War on terrorism, chasing ghosts?

[ClaireTalon]

Ouch, you hit my soft spot: long posts. I'll dissect it a bit as I reply.

You have been a warrior and I have not, so in advance, I admit my ignorance on military matters. I'm always keen to read your thoughts.

Oh, I wasn't a warrior. Just a humble gas station tenant ;-) I never fired anything but my side arm or an assault rifle, a long time ago.

The intent of terrorism is more than just invoking terror and fear, in my opinion.

<.>

But are military actions not also acts of terror at times?

As an historical example, fire bombing Dresden has to count as real terrorism IMHO, as not all of those civilian casualties was necessary to get to the strategic targets. So the conclusion I have to arrive at, is that the intent to terrorize had to be part of the strategy there, and that was arrived at within a war cabinet that weighed the decision.

The same could be said about the "shock and awe" military campaign. Those numerous civilian casualties are always downplayed as unfortunate and unavoidable by-products of modern warfare, even to the point of not calling them civilian deaths but using the truly Orwellian term "collateral damage" for soothing the sensibilities of the viewers at home watching CNN or the evening news. Is using those dishonest words any comfort to the victims who feel terrorized? That's a semantics game, I know. There is surely a message to the man in the street rubble — never fuck with us, we are your worst nightmare. Be afraid, be very very afraid. Be terrified.

I think there are some differences, still. The bombing of Dresden was, per today's definition, an act of terror, but was in accordance with a strategy set up before to raid German cities, with the long run aim to break the morale of the German civil population, and undermine the German propaganda. The Shock and Awe maneuver was meant to spread a feeling of insecurity, too, but mainly to "stun" the Iraqi forces and decapitize them. In both cases, the spreading of terror was a means to a larger, defined strategic aim. It was a means to achieve victory, and demonstrate the inability of the opponents' government's/military forces' (Germany and Iraq) to protect the state and the population from the attackers.

Acts of terror, such as 9/11, or basically any bombing of a civilian target, is terror that has no larger aim, neither strategic nor political. I don't think Al-Quaeda will stop its activities, not even if the US, and all other western states, withdrew their military from the mid-east counties, or any other of their so-called demands was met. We see that in the reasoning they use to justify their attacks: Never a specific demand occurs, instead we hear pretty general and inexact speeches on opinions of a minority of individuals. This terrorism has no cause it's dedicated to, their cause of this kind of terrorism is terror.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Ouch, you hit my soft spot: long posts. I'll dissect it a bit as I reply.



Oh, I wasn't a warrior. Just a humble gas station tenant ;-) I never fired anything but my side arm or an assault rifle, a long time ago.




I think there are some differences, still. The bombing of Dresden was, per today's definition, an act of terror, but was in accordance with a strategy set up before to raid German cities, with the long run aim to break the morale of the German civil population, and undermine the German propaganda. The Shock and Awe maneuver was meant to spread a feeling of insecurity, too, but mainly to "stun" the Iraqi forces and decapitize them. In both cases, the spreading of terror was a means to a larger, defined strategic aim. It was a means to achieve victory, and demonstrate the inability of the opponents' government's/military forces' (Germany and Iraq) to protect the state and the population from the attackers.

Acts of terror, such as 9/11, or basically any bombing of a civilian target, is terror that has no larger aim, neither strategic nor political. I don't think Al-Quaeda will stop its activities, not even if the US, and all other western states, withdrew their military from the mid-east counties, or any other of their so-called demands was met. We see that in the reasoning they use to justify their attacks: Never a specific demand occurs, instead we hear pretty general and inexact speeches on opinions of a minority of individuals. This terrorism has no cause it's dedicated to, their cause of this kind of terrorism is terror.

Well said Claire

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Except the bombings weren't random, in fact, I'm afraid that Al-Q have more brains than the man in the White House (I know that's easy, but lets assume it wasn't).

Can you imagine the kind of philosophy, of willpower, of dominance that convinces academic geniuses, intelligant men who are my superior in every conceivable way to kill, murder and lay down their lives to their cause? These aren't 'stupid arabs', they're 21st century men with IQs, degrees and some pHDs in all likelyhood. Heck, the US army recruitment centre wishes it could brainwash that effeciently.

Terror is about fear. And is a major PR stunt. We can view westerners being executed in Iraq virtually live on the Internet, we can see the footage they use to brainwash their troops, spreading hatred and loathing, and in the name of Satan! If only we would not keep adding fuel to their fire with 'collatoral damage'.

Civilians are ALWAYS the frontline in a war, but this is an abstract conflict defined by dickheads who'll never need to fight it.

Oh well, there's always the other 90% of the world not affected.

 

[ClaireTalon]

Except the bombings weren't random, in fact, I'm afraid that Al-Q have more brains than the man in the White House (I know that's easy, but lets assume it wasn't).

Give them some credit, I'm sure there are guys with brains. Just because we don't like their decisions and eventual impassiveness, they don't have to be that dumb.

Can you imagine the kind of philosophy, of willpower, of dominance that convinces academic geniuses, intelligant men who are my superior in every conceivable way to kill, murder and lay down their lives to their cause? These aren't 'stupid arabs', they're 21st century men with IQs, degrees and some pHDs in all likelyhood. Heck, the US army recruitment centre wishes it could brainwash that effeciently.

The keyword here is: Charisma. You are right, they aren't stupid arabs, or stupid whatsoever, they fell to someone's charisma. However, that's not so rare, not even for someone with a high IQ. So many young 21st century men with PhD's, Ivy League grads and elite degrees fall for the charisma of economy leaders and turn themselves into slaves in veal-fattening pens, for the same reasons. Just that they don't lay down their lives, but I guess that's because they're not asked to do so.

By the way, recently I saw a nice documentation/biography of the Scumbag Number One, Usama bin Laden. Some guys who were in training with him back in the 70s/80s remembered him always to be the first one to flinch at explosions, and put his head into the sand when the shit hit the fan. It took quite some time to turn him into a proper fighter.

 

[JustAsking]

I agree with your original premise. The countries that have dealt with terrorism for much longer than we have have done it through superior intelligence gathering and international law enforcement (except when they were attacked directly by a military force).

Our problem is that our intelligence apparatus is still set up to fight the cold war with a superpower, using lots of technology. What we don't have is feet on the street in the mideast. But what is more alarming is that Islamic extremism is a "nation" without borders. To fight this kind of force takes extremely tight international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation all around the world. We had that cooperation right after 9/11. Most countries would have done anything for us. In our infinite wisdom, however, we blew that advantage by alienating all of them except the UK with our John Wayne strategy in Iraq.

As for the guy who said Bin Laden and Hussein are buddies, he should read the papers or watch tv or something. Saddam was extremely reluctant to give any aid or any safe harbor to Islamic extremists. This has been known for sometime and recently confirmed in the latest Intelligence Report that came out last week. When asked what the Iraq war had to do with 9/11 last week, Pres. Bush replied, "Nothing." Cheney reinforced that this weekend on Meet The Press. Furthermore he claimed that they never said there was a link.

Saddam's government was run by a secular minority, keeping the majority Islamic groups under their thumbs. Iran was praying for that to disappear because Iran is full of the Shia sect which has been a minority power in the Islamic world. Now that we toppled Saddam, the Shia's in Iraq are working directly with the Shias in Iran to create a Shiite order in that region. We are not actually fighting Iraq right now, we are fighting Iran. Iraq just happens to be the battlefield now that we destroyed the one thing standing in Iran's way.

 

[hot-rod]

www.google.com type the word "failure" and see what's 1st on the list...

I did just that. Boy is that biography a load of crap.....mostly lies, as usual.

 

[hot-rod]

I have no problem with the metaphoric usage of the word "war." What I do have a problem with is the "Israel Lobby" and its stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy* (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, etc.) If anything, that's even more of an issue in the Democratic Party.



* I know, I know, typical anti-Semitism. "Our" relationship with Israel evolved out of Cold War necessity and the desire to see democracy flourish. :-/

I think it's still all about religion. From the Jews came the Old Testament, and from the Old Testament came the New Testament which is, you guessed it, Christianity. And the rest is dreadful history.

 

[tripod]

Does anyone on this forum understand the roots of islamic fascism? Does anybody remember that in 1953 the CIA assasinated the prime minister of Iran? The CIA quickly installed the Shah who was not popular among the people and therefore had to rule his people with terror. The Iranian people then started to move towards a more fundamental version of Islam. Iran was a metropolitan city with a highly literate and educated population. The Shah continued to rule with violence and intimidation until the overthrow of the U.S. embassy in 1979 which was the beginning of the Islamic Revolution. The Shah and his supporters were forced to flee and many Iranian Americans hale from this diaspora. The creation of the state of Isreal opened up the floodgates towards western hate about thirty tears prior to the revolution in Iran. our relationship with Saddam Hussein existed solely to oppose the new regime in Iran headed now not by politicians, but by Ayatollahs. The subsequent wars with Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon fomented more anti-western sentiment, because Isreal wouldn't have won those wars if the United States had not been funding their war effort. Saudi Arabia is a BRUTAL country with a despotic regime. They rule their people just like the Shah of Iran did. The immigrants that poor into Saudi Arabia to work everyday are treated horribly and have NO RIGHTS as Saudi citizens (the immigrants make up a significant portion of the population). The United States allows these despots to continue to rule, despite a strong desire by the people for regime change. This will not happen because WE HAVE OUR MILITARY ON SAUDI SOIL! This is OSAMA BIN LADIN'S MAJOR PLATFORM OF RECRUITMENT. So, we are doing bad deeds in Saudi Arabia. We have been supporting Isreal in their ongoing war with the Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. We have destroyed Iran through the assasination of their DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED PRESIDENT. We also propped up Iraq in their war against Iran which over a million lives were lost on each side. IRAN WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO THEM. The poor people of the Arab world WILL NEVER FORGET WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO THEM! Islamic fundamentalism is here to stay, because the conditions that WE CREATED ARE STILL WITH US. There is so much more bullshit that the CIA has done in OUR NAMES that has been causing upheaval around the world. WE ELECT THE OFFICIALS WHO MAKE THE DESCISIONS TO UPSET THE WORLD BALANCE IN FAVOR OF OUR OWN HEDGEMONY. IS IT ANY WONDER WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE TARGETS OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM? I hope this post ends this thread or atleast shifts the discussion to a more rational "historical" perspective. The American people are the kings and queens of the political overthrow, don't kid yourself that our awesome way of life is built on the backs of the rest of the world. DEAL WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Apologies in advance for using necromacy on a thread!

Give them some credit, I'm sure there are guys with brains. Just because we don't like their decisions and eventual impassiveness, they don't have to be that dumb.

I'm fairly neutral-ish on their decisions, I'm not American, why should it bother me if thousands of your soldiers are dying in foreign countries for meagre amount of recources?

The only real discriminatory thing that apparently makes "them" in the White House better than a woman like you (who I do respect) is one simple thing.

They have a penis.

Now if more women were pulling strings, things would be interesting.

The keyword here is: Charisma. You are right, they aren't stupid arabs, or stupid whatsoever, they fell to someone's charisma. However, that's not so rare, not even for someone with a high IQ. So many young 21st century men with PhD's, Ivy League grads and elite degrees fall for the charisma of economy leaders and turn themselves into slaves in veal-fattening pens, for the same reasons. Just that they don't lay down their lives, but I guess that's because they're not asked to do so.

I keep thinking the CIA or Army would love to be able to brainwash our troops to that level of suicidal loyalty to their nation.

But I think it's more than just charisma. I'm thinking it's almost a "super" level personality, a meme or idea and ideal that is growing. Bush is more charismatic than that old turbanhead, but how many people would kill themselves in his name? I'm thinking close to Hitler or Jesus levels of fanaticisim or loyalty.

I mean, take me, why the heck am I so DISLOYAL towards things? I'm a grad, I'm a lover of money and wealth, but I wouldn't sacrifice my happiness, health or social life, as you exampled with most other people.

By the way, recently I saw a nice documentation/biography of the Scumbag Number One, Usama bin Laden. Some guys who were in training with him back in the 70s/80s remembered him always to be the first one to flinch at explosions, and put his head into the sand when the shit hit the fan. It took quite some time to turn him into a proper fighter.

Doesn't reassure the rest of the world since even Julius Caesar was a n00b once.

Of interest is why no one hated BL in the 70s/80s...oh wait, the Commies did, but who gave a shit, not like the Taliban would EVER attack the US!

 

[D_Masteur Baetes]

Hi all. I have been reading this post, learning how bad the US is and how we made all these terrorists hate us. So, my question to the left leaning members of this group is this; what is their plan for the future, besides dumping Bush? Once he is gone, what’s the plan?

Why are the Islamist extremists killing everyone? Do they hate everyone, and has everyone done them wrong in the past? They are killing more of their own people than any other group. They are also killing and trying to kill people in Africa, in Asia, in Russia, in Europe, and planned attacks in Canada. Isn't it because they truly do feel that as they say "all infidels must be converted, or die?" If someone had a great plan on how to combat this problem, republican of democrat, I'd be happy to vote for them.

 

[tygrrr]

- War on terrorism, chasing ghosts? -

I came to think of this thread when I saw yesterday that Iraq war veteran Paul Rieckhoff has published a book titled 'Chasing Ghosts'. http://www.paulrieckhoff.com/home/index.asp
- Rieckhoff is not only a recognized authority on the war in Iraq, but also the founder of IAVA (Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America).
I found that out when I read an interesting short - but to the point - article by him titled: 'Mr President, You Would Understand If You Had Fought' at Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/mr-president-you-would-_b_29515.html --

I think it's fairly obvious by now that all of the initial critique of the war in Iraq has turned out to be justified, while the initial arguments for it no longer stand - and what's worse: they have never held water.
There are international rules on warfare, they are there for a reason - it shows a remarkable lack of historic insight and it takes a whole lot of arrogance to simply dismiss them - but that's also what has happened here.
The unilateral US approach has not been very successful, and in many ways it has also even exposed weaknesses in the US 'war machinery'. - Terrorist organizations have been fought down succesfully before, not by the military, but by enforcing the law. It can be done just this way again.