3/11 And 9/11, Take Two
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
By now we've all heard about the terrorist attacks on Spain and the massive loss it cost to the people of Madrid. Only a couple of days after the attack elections were held in the country and a Socialist party was put into office when the Popular party was a clear favorite before.
On September 11th terrorists attacked the US and caused massive destruction and loss in New York, within hours of the attack the US launched missles at Afghanistan, and only several weeks afterwards Congress unannimously passed a resolution to allow the US to invade Afghanistan.
While elections and war pacts are only necessary reactions to these attacks could these reactions possibly be seen as a success to the terrorists that commit these crimes? If it becomes common happenstance that great political upheaveal and change occur in ever country that suffers a massive terrorist attack will this be insentive to Al Queda and like groups to continue these attacks?
If you are a citizen of Spain what effects do you think the political change will have on your country, do you think it's for the better or worse? And to everyone else what do you think the global position on terrorism should be in the comming years?
Ok I guess we need rules posted
#1 serious replies only please.
#2 use discussion format with support for your point and elaboration on ideas.
On September 11th terrorists attacked the US and caused massive destruction and loss in New York, within hours of the attack the US launched missles at Afghanistan, and only several weeks afterwards Congress unannimously passed a resolution to allow the US to invade Afghanistan.
While elections and war pacts are only necessary reactions to these attacks could these reactions possibly be seen as a success to the terrorists that commit these crimes? If it becomes common happenstance that great political upheaveal and change occur in ever country that suffers a massive terrorist attack will this be insentive to Al Queda and like groups to continue these attacks?
If you are a citizen of Spain what effects do you think the political change will have on your country, do you think it's for the better or worse? And to everyone else what do you think the global position on terrorism should be in the comming years?
Ok I guess we need rules posted
#1 serious replies only please.
#2 use discussion format with support for your point and elaboration on ideas.
Comments
[edit]
Before I start, I think it's necessary to make a few base assumptions without of which this thread will quickly be derailed into stereotyping again:<ul><li>The Spanish socialist party is <i>not</i> to be equalled with the apparatschnik parties of the Soviet Union and its sattelite states. Instead, it's got roots in the pre-Leninist worker movement. Again, do not try to equal these socialists with the 'communists' of the Cold War.</li><li>Al Quaedas recent letters and mails cite not only the conflict in Iraq, but also Spains engagement in Afghanistan and its general role in the Anti-Terror Coalition as reason for the strike. Don't repeat the Iraq discussion in here, it's only one of the influences that led to this.</li><li>President Zapatero never stated that he was going to remove the Spanish troops - full stop; he always coupled it with the question of an UN mandate over the peacekeeping mission. Repeat, if the deployment is being put in the hands of the UN, as opposed to the US, the Spanish troops will <i>stay</i>.</li></ul>OK, I think it's now safe to continue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While elections and war pacts are only necessary reactions to these attacks could these reactions possibly be seen as a success to the terrorists that commit these crimes? If it becomes common happenstance that great political upheaveal and change occur in ever country that suffers a massive terrorist attack will this be insentive to Al Queda and like groups to continue these attacks?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very central question regarding any kind of anti-terrorism.
We should always keep in mind that a terroristic force of the kind of Al Quaeda couldn't even inflict the civil losses an army causes by accident within any kind of large scale operation if it tried. Extremistic terrorist cells are by definition not capable of posing a significant threat to a nations structural integrity - if they were, they wouldn't be terrorists, they'd be soldiers.
The only way for them to reach their aims is thus publicity. Let's face it, yes, 9/11 and 3/11 are tragedies, but would we even have noticed the loss of life is the media hadn't broadcasted about it? 3000 / 200 deaths are horrible, but they won't shake a nations fundaments, unless the - incredibly bigger - rest of the nations population is being informed of it and requires the government to act - which, in turn, could play into the terrorists hands if they staged the whole thing cunningly enough.
A German columnist brought this schizophrenic situation to the point when he commented upon the reactions to the doings of the left-extremistic Red Army Faction: "Six have declared war on six million! We'd best declare martial law."
If we assume this to be true, then any action will at least be a source of motivation to the terrorists. Beyond that point, we'll have to differentiate:
In the case of 9/11, I'd argue that the Bush administrations reactions fulfilled Al Quaedas expectations. This sounds ridiculous considering that these reactions cost them their safest haven and a lot of high ranking operatives, but keep in mind that fundamentalistic terrorism is strongly based on the concept of martyrism: One persons, or groups, despair can induce very strong feelings in by far bigger parts of a population (note that this is ironically the same principle I described above for the other side). If Al Quaeda is being harshly prosecuted, it'll gain sympathies with people who didn't disregard them up to that point. If innocents are in despair at the hand of foreigners - and let's don't kid ourselves, a Middle Eastern 16 years old lacks both the information and the empathy towards the West to consider the role of 9/11 in this - other innocents will want revenge.
No matter what we may think about the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, we'll agree that they brought forth immense amounts of both kinds of incidents - water on the propagandistic mills of Al Quaeda. The mere fact that the terrorist network is capable of operating at so many places at the same time right now - we're looking at the whole Middle East, especially Afghanistan and Iraq, at Spain, and most certainly other European and also American states - proves that Al Quaeda gained following in the wake of 9/11 and the American reactions to it.
As for 3/11, an evaluation is not yet possible as the reactions are not yet very far. If the UN takes over, Al Quaeda won't have reached much more than a - from their point of view - insignificant government change. If the Spanish soldiers are recalled, this'll continue destroying the already highly damaged image of the strength of the Coalition, thus offering Al Quaeda more opportunities for movement in the Iraq. Further reaching results can't be forseen at this point, so I won't comment on them, let me however note that I am in agreement with the Spanish presidents reaction, for reasons I think I shouldn't elaborate until later in the thread as they could quickly derail it.[/edit]
Okay since I dont' feel like wading hip-deep through forum **** from the last thread, can someone give me a rundown on how Spain's "socialist" government is run? I think we need to understand that a bit more first.
I don't think we can determine if they are getting what they want or not. Their aims are just estimates full of speculation. We know they don't like "us". Thats. About. It.
I happen to agree that the loss of life is terrible, and there are better ways to get your point across. I think the message they send needs to be heard, otherwise we are just being ignorant. Nobody is invincible, and they proved it. I think until we know their true goal we can't determine their sucess.
The world needs political upheavel now. People all over yearn for change, while I doubt its for whatever cause the terrorists are fighting for, Its a fact. I also don't think its insentive because I doubt the terrorists are trying to help people. They serve one purpose, to strike fear into people, and they do it well.
Countries are best described as law-abiding citizens. They try not to pick fights, and they try to live their lives like everyone else. Like people, some countries are a little anti-social. They like to bump shoulders with other countries which have what they want. Some, like bullies, try to bully other countries for resources (milk money) or better political standing (reputation). If this sounds like some countries are like children, you aren't far off.
Terrorists are bullies. When the adults finally start cracking down on the bullies, the bullies start pushing back fearing for their own lives. In a desperate attempt to stop the adults from suppressing them, they shove Spain. Spain didn't call the bluff and did exactly what the bullies were hoping for. Spain chickens out, making the bullies chances for survival a little better.
It's my personal view that if a bully pushes you, you push back rather than letting him have his way.
I think until we know their true goal we can't determine their sucess.
<snip>
I also don't think its insentive because I doubt the terrorists are trying to help people. They serve one purpose, to strike fear into people, and they do it well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can make some very valid and real assumptions about their true goals. Time and again they have stated their goals. Chances are they have many other goals that are not stated, but the basics are thus:
- Israel should be destroyed and anyone who cooperates with Israel should meet the same fate ( actually encompasses many "smaller" goals ).
- Removal of US forces from the Middle East ( originally Saudi Arabia )
Aside from that I do not know. I've heard that they believe everyone should convert to Islam or otherwise die, but seeing as I cannot confirm that I won't give it much credence.
So how can we not judge their success of instilling terror? Look at what terrorrism has done to the world. Look at how divided the world is over terrorism. How can we not judge that which does and does not help them?
Countries doing exactly what a particular terrorrist organization wants because of an attack or the threat of an attack only serves to encourage terrorrists.
I do not believe the US war in Afghanistan was wanted by al-queda as it did exactly what Nem stated. Removed their best safe haven and training grounds. Now they are trying to make the best of the situation. They have probably refined their cell-type operations. The war in Iraq has the chance to either greatly improve their support or to lay the seeds of their eventually minimalization, it all depends on the outcome ( no reason to argue about whether the war was justified or not anymore, now we should be concentrating on rebuilding Iraq ). Failure in Iraq or Afghanistan will only serve to increase support for terrorrist organizations. Success will do just as much or possibly even more to combat them.
Terorrism is not something we can do nothing about. It is not a law enforcement issue. Police are not equiped to handle such things. Terrorrism is not something we can afford to handle after the fact. It must be stopped prior to attacks. Combating terrorrism will involve the military, politics, and economics.
One of the greatest threats to terrorrism is prosperity. That is why rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is so important and why both are important to the war on terrorrism. Pulling out, regardless of whether the US or the UN is in charge, can substantionally hurt the war effort.
It goes a little beyond that. First and foremost, we can safely assume that a terroristic network - like any other 'political' group - will try to increase its power and its popular base; this may seem obvious, but we should never leave it out of our considerations.
More specifically, looking at the formation and the biographical background of the leaders of Al Quaeda, as well as all verbal material we have in the form of propaganda, interviews, and pamphlets, there are a number of very specific assumptions we can make about the aims and characteristics of bin Laden and his associates:
<ul><li>While it's comfortable to assume bin Laden & co. to be corrupts eager to sacrifice even the most faithful of their believers on the altair of personal power, we should assume their islamistic conviction to be sincere.
Keep in mind that the hard core of Al Quaeda consists of Muahedjin who were willing to abandon their significant material wealth (and power) inhibited by their families in favor of a basically hopeless war against the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan. These men are, we should always keep this in mind, not crooked cowards, they're crusaders, fighters for an assumedly divine cause - as evil as this cause might seem to us.
</li><li>Al Quaeda was founded with the aim of driving all 'infidels' from Muslim soil. The first victim of this crusade was the Soviet Union, but after their retreat from Afghanistan, other non-Islamic powers with footholds in Islamic countries became targets.
The United States maintain large outposts in Saudi Arabia, the country in which the two holiest places in the Muslim cosmos are located. It is the proclaimed first and foremost aim of Al Quaeda to drive these 'oppressors' and the (truly) corrupt regieme they support out of first Saudi Arabia, then the Middle East, and then any other country with significant Muslim populations.
[edit]In response to othells post, this encompasses Israel, but it should be noted that Al Quaeda is, other than Hamas & co, not focussed on this state.[/edit]
</li><li>Internally, Al Quaeda aims on radicallizing the populations of Muslim countries, especially Muslim countries under secular governments, such as Syria or the Iraq (both before and after the war), to install fundamentalistic regiemes in their places.</li></ul>
This is a brief summary of the openly announced aims bin Laden and his associates strive to accomplish. Which means they employ for those, we all know.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not believe the US war in Afghanistan was wanted by al-queda as it did exactly what Nem stated. Removed their best safe haven and training grounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you then please adress the second part of my argumentation, as well? The martyr principle is obviously nothing alien to the terrorist network - they use it in their attacks - and let me note that Al Quaeda is by far not devoid of alternatives to any single country; the temporary 'sacrifice' of Afghanistan - if it was even calculated; well possible that they expected a second 1972, or a strike against a different fundamentalistic country such as the Iran - did quite obviously not hurt them much. Describing the fact that Al Quaeda is nowadays basically capable of organizing multiple strikes around the world within few days as 'making the best out of the situation' implies that you assume an almost demonic pervious force which their actions before 9/11 do just not hint at.
I won't adress your points about the Iraq here as they'd quickly derail the topic, just one correction: Hussein did <i>not</i> support Al Quaeda. The claim was abandoned very early in the preperation of the war, and that for good reasons. Hussein was a modfied Stalinist - an enemy to bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Terorrism is not something we can do nothing about. It is not a law enforcement issue. Police are not equiped to handle such things. Terrorrism is not something we can afford to handle after the fact. It must be stopped prior to attacks. Combating terrorrism will involve the military, politics, and economics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. After the Oklahoma bombing, for example, there were outcries for bombings in Arab countries - until it became apparent that this terrorist wore a Purple Heart. Nobody called for a military operation against McVeigh or the militias he had worked with. McVeigh was dealt with like with any other serious criminal - and it worked out.
The North Ireland conflict, to name another example, has lost significant momentum since Great Britain has stopped using quasi-militaristic strategies against the terroristic groups, and is instead basing its actions on a combination of negotiation with moderates and law enforcement towards extremists.
The gun might be an appealingly easy solution to the problem of terrorism, but due to the effect of martyrism, it's not a long lasting one.
[/edit]
[edit2]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Countries doing exactly what a particular terrorrist organization wants because of an attack or the threat of an attack only serves to encourage terrorrists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, the removal of the Spanish forces is not sure at this point - it's one of two diplomatic options. I find it unfair to ignore this and to start shouting about how Spain is pulling out, right now, with no advanced notice, when in fact, the President is only stating that he will recall his troops in three months unless there is no UN mandate for the operation - or, to word it differently, unless the operation isn't being brought in accordance with international <i>law</i>.[/edit2]
[edit3]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the greatest threats to terrorrism is prosperity. That is why rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is so important and why both are important to the war on terrorrism. Pulling out, regardless of whether the US or the UN is in charge, can substantionally hurt the war effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now there's something we agree on - I'd however point out (but this is subject for another discussion entirely) that centuries of first direct European and then later indirect American imperialism have left the Middle East in todays situation, and that the rebuilding of both Iraq and Afghanistan do not show traces of a primary concern over the relative nations, but over the Wests economical interests.[/edit3]
Wow, now <i>there's</i> a bunch of edits. I'll leave it at this and go to bed for now. Night, everyone!
Countries are best described as law-abiding citizens. They try not to pick fights, and they try to live their lives like everyone else. Like people, some countries are a little anti-social. They like to bump shoulders with other countries which have what they want. Some, like bullies, try to bully other countries for resources (milk money) or better political standing (reputation). If this sounds like some countries are like children, you aren't far off.
Terrorists are bullies. When the adults finally start cracking down on the bullies, the bullies start pushing back fearing for their own lives. In a desperate attempt to stop the adults from suppressing them, they shove Spain. Spain didn't call the bluff and did exactly what the bullies were hoping for. Spain chickens out, making the bullies chances for survival a little better.
It's my personal view that if a bully pushes you, you push back rather than letting him have his way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, untill the last minute there I thought you were going the other way with your analogy. It seems to me that the US is also a bully, though a richer, whiter bully whos parents donate to the private school he attends and who uses political pressure instead of physical force get his way. This all changed of course when a smaller bully, with brass knuckles got sick of him and punched him in the shoulder. Later, after the US beats up Iraq for no readily aparent reason, the terrorists attack spain for choosing the wrong side. Spain decides to go home and find better things to do if the US doesn't agree to let the UN takeover. Which it will likely never do because the UN won't let it gets its way so easy.
Yeah, my version of your analogy is isn't great either, but frankly it isn't a great analogy to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's my personal view that if a bully pushes you, you push back rather than letting him have his way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, under my analogy, you think the terrorists were right.
Anyway, that tangent isn't going anywhere, back to the questions at hand...
I don't think we can discount the possibility that the terrorists have a very good idea of what will happen as a result of any of their actions. I'm sure they didn't dilude themselves into thinking that the US wasn't going to retaliate in some form, so chances are thats exactly what they wanted to happen. Like Nem said, the damage done to them only serves as extra propoganda for their cause, everybody loves a martyr. Its possible, though unlikely, that they expected spain to act in a similar manner as the US, and spain didn't fall into their expectations. I don't have a good working knowledge of spainish polotics, but I'd bet that they knew it well enough to know what their actions would do, and so the result of 3/11 was probably no surprise to them.
Edit 1: Slight wording change, original idea didn't sound like I intended.
Concerning the Martyrdom Principle, IIRC and assuming latest reports are accurate, the bombings in Spain were triggered by cell phones which means the terrorists could have been miles away from the incident. That implies simple malicious intent and not just an acceptance that they're giving themselves to the cause. Also, in many suicide bombings, the bomber is often heralded by fellow believers and their pictures are spread about to various news agencies for extra publicity. But, maybe not succumbing to martyrdom is just a convenience that terrorists will now allow themselves.
This may be a bit OT but I had to stick my 2cents in...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After the Oklahoma bombing, for example, there were outcries for bombings in Arab countries - until it became apparent that this terrorist wore a Purple Heart. Nobody called for a military operation against McVeigh or the militias he had worked with. McVeigh was dealt with like with any other serious criminal - and it worked out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When the Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, the American public did not cry out for bombings exactly. But there was a definate magnifying glass plopped right over the Middle East. That voracity quickly turned, however, to militia groups here in the US. Specifically, the Michigan Militia. The press here was smothered with stories regarding the "suspicious activities" of militia groups. They were routinely described as "paramilitary" or "covert subcultures" or "ultra-right wing extremists". They were repeatedly demonized and anyone speaking out in defense of these groups was instantly scrutinized. None of this, of course, reached a military level. Although it seemed as if Clinton and Reno were sending the ATF and FBI to every farmhouse in rural Michigan.
The real irony was that the Michigan Militia had purposefully cut all ties with McVeigh and Nichols well before the bombing because they were considered far too extreme and cared little for the constitutionality of a milita organization.
Even the most fanatical Bin Laden supporter would have known that S-11 was not going to make America back down. There was going to be a retaliation, and given that was a certainty, it makes logical sense for the terrorist group to try and make the most out of the US response.
And they did. Bin Laden correctly realised that the most likely response from America would be an invasion of an Islamic country, in this case Afghanistan. He left some fighters there as martyrs to fuel his drive for support and did what most terrorist groups do when the region they are in becomes to "hot": they left. Losing some infrastructure like training camps is not a devestating loss to a terrorist group; recruits can be trained in small groups in small, hidden locations, such as basements or apartments. For the kind of work terrorists will be doing, training camps are quite unnessassary.
But why would Bin Laden want to see the Taliban gone? Firstly, it must be said that losing the Taliban and placing a democratic regime in Afghanistan doesn't halt terrorist support. Displaced and economically impovrished individuals and groups will remain, the American invasion did anger some Afghanis to the extent that they would be willing to join up and other Islamic peoples around the globe see the invasion and occupation as a war against Islam. Now all those people just mentioned are in very much a minority: which is all Al Qaeda needs. Terrorists do not require widespread support; they only need a few.
Secondly, removing the Taliban helps fuel Bin Laden's overall philosophy: that the US is engaged in a war against the entire Islamic world. Removing Saddam helps that as well, but Bin Laden played no role in that particular war unless you theorise that the S-11 bombings made the US more likely to invade Iraq. Bin Laden may very well have extrapolated that the post S-11 US would attack more nations than just Afghanistan. This would be for Bin Laden a best case scenario, and fortunatly for him this was what happened.
Understanding that Bin Laden wants to not only make others believe that this war is occuring, but wants to escalate the war to the point where the whole Islamic world really is in open conflict against the US makes a lot of Al Qaeda's actions clearer. Obviously Bin Laden wants Islam to win, hence he seeks to strip the US of allies. In Spain at least this seems to have nominally worked: the new government is not as willing to support the Iraq war as the previous administration. It's worth mentioning that in recent <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9000228%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>remarks by Al Qaeda </a> Australia was mentioned as being on the list of countries singled out for attack. We're having elections in November, and the opposition Labor party is opposed to the Iraq war and Australian occupation forces there. If Spain is a portent of things to come, in Novemeber there could very well be a similar attack in Australia.
It is inevitable that such attacks will have an effect upon political events within the countries targetted and their allies. If a bunch of forum users here can figure that out, an intelligant man like Bin Laden can as well. I think that the Spain attack was undertaken right before the elections intentionally, with the goal of not only punishing Spain for it's involvement in the war on terror, but also to unseat the party most in favour of said war.
I'd say your remarks were pretty accurate save this one.
Remember the US isn't in a war against Islam, but in a war on 'terror', and sponsors of terrorism. The difference is crucial. It's no surprise that Afghanis and Iraqis largely support the American presence. Indeed, their presence is the only thing holding that country together. Weekly bombings may be bad, but power vacuums are a hundred times worse.
The greatest threat to Bin Laden is to have Islamic nations democratize. Democracy means freedom of speech, which means less effective propaganda. People join terrorist groups because they have been brainwashed into thinking there is this anti-Islamic menace out there. This level of brainwashing can not be overstated. How do you convince someone to a) kill people, b) kill yourself and c) get to heaven while doing it? These go against every survival instinct as well as moral reasoning. Dictatorships, ceteris peribus, have the ability to produce far more terrorists than democracies.
It's not about 'halting' terrorism, it's about stalling it. This may not make sense given the number of suicide bombings in Iraq. However these bombings are occuring not by Iraqis, but from outside the country. Firstly, it wouldn't have made sense to suicide-bomb Iraq without an American presence. Secondly, Iraq is not secure at all. If Iraq can stabilize, and the Americans leave, the suicide bombings will decrease. The current bombings are not meant to just kill people, but to destabilize the region and cause a civil war that would allow another terrorist-friendly dictatorship to arise. That is the terrorist goal.
Remember the US isn't in a war against Islam, but in a war on 'terror', and sponsors of terrorism. The difference is crucial. It's no surprise that Afghanis and Iraqis largely support the American presence. Indeed, their presence is the only thing holding that country together. Weekly bombings may be bad, but power vacuums are a hundred times worse.
The greatest threat to Bin Laden is to have Islamic nations democratize. Democracy means freedom of speech, which means less effective propaganda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that I didn't say the US is undertaking a war on Islam; that's what Bin Laden is saying. And he's finding support.
I accept your point that a democracy potentially can reduce the amount of terrorism. However a number of things have to happen for that democracy to actually prevent terrorism.
1) The government must be stable. This is a tough job for potential leaders in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Their countries are used to despotic regimes and within both countries are numerous groups, many of whom hate the other groups and wish to break away and/or be the ones running the show. These are not fertile grounds for democracy.
2) The country must be prosperous. For Iraq, that's achieveable, thanks to it's oil. But it will take a long time. The countries' infrastructure has been ravaged by decades of war and sanctions. There is a lot of rebuillding ahead, and eventually that oil will run out. Afghanistan though has pretty much nothing going for it. Decades of war and no major natural resources have produced a nation that is dirt poor with little to no infrastructure.
3) The government must actively work against terrorism. A democracy means that many differant groups can come to power, and one such group is radical fundamentalists. Though it may seem bizzare, even ludicrous to suggest that people would voluntarily vote such a government into power, nonetheless many of the citizens of these nations are used to such regimes and agree with some of their teachings. Such governments may do little to halt terrorism, or pay only lip service.
4) The government must be able to enforce it's will. This is where we start heading into tricky waters. It's one thing for a government to say something, and another for the people to obey. The government in Kabul might want to see Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the earth, but travel to outlying villages and regions and you'll find that the government doesn't have any power at all. A Shi'ite government in Iraq might find that the Kurds don't listen to them. And even if a government manages to enforce law and order over it's whole territory, preventing it's people from supporting terrorism is a whole other kettle of seafood. A person who supports Al Qaeda is more likely to remain secrative than open. Which leads us to the final point:
Even once all these things have happened, the problem of preventing people from listening to Al Qaeda propaganda or fundamentalist dogma remains. A democratic government that allows freedom of speach cannot silence all opposition to the government or indeed, to the government's policies. I can walk around my university here in Australia and see hundreds of posters from the local socialists and Marxists, all of which condenm "American Agression" and "Howard's War against the people of the Middle East". A democratic government cannot prevent such literature from being circulated, or they wouldn't be allowing freedom of speach. Similarly, a fundamentalist cleric must be allowed to preach his sermons, otherwise people are denied freedom of religion. There is a very fine line between political or religious agitation/freedom and outright treason, but sometimes it's hard to make out.
Thus the propaganda or teachings of terrorism supporters can still reach the population and can be freely discussed. And some people will believe it. Understand that it's not just brainwashing: many people believe in Bin Laden's message because they truely believe it. They genuinely don't like US troops stationed in Islamic nations, and they don't like the way the US keeps barging into their affairs.
You say that it goes against reason and instinct to blow one's self up. This is true, from our perspective at least. But the people who undertake these acts are usually those who are most convinced that their cause is right, and they are not told to think this way; they come to believe it themselves. One might ask a Christian "Why do you believe you will go to heaven?" or "You believe this is the body of Jesus Christ?" and indeed to believe in such ideas is flying in the face of both reason and instinct. Terrorists though have the same burning convictions and believe wholeheartedly in what they are fighting for. They are not mindless drones or even unintelligant people; after all, these are the same men who managed to fly airliners through some manuvours that veteran pilots would have trouble doing. Believeing that you'll go to heaven for killing an American is no less absurd than believing you'll go to heaven for doing good deeds (and from the terrorist perspective, those two things are one and the same). Similarly, believing that the US is engaged in a war of imperialism is no stranger than believing the US is engaged in a war of liberation. You'll find people who support both sides of that arguement everywhere.
The 4 points you listed are of course dead-on. Prosperous countries do not have massive terrorists countries, and all prosperous countries are democracies. That's why it's going to require coalition presence for a lengthy period of time, and that's why Spain's exodus is such a tragedy.
However let me comment on this quote. The vast majority of the Muslim world does not support suicide bombing, nor do they believe anyone will go to heaven for doing so. Suicide is considered an unholy defamation, and even the enigmatic 'jihad' does not trump 'do not kill'.
It's important that the citizens of Syria, Iran, and Saudi have access to all perspectives of Islam, not just the violent ones purported by the terrorists. That is why democracy is important. If these alternate views exist I have no doubt they would subjugate the terrorist reasoning. They are infinitely more humane and logical, and would at least force terrorists to question the righteousness of their 'cause'.
I'm sure there will still be <b>some</b> terrorism under democracy, but the magnitude would be much less.
It's important that the citizens of Syria, Iran, and Saudi have access to all perspectives of Islam, not just the violent ones purported by the terrorists. That is why democracy is important. If these alternate views exist I have no doubt they would subjugate the terrorist reasoning. They are infinitely more humane and logical, and would at least force terrorists to question the righteousness of their 'cause'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet by your own reasoning there is an inherant problem. You're correct in saying that the vast majority of Muslims find suicide bombings abhorrent and hate that the original message of jihad (that of a spiritual quest for enlightenment) has been warped. But these are the same people who live under despotic regimes. Saudi Arabia's government for example is quite fundamentalist in nature, but the vast majority of it's citizens don't want any truck with Bin Laden's teachings.
A large percentage of the Islamic world lives under despotic regimes, but only a very small minority of Muslims take to terrorism. And within democratic Islamic nations, such as the world's largest Islamic nation Indonesia, that minority remains.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why it's going to require coalition presence for a lengthy period of time, and that's why Spain's exodus is such a tragedy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The loss of Spain is a blow to the US, but it does bear mentioning that many nations that opposed the war are more than happy to support the reconstruction process if it's turned over to the UN. A move like this would also help the US regain some of the support it lost when it decided to "go it alone". The world is willing to help, but only if the US lets the world help.
Plus, as I've said, even with all the money in the world Afgahnistan is at best going to be a subsistance agricultural nation with large numbers of impovrished and poor citizens. And once the oil runs out in Iraq, the nation doesn't really have much going for it economically. Thats the problem with trying to install democracy in such regions: odds are, it won't work because those nations lack the natural and economic resources to allow democracy to florish. Are the richest nations in the world rich because they are democracies, or can democracy only truely work in prosperous regions?
Osama of course extends his displeasure to the U.S. because we are responsible for maintaining the deplorable condition the Middle East is in right now. It is our insatiable desire for oil that has led to this conflagration. Our military presence in the Middle East exists purely for one reason: to maintain security over the oil there. We continue to consume oil at an ever-increasing rate, designing and building vehicles that are the most fuel-inefficient grocery-fetching behemoths that have ever disgraced this planet. Does anyone really honestly need a military-grade Hummer vehicle to take their kids to soccer practice? Unfortunately, Americans can't seem to get enough of these monstrosities. We are to blame for manipulating Middle Eastern governments and abusing our military capabilities for no reason other than to secure that precious oil.
Oil and foreign policy fiascoes are not the only reason Islamic radicals plotting against the U.S. are growing in number and strength. The Muslim world despises the U.S. for its support of Israel. Regardless of which side you think is right, Muslim extremists hate the U.S. because we condone Israeli action against Palestinians and its neighboring countries. What Muslims consider terrorist acts against their own people, we view as justifiable recourse. It's just a play on words for the same thing: violence. Reasons for why we support Israel abound, and they are more complex and deep than one could possibly delve into.
How and when did all of this begin to escalate into our current-day mess? It was all triggered by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. Once the Cold War was over, a global shake-up of power and control began. Papa Bush declared a "New World Order" was taking place, and he was right. Everyone who was anyone figured out that now was their chance to start vying for power and control. Saddam not-so-quietly slips into Kuwait. Bush makes his move for establishing a military front in the Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Osama decides he doesn't like that and wants to overthrow the Saudi elite. Just to clear any confusion here, Osama has always <b>hated</b> Saddam, and offered his forces to the Saudi Royal family in 1991 for defense against Saddam. The Sauds refused, and Osama was cast aside.
High-profile Americans overly concerned with Israel's future drafted a proposal in 1996 titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which outlines some steps Israel must take in the wake of this New World Order to make "a clean break" and plant its stake in the game. Drafted in part by Richard Perle, the current chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, this document details some startling strategies that includes hot pursuit of Palestinians, destabilizing neighboring governments, and... tada... overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that someone currently at the Pentagon should have drafted such a report many years prior to the actual undertaking. It has become quite obvious as of late that the decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam was made a LONG time ago, long before 9/11. This is just another step in formulating the New World Order. The sources I list down below (written 8 years ago) make reference to a post-Saddam Iraq. Clinton had no interest in imperialism and domination over the Middle East, so the Republican imperialistic plans were essentially put on hold for 8 years, left to brew and smolder. Papa Bush and juinor Bush have quite a different train of thought. They seek to continue their exploitation of Middle Eastern oil, at the expense of American military lives and American taxpayer dollars. It means, of course, tremendous profits and wealth for their cohorts and supporters. Halliburton overcharging taxpayers again and fiddling with the books? Shocking.
When you begin to put together the pieces, you begin to get a sense for why radical Islamics have to resort to such extreme measures. They have no military power like we do to just drop bombs from 20,000 feet on whomever they feel like. The U.S. spends more money on.. *ahem*... defense every year than <i>every other country in the world combined.</i> It is impossible for them to do anything to fight for what they believe other than to resort to extremism: what we have defined as terrorism. It won't stop so long as we continue to abuse the Middle East and continue to condone Israeli offenses against Muslims and Muslim nations.
Sources:
<a href='http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,451935,00.html?CNN=yes' target='_blank'>Osama Bin Laden vs. the House of Saud</a>
<a href='http://www.israeleconomy.org/strategic/pmwbinladen.htm' target='_blank'>Bin Laden's secret goal is to overthrow the House of Saud://Bin Laden's secret goal is to o...e House of Saud://Bin Laden's secret goal is to o...e House of Saud</a>
<a href='http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01november/nov01interviewklare.html' target='_blank'>Corporations, National Security and War Profiteering</a>
<a href='http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm' target='_blank'>Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant (1996)</a>
<a href='http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm' target='_blank'>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996)</a>
<span style='color:white'>Largely out of context to the actual thread. If you wish, I'll split it into a seperate thread.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I misled you. Textbooks and the media in these countries are defiantly anti-American and anti-Israeli. They don't necessarily have to sponsor Bin Laden directly, but rather <b>prevent</b> counter arguments, that is pro-American/pro-Israeli content. Palestinian poverty has far more to do with oppressive government than Israel. It's a classic Orwellian tactic: Israel is a distractor from the real cause of poverty. From here, the setting is ripe for eager would-be terrorists to join the ranks and let Al Queda's propaganda work on these soldiers. While the vast majority of citizens would rather simply subsist, it is your aforementioned minority that are ready for recruitment.
Mind you the leaders of these countries are out there fanning the flames. Iran's Al Khamenei spoke on TV: "The Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah forces must continue the struggle in a united way". Syria publicly supports them as well.
Israel isn't of course helping. I think a Ghandi-like tactic would work very well for them. Somewhere the cycle of violence must end, and Israel must be the 'bigger man' at some point. Unfortunately Israelis voted for Sharon, not 'Ghandi'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The loss of Spain is a blow to the US, but it does bear mentioning that many nations that opposed the war are more than happy to support the reconstruction process if it's turned over to the UN.
<snip>
Thats the problem with trying to install democracy in such regions: odds are, it won't work because those nations lack the natural and economic resources to allow democracy to florish. Are the richest nations in the world rich because they are democracies, or can democracy only truely work in prosperous regions?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know I haven't heard much from the UN on the whole matter. Do you have an article or something? Why exactly does the US not want UN involvement? If it has something to do with the oil-for-food scandal I think their inhibitions are warranted.
As for democracy without natural-resources, the most obvious example is Japan. Of course the difference is Japan has infrastructure, and more importantly, an educated populous. Iraq and Afghanistan have neither. It may very well be impossible to attain a decent standard living, but surely their odds are higher without Saddam.
Eviscerator - what does any of that have to do with Spain?
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/21/1061434990447.html?from=storyrhs' target='_blank'>Bush requests UN help but won't give UN authority</a>
<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/106436.html' target='_blank'>Bush rejects UN proposal</a>
As far as I can tell, the US doesn't want it's troops in Iraq to fall under UN authority. Which several nations have given as a precondition for their support.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps I misled you. Textbooks and the media in these countries are defiantly anti-American and anti-Israeli. They don't necessarily have to sponsor Bin Laden directly, but rather prevent counter arguments, that is pro-American/pro-Israeli content. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try telling a religious person that God doesn't exist. They won't listen.
The same thing goes here. The people who would listen to counter-arguements arn't the one's doing the bombings; they don't have the unshakeable conviction of terrorists. It takes a lot of faith, a heck of a lot, to give your life for a cause, and if you've gone down that path of thinking, counter-arguements don't mean anything. A committed terrorist won't listen to them, or if he or she sees them they will simply be ignored. This is the kind of fanatical belief we are fighting, and what history shows us is that fanatics are some of the hardest enemies to fight. It may be impossible to win this war at all.
Thus allowing counter-arguements to come about really won't change much at all. Plus democracies arn't exactly always completely open to public debate; recall the fate of anti-war protesters in the US, called "unpatriotic" and publicly shamed for their beliefs. Look around this forum; you'll find people who are unshakable in their convictions, and this if anything is a prime example of counter-arguements at work.
Even democracies are guilty of propaganda as well; US schools forcing their students to say the Oath of Alligance every morning? Or playing Star Spangled Banner each morning as well? Talking to US students here at my university leaves me in no doubt of what their schools teach them of US history: the US is the good guy and King George III was second only to Satan in the evil stakes. Look at some old government videos from the 50's and 60's and you'll see pure propaganda that would make Stalin proud.
You're right that Israel isn't helping. It's hard for many people to sympathise with the Israelis when they send armed incursions into Palestinian cities so often. A Ghandi style approach would work well (in fact it would also work wonders for the Palestinians), but like you said, Sharon was voted in, the lion over the lamb.
The whole Palestinian question though is a tough one. Governments like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran support Palestinian groups, but they don't support other groups. Saudi Arabia for example certainly loathes Bin Laden, as he has attacked them. Are these governments our allies or enemies then? It's hard to say. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who's to say that a democratic government in Iraq will feel differantly about the Israel question?
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for democracy without natural-resources, the most obvious example is Japan. Of course the difference is Japan has infrastructure, and more importantly, an educated populous.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan in 1945, as you have pointed out, was heavily industrialized and most of it's infrastructure survived the war intact. The nation was ethnically and religiously united, and with the emperor retaining a position of some significance, the vast majority of Japanese citizens were happy to work with the new government. Rebuilding both Japan and Germany during the 1940's, 50's and 60's was a far easier task than what awaits the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democracy survived after the US left largely due to the fact that both countries economically were doing very well for themselves: building strong economies on the foundations of pre-war infrastructure.
The question must be, as was asked before: can democracy thrive without prosperity?
Why does Spain want the U.N. to run things over in Iraq?
The U.N. did not want to invade, and now it wants to take over?
Do I smell double standards?
Countries are best described as law-abiding citizens. They try not to pick fights, and they try to live their lives like everyone else. Like people, some countries are a little anti-social. They like to bump shoulders with other countries which have what they want. Some, like bullies, try to bully other countries for resources (milk money) or better political standing (reputation). If this sounds like some countries are like children, you aren't far off.
Terrorists are bullies. When the adults finally start cracking down on the bullies, the bullies start pushing back fearing for their own lives. In a desperate attempt to stop the adults from suppressing them, they shove Spain. Spain didn't call the bluff and did exactly what the bullies were hoping for. Spain chickens out, making the bullies chances for survival a little better.
It's my personal view that if a bully pushes you, you push back rather than letting him have his way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, untill the last minute there I thought you were going the other way with your analogy. It seems to me that the US is also a bully, though a richer, whiter bully whos parents donate to the private school he attends and who uses political pressure instead of physical force get his way. This all changed of course when a smaller bully, with brass knuckles got sick of him and punched him in the shoulder. Later, after the US beats up Iraq for no readily aparent reason, the terrorists attack spain for choosing the wrong side. Spain decides to go home and find better things to do if the US doesn't agree to let the UN takeover. Which it will likely never do because the UN won't let it gets its way so easy.
Yeah, my version of your analogy is isn't great either, but frankly it isn't a great analogy to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's my personal view that if a bully pushes you, you push back rather than letting him have his way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, under my analogy, you think the terrorists were right.
Anyway, that tangent isn't going anywhere, back to the questions at hand...
I don't think we can discount the possibility that the terrorists have a very good idea of what will happen as a result of any of their actions. I'm sure they didn't dilude themselves into thinking that the US wasn't going to retaliate in some form, so chances are thats exactly what they wanted to happen. Like Nem said, the damage done to them only serves as extra propoganda for their cause, everybody loves a martyr. Its possible, though unlikely, that they expected spain to act in a similar manner as the US, and spain didn't fall into their expectations. I don't have a good working knowledge of spainish polotics, but I'd bet that they knew it well enough to know what their actions would do, and so the result of 3/11 was probably no surprise to them.
Edit 1: Slight wording change, original idea didn't sound like I intended. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well first of all, my analogy didn't say anything about US did it? You just assumed.
Second of all, I'm starting to think that if someone claimed to have nuclear weapons pointing at your head, you would let them fire first. That's a STUPID idea, I hope you agree. Not only does it kill millions of people, but it doesn't prevent a war in the end anyway.
Granted, it is debatable whether or not Iraq had nuclear weapons or if Osama was going to strike again, but then if we're talking about millions of lives at stake, is this really something you should gamble on?
If someone calls a bomb threat, do you stay in the building? I would hope not, however much you may not believe that a bomb exists..
I think you are missing my major point, so I'll say it again:
Dictatorships can produce more terrorists than democracies. Yes, democracies can and do produce terrorists, but not of the same magnitude as despotic government. The 'counter-arguments' will hardly sway ardent supporter. What they <b>will</b> do is help prevent a fence-sitter from most assuredly landing on the terrorist side. For the 30 year old terrorist, a free press is meaningless. But for an impressionable 12 year old with little concept of politics the difference is crucial.
As for the UN, the articles didn't answer my initial questions, that is: Why doesn't the US want UN involvement? As I said before, I hypothesize Bush is wary of 1) the scandalous nature of the UN and 2) supplying 90% of the forces for 10% of the power. Or do you have another link that explains the US reasoning?
"Can democracy survive with prosperity?"
Well it's almost a meaningless question. Time and time again it has been shown that free markets and a free people lead to the highest standards of living in any given country. This doesn't mean it's a perfect system by any means, it's just the best option out of the (often horrific) alternatives.
Nevertheless, let's address the question: If Iraq runs out of oil and all that's left is a pile of sand, then what happens? First we have to realize that this would occur under <b>any</b> government. The concept of scarcity is not exclusive to free market systems. The difference of course is that in the event Iraq becomes little more than a barren wasteland, its citizens are free emigrate under a democracy.
In a dictatorship, running out of oil means running out of money, which means running out of funds to support an army. It would take many years for the state to fall, much to the despair of the citizens.
In short: Iraq's best hope is a democratic state, notwithstanding limited natural resources.
This thread deals with the intentions of terroristic strikes, with (dis)similiarities between 9/11 and 3/11, to continue adopting Ds descriptions, and with the consequences of Spains decisions <i>regarding Al Quaeda</i>.
This is not a general thread about global politics, the benefits of democratic societies, or the UN (although each aspect can of course touch the initial questions). Please try to keep mentionings of the above to the point; as nice as general rambling may be, it won't lead us to a productive discussion.
If anyone wants to use his O-T post in here as seed to a different discussion, I'll happily perform splits.
Anyway, back to the topic...
Spain's actions are purely for their own interests. If you disagree, I invite you to come up with a possible motive for abandoning other soldiers in Iraq out of response of an explosion in their country.
Spain takes the easy road out and cooperates with Al-Qaeda's motives in order to avoid getting bombed again. What if every country did what Spain did? We'd all cooperate with Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda's dream of mass destruction of all non-Muslims would be a reality. I guess that's fine if you're a Muslim. Otherwise, you might want to raise an objection.
If we allowed Germany to take over countries and kill Jews in order to prevent war, what would have happened to this world? Surely God himself would have shed tears for the suffering that would have gone on. Luckily, we fought him. There were casualties, yes, but inevitably, he was stopped.
This is my point. We don't give in to terrorists. Sure, the decision might produce war and civilian deaths, but in the long run, it is better than the alternative tenfold.
Suppose a madman with an ak-47 holds 100 people hostage in a room. He boosts he will kill everyone, but first he must wait for the holy hour where he must pray to Mecca. What would you do? You could A) Try to stop him and risk the death of yourself and a few other civilians, or B) Let him have his way and kill everyone.
The choice seems obvious here, yet when Bush decides to stop terrorists before they attack, he is endlessly criticized. Has anyone of those people ever stopped to think what would happen if we let them do whatever the hell they wanted?
Spain needs to smell the coffee.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spain's actions are purely for their own interests. If you disagree, I invite you to come up with a possible motive for abandoning other soldiers in Iraq out of response of an explosion in their country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
'Spain', that is, its government, I'll keep harping on that distinction till kingdom come, is not going to pull its troops out tomorrow. What its president has done - and what Polands president appears to do now, as well, is putting pressure on the US administration to search a consensus for a UN mandate, under which Spains soldiers would <i>stay</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spain takes the easy road out and cooperates with Al-Qaeda's motives in order to avoid getting bombed again. What if every country did what Spain did? We'd all cooperate with Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda's dream of mass destruction of all non-Muslims would be a reality. I guess that's fine if you're a Muslim. Otherwise, you might want to raise an objection.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Quaedas true aims were detailed by multiple people earlier on, so please spare us from further such generalizations. It's easy and dangerous to demonize an enemy into the elemental evil; it's hard, yet wise, to recognize him for what he really is. Al Quaeda is isolationistic at its core. It does just not have aim on "mass destruction of all non-Muslims".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we allowed Germany to take over countries and kill Jews in order to prevent war, what would have happened to this world? Surely God himself would have shed tears for the suffering that would have gone on. Luckily, we fought him. There were casualties, yes, but inevitably, he was stopped.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, the word that's raised whenever a European politician takes a modest stance: Appeasement.
There is no - <i>no</i> - basis of comparision between Hitler and bin Laden, or the Third Reich and Al Quaeda, other than both being fanatics (of vastly different causes), and apt rethorics. That's. About. It.
The 'appeasement'-call is a very comfortable argument: Any kind of attempt of coming to a peaceful solution of a problem by removing the sources of a problem can be declared as 'giving in to the terrorists'; any research on possibly true points made by an otherwise misled group is instantly equalled with sympathies towards the enemy. In short, any solution but the 'total war' against an enemy is being condemned. I for mine refuse to submit to such logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is my point. We don't give in to terrorists. Sure, the alternative might produce war, but in the long run, it is better than the alternative tenfold.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I made a rather lengthy explanation as to why violent retaliation can be considered playing into Al Quaedas hands - and thus unknowingly giving in to them - already.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Suppose a madman with an ak-47 holds 100 people hostage in a room. He boosts he will kill everyone, but first he must wait for the holy hour where he must pray to Mecca. What would you do? You could A) Try to stop him and risk the death of yourself and a few other civilians, or B) Let him have his way and kill everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see what you are trying to get at with this. We aren't looking at an immediate large scale crisis with easily identifiable actors, we're in the wake of a covert terroristic strike and see diplomatic reactions to it.[/edit]
Maybe the idea that the population made clear, through democratic means, that they did not condone the killing of thousands because those thousands happened to share the religion of some terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spain takes the easy road out and cooperates with Al-Qaeda's motives in order to avoid getting bombed again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cooperate, how? By not turning the world into a place of terror? You might not have noticed, but people die in wars. Chaos and loss of rational thought is what the terrorists are going for, and chaos and loss of rational thought is what they have gotten. The west is torn clear in two.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we allowed Germany to take over countries and kill Jews in order to prevent war, what would have happened to this world?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who knows. Perhaps we wouldn't all have been brought up reading in history books about the most bloody and disgusting war of all time. Maybe it could have been solved in a more peacefull manner, like so many other inhuman acts in previous times.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is my point. We don't give in to terrorists. Sure, the decision might produce war and civilian deaths, but in the long run, it is better than the alternative tenfold.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't give in to terrorists, so you start acting based on a reign of terror? They WANT you to panic. Bombing back to fight terrorism is like giving a spoiled child a lollipop to stop him screaming. It might work for now, but he's smart enough to see that it worked, so he'll be screaming again once he's done eating it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Suppose a madman with an ak-47 holds 100 people hostage in a room. He boosts he will kill everyone, but first he must wait for the holy hour where he must pray to Mecca. What would you do? You could A) Try to stop him and risk the death of yourself and a few other civilians, or B) Let him have his way and kill everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If shooting him would make another 100 madmen follow him, then I know what I'd do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The choice seems obvious here, yet when Bush decides to stop terrorists before they attack, he is endlessly criticized.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->¨
So, bombing Iraq stopped them, eh? Crushing Afghanistan helped huh? Try telling that to the poor Spanish widows, tell them that they shouldn't cry, because Bush prevented their husbands from being blown up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has anyone of those people ever stopped to think what would happen if we let them do whatever the hell they wanted? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just so happens that they are terrorists. Their goal is to spread terror. You have already given them whatever the hell they wanted.
I think you are missing my major point, so I'll say it again:
Dictatorships can produce more terrorists than democracies. Yes, democracies can and do produce terrorists, but not of the same magnitude as despotic government. The 'counter-arguments' will hardly sway ardent supporter. What they <b>will</b> do is help prevent a fence-sitter from most assuredly landing on the terrorist side. For the 30 year old terrorist, a free press is meaningless. But for an impressionable 12 year old with little concept of politics the difference is crucial. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok.
1) A democracy with a 'free press' does not guarantee any less propaganda than any other kind of government.
take America's free press, sure you have the same 'left wing conspiracy theory style' sites you guys love to bash, apart from that youv got stations like CNN which repeate the government line on command, decieve, mislead and ignore.
The methods you condone in this spreading of democracy, are comparable to the ones you detest the terrroists for. States are capable of terrorism aswell.
If you want a really simplified view, your just two sides each with its own similar propaganda and urge to spread its superior ideology using force where neccessary.
2) this whole argument ignores the base ideas behind the terrorism.
Terrorism doesnt just exist because propaganda tells people to blow stuff up.
There are deeper underlying issues here, which have less to do with an irrational 'hatered of freedom' or any other such meaningless rhetoric, and more to do with the actual actions of western nations in middle eastern affairs over the last hundred years.
I would be careful before defending Al-Qaeda. Maybe I was wrong about their true motives, but I know that whatever motives they have, it is probably safe to assume they don't care about killing a few million people to do it given they have a history of killing thousands of civilians for their purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we allowed Germany to take over countries and kill Jews in order to prevent war, what would have happened to this world? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who knows. Perhaps we wouldn't all have been brought up reading in history books about the most bloody and disgusting war of all time. Maybe it could have been solved in a more peacefull manner, like so many other inhuman acts in previous times.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to catch up on your history there, bud. U.N. made talks with Hitler after he invaded Austria, and Hitler promised he would stop. U.N. left feeling confident the situation was resolved, and Hitler just kept going. Perhaps it would have been better if we let him take over Europe, eh? No deaths save a few jews. Few thousand burnt books. Probably would have been better, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spain takes the easy road out and cooperates with Al-Qaeda's motives in order to avoid getting bombed again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cooperate, how? By not turning the world into a place of terror? You might not have noticed, but people die in wars. Chaos and loss of rational thought is what the terrorists are going for, and chaos and loss of rational thought is what they have gotten. The west is torn clear in two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!"
You want terrorists to continue bombings? If so, then by all means, support Spain's actions. For the rest of us, we're trying to rid this world of such terrorist filth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Suppose a madman with an ak-47 holds 100 people hostage in a room. He boosts he will kill everyone, but first he must wait for the holy hour where he must pray to Mecca. What would you do? You could A) Try to stop him and risk the death of yourself and a few other civilians, or B) Let him have his way and kill everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If shooting him would make another 100 madmen follow him, then I know what I'd do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So stopping the terrorist would encourage terrorism, and letting him successfully carry out his mission would discourage terrorism? I think you meant the other way around.
You want terrorists to continue bombings? If so, then by all means, support Spain's actions. For the rest of us, we're trying to rid this world of such terrorist filth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spain is not nessesarily pulling out. And if they were to pull out, it would because the US refused to get off its friggen high horse and let the UN have control. This has been stated many times. <span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
(Go ahead and ban me. I'm sick of hearing the same baseless argument over and over.)
I don't believe people are that horribly evil, and that attacking is always the only way to solve problems. But that's an issue for the moral relativism thread, and I'll happily discuss this with you in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it's exactly the other way around. By cowering and letting yourself taunt into attacking headlessly, splitting your own world into two, you are showing them fear. It's basically a predatorian instinct, show them fear and they begin thirsting for blood.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You want terrorists to continue bombings? If so, then by all means, support Spain's actions. For the rest of us, we're trying to rid this world of such terrorist filth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think so. Killing the bad guys only works in the movies. There is no "Big Bad Evil Guy" in this game. Kill one, and two will hate you for killing him. Kill a thousand and two thousand will help you. What Spain did was, I believe, to send a message that certain parts of the west is will rather stand to reason than let our fear dominate us. In NOT retaliating, Spain has made the terrorist attack fail.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So stopping the terrorist would encourage terrorism, and letting him successfully carry out his mission would discourage terrorism? I think you meant the other way around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe you should try viewing the war from their perspective. You seem to think that because they attacked us, we should retaliate. Yet you seem to think that they won't retaliate for us attacking them. You seem to think that if they backed off, we should stop attacking them, yet you say that if back off, they would attack us more. What is it that makes you believe their behavior would be exactly opposite ours?
And Nemesis Zero, I do not actually believe we are discussing the war in Iraq. What I'm personally discussing is wether the best response to terrorism is passive or active. (as in, the 11/9 response or the 11/3 response).