs against machinegun fire in order to throw a satchel charge in a bunker risks his life almost for no reason. While having a great psychological effect, saving a couple of comrads doesn't do much good on a large scale.
We refer to these people, for example firemen, as heroes when they risk their lives for greater good.
We refer to these people, for example palestinians, as terrorists when they risk their lives for their ideaology and greater good.
See my point?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the pilots of the Enola G4y were insane? Every soldier who has ever fought is crazy? Within every person lies the capacity to kill, and the fact that in every society across the planet perfectly sane people kill other people every day shows us that those capacities can rise to the fore quite easily. I have no doubt that the s-11 hijackers knew exactly what they were doing and were prefectly sane and rather intelligant educated men. Come on, they flew airliners! Someone with only a high school education and an IQ of 80 doesn't hop behind the controls of a 767 and fly it just about perfectly.
Evis, I respect you but please, we've been over this whole Israeli conspiracy tangent before. You've gotta provide some more convincing proof otherwise no-one is going to take it seriously. The false intelligance report though does seem to hold some water. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said anything about their intelligence. Let me make that clear. I understand a person with an 80 IQ and a high school education can't fly a plane. Nor could he want to kill himself for a cause he doesn't understand. It seems to me he has a better grasp of the concept than the people who kill themselves.
The average Joe would not want to pick up a gun and start shooting people. In times of war, NOTHING CHANGES! The average Joe would STILL not want to pick up a gun and start shooting people. The people who join the army looking to kill people for a cause forgotten in a few hundred years are insane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->insanity
\In*san"i*ty\, n. [L. insanitas unsoundness; cf. insania insanity, F. insanite.] 1. The state of being insane; unsoundness or derangement of mind; madness; lunacy.
All power of fancy overreason is a degree of insanity. --Johnson.
Without grace The heart's insanity admits no cure. --Cowper.
2. (Law) Such a mental condition, as, either from the existence of delusions, or from incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under action, does away with individual responsibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm particularly interested on the "incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under action, does away with individual responsibility." Under normal circumstances, if you kill someone, you know you did something wrong. If you don't, you in the Charles Manson catagory. So what's the difference between a guy dressed in a military outfit who has no guilt for killing for his cause, and Charles Manson? Manson doesn't wear a military outfit.
EDIT. Hawkeye, the guy in the military suit is only a Charles Manson if his intention for joining the military was to kill people
I think it was concluded on site that the transmitters in the black boxes didn't activate. That takes one of a few things, like getting wet for instance. It was thought that all the water being sprayed around would do it but afaik neither bleeped. Of course, that doesn't mean they didn't find 'em and just not tell anyone. Coulda been squished under a bunch of rubble or burned too, yah.
EDIT. Hawkeye, the guy in the military suit is only a Charles Manson if his intention for joining the military was to kill people <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, it is the law's definition, however I feel it is still the right definition.
So you agree that someone who joins the military in order to kill is a Charles Manson in a military suit right? In what way is volunteering to blow yourself up NOT joining the military in order to kill someone? I think it is a given that when you strap dynamite to your chest, you know you're not coming back. It would be really really stupid to do that and not be out to kill anyone. Suicide bombers are out to kill people, hence they've lost their marbles according to your own logic. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If by "few" you mean "hundreds of terrorists and their families over many years," and if by "not pertaining to Palestinians" you mean "specifically pertaining to Palestinians," then yes I agree with your statement. You may just want to sit down and read the whole thing, without skimming through just a few paragraphs.
<i>"Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University, has done long-term studies with Hezbollah and Hamas. His research shows that not only are suicide terrorists significantly more educated than their peers, they are also significantly better off. According to Krueger, although one-third of <b>Palestinians</b> live in poverty, only 13 percent of <b>Palestinian</b> suicide bombers do; 57 percent of bombers have education beyond high school versus 15 percent of the population of comparable age."</i>
They have done significant long-term research on suicide bombers... Palestinians in particular.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still stand by what I said, an intelligent sane person would not blow himself up, for almost no reason. These attacks in Israel, while having a great psychological effect, do very little real damage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anthropological studies have proven that this is not correct. Very intelligent, well-to-do people blow themselves up. "For almost no reason" is flat-out wrong. They are not blowing themselves up without reason. They have a tremendous number of reasons... so many and so strong that these <b>graduate</b> students with families, careers, a lot to lose... are willing to suicide to make people aware of their cause. Buddhist monks have set themselves on fire to make a statement. People purposefully starve themselves to death to make statements. Suicide bombers are exactly the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I don't know what you thought I was talking about but the Palestine’s get allot of anti-Jewish propaganda, and I think it's been proven their families get money when the blow themselves up, not to mention they get to be a blessed "martyr".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam said he'd send cash to suicide bomber families. I doubt he's actually delivered or is even capable of delivering on that promise now. Even so, their families don't need the money. These suicide bombers are not dirt poor people looking to find ways to give cash to their relatives. Cash is not the issue, it's the statement they are trying to make and the cause they are dying for. They are reduced to using this extreme method because they can't find any other way to defeat their enemy. The countries they live in are incapable or are unwilling to fight via military strength. Israel has nukes and isn't afraid to use them, so it's tough going.
EDIT. Hawkeye, the guy in the military suit is only a Charles Manson if his intention for joining the military was to kill people <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, it is the law's definition, however I feel it is still the right definition.
So you agree that someone who joins the military in order to kill is a Charles Manson in a military suit right? In what way is volunteering to blow yourself up NOT joining the military in order to kill someone? I think it is a given that when you strap dynamite to your chest, you know you're not coming back. It would be really really stupid to do that and not be out to kill anyone. Suicide bombers are out to kill people, hence they've lost their marbles according to your own logic. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are way out in the external haystacks.
As Evicerator has already said, these people arent interested in commiting Holocaust, but to make a point. That may be also why they are using suicide bombers instead of just a gun massacre.
Having a "point" doesn't make it any better. I could kill the next person that walks by and say my point of killing him was because of the ants crawling all over his body. Would that make me any saner? No, certainly not.
I don't know what it is about war that makes everyone think killing is okay then, but it isn't. War is the weeding out of mentally defective people who believe in dying for anything (especially for their country at the expense of their friends/family and everything they've worked hard for). I wish this wasn't the case. The guy that blows himself up for a lost cause is probably the same guy who would have had many grandchildren and lived a long and happy life. Those grandkids' lives would have been no different than if he had killed himself except that they wouldn't be alive to enjoy it. War is hell.
Saddam has nothing to do with it, and you'll notice I didn't mention him.
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51252,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51252,00.html</a>
<a href='http://www.postevents.com/w/jewishnetwork_com/israel/020514_aipac.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.postevents.com/w/jewishnetwork_...20514_aipac.asp</a>
"Saudi Adviser: Suicide Bombers' Families Receive Money
A top adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah admitted last week that Saudi Arabia is paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the AP reported. "We have given hundreds of millions of dollars to assist Palestinians," said Adel Jubeir, who added that "support will go to every family in need; we do not ask where they come from." Israel recently released a document showing that the Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry has paid at least $135 million to help the families of suicide bombers and support other aspects of the Palestinian campaign of violence against Israel, including donating money to seven charities that fund the Islamic terrorist group Hamas. This latest evidence of terrorism funding comes at the same time Saudi Arabia is working to advance its version of an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and demonstrate a willingness to aid the U.S. war on terror."
Now you have to wonder, if these families are so "well to do" why do they need all this money.
I remember a while back seeing a tape of a Palestinian mother who seemed all too happy her son/daughter (I can't remember) blew him/herself up. That’s just, for a lack of better words, messed up! Stop trying to justify it because you have a vendetta against Israel. If they wanted to destroy the Palestinians they easily could, if you notice Palestinian attacks only bring retributions from Israel and cause more suffering. You think these "intelligent" people would realize that.
Also the fact Israel has nukes has nothing to do with the Palestinians, nuking them would be like going after a fly in your own home with a bazooka. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
(edit) forgot the damn quotes...
Never underestimate the power of nationalism. People will try and fight back against a oppresser, even if the oppression is only occuring because your nation's people provoked them. It doesn't matter; nationalism evokes very strong sentiments and will cause people to give their lives in a struggle such as the one in Palistine. When the only weapons you have are plastic explosives and pistols against tanks and helicopters, you try and fight back as best you can, and the weakest spot in the Israeli state is it's citizens. Do you think that the US and British airmen who firebombed German and Japanese cities in WWII thought to themselves "Well gee, these guys really have nothing to do with the war, let's just leave them alone"? No they didn't, because they understood that when you are fighting a nation everyone and everything is a target. Israel will bomb an entire apartment building to kill one man just like Palistinian suicide bombers will blast a bus apart to make Israeli civilians afraid.
Israel hopes that it will eventually destroy all of the terrorist infrastucture and end the attacks. The Palistinian bombers hope that their attacks on civilians will force the Israeli government to back down a withdraw from the West Bank and Jerusalam. Of course, neither side can really win; the attacks of both simply fuel the cycle of violence. My point here is that both sides have a stratagy that is quite legitimate, militarily speaking, and that nationalism fuels the strong emotions and sentiments on both sides. A Palistinian boy and an Israeli boy both decide to join the military struggle on both sides for pretty much the same reason: "The other guys attacked us."