# Defining the Enemy



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

I guess my biggest problem with the current imbroglio is semantic.

I don't like the term: _war on terror_ because I don't think we should go to war against a _tactic_, especially not one which has, in my lifetime, served us well.  (What do you think the SOE folks, many of them Canadians, were doing in France and Yugoslavia in the early '40s?  They were terrorists.  What do you think Churchill meant when he said, to his _special operations_ people, "Set Europe ablaze!â ??  He wasn't planning a Christmas party with a brightly burning Yule log.)

I believe we should, clearly, especially in our own minds, come to grips with the *fact* that we have been attacked, again and again since the '70s, by an avowed, self declared enemy: a loose coalition of _movements_ which share five characteristics; they are:

"¢	*A*rab _nationalist_, in the main, or _*A*rabist_ in the sense that they adhere to a set of (mainly religious) beliefs which demand acceptance of selected *A*rab social mores;

"¢	*E*xtremist;

"¢	*F*undamentalist - in both the religious and social mores sense;

"¢	*I*slamic; and

"¢	*S*upported, overtly or covertly, by many Middle Eastern governments.

That's what and who attacked us - the American led West - and that's what and who we need to defeat in whatever form this most modern war demands.  Defeat, the last time I checked, still meant: to destroy the enemy's will to fight - no matter what form of fighting the enemy chooses.

We, the American led West, including Canada, *are at war* with the Taliban and al Qaeda and several other like minded groups and their supporters - governments and individuals, alike.  We need to fight this war on conventional battlefields in the Middle East and West Asia and on the sidewalks (and TV screens) of Toronto, Paris and Geneva, where the enemy's bankers and apologists congregate.

It may be that it is politically unpalatable to tell a half million Canadians that their friends, neighbours and relatives back in the _old country_ are now the enemy.  That's tough.  They - those friends and neighbours and relatives - are the enemy, just like German farmers and factory workers were the enemy in 1939-45.

It is my personal belief that the people in the Middle East and West Asia want democracy and freedom and all the things were take for granted.  I believe that they are ready and able to develop and practice their own forms or democracy and the rule of law, just as the Japanese do, now.  It is also my belief that they may have to endure a couple of generations of suffering in rebellions, revolutions, civil wars and bloody regional wars while they (and 'we') sort out the oligarchs and mullahs and the like. 

I think it will be a long, long war and we had best stop pussy-footing around the issue.  _Clash of Civilizations_ has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Jun 2005)

Thanks Sir. Great post.


----------



## canadianblue (27 Jun 2005)

> What does this have to do with anything?
> I know that this is how democratic elections take place. However, is it not possible that due to so much rhettoric and propaganda people may be un informed or mis informed?
> 
> Maybe you should stop and wonder why all those people in the world hate us. Maybe then you will get a better perspective of where I am coming from.



Why do all of those people hate America, I don't know. Whenever they seem to need some foreign aid, or need the military to save their asses they seem to fine with America. As well what is this propaganda you talk of, look at what 3/4's of the world, and they pale in comparison to what the US has ever done. I was watching John Stewart the other day were a liberal senator compared what American's were doing at Gautanoma Bay, and this was his response.

Seriously, nazis, really people if the nazi's were to ever shackle people, feed them, and make them shit on their chest they would be happy. It would be one of the nicest things the nazi's ever did for anybody. They would be like, yeah its shackles day.


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Re: Edward Campbell's post:

I agree with 99.99% of what you posted. Oddly enough we sometimes cannot choose who our enemies are, sometimes they choose us.

As unsavory as it might be, you have to admit when you are being targeted by a particular group in war. The fact that this group happens to be (reasonably) universally Muslim and Arab (ie-a visible minority group in Canada), does not mean they are less a threat than say, the big bad Soviets of the Cold war.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

> Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat
> 
> June 26, 2005
> 
> ...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2005)

Why there are so many of "Them" out there is partially answered by this CBC link

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/warwithoutborders/salafist.html

The Islamic radicals have been on the go since long before radio - awareness of the origins helps understand the modern day carnage.

The fix is a long time coming in the future


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Jun 2005)

Of course it's not like they are getting any help from the "well-intentioned":



> *Well-known Canadians offer to back security detainee*
> Last Updated Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:26:31 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> ...


 http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/27/almrei050627.html

I have an extremely difficult time believing the current federal government would hold _anyone_ under these circumstances unless they were *really* sure ...

P.S> For anyone who might have missed the math: $5,000 + $300 = $5,300, but _Sacha Trudeau_ "believes he would honour the conditions of his release."   :rage:


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

> Anti-globalization activists Lewis and Klein said they had not met Almrei but were aware of his plight due to a fundraiser earlier this year for people being held under security certificates. It attracted other supporters such as writers Stuart McLean and Linda McQuaig.



For the benefit of Sacha Trudeau, Linda McQuaig, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Heather Mallick et al, I repeat:

_" We, the American led West, including Canada, *are at war* with the Taliban and al Qaeda and several other like minded groups and their supporters - governments and individuals, alike.  We need to fight this war on conventional battlefields in the Middle East and West Asia and on the sidewalks (and TV screens) of Toronto, Paris and Geneva, where the enemy's bankers and apologists congregate.â ?

They (Trudeau and all his little friends who worship his father) might want to consider which 'side' they are on.

----------

Now, to the other side of the coin.

We are only going to win this war if we are better than the enemy - at everything.  We must outfight the enemy by the new rules which many (most?) of us (me, certainly) still do not quite understand.  We must outfight the enemy on the new, non-traditional battlefields and in the trendy cafés and the pages of the popular press and on the TV talk shows, too.  Lies are an ancient weapon - used for millennia, but truth works better.  To the extent that Western leaders are, *intentionally* misleading their peoples then they are aiding and abetting the enemy.  We need to tell ourselves the truth:

"¢	About what and who has declared war on us;

"¢	About what is at stake - why we must win this war;

"¢	About what we need to do to fight and win; and

"¢	About how well, or poorly, we are doing.

_


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> For the benefit of Sacha Trudeau, Linda McQuaig, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Heather Mallick et al, I repeat:
> 
> _" We, the American led West, including Canada, *are at war* with the Taliban and al Qaeda .â ?
> _


_

A suggestion if I may

Read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman. He gave a talk last fall - winter in Kingston which I attended

We are not at war with them - and he doubts there will be any more conventional battlefields. They are targetting the west when it suits them to draw attention away from thier prime target which is the modern day Islamic world. 

The goal is separate them from the west.

Now on with your grand strategy as to how you would solve that problem!  

_


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> But I suppose if you've made it this far, no amount of futher debate or revelation is going to change your mind. The next plane to demolish a building and kill a few thousand people probably _will_ be piloted by Iraqis, and then Bush will claim he was right all along.



Yeah, just like those pesky Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Bosnians, Kosovars, And Granadeans who keep launching attacks against the US.  It's obvious from past history that fighting a war always causes terrorists to increase their attacks on you.

You need to rethink that line of argument Britney.


----------



## squealiox (27 Jun 2005)

All this cheast-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.
Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilan political leadership.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> All this cheast-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.
> Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
> Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilan political leadership.



Ofcourse, during WW2, your would have figured that fighting German soldiers in France was "unrelated", and that the only legitemate way to fight would be inside Germany.

Once again, I direct you to this article:  http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Read and learn.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> A suggestion if I may
> 
> Read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman. He gave a talk last fall - winter in Kingston which I attended
> 
> ...



I'm just _familiar_ with Sageman but I think I understand his basic idea and I agree that it explains some, many of the _movements_, perhaps even Bin Laden, himself, but I am not persuaded that the argument explains them all.  See e.g. Jessica Stern in _Foreign Affairs_, July/August 2003, for some thoughts on the diversity of the Arab-extremist-fundamentalist-Islamic groups. 

I don't have a _grand strategy_, as I said up above I'm not even sure I understand the new _rules of the game_.  The only thing I have going for me is that I'm pretty sure not many others understand them, either.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> All this chest-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that I see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to Hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south America.
> Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
> Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilian political leadership.



Actually, invading Iraq was a brilliant stroke; toppling one of the great supporters of terrorist organizations, and occupying the strategic middle ground; American forces are now right on top of other terror supporting states like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The mere presence of 150,000 coalition troops has empowered the Lebanese to throw off their Syrian overlords and regimes throughout the Middle East are  "suddenly" converts to holding democratic elections, allowing free speech and dissent and so on.

Churchill was a big proponent of the "indirect approach", attempting to fight National Socialist Germany through actions in Norway, Africa, the Middle East, the Balkens and Italy, as well as small scale commando raids across Europe, even though an "economy of force" calculation might suggest the British Empire husband its strength and make a single mighty strike in 1943 instead.

I suppose you could argue that the best place to operate against terrorist organizations might have been invading one of the other nations in the Middle East, or perhaps an indirect strategy of working up the east coast of Africa and rolliong up terrorist training camps in Somalia and the Sudan; there is certainly room for debate there; but the "Grand Strategy" of occupying the Middle Eastern "heartland" and exposing the weakness of the other terror supporting regimes is equally promising, and is showing results.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm just _familiar_ with Sageman but I think I understand his basic idea and I agree that it explains some, many of the _movements_, perhaps even Bin Laden, himself, but I am not persuaded that the argument explains them all.



I agree - the west has to evolve and adapt a strategy and its long term.

If you ever read Lawrence of Arabia - he had the same opinion - that there is no onesize fits all solution.

For all you young uns!  Get the movie at the DVD Store and then read the book online http://www.wesjones.com/lawrence1.htm


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

I'm reposting my take on this because I like to hear myself talk.   I think attacking Iraq was important, just as taking down Afghanistan was.   My take (you can take it for what it is worth) is taht we are not fighting Arabs, nor Iraqis, nor Islam, but an certain pan-Islamic faction within Islam that believes that we in the West are bent on the destruction of Islam and the subjugation of Muslims.

War on Terrorism is a silly phrase - it is like saying _War on Operatonal Envelopment_ or _War on Carpet Bombing_.

As well, I'm not so sure it is a conflict with an "extreme fringe" of Islamic (Arab?   Middle Eastern?) culture.

Having just finished Through Our Enemies' Eyes by "Anonymous", the author makes a point that I think is very important in that *the conflict we are engaged in is a fight against a guerrilla insurgency rather then a terrorist campaign.*   This is supported by the fact that violence that occurs in the Middle East against the West is not monopolized by Al Qaeda, but that it almost always is supported by its mission, goals, and statements.

"Anonymous" argues that we are foolhardy to view Al Qaeda as a traditional terrorist organization.   In pigeonholing it with Hizballah, Abu Nidal, and the slew of other Cold War groups who were basically extentions of surrogate state policies, we lose sight of the fact that Al Qaeda is a much more an insurgent organization that is as much a "facilitator/inciter" as a "doer".   Anonymous lists off pages of attacks against Western and Western-backed (or perceived to be Western-backed) targets both inside and outside of the Middle East in the last decade or so and despite the fact that Al Qaeda was not directly responsible for them, *they were committed to goals that were within the Islamic insurgent context that Osama bin Laden has become the figurehead for.*   There is no difference between Al Qaeda operatives blowing something up or the message of Al Qaeda convincing some Filipino/Indonesian/Pakistani/Egyptian group or individual to do the same.

The message of this insurgency is clearly anti-Western and grounded upon traditional Islamist thought.   Why is it appealing to many?   I think "Anonymous is onto something when he states that:

_"There is a perception in the Muslim world - which bin Laden has fed - that the Christian West is always ready to use economic coercion and military force if proselytizing does not work, or does not work quickly.   The latter is an intense irritant in the Islamic world and is, as Professor Samuel Huntington noted, grounded in fact: from 1980 to 1995 "the United States engaged in seventeen military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed at Muslims.   No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization."   Tough economic sanctions have been simultaneously enforced by the West against several Muslim states.   As noted, bin Laden has been outspoken in condemning the Crusaders' eagerness to put sanctions on Sudan, Iraq, and Libya; to tolerate prolonged military aggression against Muslim Bosnians, Somalis, Kashmiris, and Kosovars; and to conspire to divide Muslim states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.   In voicing these views, bin Laden is more virulent than most Muslims, *but he is not the lone voice.*"

Anonymous, Through Our Enemies' Eyes; pg 244._

What does the previous stuff say (to me, at least):

1)   That the enemy is a varied one that is driven to fight us for both Who we Are and/or What we Do.   Fundamentalists (both Shia and Sunni) abhor Western secularism and see it as an immoral evil (Religious).   Many Palestinians will fight because of the ongoing dispute with Israel (ethnic).   Pashtun Taliban forces will fight us because they see us as Allied with their traditional Tajik foes who occupy the Karzai government in Kabul (tribal).   Egyptians will bomb Americans as a way to fight against a Mubarak government they oppose (civil war).   Ba'athist or other organizations in Iraq will attack Westerners because they oppose Western presence in their homeland (nationalists).   All of these motives exist and they can often be combined and mixed.   *The Insurgency that Bin Laden spearheads is focusing this animosity on the West by pointing to it as the root of the problem.*

2)   Further to this, not all our enemies are rabid, Koran-toting fundmentalists.   This is where the definition "War on Terror" falls short, as it puts all the possible enemies we may fight into a single box that does not do their motivations or their outlook justice.   *Don't paint the insurgent opponent with a broad brush.*

3)   As pointed out above, opposing forces have wide and disparate interests.   They are tied togeather in their actions by the message that bin Laden has constantly preached of Pan-Islamic Defence of the Faith.   However, this does not distract them from settling differences with eachother.   _Dar al Islam_ is a large and vibrant part of the world, and there is a gamut of interests (old and new) clashing - Matt Fisher pointed out to me that while in Iraq, he noticed that Muslim on Muslim violence was as common as attacks on Americans.   *Expect to see various intercine Islamic conflict based on ethnic (Kurd/Arab/Turkish, etc), Tribal (Pashtun/Tajik/Hazara, etc), Political (Pakistan, Egypt), and Religious (Shia/Sunni) lines.*

4)   If this is an insurgency being driven by the notion that the West is a crusading boogey-man, then "grab them by the balls and hearts and minds will follow" is the absolute worst approach to take as it will only serve to further the belief that we are marauding Crusaders bent on destroying Islam.   *This is very much a war of perception.*

5)   Finally, as this is a war of perception, we must consider how we are to fight it.   There will always be the 10% who hate us for who we are; the only solution for them is a JDAM or a Hellfire.   However, the main effort should lie with those Muslims who are angry at us for what we do.   This is why I am generally supportive of going into Afghanistan and especially Iraq, which is at the center of _Dar al Islam_.   From these places, if we play our cards right, we can do much to attack the Insurgent message that we are marauding extentions of the Crusades.   *Much of the situation today has come about due to the unintended consequences of Cold War policies - oh well, no point lamenting them, now we must address them and the West is now strategically engaged in the Middle East in a manner that should facilitate this.*


----------



## squealiox (27 Jun 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ofcourse, during WW2, your would have figured that fighting German soldiers in France was "unrelated", and that the only legitemate way to fight would be inside Germany.




We were at war with the German state, wherever it happened to be. I have said nothing in this forum to contradict this fact. Might i suggest you actually read posts before you quote them? Given your magical ability to attribute arguments to people before they have even made them, i would guess you have no need for Internet.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2005)

Check out this link at the ALEXANDER THE AVERAGE   BLOG   

http://alexandertheaverage.blogspot.com/2005/06/are-we-there-yet-creating-roadmap-to.html 

- the guy planning the new Iraq - give him some ideas you big thinkers!


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> We were at war with the German state, wherever it happened to be. I have said nothing in this forum to contradict this fact.



And we are currently engaged in hostilities against terroist organizations.   Yes, it's different in that you cannot declare war against an organization which is not officialy supported by any government.   That's a limitation which is unfortiunate because it clouds the issues.   So, since it's common knowledge that Sadam supported terrrism both by paying off the families of Palestinian bombers (who regularily target a US ally), as well as by providing protection for members of Al Qaeda, how is attacking Iraq detracting from "the war on terror"?  Did attacking Italy in WW2 detract from defeating the Germans?  I'm not understanding your logic here.

Have you read that article yet or what?   All of these things are quite clearly explained within it.   It even breaks everything down into small, easy to follow points which progress logicaly towards the inevitable conclusion.   Give it a shot.   Or provide a similar analysis showing how the "war on terror" should be fought.   If you don't like the way the US is doing it, tell us how it should be done.


----------



## mdh (27 Jun 2005)

I don't have much to add to this debate since, as usual, a-majoor has already said if for me.    Just two points:



> The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.



Actually Churchill responded to Hitler by doing just that - deciding to fight in North Africa and spreading the war to another front - anything to help broaden the war effort and weaken the enemy. Some critics at the time accused him of being fatuous. He won. 



> Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him, eh?



As a footnote it was Jefferson who ordered the US Navy to bombard the Barbary pirate bases in the Med which had been engaged in a thriving slave trade and demanding ransom - a kind of late 18th century terrorism.   The French and the English paid the ransoms in hopes their commerce would be unmolested and preferred appeasement.   Jefferson refused to follow a similar policy and destroyed the Barbary threat. Even then, standing up to international extortion paid dividends.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Jun 2005)

<a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22703390.htm>CIA, CSIS  says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground</a>


----------



## squealiox (27 Jun 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Actually Churchill responded to Hitler by doing just that - deciding to fight in North Africa and spreading the war to another front - anything to help broaden the war effort and weaken the enemy. Some critics at the time accused him of being fatuous. He won.



There were actual German troops in North Africa, i believe. But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,  but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it. (nor is any of the pop pscyhology masquerading as geopolitics on 48th highlanders' favourite blog, for that matter).


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jun 2005)

> But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
> There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,  but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it.



Ahh, give it up already. You know all those dirty Ay-rabs think the same way, Iraqi, Saudi, Afghan, what's the difference? Besides Bush didn't say it so it can't be true.



> In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. *Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait.* He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.33 By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his financial assets and revoke his citizenship.34 He no longer had a country he could call his own.



Source: <a href=http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_2.3.html>The 9/11 Commission Report of the Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Chapter 2.3, THE RISE OF BIN LADIN AND AL QAEDA (1988-1992)</a>


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> As a footnote it was Jefferson who ordered the US Navy to bombard the Barbary pirate bases in the Med which had been engaged in a thriving slave trade and demanding ransom - a kind of late 18th century terrorism.   The French and the English paid the ransoms in hopes their commerce would be unmolested and preferred appeasement.   Jefferson refused to follow a similar policy and destroyed the Barbary threat. Even then, standing up to international extortion paid dividends.



Ahh, I knew it would be you to figure out my analogy....

I have a feeling that the Marine's will be adding a refrain to "...the Shores of Tripoli" real soon (I'm not sure you can fit "Fallujah" in the song - maybe with "Hooah"?)


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Ahh, give it up already. You know all those dirty Ay-rabs think the same way, Iraqi, Saudi, Afghan, what's the difference? Besides Bush didn't say it so it can't be true.



That's not what I said in my post.

As well, your quote is quite right Britney - "Anonymous" goes into that in great detail in his history of Bin Ladin.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jun 2005)

> That's not what I said in my post.



Well good, because I wasn't quoting you.  

Wait, If you're either with us or against us, and that's not what you posted, then are you.....?


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> There were actual German troops in North Africa, i believe. But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.
> There may have been a legitimate case for going to the trouble of taking out saddam at some point down the road,   but the non-existent 9/11 connection was not it. (nor is any of the pop pscyhology masquerading as geopolitics on 48th highlanders' favourite blog, for that matter).



Ah, right.  There's also no proof the US landed on the moon, since quite a few people beleive the videos were faked.  Since you seem to have confused a cause/effect study with "pop psychology", I'm guessing you fall into the same category?  Or is there some standard of proof or logic which you would find acceptable?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> But there is no evidence that Iraq (a secular state, therefore not popular with islamists) harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.



*YES, there is*: Saddam was protecting Zarqawi. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050519-06362800-bc-jordan-king.xml



> *Jordan king:Iraq refused to deport Zarqawi*
> 
> BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 19 (UPI) -- Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that *Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi*, blamed for ongoing terrorism in Iraq.
> ...
> *"Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain," *Abdullah added.



(Selectively ignoring evidence can be very dangerous).


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jun 2005)

> (Selectively ignoring evidence can be very dangerous).




  




> Some U.S. officials have claimed that Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the September 11 attacks. *These claims were used to support the claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, The New York Times reported on October 21, 2002 that Atta did not meet with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague. This was later officially confirmed in the 9/11 Commission report.*
> 
> In Colin Powell's famed speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was named as a principal reason for the need for war. Many parts of the speech have since been discredited, and Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian, but Powell and the Bush administration continue to stand by the statements. (According to MSNBC, *the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times, but had been vetoed by the White House because Zarqawi's removal would undercut the case that war on Iraq was part of The War On Terrorism.)*



<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi>Source</a>



> After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former terrorist organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the *Islamist Ansar al-Islam group* that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.



Yes, the same Ansar al-Islam that Saddam was trying to eliminate as a source of Kurdish power threat to his own power.



> The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar(the leader of AaI),




Seems pretty clear to me why he wasn't deported: He was in Kurdistan. Don't you think that King Abdullah might have a rather vested interest in seeing al-Zarqawi eliminated?

So let's see, al-Zarqawi, the radial islamicist,  gets his start with the goal of overthrowing King Hussein of Jordan, notably the only other secular Arab leader besides Saddam Hussein, and the only Country in the ME to publicly side with Saddam during Desert Storm/Shield, and now we're to believe that he was working *with* Saddam?    


More importantly, don't you folks feel just a little bit silly trying to justify THE INVASION OF IRAQ on what one man, previously only loosely related to Al-Qaeda, may or may not have done in Iraq, which in any case had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Jun 2005)

King Hussein said that Saddam "refused" (not "was unable") to deport Zarqawi.

Saddam was actively trying to ally himself with the radical Islamists following the first Gulf War (and increasingly presenting himself as one).

Ansar al-Islam was fighting the same Kurdish nationalists that Saddam was.  They were not fighting Saddam.  They are now (arguably) the most active in trying to reinstate the Ba'athist regime. 

Prior to the war, Iraqi intelligence agents admitted that Saddam was supporting Ansar al-Islam (& al Queda): http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/23/wirq23.xml which was consistent with what "western military" recced-out: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/wiraq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2005)

> Some U.S. officials have claimed that Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the September 11 attacks.



The source of these allegations was the Czech Intelligence service, which has never recanted their finding that Atta did meet an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The British Intelligence service has also never recanted their finding that Iraq attempted to purchace Uranium Hexaflouride ("Yellowcake") prior to OIF either. 

Saddam's Hussein's intelligence service must have been running the greatest deception scheme in history, or perhaps American officials are trying to deflect blame for their failure to put the pieces together correctly prior to OIF when they discount these and other claims.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jun 2005)

> King Hussein said that Saddam "refused" (not "was unable") to deport Zarqawi.



Presumably you mean King Abdullah.

And Saddam and Iraqi officials deny any connection with either Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam. The leader of AaI, before Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, deny any connection with Saddam. THe Kurdish groups frequently engage in combat amongst themselves, and also again the Iranians, Syrians and Turks.  So who are we to believe?

Do you have any evidence of the following:



> Saddam was actively trying to ally himself with the radical Islamists following the first Gulf War (and increasingly presenting himself as one).





> They are now (arguably) the most active in trying to reinstate the Ba'athist regime.



The second one seems particularly doubious, since all evidence I've seen indicates that AaI's goals are closely tied to that of Al-Qaeda, namely the establishment of a fundementalist Islamic state in Iraq and elsewhere. 

FWIW,  I've found in other threads that your source, _The Telegraph_  seems to take a lot of liberties with their facts.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Presumably you mean King Abdullah.



Yes, I was typing faster than I was thinking.



> And Saddam and Iraqi officials deny any connection with either Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam. The leader of AaI, before Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, deny any connection with Saddam. THe Kurdish groups frequently engage in combat amongst themselves, and also again the Iranians, Syrians and Turks.  So who are we to believe?



Krekar also claimed Ansar al-Islam had no connection to al-Queda and that the killing of civillians is wrong: anything else for which you feel the need to give these $#$%^*$ the benefit of the doubt?



> since all evidence I've seen indicates that AaI's goals are closely tied to that of Al-Qaeda, namely the establishment of a fundementalist Islamic state in Iraq and elsewhere.



They are the ones that are blowing themselves up, and yes, it is starting to create friction between them and the Saddam loyalists (hence the recent red-on-red reports).  Their basic strategy is very simple: get the Americans (et.al.) out, and then fight it out amongst themselves: it takes an enormous leap of faith to suggest that both factions did not fear a US-led invasion and were not planning accordingly.



> FWIW,  I've found in other threads that your source, _The Telegraph_  seems to take a lot of liberties with their facts.


Why, because they don't approach every article from the "Bush lied, people died" frame of reference?  This is a pretty weak argument from someone offering _wikipedia _and no citation by way of rebuttal!  Anyway,  here is the same evidence from that bastion of pro-Bush propaganda known as the BBC:



> Wednesday, 24 July, 2002, 22:04 GMT 23:04 UK
> *'Al-Qaeda' influence grows in Iraq*
> ...
> The PUK leader, Jalal Talabani, says the one certain thing is that they had ties with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan:
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm


----------



## squealiox (28 Jun 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Why, because they don't approach every article from the "Bush lied, people died" frame of reference?



That's funny. The british judge who found the Telegraph seriously lacking on the credibility front last december used a somewhat different line of reasoning...



> Record award for libel victim Galloway
> Newspaper faces  £1.2m costs after judge criticises dramatic handling of 'scoop'


http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=818&id=1384962004


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2005)

gentlemen, ladies, and others
when Iraq was driven from Kuwait, a number of UN resolutions were passed stating, in essence, that if Saddam didn't stop being an asshat, he would get the same treatment, and be tossed out on his ear. He chose not to listen. The invasion was perfectly legal under those very UN resolutions. At the time, it was 'a given' that he had WMD (this was stated by every major world leader. It was a commonly held belief.) It was also commonly believed that he was dealing with terrorism worldwide. Some of these have proven to be true, some have proven to be dubious. Hindsight is always...

The nations most stridently screeching against the removal of everyone's favourite despot are also the same nations whose leadership were making a great deal of money from the Oil-For-Pocket-Cash scandal, including our own. An odd coincidence, don't you think? 

Saddam played by big boy rules, but didn't have the parts to back it up. He could have complied with the UN resolutions, but chose instead pretend to be a bigger dog than he was. He paid the price. Now, Bush, Blair and Co. are making Iraq (and by default, the entire ME) into a better place. It ain't gonna be easy or fast. But the good things never are.

Tyranny must always be fought. Terrorism is another form of tyranny. Decades from now, when the ME has been 'democratized' we can then proceed to Asia, South America, and Africa. It's going to take generations. There is no quick fix.


----------



## sigpig (29 Jun 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Now, Bush, Blair and Co. are making Iraq (and by default, the entire ME) into a better place. It ain't gonna be easy or fast. But the good things never are.
> 
> Tyranny must always be fought. Terrorism is another form of tyranny. Decades from now, when the ME has been 'democratized' we can then proceed to Asia, South America, and Africa. It's going to take generations. There is no quick fix.



So the west is going to save the rest of the world from itself and reshape it in our image? And who gets to chose which countries meet the criteria for 'regime change required?' Bush and his successors? 

This would amount to a perpetual state of war that would give those western governments Orwellian power over their people because you can't criticize the government when you are at war. 

It would make Bush's initially use of the term 'crusade' to seem to be correct.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2005)

> *It's All About 9/11*
> The president links Iraq and al Qaeda â â€ and the usual suspects moan.
> 
> President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night â â€ some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull â â€ why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.
> ...



We all know that the Republicans were using mind control on the Clinton administration, of course......


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> So the west is going to save the rest of the world from itself and reshape it in our image?


yes. We bring democracy to every nation on Earth. By doing so, we give the populace of each country a form of representative gov't that will meet the customs of that region. Democracies don't go to war with other democracies. When every citizen of every nation has an equal shot at happiness, we remove the breeding grounds for terrorism and insurgencies. This makes Canada safe. Read Sun Tzu.



> And who gets to chose which countries meet the criteria for 'regime change required?' Bush and his successors?


well, it ain't gonna be us, since we have effectively removed ourselves from any sort of relevence on the world stage, and prefer to yap at those with the courage to make a difference. It's remiscent of a yappy little poodle, safe in it's house, barking at the police dog outside. 



> This would amount to a perpetual state of war that would give those western governments Orwellian power over their people because you can't criticize the government when you are at war.


 bollocks! Balderdash and poppycock! Stuff and nonsense! We, the people of the western democracies have always criticized our gov'ts, state of war, or not. Even as far back as WW I. Look at the effect civil disapproval had during the Viet Nam conflict. And we have been at war for over a century already. We will always be so, until EVERYBODY has an equal shot at what we here in Canada take for granted. 



> It would make Bush's initially use of the term 'crusade' to seem to be correct.


 semantics. You wanna call it a "crusade", go ahead. You want to call it a "war of liberation", go ahead. I'll just call it "killin' assholes".


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jun 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> That's funny. The british judge who found the Telegraph seriously lacking on the credibility front last december used a somewhat different line of reasoning...



Gee, they made the mistake of accusing someone (George "capitalism is the real enemy" Galloway) of a crime that is still under investigatiion ... plenty of news outlets have made much worse mistakes ... how is this relevant?

The point is you cliamed there was no evidence that Iraq "harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.": according to the Telegraph (sorry they are incapable of printing anything but false propaganda) the BBC, this is demonstrably false.  Trying to change the subject does not change the fact that evidence and people who claim to have been directly involved exist!


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.



I'm not sure if I buy the "Democratic Peace Theory" in IR - mainly because:

1) Liberal Democracies haven't been around long enough to know for sure.
2) For the brief time that they have been around, they've been so busy fighting others - democracies fight alot, look at the history of the US or Britain.



> I'll just call it "killin' assholes".



I like that one the best....


----------



## squealiox (29 Jun 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Gee, they made the mistake of accusing someone (George "capitalism is the real enemy" Galloway) of a crime that is still under investigatiion ... plenty of news outlets have made much worse mistakes ... how is this relevant?
> 
> The point is you cliamed there was no evidence that Iraq "harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.": according to the Telegraph (sorry they are incapable of printing anything but false propaganda) the BBC, this is demonstrably false.   Trying to change the subject does not change the fact that evidence and people who claim to have been directly involved exist!



you wanted to know why someone would question the credibility of the Telegraph, and i gave you a reason. galloway is indeed a moron, but so are the journalists at the telegraph who didn't seem to mind uncritically basing stories on forged documents. and i am not aware of any ongoing investigation into these charges. they are, as a british court has concluded, libel.

and a BBC report that baghdad was playing various groups against one another in the khurdish zone (which is part of iraq), does not constitute evidence of a 9/11 link. otherwise, pakistan (a strong taliban supporter) and saudi arabia would have been far more logical targets for a us invasion.


----------



## Zartan (29 Jun 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.



What about the USA vs the CSA?


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

Ah, but if you understand the political climate of the Civil War, the notion that the States were the sovereign bodies within the Union was a very popular one.  The notion was that the elected representatives of the States, who signed and ratified both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were free to pull out of this agreement as sovereignty lay at the State level and not the Federal Level.  This notion of "State's Rights" was perhaps an even larger factor in the Civil War than Slavery (although it was slavery that was driving the State's Rights argument).

In effect, the elected representatives of the South Confederated their states, elected a Congress and a President and prosecuted the war as such.  Zartan is keen for making the example, although it can be quite a stretch to call the US during the Civil War era a "Liberal Democratic State" as we would understand it now. 

A funny notion about sovereignty - the Union was upset that the British refused to recognize the blockades that the Union Navy had put on Southern Ports.  Britain's response - Sovereign nations do not blockade themselves, so the CSA must be a belligerent state; status that Washington vehemently opposed.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jun 2005)

Perhaps we should start a civil war thread ?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2005)

Calling the CSA a "Liberal democracy" is a very big stretch. As Infanteer pointed out, the United States at the time was more correctly referred to as "These United States", and the theory and practice of the time was that each State was sovereign, and they had collectively agreed to pool assets and resources together to deal with common problems.

Most of the Southern States were effectively oligarchies, where wealthy families controlled the machinery of government and outcomes of elections were quite predictable (sort of like Canada, eh?). One of the great issues which caused the Civil war was social in nature; the North was industrial, capitalist and had a huge influx of immigrants, all which kept the social order in turmoil as compared to the South. If the Southern states were to become capitalist, industrial or take in immigrants, the stable social order that supported the oligarchy would be shattered and the oligarches would be out of power and position.

Segue to the Middle East, where aristocratic rulers see the destabilizing influence of Western capitalism, media, culture and technology threatening their little rice bowls (and I mean* little;* most Middle Eastern nations have tiny economies and minuscule GDPs, especially if oil revenue is factored out. The one rich Middle Eastern nation is the one that is capitalist, democratic and reasonably open about immigration...). Seeing Saudi Arabia doing the two faced routine, or watching Syria, and Iran "aiding and abetting" the Jihadis, or discovering the connections between Ba'athist Iraq and terrorist organizations is no surprise, these are the only means they have to challenge the United States and the Western Coalition in an attempt to maintain their hold on power.

Like the Northern States in 1861, the United States has a great deal of latent power, but has yet to fully organize and use that power. American field commanders are still McClellan's and Burnsides, unable to use the power of their large armies to their full effect (although without the horrendous casualties and defeats of 1861-3), the Grant's and Sherman's who can find the keys to really unhinging the enemy are still to come.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Jul 2005)

> *Body of Evidence*
> _A CNN anchor gets Iraq and al Qaeda wrong. But will the network issue a correction?_
> by Stephen F. Hayes
> 06/30/2005 12:00:00 AM
> ...


 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp


----------



## squealiox (4 Jul 2005)

it's strange that they would play up a comment kean made last summer (and did not see fit to include in the report) rather than quote a single line of the official report he put his name to. and i can see why:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." and so on.

Oddly enough, there's no shortage of evidence in the report linking al-qaeda with afghanistan and a few other countries. Maybe the right-wing fringe media got a different version of the 9/11 report than everyone else, but i see a whole lot of clutching at straws going on here...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Jul 2005)

And the goalposts move once again ...


----------



## squealiox (4 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> And the goalposts move once again ...


they sure have: from "oh, iraq was involved in 9/11" to "actually, iraq supported al-qaeda" to "well, iraq had 'contacts' with al qaeda".

so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Jul 2005)

For what its worth, they interviewed a Marine Major (maybe a L/Col) on local radio last year. This Marine told in great detail (he was a brother of one of the hosts) of coming across a terrorist training camp in Iraq. He stated that it contained a "cafeteria", classrooms, and training grounds, obstacle courses, etc. One of his jobs was to catalogue the evidence left behind. A lot of the information was manuals and other documents, pertaining to "terror" activities - as opposed to typical military documents...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2005)

Actually lots of people here, in the Blogosphere and various Intelligence Agencies have shown evidence of Iraq harbouring, supporting and being allied to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In a court of law, the amount of circumstancial evidence, as well as documentary evidence captured from the Ba'athist Intelligence organs would be considered a "slam dunk" for the prosecution.

The problem is some people have such a vested interest in a particular world view, they will simply ignore this evidence (until one fine morning they glance out the window of the high-rise office tower they are working in and see the airplane heading straight for them).


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jul 2005)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> they sure have: from "oh, iraq was involved in 9/11" to "actually, iraq supported al-qaeda" to "well, iraq had 'contacts' with al qaeda".
> 
> so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.



Irregardless of all the 'what ifs', the fact was Iraq was nasty place with Saddam in charge, who was a wild card in the whole terrorsim supporting system, who even gave bountys out the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, and was involved in other nasty things which in my view either directly, or indirectly were a threat to the west. He is better off gone.

Lets just prosecute this war, and get it over with. Its hard to do with all the PC shit and the one sided media, who always want a controversial story involving body counts and civvy casualties, where maybe they should report more on the successes of the Allied Forces.

Meanwhile today more Australian troops right from Enoggera (no OPSEC here, this was released publically yesterday) leave for Iraq. Their family BBQ and farewell was yesterday. Now, we have learned that more Australian forces will be returning to Afghanistan. 

The ADF will continue to grow in it's continued operations in this area, as other nations sit back and do nothing. Even Japan has troops on the ground.

mini rant on 

Many complainers of this new type of warfare think we are at fault, and they are somehow immune to the radical islamic threat to the west (yes even living in Canada yet alone here, the ASIO have thwarted several plots just in the past 2 weeks by islamics based in many major Aussie cities). These whingers constantly seem to hack at the US and others involvement, trying to disect things which they really don't have a FUCKING clue (except an opinion) about. Just keep in denial, and keep that head buried in the sand, and your little worlds will be alright. At times I find it quite sickening of the attitude of some 'soldiers' on this website, and I don't think that will change for those few until something bad happens close to home.

If have has pissed anyone off, too bad, just wake up to yourselves.

mini rant off


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Jul 2005)

> so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.






http://www.husseinandterror.com/


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Jul 2005)

I don't understand this obsession with Saddam funding Palestinian suicide bombers. What Arab country doesn't do that in some way or other? And further more what does this have to do with attacks on the US and Canada? What would the Palestinians hope to gain from attacking the US? Shouldn't we invade Israel then?

Look, after 5 years of searching, I'm suprised that no conclusive evidence of the Iraq/Al-qaeda/9-11 link has been found, since even before the first tower fell, the Bush administration has been doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to try and create one. Can we all agree that even if none of the rather tenuous links presented here existed, the intention of the administration has been to invade Iraq all along?



> In a court of law, the amount of circumstancial evidence, as well as documentary evidence captured from the Ba'athist Intelligence organs would be considered a "slam dunk" for the prosecution.



Really? Care to elaborate on this? I mean, assuming that "a court of law" exists with the moral authority to end the lives of tens of thousands of people and displace thousands more. This analogy is ridiculous.



> (until one fine morning they glance out the window of the high-rise office tower they are working in and see the airplane heading straight for them).



So Invading Iraq would have prevented 9/11 from happening? The war has gone on for, what, 2 years now? Suppose Iraq is invaded and saddam toppled in 1999. Would 9/11 have been prevented?  "Ignoring the evidence," indeed.

Please explain to me how the ongoing anarchy in Iraq and "the creation of an entirely new wing of Al-Qaeda, with thoundands of new members, that  did not exist before"(I'm borrowing a phrase from an in-the-know poster over at lightfighter)  has made Canada or the US safer from terrorism.


And while we're grasping at straws, <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html>US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war</a>


----------



## Greywolf (4 Jul 2005)

I won't go into justifying whether it was right or wrong for the US to invade Iraq, but let's look at the consequences whether intentional or not...
Thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of the war, but so have thousands more of Iraqis, many of whom were innocent and I mean having no direct involvement with any fighting whatsoever...How many times have we heard of Americans "accidentally" bombing or shooting up schools, wedding parties, Iraqi police (established by the American-backed Iraqi government), unarmed Iraqis traveling through checkpoints, American allies (including Italians, British...can't remember other ones...but there could be others), and we wonder why so many people do not like Americans.   

Imagine an Iraqi family who lost their home and all their possessions and some of their members were accidentally killed by Americans, or even by insurgents fighting the Americans...so Saddam the tyrant is removed from power, did their lives get any better?   I would say no...perhaps in some ways, they might have some freedom, but they have also lost a lot more than they had before when living under the Saddam regime.   The war in Iraq has attracted hundreds of fighters from other Arab countries to fight the Americans.   It is a war zone that common Iraqis have to live in everyday now.   Is it all worth it for the common Iraqi?   If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq, I would say no.   

And people wonder why Americans are hated...even people from outside of Iraq can see the destruction visited upon a people because of a country's decision to invade another.   It is precisely this hatred provoked by the war that fuels and encourages more people to join the groups that fight against the Americans and their allies.   

If things continue the way they are now, this War on Terror can never be won.   Is it America's job to remove all tyrants?   There are plenty of tyrants around the world and more might be born everyday.   

Tyranny and terrorism can never be defeated by armed battle because they are ideologies.   One can only defeat them by changing the way people think and this war in Iraq is not helping.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jul 2005)

Tell me Greywolf what war has not had unfortunate civvy casualties (the Allies are trying to do their best here), and Allies killed by friendly fire. Remember not all Iraqis HATE the US nad its Allies in this war, but radical islam hates anything which does not comply to their standards harsh ways.

Just remember, its muslims killing muslims there with all these suicide bombers, not Americans, the Poms or Australians doing the deliberate killing of innocents. Most bad guys now are coming in thru the borders and are foreigners hell bent on killing the Great Satan.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Jul 2005)

I suppose, for the sake of argument and to avoid any more circling, I should clarify my basic position.

I really don't give two $hits about the Iraqis. Not before the war, not now.


There, I said it, lest you guys think I have some kind of humanitarian concern for the plight of the Iraqis, or that Saddam owed *Spears Consolidated Petroleum Inc.* money or something. Truth is, the Iraqis were not facing genocide or some kind of humanitarian catastrophe under Saddam. Yes, by western standards it sucked but Iraq was a fairly modern country with good amounts of infrastructure compared to most ME nations, it was ruled by a secular goverment that allowed women to drive, go to university, and otherwise lead normal lives, Christians were tolerated, the Kurds in the North were safe and pretty much reduced to killing each other, compared to Afghanistan or most of the other spunkpools in the region it was a pretty good go for most people. Given time, Saddam will die or get assasinated, another tin pot dictator comes to power, and the cycle continues until someone with a little vision gets in and see the light of allying with the west, just like how it happens in most of the world.  If my concern were humanitarian there are a hundred other places in the world(like Afghanistan) that I think could use an American Invasion.

What does concern me is destroying Al-Qaeda and protecting the West from Islamic terrorism, and as far as that goal is concerned the Invasion of Iraq couldn't have been done better if OBL had planned it himself. Ask most people in the world what the #1 threat to peace and security in the world is, Hint: it isn't Al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. I know this isn't true and it pains me that through either the ruthless self interest or incredible ignorance (pick one) of the Current US administration thousands of good American lives are being used to prove that it is.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jul 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> Thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of the war



Actually its about 1700, but one is still too many



> Saddam the tyrant is removed from power, did their lives get any better?   I would say no...perhaps in some ways, they might have some freedom, but they have also lost a lot more than they had before when living under the Saddam regime.



At least you said the F word. I am not even going to comment on the rest.



> Is it all worth it for the common Iraqi? If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq, I would say no.


   

So you would rather it be the way it was with 100's of thousands of graves from people being executed without reason?

   


> Is it America's job to remove all tyrants?



Good on the Yanks if they want to destroy a clear and direct threat to their security, but maybe you'd think different if 3000 Canadians were were murdered at their workplaces.

Wes


----------



## Greywolf (4 Jul 2005)

Well, that's my point, war always produces unfortunate civilian casualties, that's why it is so undesirable.   Certainly in some instances, it might be unavoidable.   And now in the aftermath, we will see whether the US starting this war is actually worth it.   The Americans chose the killing ground by attacking Iraq.   But it could easily have a number of other countries known to harbor "terrorists".   The Iraqis did not ask for it.   Yes, there are Iraqis who support the invasion and the presence of the Americans and their allies.   But if there was 1 innocent Iraqi or person of another nationality for that matter that got killed as a result of the war started by the Americans, then it is one too many.   To remove Saddam and his party from power, how many would have to die before people realize the number of casualties is unacceptable.   If America wanted to remove terrorists, it cannot be accomplished by attacking a country.   Sure, it is difficult to seek out or identify individual terrorists, but then no one said it was easy!


----------



## Greywolf (4 Jul 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Good on the Yanks if they want to destroy a clear and direct threat to their security, but maybe you'd think different if 3000 Canadians were were murdered at their workplaces.
> 
> Wes



But attacking Iraq did not destroy the threat, in fact, the threat is increased because now people from different countries are going into Iraq to attack because of the presence of a large concentration of Americans.   

If all the people killed on Sept 11, 2001 were  Canadians, I would still think attacking Iraq will not satisfy the dead's family to avenge their loved ones (if indeed that is a legitimate reason), nor would it rid the world of those responsible for the attacks or those who support them.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jul 2005)

Interesting quote from Imperial Hubris, which I am going through right now in light of world events:



> Al Qaeda's ties to and presence in northern Iraq existed before 11 September 2001 but took on greater momentum and importance there-after.   While it was long known that Kurdistan was home to multiple, largely secular Sunni Kurdish groups opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime, the presence there of an assortment of militant Sunni Kurdish groups opposed to Daddam, secular Sunni Kurds, and the West was less clear.   What Western observers for the most part missed, however, was not overlooked by al Qaeda and the Taleban.   The _New York Times_ has reported, for example, that documents from an al Qaeda computer captured by U.S. forces in Kabul show that bin Laden hosted the leaders of several Kurdish Islamist groups in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, meetings in which Taleban representatives were included.   The message delivered to the Iraqis appears to have been threefold: unite the disparate Sunni Islamist factions in northern Iraq; propagate the teachings of the Salafi sect of Islam among the Sunni population there and try to create a Taleban-style regime in Iraq; and train and prepare fighters for war against U.S. forces if Washington again invades Iraq.   In addition, the Iraqi Kurds received $350,000 in funding, weapons, Land Cruisers, and instruction in administration, logistics, and military training methods, as well as an offer - which was accepted - to provide al Qaeda cadre to assist in putting the administrative and military sides of their house in order.   Finally, it appears that the Ansar al-Islam group asked for and received from al Qaeda training in the fabrication and use of toxic weapons; manuals for producing toxins found in 2002 in Ansar camps in Iraq are identical to those taken from al Qaeda in Afghanistan.   By late summer 2002, Ansar al-Islam had built a toxin-producing facility near Khurma, Iraq, and was testing ricin and other poisons on farm animals - perhaps with the guidance of senior al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.   The British media have reported that the Khurma camp may have been involved in training and supplying the poison ricin to Islamists who were arrested in London in late 2002 and found to have traces of it in their possession....
> 
> The militant Sunni Kurds seem to have been eager learners and in summer 2001 the Ansar al-Islam organization - led then by Norway-based Mullah Krekar, and now by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i - undertook efforts to unite the large Jund al-Islam group and several other Sunni groups under Ansar's banner.   The efforts succeeded and Ansar al-Islam's manpower rose from six hundred to more than two thousand by January 2003; these numbers do not include the "scores" of Arab Afghan insurgents who entered Iraq after the fall of the Taleban.   Based in the mountains near Halabja, the newly united group began in the summer 2001 to stage guerrilla-style attacks on the U.S.-allied secular Kurdish groups - including assassination, car bombs, and ambushes.   In doing so, Ansar al-Islam showed an unexpected military competence, an inventory of modern weaponry, and an ability to conduct suicide attacks.   These operations again showed the qualitative edge given to a a Sunni militant group by a small number of al Qaeda trainers and combat veterans.   In every country where an Islamic insurgency is under way, al Qaeda trainers have improved the military skills and enhanced the religious zeal of local fighters.   Al Qaeda's trainers are proving the truth of bin Laden's late mentor Shaykh Abdullah Azzam's assertion that the Koran and the AK-47, together, yield the levels of lethality needed for Islam to triumph.
> 
> Anonymous, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, pp. 74-76



Now, people may be apt to blow the book off because of its title, but it is interesting to read that the author is in support of fighting, but on the right terms.   He argues that we are losing the "War on Terror" because we are approaching it wrong.

Anyways, the link between al Qaeda is strongest with the Kurds - this does nothing to implicate Saddam's regime because it was after the first invasion that he started losing his grip on the Kurdistani regions of Iraq (IIRC).   The other links also appear to be touchy; at best they represent the regime not really caring if the terrorists went through Iraq or not; what more would we expect from Saddam Hussein?

It seems that by invading, we've made it easier for these groups to work in lawless Northern Iraq.   On the flip-side, the West has a definite capability to destroy terrorist infrastructure in Iraq.   I'm sure that the subject is much more complicated then a few pundits shooting statements back and forth.

I wonder at times if it would have been best to pull out of Iraq once Saddam's regime had been shattered (or at least after they captured him).   Since Al Qaeda levels the finger at the US and the West for supporting apostate regimes like Hussein's - it could have been a public-relations victory of sorts against Al Qaeda; "Here you are pious Muslims - the United States has destroyed the apostate regime of Hussein and returned Mesopotamia to the faithful...."    ^-^

Anyways, I agree with Edward Campbell that this war isn't a "War on Terror" or against any specific group of people, rather it is an Islamic Insurgency that (IMHO) is one that is of Huntingtonian Clash of Civilization proportions.   I think the two main questions worth debating are:

1)   Was Iraq a larger player in the Islamic Insurgency under Saddam's regime or as it is now (essentially the Wild West).   It appears that the answer is the latter, so....

2)   Is it desirable to have Iraq become a larger player in the Islamic Insurgency and to have the United States strategically engaged there?

Big question, complex answer - oh well, that's what internet forums are for.

Infanteer


----------



## CH1 (4 Jul 2005)

Wesley:

I had a chuckle from your rant earlier today.   In another thread I was trying to get the same point across & was put in my place!   As you said, too many ppl have their heads in the sand or other places.

Ppl have to wake up & smell the coffee, before it turns to gunpowder on our own turf.   If we turn our backs to the obvious, the obvious will come back to bite us.

I was trying to point out that even Canada, has become a target for extremists, due to our support & proximity to our neighbour.   Seems that ppl have a different (?) view of how we all fit into the big scheme of things.   They do not realise that the extremists do not view or differentiate the coalition members or any body that in any way supports them, any different.

At any rate, an excellent rant.   May be some ppl need more front line work to see if they would be treated different if captured.

Beers & Cheers


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Jul 2005)

The argument about the number of "unnecessary" deaths _caused_ by the war should really viewed in the context of the fact that it is made by many of the same people that claimed 4,000 - 5,000 children were being killed per month "because" of the pre-war trade sanctions: if we hold them accountable to their own estimates the war has already _saved_ thousands of lives (without even counting the 300,000+ executed).


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2005)

CH1 said:
			
		

> Wesley:
> 
> I had a chuckle from your rant earlier today.   In another thread I was trying to get the same point across & was put in my place!   As you said, too many ppl have their heads in the sand or other places.
> 
> ...



Just got baack from a great lunch, two pots of XXXX Gold, and a sausage roll with sauce!

Thanks Mate, it still doesnt help the misguided and the tree hugger-granola eating-bleeding heart-dogooder-snivel libertarian leftist embarrasments out there, even though the weaker minority, seem to get all the press and attention. But wait, if we (the west, say the USA as they are the big dog on the street) did nothing, and something bad was to happen, these ratbags would be crying 'why did you not do anything about it'. So its a 'catch 22', and I rest my case.

Sorry Greywolf, but I cannot even comprehend how you think (your posts in this thread are infact to me, outragous and so bizarre), and you might be a great bloke in many other ways, but I am glad you are not in my Army. With how you feel, why are you in a defence carreer? Just keep hoping that Live 8 works.

I have ENTIRELY lost all my confidence in the way some think on here.


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Jul 2005)

> the tree hugger-granola eating-bleeding heart-dogooder-snivel *libertarian* leftist embarrasments



I should point out that liberTARIANs, as distinct from liberALs  are usually considered to be on the conservative, right side of the political spectrum.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> But attacking Iraq did not destroy the threat, in fact, the threat is increased because now people from different countries are going into Iraq to attack because of the presence of a large concentration of Americans.
> 
> If all the people killed on Sept 11, 2001 were   Canadians, I would still think attacking Iraq will not satisfy the dead's family to avenge their loved ones (if indeed that is a legitimate reason), nor would it rid the world of those responsible for the attacks or those who support them.



The attack on radical islam by the US was not revenge. 

Sorry Mate, but I find this response totally piss weak, and almost un-Canadian. I reckon we can agree to disagree on this topic. You have yor way of thinking, and nothing is gonna change that.

Just remember you too, are the Great Satan, and you'd be KILLED quicksmart by many out there in that shitty part of the world, not for being mistaken as an American, but for being a westerner, and kufar as we all are.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> The argument about the number of "unnecessary" deaths _caused_ by the war should really viewed in the context of the fact that it is made by many of the same people that claimed 4,000 - 5,000 children were being killed per month "because" of the pre-war trade sanctions: if we hold them accountable to their own estimates the war has already _saved_ thousands of lives (without even counting the 300,000+ executed).



As well, I remember Matt Fisher telling me that he noticed that for every attack on US/Coalition Forces, there were one or two attacks by Iraqis on Iraqis - there is as much as a civil conflict here as there is an Islamic Insurgency against the West.  We have to consider that, due to the "Yugoslavia"-type nature of Iraq's ethno-religious makeup (Sunni Kurd, Shia Arab, Sunni Arab), that the casulties from Iraqi society disintergrating would have been inevitable, it was only a matter of waiting for Hussein to drop out of the game.

Sound plausible to you folks?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I should point out that liberTARIANs, as distinct from liberALs   are usually considered to be on the conservative, right side of the political spectrum.



Thanks, I consider myself a Libertarian, but I hope I'm not a _"tree hugger-granola eating-bleeding heart-dogooder embarrasment"_.... ;D


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I should point out that liberTARIANs, as distinct from liberALs  are usually considered to be on the conservative, right side of the political spectrum.



By "libertarian leftists" I took him to mean the left side (aka "socialist libertarians," like Chomsky, anarcho-communists, etc.) ... was that not obvious?


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> By "libertarian leftists" I took him to mean the left side (aka "socialist libertarians," like Chomsky, anarcho-communists, etc.) ... was that not obvious?



Not really, no. In common usage the word is taken to mean "Right Libertarian" around here.  If Wes was referring to anarcho-comunists, then so be it, although I'm not sure how much sense that would make in our context. I suppose at the end of the day we can call ourselves whatever we want.

I just didn't want to get confused with those dirty right wing libertarians that's all.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I just didn't want to get confused with those dirty right wing libertarians that's all.



Hey, slot off granola-head!


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2005)

I think ya guys know what I mean  ;D

Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2005)

I'm not sure Wes - I think ya may be softening up with the good life on Bribie Island....planning any protest marches lately?

 :dontpanic:


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2005)

Lately my only protest is the pool is too cold to swim, and the bay accross the road is full of bull sharks! Nancy is too chicken to go canoeing.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

Another bit from Michael Sheuer that is worth the read.  I think Britney will like it as it points out the same idea: who cares about Iraq, think about strategy and dealing with Al Qaeda and its growing Islamic Insurgency:



> Time for a question in the field of  cross-cultural analysis: Why is today's Iraq like a Christmas present you long for but never expected to receive?  Give up?  Well, there is nothing bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.  The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently desired, but never realistically expected.  Think of it:  Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam; a place where the Sunni minority long dominated and brutalized the Shia majority; where order was kept only by the Baathist barbarity that prevented a long overdue civil war; and where, in the wake of Saddam's fall, the regional powers Iran and Saudi Arabia would intervene, at least clandestinely, to stop the creation of, respectively, a Sunni or Shia successor state.  In short, Iraq without Saddam would obviously become what political scientists call a "failed state," a place bedeviled by its neighbors and - as is Afghanistan - a land where al Qaeda or al Qaeda-like organizations would thrive.  Surely, thought bin Laden, the Americans would not want to create this kind of situation.  It would be, if you will, like deliberately shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> While still hoping against hope, bin Laden would then have thought that the United States must know that it is hated by many millions of Muslims for enforcing sanctions that reportedly starved to death a million and more Iraqis.  In this context, an invasion would sharply deepen anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, a hatred that would only worsen as Muslims watched the U.S. military's televised and inevitable thrashing of Saddam's badly led and hopelessly decrepit armed forces.  And then, dreamed bin Laden wildly, things would get bad for the Americans.  They would stay too long in Iraq, insist on installing a democracy that would subordinate the long-dominant Sunnis, vigorously limit Islam's role in government, and act in ways that spotlighted their interest in Iraq's massive oil reserves.  All Muslims would see each day on television that the Unites States was occupying a Muslim country, insisting that man-made laws replace God's revealed word, stealing Iraqi oil, and paving the way for the creation of a "Greater Israel."  The clerics and scholars would call for a defensive jihad against the United States, young Muslim males would rush from across the Islamic world to fight U.S. troops, and there - in Islam's second holiest land - would erupt a second Afghanistan, a self-perpetuating holy war that would endure whether or not al Qaeda survived.  Then bin Laden awoke and knew it was only a dream.  It was, even for one of Allah's most devout, too much to hope for.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2005)

> The fatwas that greeted the invasion essentially validated all bin Laden has said in arguing for a defensive jihad against the United States.



Bin Laden's 1998 _Fatwa_ called for Muslims to kill _ALL_ Americans, including women and children, _WHEREVER_ they could be found. This does not sound like a "defensive" jihad in any sense of the word.

The more I read this book, the less I like it. Although it correctly points out many things the Western Alliance overlooked and could have done better, the final argument still seems to be we should roll over and appease the Islamofascists. History tells us that appeasement never works (when you pay the Danegeld, you never loose the Dane), and the behavior of the West since 1973 and especially 1979 has been to look the other way so long as the oil keeps coming.

We need a multi prong approach; slotting the Jihadis is only one step, reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil is another, supporting democracy wherever it is found in the Middle East (Israel, soon Iraq, possibly Lebanon) and finishing the nation building exercise that has been started in Afghanistan and Iraq is yet another. The Jihadis have a 25 year head start in terms of "preparing the ground", a vigorous counteroffensive in the military, political, economic and cultural spheres is needed to roll up the Islamofascist threat.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Jul 2005)

> Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa called for Muslims to kill ALL Americans, including women and children, WHEREVER they could be found. This does not sound like a "defensive" jihad in any sense of the word.



The guy's a bloody lunatic and so are most of his lieutenants, I don't think we have to spend too much time analyzing his pronouncements for rationality or consistency.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Bin Laden's 1998 _Fatwa_ called for Muslims to kill _ALL_ Americans, including women and children, _WHEREVER_ they could be found. This does not sound like a "defensive" jihad in any sense of the word.



Yes, but for defensive purposes - just as we bombed Dresden and Hamburg to stop the German Offensive, his Fatwa's go on the same logic.   I'm not trying to shoehorn bin Laden's statements into a particular viewpoint, only going off his 15 years of consistent proclamations.



> The more I read this book, the less I like it. Although it correctly points out many things the Western Alliance overlooked and could have done better, the final argument still seems to be we should roll over and appease the Islamofascists. History tells us that appeasement never works (when you pay the Danegeld, you never loose the Dane), and the behavior of the West since 1973 and especially 1979 has been to look the other way so long as the oil keeps coming.



I'm curious if you read it yet.   I just finished it today and was quite enthralled by the ending.   Sheuer takes off from Ralph Peters lead and argues that ultimately we must adapt the measures taken by Sherman and Grant and ruthlessly destroy the Islamic Insurgency and everything that supports it.   He argues that, like the early part of the US Civil War, we in the West have failed to understand the conflict for what it is, and our strategy reflects this as we are dithering on half-measures, the silly notion that we can project democracy on a bayonet, and dangerous misconceptions about our foe.

Anyways, I got to head to work - more on this later.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The guy's a bloody lunatic and so are most of his lieutenants, I don't think we have to spend too much time analyzing his pronouncements for rationality or consistency.



I just spent a couple days reading a pretty decent deconstruction of that line of thought - I see a plausible argument in stating that we underestimate bin Laden by pigeon-holing him as a lunatic, a gangster, or some sort of simpleton under the spell of Zawahiri.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We need a multi prong approach; slotting the Jihadis is only one step, reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil is another,



I think the notion of "reducing our reliance on _Middle Eastern_ oil" is not as difficult as some make it out to be: the oil patch reserves are already somewhere close to all of North America's needs for the next 50 years (achieveable by 2010, I think) ... if it weren't for the (seemingly) single-minded obsession to destroy the western canadian economy, the Queen Charlottes (estimated at 3 times the size of Hibernia, but alas not located in a region of federal voting interest) could/would supply that much more ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2005)

> I'm curious if you read it yet.  I just finished it today and was quite enthralled by the ending.  Sheuer takes off from Ralph Peters lead and argues that ultimately we must adapt the measures taken by Sherman and Grant and ruthlessly destroy the Islamic Insurgency and everything that supports it.  He argues that, like the early part of the US Civil War, we in the West have failed to understand the conflict for what it is, and our strategy reflects this as we are dithering on half-measures, the silly notion that we can project democracy on a bayonet, and dangerous misconceptions about our foe.



I am forging ahead, perhaps the fact that I am about 1/3 of the way through and occasionally skipping ahead might be giving me the wrong view. I certainly support the idea that we should "march through Georgia" and uproot the societies which breed Islamofascism, in an earlier post I actually suggested we are in the early part of the Civil War, with "Bursides" and "McClellan's" commanding field armies but still unable to harness the vast potential available (fortunately without the defeats and battlefield casualties), we are waiting for the Shermans and Grants to find the correct formula to unleash the power available to them.

I will strongly disagree about one thing though; Bin Laden's fatwas were clearly a call for offensive action to kill Americans, demoralize the West and in the end, re establish the Caliphate. Taken to the logical conclusion, a nuclear armed Caliphate would be astride the levers of world power through control of the oil supply, and establish global dominance through those means. (The practical objections, such as China coming to forcibly obtain the oil, or the uncorking of Canadian heavy oil deposits under the spur of high prices, we will leave to writers of alternate histories).


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> in an earlier post I actually suggested we are in the early part of the Civil War, with "Bursides" and "McClellan's" commanding field armies but still unable to harness the vast potential available (fortunately without the defeats and battlefield casualties), we are waiting for the Shermans and Grants to find the correct formula to unleash the power available to them.



The author makes the exact same comparison in the epilogue of his book.



> I will strongly disagree about one thing though; Bin Laden's fatwas were clearly a call for offensive action to kill Americans, demoralize the West and in the end, re establish the Caliphate.



Offensive action, sure; I don't disagree with this.  However, from my understanding of it, it is offensive tactics to support a strategic defensive - it seems that bin Laden could care less about America, Moscow, or Europe; he is focused on the line between _dar al-Islam_ and _dar al-Harb_.

Look at it like the Western Allies declaring war on Germany and then launching offensives in North Africa, Europe, and over the skies of Germany.



> Taken to the logical conclusion, a nuclear armed Caliphate would be astride the levers of world power through control of the oil supply, and establish global dominance through those means. (The practical objections, such as China coming to forcibly obtain the oil, or the uncorking of Canadian heavy oil deposits under the spur of high prices, we will leave to writers of alternate histories).



Sure - many Islamic scholars (and not the radicals) see it as unjust that Israel and India are armed with nuclear weapons but Pakistan is considered a pariah for doing so.  This may not be based upon a totally accurate summation of the history of Indo-American relations, but I can see the issue being perceived as real.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I just spent a couple days reading a pretty decent deconstruction of that line of thought - I see a plausible argument in stating that we underestimate bin Laden by pigeon-holing him as a lunatic, a gangster, or some sort of simpleton under the spell of Zawahiri.



You could probably say the same thing about Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, and Kim Jong Il.  It's quite true that all of them are/were intelligent and capable in their...err...."fields of endeavour", and it's easy to lose sight of that when you focus on the fact that they're also quite a bit nutty.  Osama's no different, he's an intelligent, capable, motivated man who just happens to be driven to kill the great satan


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> You could probably say the same thing about Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, and Kim Jong Il.   It's quite true that all of them are/were intelligent and capable in their...err...."fields of endeavour", and it's easy to lose sight of that when you focus on the fact that they're also quite a bit nutty.   Osama's no different, he's an intelligent, capable, motivated man who just happens to be driven to kill the great satan



True, but then again, he's been in the Mujihadeen business for 20 years and most accounts of people who know him seem to indicate that he is soft-spoken, pious, and dedicated to his beliefs.  What basis are you making the accusation of "nutty" on - that he is driven to fight?


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> True, but then again, he's been in the Mujihadeen business for 20 years and most accounts of people who know him seem to indicate that he is soft-spoken, pious, and dedicated to his beliefs.   What basis are you making the accusation of "nutty" on - that he is driven to fight?


well, there's the time during the Soviet invasion he threw himself to the ground in tears because his muj wouldn't shoot an American journalist. 
And anyone who will murder people based on what name they choose to call an invisible man in the sky is a freakin' nut!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2005)

OBL's personality is no indication of what sort of man he really is; Adolf Hitler in person was a soft spoken vegetarian, who loved classical music, dogs and the scenery of the Bavarian Alps. When you sat him behind a podium, an entirely different person emerged....

A few points in sort of random order:

We aren't worried about India and Israel's nuclear capabilities for the same reasons we don't loose too much sleep over the UK's nuclear deterrent; these are relatively stable liberal democratic states which are broadly in alignment with the Anglosphere and Western Alliance. Pakistan is something of a wild card, running hot and cold depending on how their being useful to us benefits them. A nuclear Caliphate would be implacably hostile, and not even under the minimum sort of restraint the formar USSR was (the logic of MAD would not apply).

Islam is like Christianity, an expansionist religion. I suppose Che could find us the exact references, but the short version is followers of the Prophet are to make every effort to encompass the entire world into _Dar-al-Islam_. Christians were very big on "spreading the Word" with fire and sword not all that long ago (they use electronic media now), and it isn't hard to see OBL and his fellow travellers actions as being a global mission to subdue _Dar-al-Harb_ and bring us all into _Dar-al-Islam_.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> OBL's personality is no indication of what sort of man he really is; Adolf Hitler in person was a soft spoken vegetarian, who loved classical music, dogs and the scenery of the Bavarian Alps. When you sat him behind a podium, an entirely different person emerged....



Ok, but I'm still trying to find out why he is a nutter?  The comparisons above were to dictators who murdered their own people with totalitarian policies.  From what I seem to gather, Osama bin Laden left the comfort of being a male in Saudi Arabia's second most powerful family to dedicate himself for over 20 years now to what he believes to be right (jihad).  

In his view, he is right, and obviously, due to the fact that we have attacks throughout the world, active insurgency in the Middle East, people cheering the Al Qaeda actions in the streets, and Islamic Scholars (radical, conservative, and liberal) getting on board with his proclamations many, many Muslims agree with him.

Until I see the medical diagnosis, I'm only going to take him for the above - a dedicated and capable foe who, to his very core, believes in Submission to the Word of God and has stuck to his guns consistently throughout his time as a leader of the Islamic Insurgency.  Let's not suffer from hubris of our own and assume that we are right and the others are simply not right in the head.



> We aren't worried about India and Israel's nuclear capabilities for the same reasons we don't loose too much sleep over the UK's nuclear deterrent; these are relatively stable liberal democratic states which are broadly in alignment with the Anglosphere and Western Alliance.  Pakistan is something of a wild card, running hot and cold depending on how their being useful to us benefits them. A nuclear Caliphate would be implacably hostile, and not even under the minimum sort of restraint the formar USSR was (the logic of MAD would not apply).



Well, who really cares what *we* think about an nuclear armed India and Israel (which I think increases the possibility of nuclear conflict by order of magnitude), because we are North Americans sitting at home.  I was reffering to the fact that many Muslims see hypocrisy in the fact that two countries on the boundaries of Islam, both of which are actively fighting with Muslim peoples (Palestinians, Kashmiris/Pakistanis) have been allowed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons while the world condemns Pakistan for doing the same thing.  As I said, this doesn't really take the history of Indo-American relations into account properly, but it is easy to see that the perception could be there for a person sitting in Karachi, Basra, or Cairo.

As for not worrying about India, did you see some of the stuff the BJP was willing to do?  One of there election platforms was to knock down a mosque.  They, IMHO, were no better then hardline Islamic governments in the Middle East.  Thank goodness they were voted out, but the fact that they were there in the first place jaundices my view of Indian democracy.



> Islam is like Christianity, an expansionist religion. I suppose Che could find us the exact references, but the short version is followers of the Prophet are to make every effort to encompass the entire world into _Dar-al-Islam_. Christians were very big on "spreading the Word" with fire and sword not all that long ago (they use electronic media now), and it isn't hard to see OBL and his fellow travellers actions as being a global mission to subdue _Dar-al-Harb_ and bring us all into _Dar-al-Islam_.



Ok, and I'm sure some believe that.  But from what I've seen, this viewpoint doesn't underscore the driving motivation for the Islamic Insurgency.  Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's proclamations and fatwas consistenly make specific claims to the 6 main points on policy that they find offensive to Islam.

Even today, with the attacks in London, the group (Al Qaeda in Europe) released a statement - they never stated "This is the first strike in the invasion of England" or "Convert or Die!"; they pointed out that British support for Zionists (Israel) and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were the reasons for the attack.

Make no bones about it, a united Ummah under a Caliph will present a threat to the neighbouring regions - just as it did with the Islamic Expansion in the 700's and the expansion of the Turkish empire in the 15 and 16th century.  But this is a given, and is nothing specific to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Middle East in general.  But for now, I don't think this is the real issue - just a pipedream by some of the idealists in the Islamic Insurgency.


----------



## Andyboy (11 Jul 2005)

Here is an interesting article (or series of articles) that I am about halfway through. Pretty interesting reading for those of you inclined...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5804&R=C6162D26F

The Mother of All Connections 
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. 
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn 
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Jul 2005)

NO! NO! NO!  There's *no connection* between Saddam and Terrorism!!!


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Bitch, bitch and more bitching, but not one of you can come up with a good solution.

 None of your discussions would themselves remove the dilemmas of decision-making under situations of uncertainy and high stakes. You cannot eradicate uncertainties or avoid the consequences of ignorance. 
But we should at least increase the chances of anticipating the costly impacts, of achieving a better balance between the pros and cons of reforming and of minimising the cost of unpleasant surprises which we have been forced to accept under the present political structure. 

Canadian voter and American voters should practice the precautionary principals and do their home work by looking into the party constitution and their party principals, by doing so they would be better prepared for the unpleasant suprises we all have the day after, maybe someone could invent a morning after pill , that we could take the morning following the election.

Had the American population better understood what they were getting into when they went into iraq, I really do not think they would be there today.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

Bush was re-elected, so the people knew it was going to be a long haul.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Yes he was re-elected but how he was has raised many questions about the vote counting system, I also think the Blacks might like to know why some were kept off the ballot. The whole thing was a little stinky and really look at the numbers, he really has nothing to brag about.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

You always seem to bring race into your posts, and to even think there was a conspiricy into Bush's re-election, tells me you really don't have a clue about reality.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any national socialist ties.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Wes,please I only mentioned the Black race, because they were left off the votting in Flordia. These are facts that have been written about in (some ) of the American Media. Now that was in 2000 , but in 2004 they kicked his ass http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/mark2004 . 

You may want to read this too http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28107-2004Oct12.html


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

You had mentioned blacks and natives fighting a white's war, and went on about another native and even brought up the jews. Do I have to quote you?

Give it a break!


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

No Wes, you do not have to quote me! 

 I said that in the Second World war, Blacks and Native Canadian Indians went to fight in the same war,   that   you and others say was a war that defended my rights. I said no they were not there to protect my rights, and I went onto say that when the War ended ,they returned to Canada and learned they had no rights, they could not vote or drink beside the very same white men they went oversees with to fight to protect the right of the Europeans.

So where are you going with this ? 

With respect to mentioning the Jews, I feel that it is time for them to give it a rest and if they believe that they were wronged, and there is little dought that they were, I would hope that they would clean up the mess in Israel : http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11695715.htm and I do not mean that they should continue this an eye for an eye. They are a small country with a very large military and nuclear armed.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

You tell me?

If they (the jews) beileved they were wrong? WTF are you smoking?

Mate, they are FIGHTING right now for their mere existance against a real enemy who has been using terror for years! Their citizens have paid time and time again. As much as I don't agree with some things they do, they have learned the hardway from the European theatre of war.

I think you have lost the plot! Thats Aussie for your're nuts.

If YOU want to take it ANY further, instead of wasting space on here PM me.

You and I obviously have different political views, and thats one thing I can understand, but to carry on with your political rants in a fashion which is quite irratating to say the least is really wearing thin on me, and others, judging by the feedback you are getting on your posts. Did you ever think we are not the problem and you are?

Its very obvious you are not at all happy with Canada and its government, your bitterness and your bizarre behaviour in your posts truly shows this, and thats at least going back to the year of 1918. Feel free to try and start a revolution if you so desire. Who knows you might actually have a small following.


----------



## mdh (11 Jul 2005)

> WW11 would have stopped if the Americans would have cut off their (German)fuel supply, lets face it Germany was  getting the bulk of their fuel thanks to  Prescott Bush. America's economic base was founded on the toys of war. George Bushes grand dad Prescott Bush,financed the Germays through Browns Bank, where he was well planted and where he benefited at the cost of his fallen fellow Americians who were what, protecting Old Grand Daddy Bushes rights.



How is this for a Coady quote - probably one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen posted on this forum and well-below the standards set out in the guidelines.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Now Wes: You came on here about three or four post back and put a question to me about why I mentioned Blacks, Natives and Jews. I then went forward and told you once again why I mentioned them and what i said can be checked out, it your for the searching. 

I love my Canada, but I am not very happy with the way political parties function, I feel that we need to bring about political reform. I am a tax payer and to date I and many others in Canada are very upset with the way political parties manage our tax dollars, what is so wrong with my opinion? As a tax payer I would think that I have the right to express my concern and I do not need Justice Gomery to do it for me. 

I have read some not all of your post and I do detect a tone in them that you too have issues with political parties and how they manage your taxes and your country. You feel that getting on the inside of a party one might be able to fix it and I am of the opinion that parties cannot be fix to govern properly, because they encompass greedy people who have their own best interest at heart.   

We are pretty much in agreement that something has to be done, it is just that we see different fixes.

No Wess, I have been respectfull towards you and I am sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but please understand, I do love this country Canada very much, all I want is good clean honest and accountable "government", is that to much to ask for?


----------



## 2 Cdo (11 Jul 2005)

This Wayne Coady fellow, I'm just wondering is he as completely flaky as he seems. I think it's time for him to get back on his meds! He has some serious issues that are clouding his judgement and reason! :


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> How is this for a Coady quote - probably one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen posted on this forum and well-below the standards set out in the guidelines.



Mate, like I said you've lost the plot. The German fuel supplied by George Bush's grandfather. That takes the cake for me.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> How is this for a Coady quote - probably one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen posted on this forum and well-below the standards set out in the guidelines.



Well then maybe you can chastise the writers of many articles on the Bush family and most if not all comes from within the USA 

http://bushwatch.org/family.htm


1918 Prescott Bush Sr., leads a raid on a Indian tomb to secure Geronimo's skull for Skull & Bones.

1937 Prescott Bush's investment firm sets up deal for the Luftwaffe so it can obtain tetraethyl lead.

1942 Three firms with which Prescott Bush is associated are seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

1953 George Bush and the Liedtke brothers form Zapata Petroleum. Zapata's subsidiary, Zapata Offshore, later becomes known for its close ties to the CIA.

1954 The Bush family buys out the Liedtke brothers.

1955 George Bush sets up a Mexican drilling operation, Permago, with a frontman to obscure his ownership. The frontman later is convicted of defrauding the Mexican government of $58 million.

1959 Manuel Noriega recruited as an agent by the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

1960 Some investigators believe George Bush spent part of this year and the next in Miami on behalf of the CIA, organizing rightwing exiles for an invasion of Cuba. Is said to have worked with later Iran-Contra figure Felix Rodriguez.

1961 According to the Realist, CIA official Fletcher Prouty delivers three Navy ships to agents in Guatemala to be used in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Prouty claims he delivered the ships to a CIA agent named George Bush. Agent Bush named the ships the Barbara, Houston and Zapata.
Bay of Pigs invasion fails. Right-wingers blame Kennedy for failure to provide air cover. CIA loses 15 men, another 1100 are imprisoned.
George Bush invites Rep. TL. Ashley -- a fellow Skull & Boner -- down to Texas for a party in order to meet "an attractive girl." Bush writes that "she may be accompanied by an Austrian ski instructor but I think we can probably flush him at the local dance hall." Bush notes that he's had to unlist his phone because "Jane Morgan keeps calling me all the time." [From a letter in the Ashley archives uncovered by Spy magazine.]
Zapata annual report boasts that the company has paid no taxes since it was founded.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jul 2005)

Even though its 1048h here on a Tuesday morning, I think its time you call it a day. I have to confess, you really have me shaking my head, not in disgust, but in disbelief.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jul 2005)

Mr Coady it seems to me your views are not popular amongst 99% of the membership. If you had any credibility with them you seem to have lost that now. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, I would step back and figure out why so many people are here speaking up against your posts/views and opinions. Otherwise most will end up skipping over what you have to say and attribute it to background noise.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Well my friend there is not to much creditability coming forward only insults, Wes asked why I menioned Blacks and others, I replied and so far all I get is trash back, nothing that would be worth while in any debate. 

A question was asked and well all you need to do is read your own reply, you cannot accept the truth and facts. Man all you got to do is talk with a WW11 vet and he will tell you that they were treated like dirt, when they came home. Fact, no pensions , no health care and they were left to live in poverty.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jul 2005)

I am sorry but whats the point of going on with your views if they are not going to be taken in the spirit they are meant to be. Mr Coady, everyones views are important but when they get to the point of being seen as *blah blah blah* by others its sometimes better to sit it out for awhile and maybe change tact. You are not gaining any converts, if anything you are driving people away from your views.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2005)

You keep saying Fact this and Fact that, toss out some websites like they're gospel. As learned as you claim to be, you should know most of the sites you quote only serve your side of the argument. For each of yours there is an opposing one on the net. Don't treat us like idiots.


----------



## Andyboy (12 Jul 2005)

Um, not to hijack the hijack but has anyone read the article(s) at the link I provided? Any impressions?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2005)

Two Impressions:

1. This is pretty much what I expected; the links are fairly clear and the preponderence of evidence is certainly in favor of the idea that there were operational ties between Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime; and

2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.


----------



## Acorn (12 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.



That works both ways.

Acorn


----------



## mdh (12 Jul 2005)

> Two Impressions:
> 
> 1. This is pretty much what I expected; the links are fairly clear and the preponderance of evidence is certainly in favor of the idea that there were operational ties between Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime; and
> 
> 2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.




It really doesn't matter what the preponderance of evidence exists for the Iraq-Al Queda linkage. (That such evidence exists is now irrefutable but has had little pickup in the MSM as noted above.) 

But even if that evidence was overwhelming, the left would simply shift the ground to some other area and declare the war as irredeemably illegal or a reckless adventure or an imperialist gambit for oil - or whatever other Michael Moore ideological pornography you care to insert.

This is a game that the Bushies cannot win and I believe it was Edward Campbell who pointed out that supporters of the Iraq war are now in a distinct minority (especially in this country) and that we had better get used to it. The real question is how long the war can be sustained politically with support dropping like a stone in the US. (Wasn't it Infanteer who wondered a while back if liberal democracies are capable of fighting long wars? We may get an answer to that question soon enough)

In sum, the links provided by our former friend are just the standard agitprop put out to discredit the Bush family (and by extension the Bush administration) and undermine the moral context for the war and to portray the occupation as nothing more than a squalid exercise in profit-taking with Halliburton and the Oil companies laughing all the way to Plutocrat HQ to plot the next generational sacrifice.   

The charges against Bush Walker (and Bush Senior) are just the latest variations on a theme. (Prescott Bush may well have been an unsavoury character or he may have bee a man of his time possessed of the usual prejudices and misjudgements that characterize nearly every historical figure... but then again the 1930s produced a lot of notorious moral ambiguity, and if there is guilt to be shared there is a pretty big cast of characters to share it with -- including the father of the beatified John F. Kennedy.)

Cheers, all, mdh


----------



## Britney Spears (12 Jul 2005)

Andy:

<a href=http://www.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?0cv=KB10>Here</a> is a rebuttal to your article.

<a href=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3399&R=79942098B>Here</a> is a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

<a href=http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/>Here</a> is a sympathetic but skeptical viewpoint.

FWIW, I don't really think there can be any meaningful debate amongst us WRT to your article, simply because there isn't anyway for us mere mortals to prove or disprove its contents.  Do you want me to produce my own signed and stamped Pentagon leaks discrediting those of the author? 

Well I can't, but I WILL point out, as the third article does, that no mainstream media outlet has payed much attention to this seemingly startling revelation, just as it doesn't pay much attention to the other revelations that abound in publications such as *The Weekly Standard*, *Washington Times*, and some of the other self acknowledged neo-con mouthpieces. While I won't go as far as to say that they are dishonest journalists, I think I can conclude that they do not really have much incentive to report the objective truth, given that their very cause for existence is to advance the Bush/Neocon agenda.

I suppose now you'll claim that the mainstream media is biased to the left, or that they have an interest in propping up Saddam's regime......



> But even if that evidence was overwhelming, the left would simply shift the ground to some other area and declare the war as irredeemably illegal or a reckless adventure or an imperialist gambit for oil - or whatever other Michael Moore ideological pornography you care to insert.



Absolutely, it's also all of those things too. So you understand my reluctance to wrangle over this issue any further. Even if there WAS conclusive proof that Saddam had links to AQ, do you still honestly think that creating a completely new wing of AQ that did not previously exist, alienating most of the world's moderate Muslims (hell, most of the world, period.) and creating  a new terrorist breeding ground while draining resources away from the real battle in Afghanistan was a good idea? If ties to AQ was the sole unit of measure on the Invasion-o-meter, why not the nations that DO have conclusive ties to AQ, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? 

(That question was rhetorical, I am definetly NOT advocating armed intervention in either of those nations)



> to portray the occupation as nothing more than a squalid exercise in profit-taking with Halliburton and the Oil companies laughing all the way to Plutocrat HQ to plot the next generational sacrifice.



Oh he's doing just fine without any help from anyone.


----------



## Andyboy (13 Jul 2005)

Thanks for the replies everyone, I got just about what I had expected. 

Now honestly, who amongst you read the article?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Andy:
> 
> <a href=http://www.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?0cv=KB10>Here</a> is a rebuttal to your article.
> 
> ...



Pardon my french, but what the heck are you talking about?

The "rebuttal" you have linked-to is from *November 2003* (and by Michael "flushed a Koran down the toilet" Isikoff, to boot - _and you question the sources of those that oppose your viewpoint_): the article Andyboy linked is a summary of the evidence *to date* (_i.e., will be published in next Monday's Weekly Standard_).

Andyboy, I did read it and found it a quite interesting update to his book (of which, in all honesty, I have only read excerpts), but I am about 99% certain it will be dismissed out-of-hand by the self-proclaimed "reality-based community" as it doesn't fit their "reality" and is "pro-Bush" and therefore incapable of anything resembling honesty or reason (much like his book) and therefore not worth any attention.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> the article Andyboy linked is a susmmary of the evidence to date



Including the tidbits that are being rebuffed, at the beginning of the article, the stuff that was originally publshed in 2003 and is now being summarized. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm tired of this. If you want to take "rum-int" as gospel in order to justfy the Invasion, nothing I say will change your mind, and like I say, I don't have any way of refuting annonymous pentagon leaks. Since we do live in a liberal democracy, if the majority of people choose to believe it, then it becomes true for all intents and purposes. 

In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.

Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,  it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,  so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out. Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion? Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?


----------



## dutchie (13 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.



Couldn't agree more. Finding reaons to question the justification for the invasion is easy and not limited to Saddam-AQ links.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,   it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,   so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out.



Debating the merits of the invasion now (while sometimes fun) is like arguing about who left the barn door open after the horses have bolted.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion?



Well, on one hand Iraq seems to be a bit of a magnet for Middle Eastern terrorists, so it's kind of convenient for killing as many of them as possible (although that sadly cuts both ways). But, on the other hand, Iraq is probably pushing some people off the fence onto the 'Terrorist' side, exasperating the problem somewhat. It's kinda like squeezing a huge zit - it's gonna be ugly, and it will either make it 10 times worse, or you'll squeeze out all the puss and get rid of the zit that much faster. Once you squeeze it, it's done, and the only debate is how it will turn out.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?



No. Definately not.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

OK, I've scoured the internet and I can find no concrete evidence to dispute the points in the article. Well apart from this:



> 12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to *Pakistan* with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the *Pakistan*, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.



Presumably it's a typo.

I've no desire to further antagonize either yourself nor Andyboy, in my view highly respected posters both. So, I shall respectfully concede that 



> NO! NO! NO!  There's no connection between Saddam and Terrorism!!!



is probably not true. I won't go as far as a_majoor and say that there is a PREPONDERANCE of evidence, but I'll be willing at acknowledge that the evidence does exist. You know, nothing is ever black and white, complex world, and all that jazz.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I'm tired of this. If you want to take "rum-int" as gospel in order to justfy the Invasion, nothing I say will change your mind, and like I say, I don't have any way of refuting annonymous pentagon leaks. Since we do live in a liberal democracy, if the majority of people choose to believe it, then it becomes true for all intents and purposes.



The point (I was making, at any rate) is not whether conclusive proof exists, but rather if *ANY evidence* does.  I don't see how anyone (not necessarily directed at you specifically) can claim that there is "no evidence" when clearly there is.  Certainly the quality and reliability of different bits of evidence can (and should) be questioned, but the notion that they do not *exist* is assinine!  And moreover, it seems that the majority of people are choosing not to believe "it," but that does not change Objective Reality, as much as the NYT, BBC, al-Queada, Saddam Loyalists, et.al. might like it to (I'm a bit of Rationalist - go figure). {EDIT: Posted past you ... I guess we agree on this part, at least in substance, if not degree  ;D }



> In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.



Maybe try to have a bit of an open mind about it ...



> Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,  it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,  so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out. Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion?


 YES: we (not me personally, but I'm working on it) are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq!  I see this as a good thing, on the whole.



> Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?


What pool is that?  Have we really "created" more al-Queda recruits or simply "outed" many of those that were "lying in the grass already" {am I using way too many "quotation marks," or what}?  I know the second question is unprovable one way or the other but what are the alternatives?  Do you honestly think that we could reason with groups that have sworn (on their lives) to our annihilation?  Do you really think that if we (the West) had not attacked Iraq that al-Queada would simply decide, "oh okay, no problemo: they didn't attack (our supposed enemy) Saddam Hussein, so we'll just leave them alone"?  Taking the fight TO the enemy is a good thing, and if they were so pissed-off about the Iraq invasion that they went there to die trying to resist it, so much the better.


----------



## Andyboy (13 Jul 2005)

Thanks for the replies again guys, I wasn't trying to start any sort of an argument over who left the door open, or even reargue the . I had actually read most of what was in this article well before the invasion but wasn't able to find the article again after that. I was just curious to see if the evidence such as it is would change any minds or what the general reaction would be or if anyone even cares to look into it. 

Sometimes people invest so much of their ego into their position that they fight like hell to support it, right or wrong. (I've been guilty of that, try defending your thesis in front of a hostile Professor!) I'm not pointing to anyone here by the way, just making an observation. I've have learned (and continue to learn) that divesting your ego from your opinion is the best way to arrive at "truth". Not that I know what "truth" is.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> What pool is that?



Although I've generally been supportive of the War in Iraq, I'm not firmly ensconced in the "everything was done right" camp.

I've put these up a few times, but I'll throw him here regarding "the pool":

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

Personally, I'm a tad concerned about the issues Britney has brought up.   Fighting against a few fringe groups is okay but having hundreds of millions of Muslims (if we assume that these stats mean that anywhere from 25-50% of the Muslim World is on the "nay" side) taking an anti-Western stance due to things like staying in Iraq and shooting up Fallujah and an Najaf can lead to some uncharted waters.

No wait, they aren't uncharted - the Soviets managed to piss off the Muslim World by invading Afghanistan and propping up a government there, turning Afghanistan into a magnet for Islamic fighters from Morocco to Mindanao (commonly referred to as the Arab-Afghans) who joined the local Mujihadeen; it is my belief that the experiences and the links that were created in this environment of _Jihad_ against the Soviets was a direct cause for the affiliation that is now known as Al Qaeda (or, Terrorist NGO or Islamic Insurgency, whatever your flavour is).

Not saying this is what will pan out with Iraq, but the statistics in that figure above seem to show it's possible.   I'm not going to "call Iraq" - trying to call the war on account of a campaign doesn't really work, but I can't help feeling like a German and wondering where the hell Vatutin's tanks are....

 :threat:
Infanteer


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> What pool is that?  Have we really "created" more al-Queda recruits or simply "outed" many of those that were "lying in the grass already" {am I using way too many "quotation marks," or what}



Are you saying that the Iraqis now battling the US occupation were previously "lying in the grass" just itching for a chance to fly planes into buildings? I've got it on pretty good authority that most of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting because they country has been invaded and subjugated, not because they hate your freedom.



> YES: we (not me personally, but I'm working on it) are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq!  I see this as a good thing, on the whole.



OK, I disagree with this view on combatting an insurgency. The only way you're going to win by "killing them" is if you kill ALL of "them"(don't hear those Crimean Tartars whining much about being opressed these days, do we?). 




> Do you really think that if we (the West) had not attacked Iraq that al-Queada would simply decide, "oh okay, no problemo: they didn't attack (our supposed enemy) Saddam Hussein, so we'll just leave them alone"?  Taking the fight TO the enemy is a good thing,



No, I don't think that, but I think the Iraqis who were just minding their own business might take exception to you "taking the fight" to their doorstep, seeing as how they're doing most of the dying.  

OTOH Do you think that the fight in Afghanistan is over? 




> and if they were so pissed-off about the Iraq invasion that they went there to die trying to resist it, so much the better.



Indeed, it seems that on 9/11 a whole bunch of them decided that they were sick of having the fight "taken to them." Seems more and more Iraqis and Muslims around the world are feeling that way after we advertised  our intentions of engaging in a crusade (Jihad, if you will) against Islam. 

If that makes you feel safer, then I think we can only agree to disagree.




> Not that I know what "truth" is.



OOOOOH now you want to get EXISTENTIAL? 

That's it, the gloves are coming off........


----------



## Andyboy (13 Jul 2005)

Even after telling myself I wasn't going to be drawn into an argument about this...

The question has to be asked what if we (the West) hadn't invaded Iraq? Where wold we be now WRT the war? Didn't he pose a threat as a state sponsor of terror? Didn't the ambiguity of his weapons programs+his history (terrorism, aggression, brutality, etc) require the West to be sure and remove him? Isn't it worth a try at reforming the middle east before "they" do something REALLY bad to us and we are forced to respond in kind?


----------



## mdh (13 Jul 2005)

> Isn't it worth a try at reforming the middle east before "they" do something REALLY bad to us and we are forced to respond in kind?




Isn't that the essence of the argument here? and it goes to the heart of any strategic analysis in the GWOT. 

Of course Britney may be right. The US could be expending valuable economic, military and political capital through the occupation thereby risking another quagmire that has only one end - ignominious withdrawal.

Or the Bush administrations' strategic imperative is correct, and Iraq should be the focal point of reconstructing the entire Middle East - or, if you will, recasting its social, political and economic foundations so that it attains some semblance of civil society and prosperity. 

It strikes me as the only way to combat Islamic terrorism over the long term.   In a sense, I agree with the left about the root causes of terror - it's just that I disagree with their solution - which is to do nothing about it and concentrate on maximizing our cultural self-loathing and taking a long cold bath in nihilistic relativism.

The alternative strategic approach, which I think you (Britney) are arguing for, is a kind of extended police operation, suppressing a Taliban outbreak here and intercepting a bomb attack there - launching a retaliatory strike way over there. This has the advantage of maintaining a high degree of strategic (and tactical) flexibility.

But will that have the desired effect in eliminating (or at least containing) radical Islam? Or to be more precise, eliminating the roots of extremism and its origins? I happen to agree with Thomas P.M. Barnett when he says that he is an economic determinist in analysing the emerging threat of radical Islam and its relationship to failed or failing states. 

Arab states have been an abyss of economic mismanagement, repression, ignorance and social violence. And as Barnett notes there are two main components of this: sexual liberation and economic freedom.   

Radical Islam, needless to say, is implacably opposed to both. In fact, the Islamofascists are terrified at the prospect of women's liberation and economic freedom precisely because they are so powerful.

By focusing the war on a distinct strategic target, Iraq, we therefore create a bridgehead to remake the Middle East. Saddam had to go because he had, in Barnett's words "disconnected" Iraq from the rest of the world. And the only way we can defeat the insurgency is to reconnect the Islamic world with the progressive world and offer them the hope of a future - not the recreation of a mythical (and mystical) past.

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

Well, these last 5-10 posts have probably been the most productive debate on the WOT/Iraq that I've seen to date.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2005)

At the risk of being really, really chauvinistic, let me posit that the only way to _get rid of_ extremist, radical Islam is to allow (encourage, maybe) a _reformation_ in Islam and an _enlightenment_ in the Arab world.  Neither will happen quickly or easily â â€œ the former, in particular, is likely to be bloody, in the extreme, if the Christian model is anything to go by.

The advantage of the _light handed_ approach mdh  ascribes to Brittney Spears is that it helps to buy the time the Arabs (mostly, I think) need.

The _beau risqué_, which I think George W Bush has taken, is that democracy is contagious and it the 'habit' of democracy is more important than reformation/enlightenment and that the 'habit' will stick.  If he is right he will go down in history as a great statesman - if he is right.

My, personal, sense is that all people are much alike and we all want a high degree of political liberty, we all want to have some 'say' in how we are governed.  I am also of the opinion that democracy is more than just government with the consent of the governed: a functioning democracy requires certain other 'habits' including respect for the rule of law and a personal belief in equality, and so on.  It seems to me that our modern 'habit' of democracy is rooted in certain long standing _cultural_ values and was fed and strengthened by our own, Western (Christian) reformation and counter-reformation and subsequent enlightenment.  Thus I worry that, as hopeful as Bush's _beau risqué_ might be, it is, probably, doomed to fail.  I think the Arabs (mostly Arabs) will have to work their own way through a long â â€œ generations long â â€œ and bloody process before they wring radicalism and extremism out of their religion and society.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Although I've generally been supportive of the War in Iraq, I'm not firmly ensconced in the "everything was done right" camp.
> 
> I've put these up a few times, but I'll throw him here regarding "the pool":
> 
> ...





			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the Iraqis now battling the US occupation were previously "lying in the grass" just itching for a chance to fly planes into buildings?


I'm not suggesting the invasion strategy is perfect: what I AM suggesting is that it was probably the best choice, given the circumstances.  I can't see how allowing Saddam, and his increasingly fundamentalist rhetoric, to continue to defy the UN (and thereby making the US look impotent) would attract less extremists to the radical Islamic cause, particularly post-9/11.  I think 9/11 fundamentally changed US foreign policy (it certainly changed the rhetoric): it underscored that Realpolitik was not a viable long-term strategy for peace.  The politics of hate had to be defeated (Hamas just repeated that they are committed to the annihilation of Israel), and Iraq was a natural place to start (for both political and strategic reasons).



> I've got it on pretty good authority that most of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting because they country has been invaded and subjugated, not because they hate your freedom.


Yeah, but the question is how many of those insurgents are Iraqi and how many came from Saudi and elsewhere?  What I've read (YMMV) suggests there are a lot of the latter, and absent invasion, how many of those that are Iraqi would be distributing aid for the Red Cross (the evidence suggests Saddam had them otherwise-occupied)?



> OK, I disagree with this view on combatting an insurgency. The only way you're going to win by "killing them" is if you kill ALL of "them"(don't hear those Crimean Tartars whining much about being opressed these days, do we?).


No, you win by breaking their spirit and undermining their support: killing some (many?) of them is part of that.  Headline after headline in the NYT (_et.al._) underscoring (_e.g._) the supposedly brutal treatment at Gitmo, and the supposedly illegal and immoral nature of the war undermines the effort to defeat them and bring peace, order and good government to the region.



> No, I don't think that, but I think the Iraqis who were just minding their own business might take exception to you "taking the fight" to their doorstep, seeing as how they're doing most of the dying.
> 
> OTOH Do you think that the fight in Afghanistan is over? ...
> 
> ...



Wait a second, the GWOT was a response to 9/11: I didn't think anyone disputed that!  Afghanistan is far from over, but that doesn't make Iraq wrong ... I can't do anything more about the Crusades (or any alternative historical interpretations thereof) any more than I can change who my parents were!  If they declare a Holy War on my _culture_, I don't see how pretending they haven't is going to make me any safer: the hate will grow hotter as my culture continues to grow stronger and wealthier (because of it's inherent bias for social, political and economic freedoms).  I'd rather dump the pot now than wait for it to boil over.  Are you suggesting we should all just stay at home, to heck with everyone else (Rwanda, Darfur, Israel, non-extremist Islamics, etc.), and hope that they decide not to try to impose Sharia law in Canada (oops, that's already underway in Ontario)?


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> Yeah, but the question is how many of those insurgents are Iraqi and how many came from Saudi and elsewhere?  What I've read (YMMV) suggests there are a lot of the latter, and absent invasion, how many of those that are Iraqi would be distributing aid for the Red Cross (the evidence suggests Saddam had them otherwise-occupied)?



OK, let me see if I'm following you here. Because the US invaded Iraq, Muslims all over the world are flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist and joining in the fight against the Infidel, who have proven themselves heck bent on the destruction of the Islamic world. BUT this is a good thing, because we have now cleverly lured the jihadists, who deep down wanted to destroy us no matter what happens in Iraq, into one convienient place where we can wipe them all out in a great battle, all without risking any collateral damage to ourselves ("taking the fight to them") because hey those dirty Iraqis deserved it for putting up with Saddam all them years, hell most of them are probably Jihadis anyway. Is this the gist of your argument?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, let me see if I'm following you here. Because the US invaded Iraq, Muslims all over the world are flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist and joining in the fight against the Infidel, who have proven themselves heck bent on the destruction of the Islamic world. BUT this is a good thing, because we have now cleverly lured the jihadists, who deep down wanted to destroy us no matter what happens in Iraq, into one convienient place where we can wipe them all out in a great battle, all without risking any collateral damage to ourselves ("taking the fight to them") because hey those dirty Iraqis deserved it for putting up with Saddam all them years, heck most of them are probably Jihadis anyway. Is this the gist of your argument?



Please; now you are being absurd.

I am not claiming that "Muslims all over the world re flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist ... because the US invaded Iraq": you are.  I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which _they _claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.  Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're hell-bent on destroying my _culture _(or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms.  The fact that that al-Queada cells (and other groups sympathetic to al-Queada) are already existing and in _some_ cases active in Western cities (of which 9/11, 3/11 & 7/7 are only the most recent examples) suggests that their numerous declarations of war on us was more than just good TV.

I really hoping you aren't implying what I think you are in your second-to-last sentence, but the point is that the Iraqis that had no choice but to "put up with Saddam" aren't a part of the insurgency: the Iraqi insurgents are the ones that are actively attempting (however hopelessly) to reinstate the Ba'athist Regime as well as the religious extremists (Islamofascists).  Please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation, if that is what you are contending: all of the evidence I have seen points to the opposite.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> I am not claiming that "Muslims all over the world re flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist ... because the US invaded Iraq": you are.



You're damn right I am, and which part  are you disputing exactly? Are you claiming that Muslims the world over are dancing in the streets now that Saddam is gone and Iraq is safely under US occupation?



> I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which they claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.


  

In light of recent events, your plan is obviously working like a charm. 



> Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're heck-bent on destroying my culture (or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms.




Your terms meaning in Iraq right? But of course those poor Iraqis would never blame YOU for bringing to them a war with which 99% of them had nothing to do with. SO damn it why do they keep resisting?   





> please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation,



And why the hell should they? Saddam is gone! Don't you think this is a little silly?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You're darn right I am, and which part  are you disputing exactly? Are you claiming that Muslims the world over are dancing in the streets now that Saddam is gone and Iraq is safely under US occupation?


Not at all: I just think that you're only fooling yourself if you think _Jihadists_ were okay with Afghanistan but suddenly incensed with Iraq.



> In light of recent events, your plan is obviously working like a charm.


The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?  They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.



> Your terms meaning in Iraq right?


I mean on a semi-conventional battlefield with armed troops (our terms), as opposed to office buildings and subways filled with unarmed civillians (their terms).



> But of course those poor Iraqis would never blame YOU for bringing to them a war with which 99% of them had nothing to do with.  SO darn it why do they keep resisting? ... And why the heck should they? Saddam is gone! Don't you think this is a little silly?



Yeah, they all loved Saddam, didn't they?  I mean they had his picture everywhere 'n' stuff!  The people aren't stupid: they know that it's Saudi and Syrian and Jordanian fanatics blowing-up their convenience stores, not Americans. The question is *WHO *is 'resisting': I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.  You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which _they _claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.  Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're hell-bent on destroying my _culture _(or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms.



Ok, wait a minute - this makes no sense.  Now you seem to be implying that the Insurgent Forces fighting the Coalition in Iraq are fundmentalist terrorists that would have fought us regardless of the path we took?  Is it not possible that any/some/much of the resistance is due not to Pepsi Cola and Walkmans but due to the fact that there is an M1A1 Abrams sitting infront of/in/on buddies Mosque/Market/Home?  I don't think Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr Militia (to name a few) was intent on destroying our culture.

You haven't really addressed Britney's point about the aggregate good of the invasion and/or occupation (which there is) being outweighed by the aggregate bad of spawning a greater and more intense resistance to the West in general.  If you don't believe this to be a factor at all, than I think you are just wishing away the polling data I presented earlier.



> the Iraqi insurgents are the ones that are actively attempting (however hopelessly) to reinstate the Ba'athist Regime as well as the religious extremists (Islamofascists).   Please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation, if that is what you are contending: all of the evidence I have seen points to the opposite.



That's not what he said - he said that the continued occupation is driving moderates into at least supporting/sympathizing the insurgents (if not actively joining them).

Infanteer

PS: Islamofascist is a pretty silly word, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## mdh (13 Jul 2005)

> PS: Islamofascist is a pretty silly word, wouldn't you agree?



Just who are the Iraqi insurgents? That's a good question. 

From all the reports I've read they are pretty diverse bunch - they seem to be a mixture of foreign volunteers, former Saddam Ba'athists, radical Shiites, Sunni fanatics, self-appointed Holy Fighters, Zarqawi zealots, etc. (varying according to geography and ethnic origin) 

But I do think Islamofascist is an excellent way to describe the one thing that unites them: a hatred of liberal democracy (and its attendent individualism), sectarian intolerance, worshippers of a death cult, hatred of women, radical nationalism (as defined by Ba'athism), anti-semitism, and reactionary violence.

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Not at all: I just think that you're only fooling yourself if you think _Jihadists_ were okay with Afghanistan but suddenly incensed with Iraq.



Consider the fact that Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban over both specific incidents (Taliban shooting of Iranian dipomats) and general tensions (Taliban hardline stance against Shias) and that the US had world approval to go in after the Taliban due to their protection of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.   The Taliban weren't the most popular folks on the block.

Now, take the fact that we have now invaded and occupied what is considered by some to be the second most holiest land of Islam (and what is probably the Holiest site of the Shia branch).   We've trounced a Muslim people into submission (on national TV), given them the gift of free elections for the first time in 6,000 years of civilization, set up a secular government that divides power between ethno-religious groups equally (I've seen how well this works first hand in FYR), and we even bequeathed upon them a dandy flag that, of all the countries in the mid-East, resembles only that of one (take a big guess; the picture is at the bottom). 

Now, if you think that Iraq wasn't enough to push a few/some/many people over the edge, than I think you've skipped over some regional/cultural/religious nuances of the area.



> The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?   They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.



 ???

What are you saying here?



> Yeah, they all loved Saddam, didn't they?   I mean they had his picture everywhere 'n' stuff!   The people aren't stupid: they know that it's Saudi and Syrian and Jordanian fanatics blowing-up their convenience stores, not Americans. The question is *WHO *is 'resisting': I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.   You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.



Where is it implied that anyone fighting against the Coalition is a Saddam supporter?   You mean to tell me that every single insurgent in all those pictures and news clips is either a card-carrying member of the Ba'ath party or a foreigner who cruised in on a Toyota, and that all Iraqis are sitting around waiting for us to teach them how to be free?

Let's step out of our cozy western Nikes for a second.   Imagine that the Mongolian Army invades Canada, sets our Army running to the hills and destroys the Liberal Party of Canada (and we dance in the streets).   Now, they decide to stay and give us the government they think will work (at the end of the bayonet), because we're obviously idiots who couldn't get it right.   Now, I've never been invaded or occupied before, but imagine there would be a point where I'd get fed up with it and say "leave".

Do I have any proof that this is the case for a few/some/many of the insurgents?   No.   But it is kind of intuitive, is it not?   After all, the Americans had their own take on this idea 229 years ago (to quote Patrick Henry "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!").



> Just who are the Iraqi insurgents? That's a good question.
> 
> From all the reports I've read they are pretty diverse bunch - they seem to be a mixture of foreign volunteers, former Saddam Ba'athists, radical Shiites, Sunni fanatics, self-appointed Holy Fighters, Zarqawi zealots, etc. (varying according to geography and ethnic origin)
> 
> But I do think Islamofascist is an excellent way to describe the one thing that unites them: a hatred of liberal democracy (and its attendent individualism), sectarian intolerance, worshippers of a death cult, hatred of women, radical nationalism (as defined by Ba'athism), anti-semitism, and reactionary violence.



Well, I don't like the term "Islamofascist" - seems like a stupid PC term invented so that pundits could accuse Muslims without sounding like they are accusing Islam.   Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we are at War with Muslims.   Sure, there are Muslims that don't wish to fight, there are Muslims that want to kill us for who we are, and there are Muslims who want to kill us for what we do; but the aims and actions of any one of these groups does not make these men any less Muslim because their ire is directed towards us.

From what I've gathered, many of these men (including OBL) are pious, well-studied, devout and place Islam at the core of their being.   Irregardless of their attitudes toward us, they are Muslims through and through, regardless of whether they are fighting us or not.   Calling them fascists for doing so seems to denigrate this dedication.   Jihadists, Islamists,  - these terms seem to fit; "Islamofascist" seems to be a lazy neo-Con slogan.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?  They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.



Suppose they did invade Iraq on, say Aug. 11 2001. Would the attacks have been prevented? Seeing as how Iraq was such a huge supporter of AQ....



> I mean on a semi-conventional battlefield with armed troops (our terms), as opposed to office buildings and subways filled with unarmed civillians (their terms).



I ask you once again: Do Iraqi civillians and Office buildings not count? Do the lives of the Iraqis mean anything to you? 

Oops, I forgot, John Galt, unbridled self interest is moral superiority, altruism is evil, right? Here, let me put it in these terms: Suppose you insist on "bringing the war" to me, and since my life means nothing to you, how can I MAKE you care?  OH I know, watch me fly this plane into a building. How does that feel? Still want to bring the fight to me?




> I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.  You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.



This is silly.  How can you be an average "moderate" Iraqi while at the same time engaging in active armed resistance? How can you tell the difference? Even if we ignore the obvious question of how the insurgents can be successful without at least tacit support from of the general population. 

You see, moderates anywhere generally don't have a virulent hatred of anyone, that's what makes them moderate. But when people "bring the fight to them", moderate people BECOME extremists(which, BTW, is the opposite of what we want, in case you forgot). Look at the Balkans for an example of what happens to the average joe when things heat up. 

Regardless of who the Insurgents are, they were not there before the invasion and now they are. I suppose we should consel ourselves to the fact that the threat of Iraqi T-72s rolling into Washington has now been safely eliminated.  Are you still seriously claiming that the invasion of Iraq has REDUCED the strength and potential manpower of AQ?

As for the demographics of the insurgency, I'll do some more crossposting from lightfighter:

<a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_suicide_missions_1>Source</a> READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE COMMENTING



> AP: Most Iraq Suicide Bombs by Foreigners By PATRICK QUINN and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers
> 
> The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners â â€ mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs â â€ and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
> 
> ...




I couldn't find a direct link to this, but <a href=http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7071027841>here's</a> the original thread from Lightfighter



> An Analysis of Foreign "Martyrs" in Iraq
> 
> On May 15, 2005, the Washington Post published an article that analyzed the breakup of Jihadist groups in Iraq by nationality. The source of the information was a list of "martyrs" published on the Internet that contained about 150 names of dead Arab Jihadists. That same day, Terror Web Watch obtained a list of 400 dead Jihadists that included, in most cases, details on how they died and other facts about their lives and fighting careers. The list was compiled by the administrators of Jihadist Web sites.
> 
> ...





So yes, there are foreigners, and yes, there are Saddam loyalists, but Saddam was apparently more popular than you think. Otherwise we'd have wrapped this whole thing up by now, right?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2005)

"Islamofascist" isn't just a lazy neo-con slogan; it fits.

Merriam-Webster's entry for "fascism" includes this: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

The extremists definitely exalt the religion above the faithful ("Islam" having at least in part the meaning "submission"), would have a centralized autocratic government ruled by dictates, would severely regiment every aspect of life, and would suppress opposition forcibly, to say the least.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Merriam-Webster's entry for "fascism" includes this: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"



Pretty wet and loose defintion, considering that I could stick "communism" into that by-line as well.

Making the label of "Fascist" without any reference to Faith and how it fits into the context falls short of the mark - look at how the Nazis, the Italian Fascisti, the Japanese of WWII, and today's Islamist foe and how they all viewed spirituality, religion and its relation to temporal society and tell me that they are all cut from the same cloth.   If they are, then I guess we have to change the defintion of the term "Fascist" to that of "anyone opposed to the Liberal Democratic order".


----------



## mdh (13 Jul 2005)

> Jihadists, Islamists, insurgents, terrorists - these terms seem to fit; "Islamofascist" seems to be a lazy neo-Con slogan.



I don't quite see it that way.   I would argue that Islamofascist is far more precise term in defining what OBL really represents. Far more so than "jihadist" or even "terrorist". As I think you do, I take OBL's ideas and pronouncements seriously. In fact I take him and his acolyte Zarqawi at their word.   

But what is the sum total of those ideas? What do they represent in political, social and economic terms? What would an OBL state look like?

In my view they are profoundly reactionary (and yes fascist) regardless of whether this brand of jihadism is directing its ire at the West or the Soviets or Dutch film makers. 

Moreover it seems to me that it does a disservice to mainstream muslims (who are the primary victims of OBL and his supporters) many of whom are certainly patriotic and uncomfortable with the US occupation, but are unlikely to welcome a return of the Taliban or some sort of heretical revanchist theocracy triumphing in Iraq. 

And if Britney's source material is correct, and most of the suicide bombers are indeed foreigners, then I would argue they are doubly fascist in intent since patriotism not their animating principle at all, but the mass slaughter of innocents (again mostly muslim) for a narrow sectarian cause.

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

See my above post - I have no doubt that a Caliphate under the Banner of someone of the mind of bin Laden would be:

1) Opposed to the Liberal Democratic Order

2) Bad for business

However, as I said above, to say that they are cut from the same cloth as the Italians or the Germans misses what Fascists and what Islamists are all about.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2005)

First a correctly political side note: Fascism and Communism both fit into that dictionary definition because they are subsets of *Socialism*.

One thing which seems to be overlooked in the various argument is the fact that Osama bin Laden published his "Declaration of War" against the West in 1996. We all remember that period; dangerous Neo-Cons led by Bill Clinton ran the administration, and had been buying Arab oil; garrisoning Saudi Arabia, dropping the occasional bomb on Iraq, pretending the Taliban didn't exist (or were some sort of Medieval Times exhibition), and we were all happily living in the "End of History".

The Jihadis had been organizing and carrying out terror attacks for years, and each time the provocations were ignored they planned a bigger and better follow-up. They were (and are) convinced that "we" are weak and decadent, and will have no stomach for the stand up fight, much less protesting when they impose Islamic Law on our societies and resurrecting the old revolutionary technique of establishing a "parallel authority" within the target society.

The idea (if you do not think this is a fact) that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime would find such a group as Al Qadea useful for carrying out operations doesn't seem far fetched; the Ba'athists gained the ability to conduct strikes against the United States, and the Al Qadea gained a useful source of support to carry out the *aims they had already professed*. The Ba'athists were pretty enthusiastic in their support of Palestinian Homicide Bombers as the only means they had to attack Israel, so we are only talking a matter of degree, not kind.

Perhaps Iraq wasn't the best place to or means to defeat the Jihadis. The fact still remains the main cause of Terrorism is the unbridled "Will to Power"; and the best source of recruits is people left hopeless and powerless in dysfunctional societies. Restructure of the societies by discrediting the ruling "elites" and ideologies (Sherman ruining the slave owning class in the CSA, for example) is a technique known to work, and that seems to be the path the current Administration is following. Few other historical examples exist of successful reformation short of total defeat, or sewing the ground with salt, if you know a better way, I think we all would like to know.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Jul 2005)

> One thing which seems to be overlooked in the various argument is the fact that Osama bin Laden published his "Declaration of War" against the West in 1996. We all remember that period; dangerous Neo-Cons led by Bill Clinton ran the administration, and had been buying Arab oil; garrisoning Saudi Arabia, dropping the occasional bomb on Iraq, pretending the Taliban didn't exist (or were some sort of Medieval Times exhibition), and we were all happily living in the "End of History".



I strongly urge all those interested to read _Against All Odds_ by Richard Clark, for a first hand blow by blow account of Clinton and Bush's anti terrorism efforts.  I especially enjoyed the parts where in 1998(IIRC) the SF colonel in Washington offered to fly to Khartoum and grab bin Laden himself. (" Let's do it Dick, We know he doesn't have a bodyguard, he probably isn't even armed, all I need is a non descript car at the airport and 2 men, I'll do it myself..") and in 2000(Again IIRC) when they came within a hair's breadth of launching a Delta raid at the Tarnak Farm (yes, that one) where bin Laden had made his HQ. 


SPOILER: You might be a little miffed if you hate Clinton and love Bush.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

Well, I figured that it was about time to throw in the hat on this one, so I did some surfing over at Lightfighter (since most of us Canucks are talking from 2nd hand info here anyways).   Since I don't know much about anything, I thought I'd see what the experts had to say, and so I read through this thread:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/5436084761/m/683101434/p/1

Read the thread.   Pay attention to the posts by *Abu Buckwheat*, he's an author on terrorism (his book is on Amazon) and has been dealing with this stuff professionally before most of us put on a pair of combat boots. 

Anyways, the debate on this link is pretty good - read it for something different:



> Hey guys I'm no liberal and I respect all of your opinions but in my view the connection is still deniable, unsupported by intelligence or any evidence. Its just speculation and rhetoric. I like LF and that is the only reason I am posting a contradictory view of the facts ... As any good career intelligence professional deals strictly in intelligence fact, not speculation or FOX/CNN/MSNBC political opinion-fomercials I will tell it like I see it after careful analysis of the sourceable and credible information. We have to get the facts devoid of ideology or RUMINT. There are rarely "Slam Dunks" in this game. #1 - I have been to the Ansar Al Islam's Biyara camp after it was leveled last year (its a rock pile) and it appeared to gets it support from Iran more than Iraq ... it is pretty deep behind PUK/KDP lines (about 7 hours up some tight assed mountains to the North East of Erbil in the furthest most corner of your map). It was a complete Free of Saddam zone and the Kurds kept it that way ... as anyone who has been to Kurdistan knows its another country up there. #2 I have spoke to the head of KDP intelligence in March on this very subject and he says the AAI was well known to belong to Bin Laden not Saddam ... he should know since many of his extended family was killed by an AAI suicide bomber in Erbil and many, many by Saddam. He says Saddam was too afraid to send agents past Sulaymaniyah. If anything AAI work with the Iranian intlligence to get people to and from Afghanistan ... As far as this guy's name being in a phone book, I'll withhold judgement until more evidence comes up ... the FBI track record on this isn't the most sterling. Additionally being an Iraqi in AQ does not mean you were in Saddam's control at all even if you worked for him. There is evidence that Saudi military officials are in AQ but does that mean the King backs bin Laden? Nope. We're all sober, responsible guys who want to see our government do well but on the face of it this is no slam dunk either ...
> 
> Iraq did have links to terrorism, Abu Nidal organization, the PFLP, Mujhideen Al Khalq and Iraqi Special Intelligence Service ... all terrorists but the people who did 9/11 ... AQ did that all on their own.
> 
> Where did the Iraqis get their experience to attack us? Not from AQ. They had a standing Army of 2 million and a special forces command of tens of thousands and an intelligence force of over 20,000 ... they saw we were coming and buried millions of tons of caches ... don't underestimate them and don't confuse them for AQ. They are smart and resourceful and good at killing without anyone showing them.





> Hi Greentimber ... its possible SH sent small teams of agents up there but the CIA/KDP/and PUK did and still own and operate the entire region since 1991 (except for Kirkuk)... check out Robert Baer's book "See no Evil" for a good description of CIA operations there in Post Saddam Kurdistan.
> 
> The $20k offered by Saddam was rhetoric he put on the news to show "support" for Palestinians ... no Palestinian family according to the Israelis has ever been proven to collect that money ... now the Saudis on the other hand paid out tens of millions of $ to martyrdom charities. They had a telethon two years ago! Any family that could prove a person was lost in fighting to the Israelis qualified for martyrdom payments. No matter if you were a suicide bomber or just got a Hellfire up your butt... your family got paid.
> 
> Yes Saddam operated terrorist training centers ... no one ever disputed that ... he ran a university for terrorism ... like I said the PFLP, ANO, the MUK and other small nationalist groups trained in Iraq but only the MUK (the anti-group) was heavily involved in terrorist operations until the US invasion ... there is no hard evidence that Saddam trained, armed or equipped the Al Qaeda organization. See the 9/11 commission report for more details on contacts. Hope this helps expand your minds to some alternatives about our enemies ... We aren't fighting AQ in Iraq but Iraqis who have some skill in terrorism (except for Zarqawi of course).





> No one said Iraq wasn't involved in some old school terrorism but obviously many of you guys think the war in Iraq was a good response to Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 and nothing, facts be damned, is going to convince you of the fact that we have ignored our real enemy "Al Qaeda." Abu Abbas? I've been to his house in Mansour district ... he was a fat old man retiree with one bodyguard, he was not leading a global jihad with thousands of followers. Lets get Bin Laden before we start patting ourselves on the back.
> 
> Capt_M ... I AM an intel type and I had three combat action ribbons in the "old" war on terrorism well before 9/11 ... I stared in Beirut at BLT in 1983 and still fighting so I know a little something about terrorism. I am an intelligence warrior and was fighting the terror war for a long time before it became hip and we all became experts. Thanks from refraining from MOS bashing ... I just spent a year in Iraq and head back tomorrow night. Yes, I've been to Salman Pak, Tuwaytha and other suspected camps and had lunch with a real Iraqi terrorist organizations, the MUK and instructors from the Special Security Service ... I learned one strategic thing in Iraq ... we're stuck in this mess and I take the fact that we have turned our backs on the real enemy, who struck us hard and will again strike us, with deadly seriousness. If you have even the slightest open mind that you may be open to a perspective from what the real professional intelligence community thinks (without politics) go buy "Anonymous's" book "Imperial Hubris" ... its a laundry list of how we are losing the war on terror by leaving Al Qaeda alone and getting our butts whipped in Iraq. Its written by the present CIA Chief of the Al Qaeda Division. The GWOT should be have been called the Global War on Al Qaeda (GWAQ) ... trying to kill off all terrorism is like trying to encourage everyone to be virgins. Often too late and not an exciting prospect to the participants. There is a fourth category of people who know something about Iraq ... those who know the truth and are ready to go after the real enemy. I'm focused on the foe dudes, and ready to grasp to harsh truth about Iraq in order to kill AQ proper-like ... how about you?





> Fisterkev you have to be in some state of denial ... better read the 9/11 commission report. We have hurt ourselves immeasurably with this invasion ... it is estimated at 70-80% of AQ and the Taliban have dispersed or are in Western pakistan... untouched and unafraid. Thier terrorist arm, the Covert Combat Command are deployed and continuing ops. Iraq took 200,000 people, resources and systems off line against totally obliterating AQ. We haven't even started going all out on them but are now bogged down in Iraq. Hey man I have lived through all three realities of pre-9/11 Middle East, post-9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq ... the present stat sucks. We have only 10k men in Afghanstan and 140,000 men in IZ? Only a few dozen killed in in fighting against Al Qaeda and 900 against Iraqis? Uh, the army says 2/3rd of all available forces are in Iraq or readying to go to Iraq oir recovering from Iraq. We pulled 3,600 men out of South Korea to go to Iraq and the NTC opfor, Shughart-Gordon opfor and the Ceremonial Honor Guard from Ft. Meyer are deploying to Iraq, the CIA has over 500 people in Baghdad alone and has empitied most overseas stations to handle the rotation and suddenly! we're freaking about about AQ surveillance of financial targets 3 clicks from my house! Whoa I though this was handled!? I think we are pretty tapped out because of Iraq and we don't have enough military forces for a serious global AQ hunt. The FBI is NOT leading the hunt by the way. The argument is not ridiculous, the situation we find ourselves in is very ridiculous.



...and here is a bit pertaining too my arguement with Dare over on this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23864.360.html

Notice my emphasis.



> Man I have lived, ate, slept and sometimes prayed with these people ... THEY DO NOT SHARE OUR CULTURE. We have to learn and deifnately PSYOPS should lead the way, that when dealing with other cultures you cannot use your own frame of reference. You must use theirs ... I'll plug myself a little here ... In my book the Terrorist recongition handbook check the chapter on funadmental terrorism intelligence analysis and read the part about common sense. I'll give you a hint ... it says we cannot use mid-western common-sense in analyzing the potenial capacity of the threat forces but we must learn to see it through their perspective. Islam hasn't been hijacked ... it IS what is going on and these men who martyr themselves aren't doing it for fear of death... they LOVE death and honor the men who are brave enough to fight to the death. Kill all you want but you'll only have thousands rushing in to replace the tens we do cap. Our American democratic and socail justice values are not fully compatable with Islam's ... especially politically as conservative relgion is a bedrock of the culture. But socially and economically there is a baseline of similarity -we must look for that baseline. *They are pissed at our actions, not at our values. They couldn't give two hoots about McDonalds ... they do care when we claim we kill 300 people in najaf and call it a victory ... then the pictures of the collateral dead come out and we open another recruiting drive. ... we just can't shove our actions in their face and say the natives must be just like us ... resistance is a inherent human trait and applying culturally trained PSYOPs or intell guys into it helps, but as I learned in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan... present day warfaighters tend to not give a damn about "what you intel weenies know".* I make ALLOT of money off the Special Operations Forces because they are the only force that WANTS to know and, like well before they go through a door. They think critically and repectfully kill the enmy by using his own tricks... thats where the army should be in Iraq. Unfortunately we are in Iraq ... anyone that thinks the GWOT is about killing ALL terrorist should line up for never ending war and an America that will be hated as the greatest colonial power since England in the 19th century; lets just kill this global insurgency called Al Qeda and call it a day ... OK I'll be in the Middle East tomorrow and will ask a few allied Arab SPECOP types what they think of your theory ... it won't be pleasant, believe me.



....and finally, what seems to me to be the best plan to date for attacking the Islamic Insurgency:



> ... I only have a few minutes. Let me sum up my view on how the GWAQ should have gone and can still go ... If I were President I'd buy the entire global political and law enforcement system out on my terms. Here is how it works:
> 
> 1) We'd make dramatic change on policies regarding fairness in Israel-Palestine. A major, unprecedented political offensive to get this issue off the tarble for Islamic extremists. We go 50-50 on support for both Israel and Palestinians. Peace in exchange for land. Nothingmore, nothing less. We'd have Arafat sign it before he croaks ... if we don't HAMAS will take over and that could suck. We'll build the Israeli security wall on the 1968 border FOR THEM , at no cost and to their standards but not the way they are doing it now by stealing land. All settlements must go. Period. (If we support this stupid policy then we support Israeli settlement claims as far east as Naseriyah, (city of Ur) Iraq were Abraham was from.) We back it up with NATO forces deployed to ensure Israel's security. Also an easy 10 billion for small businesses and government infrastructure. Cash loans. That means immediate prospect of hope and money for the Palestinian Arabs ... Hamas would have no one to hit in a Palestine that suddenly becomes as hopeful as Jordan ... they want Malls and Lattes. They have enough Mosques and faith.
> 
> ...



Happy reading,

Infanteer


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> First a correctly political side note: Fascism and Communism both fit into that dictionary definition because they are subsets of *Socialism*.



Just checked my Political Science textbook (Ideologies: An Analytic and Contextual Approach; Larry Johnston) and there is most certainly a difference between Socialism, Fascism, and Communism - and Fundamentalism is a completely separate animal from the previous three.

I could go into some boring, stuffy academic quotes from said textbook, but I won't - I think it is clear that these various political ideas have distinct historical and theoretical differences, and trying to corner them all into one category of *suck ass* because they don't jibe with Liberalism doesn't really do any of them a favour (or us, in our analysis of them).


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2005)

Fascism and communism are totalitarian in nature. Socialism is kinder and gentler communism in my opinion or communism light.


----------



## mdh (13 Jul 2005)

Fascinating read, Infanteer, thanks,

By the way is this the same book you were referring to in previous threads??   





> "Anonymous's" book "Imperial Hubris"


 thought it was called "Through My Enemy's Eyes..."

Might be time for me to order it,

cheers, mdh


----------



## Acorn (14 Jul 2005)

I wish I had the time and inclination to add my 0.02, but I think I can safely say my opinion coincides with that of Infanteer.

One thing though: "islamofacist" should be subject to Godwin's Law. It's a barely disguised equivalent of "islamonazi" intended to evoke similar emotions amongst those who watch Springer. It really has no bearing on the reality of Islamic fanaticism or facism (and if you take a close look at what the two represent you'll probably see how silly it really is.)

Acorn


----------



## mdh (14 Jul 2005)

> I wish I had the time and inclination to add my 0.02, but I think I can safely say my opinion coincides with that of Infanteer.
> 
> One thing though: "islamofacist" should be subject to Godwin's Law. It's a barely disguised equivalent of "islamonazi" intended to evoke similar emotions amongst those who watch Springer. It really has no bearing on the reality of Islamic fanaticism or facism (and if you take a close look at what the two represent you'll probably see how silly it really is.)
> 
> Acorn



What makes you think that we employ this term loosely? And why the excessive rigidity of definition in the first place (do we really need to rely on the academy that much?) If Bin Ladensim is a new phenomenon why can't we create new definitions to describe it.   It seems reasonable to weld fundamentalism with fascism and use it as a pretty accurate description of AQ.   (It's a bit like the term anarcho-syndicalism - a definition of a political strain of thought that appears contradictory but isn't.)

And one other caveat when it comes to raw emotions. The left is starting to accord "freedom fighter" status to the insurgents, a definition I doubt any of us would agree with, so the next time you hear neutralist terminology being employed remember who may be benefitting.

That said I will agree that we need to have these debates to ensure our definitions don't deteriorate into stereotype - and that we keep a clear picture of who the protagonists are in the GWOT.

cheers, mdh


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2005)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953 vb



> *THE REAL WORLD*
> Saddam and al Qaeda
> There's abundant evidence of connections.
> 
> ...


----------



## Acorn (14 Jul 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> What makes you think that we employ this term loosely? And why the excessive rigidity of definition in the first place (do we really need to rely on the academy that much?) If Bin Ladensim is a new phenomenon why can't we create new definitions to describe it.   It seems reasonable to weld fundamentalism with fascism and use it as a pretty accurate description of AQ.   (It's a bit like the term anarcho-syndicalism - a definition of a political strain of thought that appears contradictory but isn't.)
> 
> That said I will agree that we need to have these debates to ensure our definitions don't deteriorate into stereotype - and that we keep a clear picture of who the protoganists are in the GWOT.



I didn't suggest that the term was being employed loosely, simply that it is incorrect, and perelously close to Godwin's Law. "Bin Ladenism" is also inaccurate, as the philiosophy of Bin Laden is hardly new, and the fundamentals of it, Wahhabism, pre-date Fascism. From my perspective it is inaccurate to suggest that AQ's philosophy is a welded form of funadmentalism and fascism. What I see is fascism tack-soldered onto Wahhabi fundamentalist theory in order to put it into a context that Westerners might understand. Unfortunately it's not accurate.

We also have the blinders of growing up under a system of separated church and state. In Islam, all forms, there is no such distinction. "Church" and state are one, and this is a fundamental since the 7thC - way before the concept of Fascism was considered.

More another day.

Acorn


----------



## Andyboy (14 Jul 2005)

So if AQ is eliminated will the threat of terrorism be eliminated?


----------



## dutchie (14 Jul 2005)

My grade 11 Socials teacher had a way of describing the 'Political Spectrum' as not a line, with 'extreme left' (Communism) on one end and 'extreme right' (Fascism) on the other, but rather, as a circle. Somewhere near the top of the circle is the 'centre' (Liberal Democracy?), and the bottom is where extreme left and right meet. This makes 'Communism' and 'Fascism', while still being extreme left/right respectively, right next to each other. Seems simple, but that's how I view it. 



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> So if AQ is eliminated will the threat of terrorism be eliminated?


No. Just as the elimination of the IRA will not result in the end of the threat of terrorism. Ditto for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. 

I think it would be foolish to think that _all _ who wish for the destruction of our culture are card-carrying members of AQ - those _people_ will always exist, even if the group dies. AQ gives them the opportunity, yes, but it's elimination does not eliminate the sentiment of a large number of anti-west Muslims. Of course, it's tough to fight 'sentiment', and easy to fight 'people', so AQ is the target. Basically, AQ is fighting on behalf of a lot of Muslims, even if many of those Muslims don't support them overtly.

To answer the question another way: Would the elimination of the entire US military mean the elimination of America/Americans? No, elimination of the nations/groups 'soldiers' does not eliminate the people or their ideals.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2005)

For a discussion of the political "spectrum, see here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html

As for eliminating the threat of terrorism, that isn't possible so long as humans can experience the "Will to Power" (the root cause of crime and terrorism), but eliminating the AQ will stop the threat of terrorism from *that* front, and certainly discredit *that* cause. The elimination of the Waffen SS did not eliminate National Socialism, but they certainly are not a big part of the political landscape anymore. Other movements, people and ideas have been similarly pruned from the landscape by the destruction of their armies and ability to project power (We are not bothered by Spartan Helotry, Carthaginian Mercentilism or Confederate slave owners, to pick a few random examples).

As a counter example, the decline of British Imperial power also coincided with the growth of despotism throughout the Commonwealth and former Empire; the British either lacked the will or means to support Westminister style democracy across the globe. American power is a curious anomaly; for much of her history, the Flag followed the trade (American sailors and Marines being dispatched to rescue Yankee traders and missionaries who got in over their head), and much of American power throughout the world is of the "soft" variety. The Al Qaeda and their friends correctly view America as a commercial Republic, and attacking tourists, businessmen, embassies etc. is an attempt to cut the true source of American power.


----------



## Andyboy (14 Jul 2005)

Thanks both of you for the replies, the question was directed more towards the posts that infanteer referred to. Here is a post from a different board (Belmont Club) that I find fairly convincing.

" TigerHawk said... 
If it commits brutal offenses such as this, what is the source of al Qaeda's strength? The answer, I think, it that al Qaeda's form of jihad is the product of more than 70 years of ideological development. That ideology has appeal for all kinds of reasons rooted in ancient Arab and Muslim failures, including their failure to found legitimate governments and engage successfully with the modern world. But the ideology of jihadism also -- perhaps primarily -- succeeds because it competes against essentially nothing. There is no meaningful competing ideology in the Arab world, which sustains its rulers in the barren soil of monarchy or rank authoritarianism. 

Just as communism's intellectual roots stretched back decades before the establishment of the first communist state, jihadi ideology is a coherent and highly developed political philosophy with roots long ante-dating the state of Israel, Western dependance on Middle Eastern oil, the presence of American soldiers in the region, or the first jihadi state -- the Taliban government of Afghanistan. As was the case with communism, it will take a long time to discredit and destroy this ideology. 

How, then, do we destroy both al Qaeda and the jihadi ideology? The answer is, just as Wretchard suggests, that "we" -- meaning the West -- cannot. Just as the citizens of communist regimes did more to destroy communism in the end than the United States, only Muslims, and particularly Arab Muslims, can destroy the jihad. They will do so only when it is worth their great personal sacrifice to ruthlessly pursue the people in their own world who promote this ideology. (And in case it needs to be said, a settlement between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel will not motivate that sacrifice, and neither will the withdrawal of American soldiers from Arab lands.)

As with the decades-long war on communism, the war on Islamic jihad requires strategy that both contains the advance of the jihad as much as practical and motivates its most direct victims -- in this case Muslims -- to destroy it from within (as the Russians and the Chinese have both, in quite different fashion, destroyed communism). Containment, in this case, requires passive strategies (such as homeland security) and the active participation of the existing governments of the Islamic world. American strategy -- including, in my opinion, the war in Iraq -- has been constructed around coercing those otherwise uncooperative governments into that active participation. The demands of containment require us to coerce and cajole fundamentally hideous governments, including especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other tactics, such as our flowering alliance with India and our careful diplomacy in Central Asia) have put us in a position to do that.

Unfortunately, steps we take to coerce the autocracies of the Muslim world also make us less popular among the Muslim masses. This is not different from the Cold War, in which active American efforts to contain communism -- the Cuban embargo, the military defense of South Korea and Vietnam, support for the insurgents in Angola, support for Taiwan, and support for Israel in 1967 and 1973 -- enraged the otherwise oppressed populations of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and so forth. As we learned during the Cold War, containment alone cannot dispose of an enemy founded in a well-articulated political philosophy. We therefore must combine containment of the jihadis with a long-term plan to motivate the Muslim world to discredit and destroy the jihad from within. This is the purpose and promise of the Bush Administration's "democratization" strategy.

Muslims need serious motivation to discredit and destroy the jihad because the jihadis are extremely dangerous and ruthless people. They have demonstrated their capacity for breathtaking brutality not just on September 11 and in the Sunni Triangle, but across the world over a period of at least twenty years. None of Western coercion of Israel, the retreat of the United States from the region or promises of Western aid or free trade will provide that necessary serious motivation. The only way to inspire Muslims to fight the jihad is to invite them to embrace a competing ideology that can fill the empty void of their civil society and give them something in defense of which they are willing to risk war with the jihadis. Moderate Islam -- the widely-proclaimed "religion of peace" -- might have filled that void, but it has not thus far and shows no prospect of doing so any time soon. The idea of popular sovereignty -- the philosophy of John Locke, if you will -- is the only political philosophy available in the West that holds any promise of competing with the evil coherence of Islamic jihad. It is also a wonderful thing to fight for.

The "democratization" of the Muslim world, therefore, is critical to the destruction of the jihadi ideology for at least three reasons. Least important is the reason most often given -- that it will "drain the swamp" of Muslim rage that festers under the heel of Muslim authoritarian and monarchical regimes. Far more importantly, popular sovereignty is an ideology that can compete with radical Islam. Indeed, with the death of communism, which was a sort of perverted version of popular sovereignty, it is the only ideology that can compete with radical Islam. Finally, and most importantly, democratic governments are governments worth fighting for. Generally speaking, Muslims are not going to turn in the jihadis in the back of the mosque because a monarch or a dictator threatens them or gives them money. They will, though, if those jihadis threaten an idea that they hold dear. Moderate Islam has failed to supply that idea. Communism is dead. The only alternative is the guiding light of the Englightenment, the idea of the social contract. John Locke will fuel the counterinsurgency within Islam.

Sorry for the long comment, but I thought it was germane. I also confess that I have written the same argument in a somewhat longer form previously. "

Thoughts?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Thanks both of you for the replies, the question was directed more towards the posts that infanteer referred to. Here is a post from a different board (Belmont Club) that I find fairly convincing.



I broached the "Containment" approach in a post once, in an attempt to rationalize the current strategy:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am not to sure exactly what you're asking me here, but I'll try to answer it.



What I said in that link still seems to me to be a plausible route to victory, but I do hold the factors in the last few pages of discussion here to be very valid as well.   That's what discussion is about I guess, exploring different frameworks and approaches to the problem and figuring out the best COA.

However, I will nitpick on a few points in "Tigerhawks" otherwise good post:

1)   He mentions that the people within Communist regimes did more to destroy Communism than the West.   I'm not sure that is entirely how it went - Kennan himself (In the X article) says that Communism contained the seeds to its own destruction (rough paraphrase).   It was a defunct socio-economic system which, in the end, would wilt away - especially when plastered upon a group of Western nations with deep history and traditions that never supported it.   It wasn't so much that people actively destroyed it, rather it seemed that when it came to crunch time, people didn't give a fuck and went for Greener pastures (hence, the Soviet Union imploded rather than exploded).   As for China, people within China didn't destroy Communism - it has merely evolved in its own, Sino-centric way there.   Anyways, the point for picking up on this one is that I'm not sure we can say that "Islam contains the seeds of its own destruction" in the same way Communism did (see below).

2)   I think the "Abu Buckwheat" quotes were important in highlighting culture as a vital "frame of reference" - this is where I can see another weakness in ascribing the weaknesses of Communism to that of Islamist thought.   One is a socio-economic system (and a shoddy one at that) while the other is a Faith.   It's hard to use the same frame of reference when one looks at 2 left shoes and the other looks at the well-being of a believer's soul.   Marx/Lenin tried to ignore Faith (which is one of the reasons it did contain the seeds of its own demise) while Bin Laden and Co. make Faith the center of their being.

3)   As it pertains to Faith, I'm not to sure of the veracity of the "poverty" argument.   Sure, it will be a factor, but I don't think it is *The* Factor.   From what I understand, history is all one step away for many Muslim people/nations.   They talk about Mohammed/Saladin/Suleiman like they talk about Osama bin Laden, Israel, and the Gulf War.   Even when Islam was at the top of the heap in civilizational thinking (8-10 centuries, 15-17 centuries) they were fighting as hard as they are now, when they are at the bottom of the heap in terms of prosperity and well-being (well, not at the bottom of the heap, I think Africa has that real-estate covered for along time).   If history is a current dialogue for them, than poverty probably isn't a huge factor to many who talk of the Ummah of the 8th century as if it was yesterday.

Just some thoughts,
Infanteer


----------



## Andyboy (15 Jul 2005)

Infanteer,

To reply to your points,

1. "He mentions that the people within Communist regimes did more to destroy Communism than the West." The way I look at it Communism died not due to outside pressure but due to the choices the people within the countries and systems made. Star Wars wouldn't have worked if the Commies hadn't have taken the bait. The wall wouldn't have come down had the people not madeit do so. I think that is what he means, similarly Islam is threatened not by the actions of the West, but by the actions of Muslims themsleves (Osama et al), as well as their inaction in rooting it out and reforming. Just a thought.

2."One is a socio-economic system (and a shoddy one at that) while the other is a Faith." I have sometimes heard Communism/Marxism described in religious terms which seems to fit. Replace "God" with "Communism", "Jesus" with "Marx", and "The Church" with "The Party" and you start to see some similarities. Faith in God, Jeus and the Church is repalced with faith in Communism, Marx, and The Party. I might not have it exactly right but you see what I'm getting at. 

3. I agree with what you said here, although I wonder if they look at how"easy" we have it at the top of the heap compared to when they were at the top of the heap, like you say they were fighting just as hard then as they are now. I wonder if they look at our wealth and success and attribute it to our exploitation of them. I wonder too if they long for the glory of their past combined with the wealth and comfort of our present, I have no idea really, I do think though that being poor isn't so bad if everyone is equally poor. Once you see that there is someone better off than you you begin to resent them and resent your poverty. 

Thanks again for the discussion.

Andrew


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2005)

Most of the collapse of Communism was due to internal rot; only the rueling class received the benefits of the system, the rest of the people drifted into apathy and there was simply less and less "horsepower" available to the various communist regimes to advance on any front, much less meet a sustained advance on all fronts (economic, military, cultural and political) that the United States under the Reagan administration was able to mount.

Similarly, most of the regimes opposing the United States are fairly brittle authoritarian regimes, and can be fairly easily "stressed out" by dynamic American power. The key difference which Infanteer pointed out is the underlying foundation of "Faith" (as well as an underlying social structure based on "tribes"), which will fill the vacuum of failed authoritarian Secular, Theocratic or Royal regimes. This is the rather messy stew which the US is probably trying to season with "Cedar" revolutions, in an attempt to create or encourage liberal democratic regimes, where people's energies are turned inwards to securing better lives for themselves.

All I can say at this point is "Godspeed". Even postulating two terms of a Rice administration to follow the Bush administration would only see the beginning of the process, if it could happen successfully.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Jul 2005)

Sorry, getting caught-up after some vacation:

I've understood theofascism to be the conjunction of Theocracy and Fascism: there is no implication that they are the same thing (indeed, the implication is that they are different), but rather the ******* [Hey, that's not a pejorative!] child of the two.  Islamofascism in that context makes sense to me (I know what I mean and I know what other people mean when the term is used).


WRT snakes in the grass, the insurgency, etc. ... a thousand words:







Regarding the supposed the causal link between terrorism and support to the invasion of Saddam's Iraq:

1. When did Egypt join the Coalition of the Willing?

2. John Howard's comments on :





> PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.
> 
> Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
> 
> ...


 http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070312

3.  This editorial (yikes, I'm quoting an editorial from the Guardian) also concerns the London Bombings specifically, but addresses Leftist myopia in a larger context:





> *Comment: There are apologists amongst us*
> 
> The 'We told you so' lot have been bleating on about Iraq ever since the atrocities of 7/7 - it is time to fight back
> Norman Geras
> ...


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5243795-103677,00.html


According to this article, the invasion is starting to realize it's intended consequences:





> *Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says
> *
> By Robin Wright
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_pf.html




Finally, WRT to the plan to address the Islamofascism/insert-your-term-here on the prvs. page (not sure of the source of your quote, Infanteer):


> 1) We'd make dramatic change on policies regarding fairness in Israel-Palestine. A major, unprecedented political offensive to get this issue off the tarble for Islamic extremists. We go 50-50 on support for both Israel and Palestinians. Peace in exchange for land. Nothingmore, nothing less. We'd have Arafat sign it before he croaks ... if we don't HAMAS will take over and that could suck ...


Obviously this is a little dated, but Palestinians are showing clearly that their support is for HAMAS (and thus it's 'solution').



> 2) Declaration for Global unconditional War against Al Qaeda (GWAQ). We declare they will be eliminated as a concept from Islam and as humans from earth. The US Army will deploy world wide to train and support any government's operations against them...


This is pretty much what the US is already doing, but it's effectiveness is hampered by reflexive anti-Americanism (and even by partisanship and myopia of the American (and western) Left).



> 3) We open all "perceived" offensive US policies to discussion at a series of agreed upon international forums. Any cheezy small act we can do to get any of AQ's strategic complaints off the table gives the Arab governments prospect of hope...


We already have this: it's called the UN.  These 'discussions' almost invariably lead to a vetoed motion of censure of the US and/or Israel and a call for more monetary aid for the Palestinians.  Why should we expect it to be any different 'this time'?



> 4) A secret rewards program for government ministers of allied Arab countries...


 Realpolitik was disavowed by the Bush admin. because it doesn't work (remember the Taleban?)



> 3) Iran and North Korea will be immediately engaged and offered huge financial support and aide to end their weapons program... 6) Every piece of nuclear material in this planet would be bought by the US government ... double the market price. Lets just take it off the table.


 Assuming you could find them, what happens if they don't want to sell at any price?  Even if you could, how much do you think the UN/European Left is going to like the idea of the US as the sole nuclear superpower?  IMHO, this idea is pure fantasy.



> 5) I would consider invading Pakistan. I would ask nice first thatthey givetheir nukes to us ... if not I'd drop the entire 18th airborne corps on it and take it away from them...


This would be quite a lot more problematic than the Iraq invasion (even if the manpower and national political will were available).


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I've understood theofascism to be the conjunction of Theocracy and Fascism: there is no implication that they are the same thing (indeed, the implication is that they are different), but rather the ******* [Hey, that's not a pejorative!] child of the two.   Islamofascism in that context makes sense to me (I know what I mean and I know what other people mean when the term is used).



How can it be a step-child?   The lines of thought expressed by these Islamists (unified Caliphate, ulema, rule of Shari'a, etc, etc) are all notions that existed long before Fascism stepped onto the Poli Sci circuit and they seemed to thrive within some/many circles of Islamic thought without needing a Western idea to foster its growth.



> 3.   This editorial (yikes, I'm quoting an editorial from the Guardian) also concerns the London Bombings specifically, but addresses Leftist myopia in a larger context: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5243795-103677,00.html



The "Iraq apoligists" are a pack of wankers, I saw news footage of some of these people marching in Toronto saying "I told you so".   If they had bothered to look at Al Qaeda's immediate objectives, they'd have seen that Iraq is only one of many items on the list (hence John Howard pointing out that Sept 11 was before all of this).



> According to this article, the invasion is starting to realize it's intended consequences:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_pf.html



Go to the source, the author of that article seems to be cherry picking the good parts of the study.   I have confidence in the Pew Center (I posted some work by it earlier), so I went and found the document in question:

*This is actually a pretty interesting read, I recommend it*

The optomistic quote you posted is followed by:

- *Nonetheless, the polling also finds that while Muslim and non-Muslim publics share some common concerns, they have very different attitudes regarding the impact of Islam on their countries. Muslim publics worry about Islamic extremism, but the balance of opinion in predominantly Muslim countries is that Islam is playing a greater role in politics â â€œ and most welcome that development. Turkey is a clear exception; the public there is divided about whether a greater role for Islam in the political life of that country is desirable.*

Also worth noting are:

-  *The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among more than 17,000 people in 17 countries this spring, finds that while many Muslims believe that radical Islam poses a threat, there are differing opinions as to its causes. Sizable minorities in most predominantly Muslim countries point to poverty, joblessness and a lack of education, but pluralities in Jordan and Lebanon cite U.S. policies as the most important cause of Islamic extremism.*

This doesn't seem to bode well for the notion that liberal democracy will flower in the Islamic World:

-  _*A complex set of attitudes about the place of Islam in politics emerges from the findings. Most people surveyed in predominantly Muslim countries identify themselves first as Muslims, rather than as citizens of their country. Moreover, except in Jordan, there is considerable acknowledgement that Islam is playing a significant role in the political life of these countries.

  Worries about extremism are often greater among those who believe Islam has a significant voice in the political life of their country. This is particularly the case in Turkey and Morocco. The polling finds that those in Turkey who self-identify primarily with their nationality worry more about Islamic extremism than do those who think of themselves first as Muslim. 

  However, Muslim publics who see Islam's influence in politics increasing say that this trend is good for their country, while those who see Islam's influence slipping overwhelmingly say it is bad. Turkey, whose EU candidacy is weakened by European worries about Islamic extremism, has the least clear cut opinions on this issue. An increasing role for Islam in politics in Turkey, a country that has been officially secular since 1923, is seen as a bad thing. Those in Turkey who see Islam's influence diminishing are divided over whether this is good (44%) or bad (47%).*_

As well, Anti-Semitism remains pretty unanimous, which is an unfortunate turn of historical trends when you consider that Judaism flourished in Islamic Empires while being persecuted in Christendom:

-  *Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, all Muslims and 99% of Christians say they have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Similarly, 99% of Jordanians have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Large majorities of Moroccans, Indonesians, Pakistanis and six-in-ten Turks also view Jews unfavorably.*

Finally, at first glance the drop in support for bin Laden sounds pleasing, but we see that they are largely in areas where he never really had a huge following anyways.   Places like Pakistan and Jordan have seen increases in support for bin Laden, so I'm guessing that the report is _comme ci, comme ca_ regarding him.

-  _*While support for suicide bombings and other terrorist acts has fallen in most Muslim-majority nations surveyed, so too has confidence in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In Lebanon, just 2% report some or a lot of confidence in bin Laden, and in Turkey only 7% do so. 

  In Morocco, just 26% of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down sharply from 49% in May 2003. In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split, with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none; that represents a major shift since 2003, when 58% expressed confidence in bin Laden. 

  In Pakistan, however, a narrow majority (51%) places some measure of confidence in bin Laden, a slight increase from 45% in 2003. And in Jordan, support for the Al Qaeda leader has risen over the last two years from 55% to a current 60%, including 25% who say they have a lot of confidence in him. Unsurprisingly, support for bin Laden in non-Muslim countries is measured in the small single digits.

  Declining support for terror in a number of the Muslim countries surveyed tracks with previously reported dramatic increases in favorable views of the United States in Indonesia and Morocco. Favorable opinions of the U.S. surged most among younger people in Morocco, but were equally evident among both the young and old in Indonesia. The polling also found that in most Muslim countries women were less likely to express an opinion of the U.S. than were men, but when they did, they held a somewhat more positive view.*_

Finally, the Pew Center just issued another study on *American attitudes towards Iraq and its impact on the "War on Terror"*:

-  *The public is growing more skeptical that the war in Iraq is helping in the effort to fight terrorism. A plurality (47%) believes that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism, up from 41% in February of this year. Further, a plurality (45%) now says that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks at home, up from 36% in October 2004, while fewer say that the war in Iraq has lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the U.S. (22% now and 32% in October). Another three-in-ten believe that the war in Iraq has no effect on the chances of a terrorist attack in the U.S.*

This War may be doing more harm than good if it is indeed undercutting general support against fighting a global effort against an Islamic Insurgency.   As "Abu Buckwheat" pointed out, is the US (and the West in general) really getting the best use out of its military forces by wearing them out in Iraq?   This was the general concern I raised a few pages ago - as Vietnam showed, it is easy to have the feet cut out from underneath you when the war loses support at home.



> Finally, WRT to the plan to address the Islamofascism/insert-your-term-here on the prvs. page (not sure of the source of your quote, Infanteer



Those viewpoints are of Mr "Abu Buckwheat" of the Lightfighter.net forum, you can chase him (along with the quote) down with the link I provided in the thread.   I'm not going to argue over his points because they are his and I don't pretend to know how he would come to those conclusions.   However, as I said in the post, he backs his posts up with decades in the CT/intel game, military service, he is fluent in their languages, has travelled and lived among these communities, and has written a few books on the subject (which can be found at Amazon).   His "cred" is backed by other operators over at the site, so I'm inclined to look to people like him for their thoughts (as opposed to news pundits writing from the comfort of home).

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How can it be a step-child?  The lines of thought expressed by these Islamists (unified Caliphate, ulema, rule of Shari'a, etc, etc) are all notions that existed long before Fascism stepped onto the Poli Sci circuit and they seemed to thrive within some/many circles of Islamic thought without needing a Western idea to foster its growth.


Very true ... however, to my knowledge Islam didn't typically include "_an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism_" (Dictionary.com definition of Fascism), most of which I think is also characteristic of the enemy we face.  Moreover (also Dictionary.com):

Islamism:_n._
   1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
   2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

theocracy:_n. pl._ the ·oc ·ra ·cies
   1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
   2. A state so governed.

YMMV, but I don't really think that these definitions capture the fascist characteristics of "Islamofascism" that are not _typically _Muslim.  The association probably really started in WW2 with Nazi and "All Palestine" "President" Amin al-Husayni (wikipedia's got some bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni ).

I will admit that given the proclivity of the Left to overuse "fascist" as an epithet, they could easily misunderstand the term to be _equating _Islam with Fascism.  Then again, I don't have much empathy for their "understanding" of a lot of things.




> Go to the source, the author of that article seems to be cherry picking the good parts of the study.  I have confidence in the Pew Center (I posted some work by it earlier), so I went and found the document in question:


 Haven't had time yet to review, so I will defer to your comments for now (at least) ...



> Those viewpoints are of Mr "Abu Buckwheat" of the Lightfighter.net forum, you can chase him (along with the quote) down with the link I provided in the thread.  I'm not going to argue over his points because they are his and I don't pretend to know how he would come to those conclusions.  However, as I said in the post, he backs his posts up with decades in the CT/intel game, military service, he is fluent in their languages, has travelled and lived among these communities, and has written a few books on the subject (which can be found at Amazon).  His "cred" is backed by other operators over at the site, so I'm inclined to look to people like him for their thoughts (as opposed to news pundits writing from the comfort of home).


Interesting ... I still stand by my criticisms, though ... maybe I should start lurking over at Lightfighter ...


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Very true ... however, to my knowledge Islam didn't typically include "_an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism_" (Dictionary.com definition of Fascism), most of which I think is also characteristic of the enemy we face.   Moreover (also Dictionary.com):
> 
> Islamism:_n._
> 1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
> ...



See, this is where I have a problem with use of the term "Fascism" - you are linking a Western political concept to something that is completely foreign and alien to much of the Islamist framework in question.   As Acorn mentioned (here or elsewhere) it is inappropriate as it introduces irrelevant or inaccurate subject matter into the discussion and idea of what the enemy is seeking to accomplish.

You mention the terms "authoritarian", "dictator", "political dissent", and "industrial and economic activities" which do indeed seem to be the historical focus of Fascist groups.   However, these concepts seem out of place when discussing the Islamist movement.   They are all secular terms, and seem to fall short of describing an outlook that sees Religion and State as one and the same; that sees a Ruler is justified not by popular sovereignty but by his ability to promote and protect the _Shari'a_; which sees morality and all social activities (including industry and economic) as being properly defined by _Shari'a_ and the _Hadith_ (the actions of the Prophet Mohammed); that all Islam is a single community (_ummah_) residing within a House of Submission (_Dar al-Islam_); and that within this community, that political legitimacy is heavily grounded within the community of religious scholars (_Ulemma_) who are supposed to ensure that political leaders remember that "Caesar and what is due to him all belong to God".

These concepts *are typical and very real* parts of Islam and are all as old as Islam itself and seem to do a very good job in describing where much of the current Islamist viewpoint is derived from.   Osama bin Laden didn't study _Mein Kampf_ when he went to King Abdul Aziz University, he looked at the _Qu'ran_, so we don't need to be fishing for some injection of a relatively new Western concept to define notions of Islam within a modern framework of political thought.   As well, these terms are all unique due to their origin within political Islam, just as many of our political terms (liberalism, common law, universal sufferage, secular state) are all unique to our own brand of Western, liberal democratic political thought.   I use the Arabic terms (since Arabic is the acknowledged language of the Prophet) not to sound smart or witty, but for the very reason that they are unique ideas that need to be defined as they are within their Islamic construct, and not confused or cross-pollinated with irrelevant references to Western ideas of authoritarian regimes in conflict with our general liberal outlook.

Finally, I believe the mention of Husayni is a curve ball meant to bolster the claim of tieing fundmentalist Islamist groups to Fascism, and from my understanding he has little or nothing to do with the current Islamist movement that is headlined by organizations such as Al Qaida.   There may be some similarities between his political viewpoint and that of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (which fuse Nationalism and Islamist thought into one), but AQ and Co. have built there organizations and viewpoints around the writings of Islamic scholars such as Taqi al-Din Ibn Tammiyah, Mohammmed Qutb, and Shaykh Abdullah Azzam.   They are quite apt to condemn and fight again both Islamic states that appear to bend to outside influence (Saudi Arabia) and what they consider to be apostate secular regimes who replace God's Law with Laws of Man (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Jul 2005)

You are ignoring the militarism, police-state mentality and acute anti-Semitism (pretty much) unique to post-WW2 "radical" Islam: there are degrees of authoritarianism in Islam, none of which (except the one under discussion) approach the malevolent tyranny that is suggested by using the term "Islamofascism."  Moreover, I discern a pretty big difference between allowing 'people of the book' "Dhimmi" status and wiping tem off the face of the earth.

al-Husayni (and others) imported European anti-Semitism (and other fascist ideals) that first manifested in the pogroms in Algeria, then the Farhud, and later in Libya and Iraq: I find it rather difficult to believe that those ideas suddenly disappeared while simultaneously an incredibly totalitarian, violent and anti-Semitic strain of Islam (that no-one has any memory or record of) was spontaneously 'rediscovered'.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> You are ignoring the militarism, police-state mentality and acute anti-Semitism (pretty much) unique to post-WW2 "radical" Islam: there are degrees of authoritarianism in Islam, none of which (except the one under discussion) approach the malevolent tyranny that is suggested by using the term "Islamofascism."  Moreover, I discern a pretty big difference between allowing 'people of the book' "Dhimmi" status and wiping tem off the face of the earth.



Police state and Militarism?  Are you referring to Saudi Arabia?  The Wahabbi alliance with the House of Saud has being doing a fine job of this before the coming of the Europeans.

Afghanistan under the Taliban as Islamofascists?  Not quite - the Taliban was a curious blend of Indian Deobandian thought (focusing on morality and the lack of it in modern Islam), imported Whabbism as a legacy of fighting the Soviets (which emphasises a puritanical interpretation of Islam), and the harsh punishments of the traditional _Pashtunwali_ code.  No reference to Mussolini or _Mein Kampf_ here.

Iran?  Are you going to present a neat case saying that the Ayatollah needed European political thought in the 1930's and 1940's to help give his worldview enough of a grounding to take the country over?  Please, not everything has to be connected to the West in some way, shape or form.

The enemy is widespread in both his objectives and his outlooks (it is indeed "networked" - the "terrorist/insurgency NGO"), so what is "the one under discussion"?  I've pointed to the words of Osama bin Laden and the writings he relies on the reinforce his ideas as well as highlighting notions which have strong precedence in Islam, and you've only returned with a few obscure political figures and movements from the 1940's.  If you really do think that bin Laden is a fascist, you are going to have to give me a better argument than that.

As well, I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that militarism and the police state are something new to Islam and that it is grounded in Western influence (this seems like the typical message of some lame ass neo-con pundit).  Islam has been militant since Muhammad returned to Mecca - the speed, scope and force of the expansion of the Caliphate was rivaled only by the Mongols in history.  As well, Islamic rulers have been just as prone as anyone else in history in instituting autocratic regimes that smack of the defintion of "police state" - read of the decline of a multicultural al-Andalus under the harsh rule of the Almoravids and the Almohads from North Africa.

As for anti-semitism, see below.



> al-Husayni (and others) imported European anti-Semitism (and other fascist ideals) that first manifested in the pogroms in Algeria, then the Farhud, and later in Libya and Iraq:



The examples you cite are all around WWII, when (surprise of surprises) the German's were politically courting movements to undermine the British.  Is it no surprise that many would undertake Anti-Semitic acts to curry favour with a German Army that was figured to be the overlord quite quickly.  Are you really trying to convince me that much of what we see is somehow related to WWII?

I have no doubt that the current problems between Islam and Judaism have some roots in the Nazi influence of the 1940's, but I seriously doubt that this influence is enough to make the anti-Semitic trends in many current threads of Islamic thought to be mere extentions of National Socialist Anti-Semitism (which has its own roots in Germanic history).  Again, the use of the term Fascist links Islamic anger and hatred towards Jews to that of the Nazis, which to me makes erroneous and inaccurate links and obfuscates understanding and ideas of causality (and hence, the solution).  Are we to fight anti-Semitism in the Middle East by showing that they had no complicity in Versailles and that the House of Rothschild were instrumental in the Industrial Revolution?



> I find it rather difficult to believe that those ideas suddenly disappeared while simultaneously an incredibly totalitarian, violent and anti-Semitic strain of Islam (that no-one has any memory or record of) was spontaneously 'rediscovered'.



I'm not sure where you are getting the "spontaneously rediscovered" bit from.  Any reading of the last 100 years of history in the Middle East lays it out clear that tensions between the two began to arise with the spread of Zionism and the conflict that arises out of the notion that Israelis wish to carve a state out of land that has been in Muslim hands (with a few interuptions) for 1400 years.  This was not the first time this occurred in the relationship between Islam and Judaism - read about Sabbatai Sevi and the call for the return of the Jews to Israel and how that fared with the Ottomans.

The Nazi's obviously added a catalytic affect to the situation (just as the Holocaust no doubt served as a catalytic affect for Zionism), but I would in no way point to it as the root cause (just as National Socialism is not the root cause of Zionism either).

Into this gradual growth of animosity, add the most important catalyst, Israel "spontaneously" forming in 1948 with the partitioning of Palestine and in quick succession, delivering an ass-kicking to the Arab states on multiple occasions.  Combined with the Palestinian/Israel issue that has been a problem for all involved since Day 1, and it easy to see that Anti-Semitism in Islam is not simply something inherited from a frothing National Socialist.  Listen to the rantings of Islamists against Israel today - the notion of Crusaders and Palestine obviously underline that the anti-semitism of Islamic strains of thought are their own and not borrowed from somebody else.

Irregardless of its roots, it is sad to see that Islam, which had largely shielded Judaism from the persecution in Europe by Christianity for over a millenia, has been replaced by the seething and irrational hatred that we see today.  Hopefully, we will be able to turn back the clocks, but it sure won't be easy.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jul 2005)

In 50 words-or-less (busy today): I think you are painting with too-broad brushstrokes.   I'm not trying to claim that anti-Zionism, puritannicalism, etc., did not exist in Islam prior to the 20th-Century: what I am talking about is the split of the Qutbees/Brotherhood from the Wahhabis in (more-or-less) the period of the 1930's - 1960's (after Qutb was hanged and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, the Brotherhood went a little more mainstream, but the real radicals, like Zawahiri, 'kept the faith': for all I know, maybe there's still a Sinn Fein - IRA type connection).  The Qutbees were very definitely western-influenced during (and since) WW2 (and not just by the Nazis) and Qutb himself was educated in the United States* (where he developed his intense anti-Americanism).  This is where bin Laden, et.al. are coming from and the fascist influence is apparent.  For the record, Hitchens (who coined the term) calls it fascism with an Islamic face: personally, I think of it more as Islam with a fascist face.

Certainly it is a (radical) sect of Islam, but there is also very definitely western influence.  Moreover, and more to the point, to simply call it "Islam" is rather misleading and does a tremendous disservice to Islam IMHO.  It is akin to using the term 'leftist' to describe Stalinists: technically true, but the label fails to capture the full measure of what we mean.

*In some of his writings he actually advocates western training for Muslims in technology, medicine, military, etc.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Irregardless of its roots, it is sad to see that Islam, which had largely shielded Judaism from the persecution in Europe by Christianity for over a millenia, has been replaced by the seething and irrational hatred that we see today.  Hopefully, we will be able to turn back the clocks, but it sure won't be easy.



Roger that!


Cheers.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jul 2005)

Funnily enough this came up on Strategy page today (not really germane to the semantic argument, but I found it interesting nonetheless):





> *TERRORISM:  The War in Saudi Arabia is to the Death*
> 
> July 29, 2005: There are three Middle Eastern battlegrounds for Islamic terrorists; Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This last one gets the least amount of attention, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has been the source of most of the money, ideology and people dedicated to Islamic terrorism. *Since the invasion of Iraq, the Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia have been at war with their own government. A two decade truce is over, and now the battle is to the death. Well, a temporary death. The al Saud family had to go through this in the 1930s, when the more radical Islamic warriors in the kingdom decided to carry their jihad to neighboring countries. Does this sound familiar? The king, and founder, of the recently established Saudi Arabia, realized that this would only mean trouble for his newly minted kingdom. So the king hit back hard, and kept killing the Islamic radicals until the survivors convinced him that there would be no more trouble. It was forty years before Islamic radicals felt strong enough to take on the king once more. They lost again, but instead of stamping out (ie, killing) most of the Islamic radicals, the new king (son of the old king) made a deal with them. The Islamic radicals could freely teach their hatred in the kingdom's schools, and support Islamic radicalism overseas. But they had to keep the peace at home. That truce lasted until 2003. Now it's back to the 1930s way of doing things. *
> 
> ...


 http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=urbang.htm


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Aug 2005)

Funny that you should mention_ Mein Kampf_: if Ossama didn't study it, certainly many of his contemporaries (and mentors) have ...



> *Their Kampf*
> _Hitler's book in Arab hands._
> 
> By David Pryce-Jones, from the July 29, 2002, issue of National Review
> ...


 http://www.nationalreview.com/29july02/pryce-jones072902.asp

And in _London_:


> *Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic*
> By Sean O'Neill and John Steele
> (Filed: 19/03/2002)
> 
> ...


 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19.xml

And more recently in Turkey (excuse the BBC's ham-fisted attempt to frame the reporting):


> *Hitler book bestseller in Turkey*
> _Adolf Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, has become a bestseller in Turkey - sparking fears of growing anti-Semitic feelings in the country._
> 
> *The book has sold more than 50,000 copies since January.*
> ...


 http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm

This is but one example of the popularity of Nazi propaganda among the _Islamofascists_: I find it _very _hard to believe that it is pure coincidence.

More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389126/posts
Excerpt:





> ...Nevertheless, Arab-Nazi collaboration had serious implications for the future. Sami al-Jundi, a Syrian Arab nationalist, a founder of the Ba`ath Party, wrote in his memoirs, "We were racialists. We were fascinated by Nazism, reading its books and the sources of its thought..." (35)
> 
> From the 1930s till now, Mein Kampf, other Nazi writings, and earlier Judeophobic works like the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion, have been commonly read in Arab countries. And Arab writers have made their own contributions to this literary genre. PLO publications have joined in the chorus of Holocaust denial. (36)
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (6 Aug 2005)

I'm not to sure about that - it seems your stretching to make the link.

The first article falls back on Husseini again, who was obviously a creature of his time who was catalysed by explosion of Nazi Germany within Europe.   Does this mean that he is a Fascist or a card carrying member of the Nazi Party?   Or did, as I said before, he see the oppurtunity to match rising anti-semitism in the Middle East to the dominant movement within Europe at the time?   As well, the article links National Socialsim to two seperate factions that were popular within the Middle East half a century ago - the Ba'athists and the Nasirists.     These two movements are ones that have been opposed by those who would seem to fit the bill as the current crop of Islamists (those who's ideology is of the Ihkwan/Qutb line of thought we discussed above) - Qutb was hanged by Nasir, while the Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally opposed Nasirists in Egypt (the assassination of Sadat and where Zawahiri got his spurs) and the Ba'athists in Syria (the Hama Uprising).   Unless you are trying to convince me that the enemy of today is a bunch of closet Nasirists/Ba'ath party members, then I'm not seeing the link.

The second and third articles don't make any connection between Fascism and the current crop of Islamist movements, they only point to the fact _Mein Kampf_ is popular in the Middle East.   Is that any wonder that, in an area that has had mortal conflict with the Jewish state for over 50 years, that anything having to do with Anti-Semitism would be popular?     :

The last article again makes links to the Ba'ath party and anti-Semitism - again, I don't see how this tags Islamists as "Islamofascists", seeing how many/most of them seem to be ideologically opposed to the Ba'ath.

4 articles that don't say much about the enemy except that they don't get along with the Jews - big surprise.   I'd say that _Mein Kampf_ gets its ratings boost because of pre-existing anti-semitism that has its own roots in Middle Eastern politics (as opposed to trying to convince me that Arabs hate Jews because they are closet Nazis).

I'm willing to bet that Anti-Semitism we see in the Middle East today has more to do (and is probably grounded upon) the Zionism of the late 19th/early 20th century, the rapid migration of Jews to Palestine, and the Israeli War of Independence and subsequent schlacking of every Arab/Muslim state in the neighbourhood for about 50 years.   The enmity between these peoples, as sad as it is, can be seen very clearly in the historical record of the last 100 years.   Sure, _Mein Kampf_ may make a decent coffee table book in the Mid-East, but I would assume that attitudes stem not from some appreciation of the words of a failed Austrian artist, but of a stream of images and stories (whether real or propagandized; probably a lot of both) of Israeli soldiers bulldozing Palestinian houses, shooting kids with rocks, and generally flexing it military muscle - this has gone on for so long as to be embedded within the consciousness of the Arab/Islamic world.

Anyways, moving along from the world of Anti-Semitism, I will again state my conviction that the term "Islamofascists" is of no real value to the debate.   As the Wikipedia article here is apt to point out, it is contested as to whether it is really applicable to specific groups at all (different pundits seem to be willing to adopt it to label whomever they are puditing about).   You can stick the word Facsim anywhere you want and it doesn't really do anything except up the level of mindless rhetoric (Us labelling them Fascists is as stupid as them labelling the Israelis Nazis).   No thanks - Islamist fits the bill; all the enemies are Muslim, and they are our enemies because, for a variety of reasons (varied amongst different groups within the Islamic Insurgency), they ascribe to the two biggest trends within Islamist thought, anti-Westernism (and, by proxy, anti-Americanism) and anti-Semitism.

It is ironic that the guy who coined "Islamofascism", Christopher Hitchens, idolizes a George Orwell who (in a neat quote from the Wiki link) would have mocked the very idea:



> _"the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."
> 
> George Orwell_



I guess you could just call them "IslamoNazis" if that's the effect you're gunning for....


----------



## Acorn (7 Aug 2005)

Nice Orwell quote Infanteer.

Stapling "facism" on to the type if Islamist extremism we're dealing with is a classic case of "mirror imaging." We don't understand Islamism, so we create a compound word that make it fit into our little universe. Forget that "fascism" is not, by definition, anti-Semetic any way (hint - Facism is a creation of Mussolini, not Hitler, and predates the latter by a few years. It is merely an Italian form of ultra-nationalism, and if the Italian conduct in WWII is any indication it is less anti-Semetic than the Vichy French.)

For those unfamiliar with "mirror imaging" I'll explain: fundamentally there are two types of intellectual error: bias (an "input error") and fallacy (an "output error"). Mirror imaging is a classic bias, where the observer attempts to explain something through his own experiential lens. In the case of most Western observation of other cultures it is an attempt to apply our own cultural experiences to others. In this specific case it is clear that the similarities of the Islamic theocratic extremist thought to those of Naziism (more than actual Facism, imo) has cause many to think a term such as "islamofacist" is accurate, when nothing could be further from the truth. That _Mein Kampf_ is popular in the Arab world (not the borader Muslim world, by the way) should be no more surprise than observing that the _National Review _ is popular among a certain type of conservative in the US and Canada - the printed word suits the individual's world view.

If thinking about our enemy as Facists makes one feel better - fine. As long as one isn't in a position to actually influence policy or strategy it's a bit of harmless mental masturbation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that too many decision makers are unable to identify and set aside their biases.

Acorn


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2005)

I think you have hit on a good point Acorn; the mythical Caliphate of the Jihadis and many current Middle eastern states superficially resemble the sort of "Total State" that was the end goal of the "New Order"; so tagging the Jihadis as the current banner wavers for National Socialism isn't much of a stretch.

Of course, the roots of the Total State can be traced all the way back to Plato; it would be rather amusing to try to label the Jihadis as "Radical Classicist Insurgents" (Although Victor Davis Hanson would probably go after them with an axe if you could make a convincing case). Infanteer is quite correct, we really do not understand them, and without understanding what we are up against there are very few options we have on the table ("the Romans create a wilderness, and call it peace").

Perhaps the American "Uber strategy" of supporting freedom and democracy in the region and encouraging self help projects like the Cedar Revolution is mostly an attempt to bypass that annoying scholarly research stuff by calling on deeper (and hopefully universal) yearnings for freedom and prosperity.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm not to sure about that - it seems your stretching to make the link.
> 
> The first article falls back on Husseini again, who was obviously a creature of his time who was catalysed by explosion of Nazi Germany within Europe.  Does this mean that he is a Fascist or a card carrying member of the Nazi Party?  Or did, as I said before, he see the oppurtunity to match rising anti-semitism in the Middle East to the dominant movement within Europe at the time?


Certainly opportunism played a role, but he raised an entire SS division himself and had was 'appointed' (by the Nazis) Prime Minister of the Pan Arab Republic (nationalism was another barely-known concept prior to Nazi influence) with his headquarters in Berlin.  He also planned to construct a concentration camp in Nablus to implement Hitler's final solution.  Arafat was also a protege of al-Husseini from age 17 (it is actually rumoured that Husseini is Arafat's great-uncle).  There's some interesting photos in this (admittedly sensationalistic) website: http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/ 

OMHO, the idea that Muslims who became SS soldiers and officers were _not _influenced by the Nazis is a stretch!



> As well, the article links National Socialsim to two seperate factions that were popular within the Middle East half a century ago - the Ba'athists and the Nasirists.   These two movements are ones that have been opposed by those who would seem to fit the bill as the current crop of Islamists (those who's ideology is of the Ihkwan/Qutb line of thought we discussed above) - Qutb was hanged by Nasir, while the Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally opposed Nasirists in Egypt (the assassination of Sadat and where Zawahiri got his spurs) and the Ba'athists in Syria (the Hama Uprising).  Unless you are trying to convince me that the enemy of today is a bunch of closet Nasirists/Ba'ath party members, then I'm not seeing the link.


That was to show the influence of fascism, _as a foreign concept,_ in that part of the world more generally: you don't seem to accept this line of reasoning, however I contend that that, as I just wrote, "nationalism was another barely-known concept prior to Nazi influence."



> The second and third articles don't make any connection between Fascism and the current crop of Islamist movements, they only point to the fact _Mein Kampf_ is popular in the Middle East.  Is that any wonder that, in an area that has had mortal conflict with the Jewish state for over 50 years, that anything having to do with Anti-Semitism would be popular?   :


Possibly, but it was more of a response to your statement that OBL never read _Mein Kampf_: _Protocols _is also popular among this crowd, and certainly it more fitting with their world-view, but why is it so much less popular than _Mein Kampf_?



> The last article again makes links to the Ba'ath party and anti-Semitism - again, I don't see how this tags Islamists as "Islamofascists", seeing how many/most of them seem to be ideologically opposed to the Ba'ath.


It doesn't "tag Islamists as 'Islamofascists'": all it suggests to me is that there was (and still is) a largely unrecognized Nazi influence in Middle Eastern politics.



> 4 articles that don't say much about the enemy except that they don't get along with the Jews - big surprise.  I'd say that _Mein Kampf_ gets its ratings boost because of pre-existing anti-semitism that has its own roots in Middle Eastern politics (as opposed to trying to convince me that Arabs hate Jews because they are closet Nazis).
> 
> I'm willing to bet that Anti-Semitism we see in the Middle East today has more to do (and is probably grounded upon) the Zionism of the late 19th/early 20th century, the rapid migration of Jews to Palestine, and the Israeli War of Independence and subsequent schlacking of every Arab/Muslim state in the neighbourhood for about 50 years.  The enmity between these peoples, as sad as it is, can be seen very clearly in the historical record of the last 100 years.  Sure, _Mein Kampf_ may make a decent coffee table book in the Mid-East, but I would assume that attitudes stem not from some appreciation of the words of a failed Austrian artist, but of a stream of images and stories (whether real or propagandized; probably a lot of both) of Israeli soldiers bulldozing Palestinian houses, shooting kids with rocks, and generally flexing it military muscle - this has gone on for so long as to be embedded within the consciousness of the Arab/Islamic world.


I don't disagree that there are multiple roots to the extreme anti-Semitic attitudes that prevail today, but I don't think that we are doing ourselves any favours by pretending that Nazi politics/philosophy and methodology had no influence! 



> Anyways, moving along from the world of Anti-Semitism, I will again state my conviction that the term "Islamofascists" is of no real value to the debate.  As the Wikipedia article here is apt to point out, it is contested as to whether it is really applicable to specific groups at all (different pundits seem to be willing to adopt it to label whomever they are puditing about).  You can stick the word Facsim anywhere you want and it doesn't really do anything except up the level of mindless rhetoric (Us labelling them Fascists is as stupid as them labelling the Israelis Nazis).  No thanks - Islamist fits the bill; all the enemies are Muslim, and they are our enemies because, for a variety of reasons (varied amongst different groups within the Islamic Insurgency), they ascribe to the two biggest trends within Islamist thought, anti-Westernism (and, by proxy, anti-Americanism) and anti-Semitism.
> 
> It is ironic that the guy who coined "Islamofascism", Christopher Hitchens, idolizes a George Orwell who (in a neat quote from the Wiki link) would have mocked the very idea:
> 
> I guess you could just call them "IslamoNazis" if that's the effect you're gunning for....





			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> If thinking about our enemy as Facists makes one feel better - fine. As long as one isn't in a position to actually influence policy or strategy it's a bit of harmless mental masturbation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that too many decision makers are unable to identify and set aside their biases.



Actually, "IslamoNazi" would be more accurate, however "islamofascist" is preferred in an (admittedly rather futile) effort to be less sensationalistic, IMHO (while both "Nazi" "fascist" are hackneyed terms, there are cases in which they actually should, and do, apply.).


----------



## Acorn (11 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Actually, "IslamoNazi" would be more accurate, however "islamofascist" is preferred in an (admittedly rather futile) effort to be less sensationalistic, IMHO (while both "Nazi" "fascist" are hackneyed terms, there are cases in which they actually should, and do, apply.).



I have to dissagree as strongly as I can. Adding a "nazi" or fascist" suffix puts the islamists in a box, however one thinks the terms might apply due to the perception of their conduct. Islamonazi would be no more or less accurate than Islamofacist or "IslamoSocialCredit" for that matter. It provides you with a frame of reference, perhaps, but it is inaccurate. 

Acorn


----------



## Andyboy (11 Aug 2005)

Is the term "Jihadi" more accurate?


----------



## Acorn (12 Aug 2005)

Barely more accurate, and I do admit to using it myself. However, given the broad meaning of "jihad" I think it may not be the best choice. As tame as "Islamic Extremist" sounds it is probably the most accurate.


----------



## Andyboy (12 Aug 2005)

Thanks Acorn, 

I have read that there are two interpretations of the term Jihad, one meant as an internal struggle and one as an external physical conflict. It seems that we are fighting the latter. 

What do they call themselves?


----------



## paracowboy (12 Aug 2005)

why don't we call them "Deceased" and "Soon to be Deceased"? Kinda stream-lines things a bit, don't you think?


----------



## Andyboy (12 Aug 2005)

Firm but fair, I like it!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I have to dissagree as strongly as I can. Adding a "nazi" or fascist" suffix puts the islamists in a box, however one thinks the terms might apply due to the perception of their conduct. Islamonazi would be no more or less accurate than Islamofacist or "IslamoSocialCredit" for that matter. It provides you with a frame of reference, perhaps, but it is inaccurate. ...  As tame as "Islamic Extremist" sounds it is probably the most accurate.



Using "Islamist" or "Islamic" without some sort of a modifier does the majority (i.e., other than the lunatic fringe) a major disservice, and is far more likely to degenerate into racism and a whole host of other complications, IMHO (I think the B.S. about 'guarding against an anti-Muslim backlash' after every single al-Queda attack is overblown, but could well become real if we continue to blame _Islamics_ ).

"Islamic Extremist" simply suggests (also IMHO) that the problem is with _Islam _itself, and thus will only be resolved by eliminating (or somehow de-radicalizing) _Islam_.  I disagree with those who claim that _Islam_ is the problem.

"Islamofascist" reflects _Nazi_ characteristics of the particular radical sub-group, both in projecting our perceptions (of the latter onto the former) AND in a part of their actual heritage.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> why don't we call them "Deceased" and "Soon to be Deceased"? Kinda stream-lines things a bit, don't you think?



This works just fine for me!  :threat:


----------



## Acorn (12 Aug 2005)

paracowboy's idea would be good, if we could get it to work (without excessive fatigue to his shoulder from recoil).

I_am_John_Galt,

"Islamic extremist" may suggest to you that the problem is with Islam, but are not the extremists of any religion the problem, not the religion itself? There are Christian extremists, and we've recently seen the results of Jewish extremism (I never thought I'd ever hear the likes of Ariel Sharon call another Jew a "terrorist" we really do live in interesting times).

The problem with the "fascist" lable is that it is not part of their heritage - regardless of how they took on board _Mein Kampf_ and the like. The Islamic extremist philosophy is rooted deeply in Islam itself, and the fundamental idea that the Qur'an is the Word of God and must be taken literally (despite the built in contradictions common to all religious texts). The ideology is pan-national, which contradicts Facism and Naziism which are both ultra-nationalist. Their (Facist and Nazi) expansionist tendency is colonial, whereas the expansionist philosophy of the Islamists is religious assimilation.

Despite the authoritarian aspects of our Islamic extremist enemies, which has the superficial similarity to Western dictatorships like  Facism or Naziism, the roots of the problem are deeper and more complex


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The problem with the "fascist" label is that it is not part of their heritage - regardless of how they took on board _Mein Kampf_ and the like. The Islamic extremist philosophy is rooted deeply in Islam itself, and the fundamental idea that the Qur'an is the Word of God and must be taken literally (despite the built in contradictions common to all religious texts). The ideology is pan-national, which contradicts Fascism and Naziism which are both ultra-nationalist. Their (Fascist and Nazi) expansionist tendency is colonial, whereas the expansionist philosophy of the Islamists is religious assimilation.
> 
> Despite the authoritarian aspects of our Islamic extremist enemies, which has the superficial similarity to Western dictatorships like  Fascism or Naziism, the roots of the problem are deeper and more complex



Another "Bingo" quote. The only really close ideology was Communism, as expressed by the international communist movement. Communism transcended national boundaries by stressing real or artificial "class" boundaries across societies, just as Islamism (or whatever you want to call it) stresses religious ties across societies, hence the recruiting of British born and bred homicide bombers in London. Communism never took in the United States because so called "class" boundaries were extremely fluid, but religion isn't susceptible to simply being elevated to management.

The unfortunate analogy for me is the Peleponnesian Wars or the 30 years war, which pitted different conceptions of society against each other, and ended in mutual exhaustion and allowed rival civilizations to expand into their place (Phillip of Macedonia conquored Greece, while the ravaging of Europe during these wars allowed peripheral nations like England to advance towards a dominant position).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Aug 2005)

This is killing me, 'cuz generally when I'm right and (seemingly) everyone else is wrong, then I'm maybe not right (_sometimes ... rarely_  ;D).  Anyway, in this case I'm just not seeing it (or perhaps, I can't help but to see it).

I grant that there's extremism in pretty much every religion (and it too often manifests itself as something a little short of pious virtue), but I think that Marxists did have that one right insofar as religion is generally a mechanism, or an excuse, for war rather than a real 'cause'.  More to the point, extremist Muslims have historically been pretty accomodating of the Jews, or at the very least a far cry from the genocidal aims of those of the WWII and post-war era.  I'm not an expert on the Koran but AFAIK it is very explicit on the treatment of the Jews, and it is nothing like what is currently contemplated in'shalah.

_Nationalism_ often manifests itself along ethnic and/or religious boundaries rather than, or in combination with, (perceived) political or cultural boundaries.  I've always understood this to be a fundamental differance between Italian-style fascism and Naziism: ethnic nationalism (& racism) wasn't nearly as important an element of Italian Fascism as it was of Naziism.  The Anschluss and the Munich Agreement appealed to substantially differant notions of nationalism than the subsequent invasions of Poland, France, etc.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that the Pan-Arab Nationalism of Saddam Hussein (et.al.) is closer to (and perhaps more influenced by   ) Stalinist Russia, the establishment of the Caliphate (in it's currently-understood form and by the means espoused by the Qutbees/Salafis/extremistWahhabis/whateveryouwanttocallthemandtheirbuddies) _is_ IMHO, much nmore reflective of Nazi influence.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2005)

Short answer; I really do not fully understand what the Jihadis hope to accomplish. The Syrians, Saudis and Iranians are fairly straightforward in that they look and act like states harbouring Imperialist ambitions; theirs is an alliance of mutual convenience since the United States not only thwarts their regional ambitions but threatens to unhinge their very existence through Western cultural pull, Middle Eastern economic irrelevancy and US military power.

Perhaps the Jihadis really believe in the establishment of a pan Islamic Caliphate; the center of some spiritual, cultural and social revival of Islam in the world. More probably, based on their actions in places like Fallujiah or Mousal when they had managed to gain control, they will establish a petty thugocracy where they can quote from the Q'ran while holding the real instrument of power; an assault rifle, in their hands. The *root cause tm* of crime and terrorism is the same in all times and places: the will to power. Pan Islamic terrorism simply provides a much wider recruiting pool than appeals to ethnic or national origin.


----------



## Acorn (16 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> While I certainly wouldn't argue that the Pan-Arab Nationalism of Saddam Hussein (et.al.) is closer to (and perhaps more influenced by    ) Stalinist Russia, the establishment of the Caliphate (in it's currently-understood form and by the means espoused by the Qutbees/Salafis/extremistWahhabis/whateveryouwanttocallthemandtheirbuddies) _is_ IMHO, much nmore reflective of Nazi influence.



The "socialist pan-Arabist" movement (Ba'athist in Syria and Iraq) certainly was greatly influenced by Marxist/Leninist thought and supported by the USSR. The Caliphate ideal of UBL and his ilk is a bit more religious than you may think. A comparison, ironically, can be made to Pope Urban II and the first Crusades. The _ideology_ that sparked the Crusades was strongly religious, regardless of the opportunism of some of the Crusaders. The _call to crusade_ of Urban was genuinely religious, as was the religious fervor that convinced so many to participate. The opportunism came later. 

I don't deny that one can make the Nazi comparison, I just question the logic of doing so. There are factors here that are very much similar, but there are also factors that are fundamentally different.

Acorn


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2005)

I hesitate to (re)join this debate, but ...

We have talked 'round and 'round the _war on terror_ vs _insurgency_ vs _clash of civilizations_ and _cult of death_ issues but I feel a need to restate (maybe refine) my views that:

"¢	We are not "at war with Islam";

"¢	We are not (or, at least ought not to be) at "war against terror" if for not other reasons than that it is impossible to win and we might want to resort to it in the future, as we have in the past;

"¢	We are witnessing a _clash of values_ within one of Sam Huntington's _civilizations_ even as we are involved in a _Clash of Civilizations_ between most of the secular, liberal-democratic West and part of Arabic Islam - the part which is both: _Arabic extremist_ - in its desire to return to medieval Arabic social structures, and _fundamentalist Islamic_ - to the degree that some versions of Islam are rooted in those same medieval Arabic social structures;

"¢	Arabic Islam, certainly, and maybe all of Islam needs a _reformation_ as a (necessary, in my view) precursor to an Arabic _enlightenment_*; and

"¢	_Enlightenments_ tend to be slow, stately, scholarly affairs which flow out of the bitter lessons of rather bloody _reformations_.  Both are the work of generations.

It seems to me that we, the secular, liberal-democratic West, ought to be doing all we can, openly and covertly, too, to _promote_ the reformation.  We have, in other words, a vested interest in helping the Osama bin Ladens to destabilize _moderate_ Arab regimes and we have an equally vested interest in helping those (generally friendly) regimes to fight against the fundamentalist terrorists - the _jihadis_.  We don't want bin Laden to acquire any more countries but we do want him to turn his attention away from us and towards our 'friends' like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and even Jordan and the Emirates.  We want the _Arab foundamentalists_ to believe they are strong enough and popular enough to accomplish one of their primary aims: their _reform_ of Islam.  We want them to act, to strike, then we can support our 'moderate' friends - just enough to fight off the extremists.  Such little wars might be enough to stir _reformation_ (and _counter-reformation_) ideas amongst the people and provoke the sort of internecine, generation long Arabic wars which I believe are necessary to settle issue and to set the stage for an _enlightenment_ which, I believe, again, is what we really need to defeat the _Arab foundamentalists_ who are at the centre of the enemy _movements_ arrayed against us.

In other words, I don't think it matters, much, what happens in Iraq so long as Iraq becomes a base from which one or the other group (secular 'moderates' or Islamic fundamentalists) can attack the others in neighbouring countries.

There are some risks, including.

"¢	A complete regional conflagration could do real, serious economic harm to us (North America and/or the _Anglosphere_) by sending both Japan and Europe into a 'no oil' depression; and

"¢	The _Arab foundamentalists_ might win - the people in the region (who are mostly Arabs, after all) may decide that their reformation is to go back to medieval social and cultural values.

Another 2 ¢ for the pot.
----------

* I do not believe that Asian Islam (Malaysia and Indonesia, for example) need much of a reformation or any special kind of enlightenment, except to defeat the Arabists who are trying to impose what Canadian public intellectual/author (or lesbian chic gadfly, if you prefer) Irshad Manji calls _Arab foundamentalism_ - that view that Islam is only 'true' when it is practiced in Arabic and when believers adhere to the medieval Arab social mores.


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (29 Aug 2005)

Good evening, some interesting points raised here.
We are obviously in a very dark period, at what point do you admit it was a mistake and get the hell out of there?(exit strategy...)
How much more damage has to be done? How much damage has to be done to the credibility of the United States?
These are disturbing times, and you don't have to be of any political persuasion to be disturbed or troubled by it.
I think we're in a time of deliberate cruelty and deliberate lying, and, frankly, I think it's the very bottom of humanity.
It has bothered me how some people have misapplied the story to the invasion & occupation of Iraq. It's like the way Hitler misapplied Norse mythology and literature to validate the Third Reich.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Sep 2005)

Okay, I split this thread - the "Conspiracy Theory of Iraq" crap got left behind, and this chunk got renamed - it is a fairly interesting dialogue.

Now, Marc Sageman's was mentioned on page 2, and it is a really good analysis of networking the enemy has in place.   A few parts of his book really stood out in our debate around "Islamofascism" and the relevance/applicability/stupidity of the term.   Sageman's work focuses on a particular brand of Militant Islam (Jihadi kinda works, but we must be careful not to ignore the various interpretations of _Jihad_), that of the *Global Salafist Jihad*.   This is Osama bin Laden's _Al Qaeda_, along with its affiliated "cores" in the Mahgreb, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.   This network is one that orients itself towards global attacks based upon holy jihad focusing on the "far" enemy (the West and the United States in particular) as opposed to the "near" enemy.   The goal is to drive away support for the "near" enemies (apostate regimes in the Islamic world) by those "far" enemies in order to allow for a pan-Islamic state based around the Salafist interpretation of Islam.

Now, this "Global Salafist Jihad" (and by extention, Al Qaeda) is what I assume is alluded to when the term "Islamofacist" is used.   Instead of trying to pull at strings to highlight how Militant Islam is fascism in disguise, Sageman's analysis of the terrorist organizations that make it up (his background is in psychology) brings up a few unique points that show that the difference between the two is pretty big once you look at the details (emphasis mine):
   


> *Unlike many political organizations, Salafi groups are careful to avoid a cult of personality, for they believe that everything belongs to God.*   Indeed, they take seriously the notion of Islam as submission, and this is not compatible with a narcissistic cult of personality, which often degenerates into a pyramidal organization, with all the controls lying with the leader.   Al Qaeda's structure is quite opposite, with a large degree of local autonomy and initiative.
> 
> Marc Sageman, Understanding Terrorist Networks; pg 87.





> The revived Authoritarian Personality formulation results in a series of propostions characterizing charismatic leader-follower relationships.   It postulates that the group uncritically follows the leader's directives and that the leader has a history of violence.   Neither is true of the global Salafi jihad, which prominently features local initiative and decentralized decision-making.   Bin Laden had no history of violence before joining the jihad.
> 
> *Authoritarianism is contrary to the tenets of Salafism, which preaches that only God is superior to men, who should relate to each other as equals.      Qutb stressed that all authority belongs to God.   Intentionally or not, the leadership in al Qaeda is not an authoritarian one.*   There is no consolidation of decision-making in its leader.   Its structure is not hierarchical or modeled after a military organization, and there has been no split as a result of leadership decisions.   All these factors are assumed to have high relevance in predicting terrorism.   They do not apply to the global Salafi jihad, which is characterized by decentralization in decision-making, a horizontal fluid structure, and a surprising absence of periodic purges of leadership that are so common in other terrorist organizations.
> 
> Marc Sageman, Understanding Terrorist Networks; pg 90.



Clearly, these are two very "unfascist" principles; both in ideal and in physical organization.   Infact, I'd argue that these two points, along with others in his book, seem to highlight the fact that the only commonality between the Militant Islam of the Global Salafist Jihad and Fascism in any of its forms is that they are ideologies that clash with Western liberalism.   Equating the two with that single premise is ridiculous.   

Furthermore, "Islamofascism" often leads to *incorrect* assumptions about the enemy, as all the uses of it that I've come across it is applied with a very broad brush.   Sageman is careful to point out that his study ignores the networks of other Miltant Islamic groups that the West is entangled with such as Shi'ite organizations, the Palestinians (who are a subject all on their own), regional/local groups aimed at a "near" enemy (such as those in Egypt, Algeria, or Chechnya), and tribal groups that really play to their own tune (Taliban) - he avoids these because their groups have different aims, motivations, organization and character that the Global Salafist Jihad and Al Qaeda have, and mixing them up would muddy any idea of who the enemy is.   I've never seen "Islamofascist" attempt to make this distinction; it paints the enemy as one mass of Koran-pounding, goose-stepping, Jewish hating martyrs ready to convert the world by the sword - clearly this is an interpretation that will do us no favours in attempting to interpret the motivations and the actions of the enemy in an effort to find better ways of killing him.

Infanteer


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2005)

"Dar el Islam" and "Dar el Harb".  You are either in the house of submission, or the house of the struggle for submission.  Don't kid yourself you're not at "war" in some people's views.  It only takes one party to make war; you can either respond or not.


----------



## DG-41 (8 Sep 2005)

Life is never that simple. You cannot paint all Islam with the same brush, any more than you could Christianity. Consider the differences between Roman Catholics, Greek Orthadox, Seventh-Day Adventests, and Mormons - all ostensibly Christian, but with vastly different philosophies and intentions.

There is also tremendous value in developing empathy for the enemy; understanding his motives for fighting, what he seeks to gain, what has driven him to the extremes that he has chosen. Understanding the enemy helps you defeat the enemy.

There is also no shame in if, during one's analysis of the enemies motives, you discover a big fat "mea culpa" and then seek to rectify the situation. Defeating the enemy by removing his motivation to fight - by fixing the problems that you may have caused - is every bit as effective as killing every single last enemy soldier, far easier to attain, and morally right.

It is right and proper to combat the people who are doing bad things to you. It is equally right to fix the problems (assuming they exist) that drove them to doing bad things to you.

In a way, one can see the entire Marshall Plan following WW2 as both a rejection of and a restitution for the Treaty of Versailles following WW1.

This can indeed be slippery and nebulous philosophical territory - the WW1 Allies did not put Hitler in power, did not create Nazism, did not explicitly put Germany on the path to war. But the onerous sanctions imposed by Versailles created the conditions that allowed Hitler and friends to come to power and proceed from there, so there is a certain degree of culpability amongst the Allies of WW1 for what happened during WW2. So too there exists a certain degree of culpability in the West for what has been going on in the Islamic states, and it behooves us to identify those cases and rectify those situations, every bit as much as it behooves us to hunt down those responsible for acts of violence. The two tasks are not at odds with each other.

Now it seems to me that the large part of the history of the 20th century involves the West getting involved with regional conflicts without understanding the complete situation, taking action based on completely unfounded assumptions, and making things FAR worse in the process. The war in Vietnam is the poster child for this (watch "Fog of War" to see how and why) and I think Iraq is a repeat of the same mess. Our actions in Afganistan, at least so far, appear to be better founded and better conducted.

But it also seems to me that a fair amount of the animosity towards the West in Middle Eastern, Islamic countries stems from Western meddling in affairs poorly understood. It seems to me that every time the West gets involved, we serve more as a distraction and a focal point, than problem solvers (although the pressure applied to Israel to fix the Palestinian problem may be a case of positive meddling)

I think the West would be best served by cleaning up the messes in which we are directly involved (Israel, Afganistan, and sadly, Iraq) and otherwise staying clear of meddling in the politics of the area, and let Muslims sort out their internal development free of our ham-handed attempts to influence things.

This, of course, runs the risk that the "bad guys" win - but that then sets the stage for direct, conventional conflict, rather than all the shadow war stuff.

DG


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2005)

Huh?


----------



## paracowboy (8 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Huh?


what he said


----------



## KevinB (8 Sep 2005)

WTF?

 DG - here's a hint they won't rest till your dead or converted to Islam (and they even kill 'less Islamic' Islamics)

But I'm sure your appoligist attitude will get you far  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2005)

Some adherents of Islam have stated frankly their intentions to export and impose the religion and its values and rules everywhere.  Whatever fraction of Muslims living in non-Islamic nations doesn't directly participate, be it 99.99% or more, may not be lifting a finger to advance that aim but the interesting question is whether they are lifting any fingers to prevent it or will simply be content with the result if the activists are successful.  There is assuredly a conflict of values and policy.  Some may choose not to call it "war" if that soothes sensibilities, but the mere absence of army groups and fleets shouldn't distract us from the policy which is being pursued by other means.  A rose by any other name...

Doubtless our enemies have something resembling campaign plans or at least visions, and I am confident that in all cases one of the intermediate goals is to establish a toehold state or superstate with the appropriate religion, laws, and ruling caste.  It is surely "western interference" if we thwart that intermediate goal.  Should we stand aside and grant that decisive point unfought if we believe there is a greater and longer term struggle at stake?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some may choose not to call it "war" if that soothes sensibilities, but the mere absence of army groups and fleets shouldn't distract us from the policy which is being pursued by other means.   A rose by any other name...



Bingo.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Sep 2005)

Interestingly, the Qur'an does in fact state that other religions are unacceptable to God if one knows the ways of Islam (The Qur'an, 3:85)

This is qualified in the following link on the website of the University of Southern California's Department of Muslin Studies...Islam as the only valid religion?

!Ã˜Â§Ã™â€žÃ˜Â³Ã™â€žÃ˜Â§Ã™â€¦ Ã˜Â¹Ã™â€žÃ™Å Ã™Æ’Ã™â€¦
Duey


----------



## paracowboy (8 Sep 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the Qur'an does in fact state that other religions are unacceptable to God if one knows the ways of Islam (The Qur'an, 3:85)
> 
> This is qualified in the following link on the website of the University of Southern California's Department of Muslin Studies...Islam as the only valid religion?
> 
> ...


the problem is that certain people will always pick and choose which parts of their religion they will follow devoutly, and which rules they will follow, and which part of which books they will read to enforce their beliefs. (If you can follow that.)

Certain types of people will use their religious faith to enforce their personal agendas. Nothing new, there. The bad part is the scale of damage possible is so much greater.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2005)

Paracowboy is right.  The problem is not what is contained in the Qu'ran, but how people attempt to use it.  Like the Bible, the Qu'ran is filled with verses that are reflective of the time and culture in which it comes from.

Equally important are the _maddhabs_, the schools of jurisprudence that built upon the Qu'ran and the Hadith.  There are additional prescriptions on how a good Muslim should carry out his life on earth - many of these would be useful when attempting to fight the enemy *through his own frame of reference*.  One notion I've touched upon is Dar al-Ahd (I've also seen it mentioned as Dar al-Suhl), which legitimizes nations outside of Islam that have treaties with the Islamic world (thus proscribing jihad against them).  I can't speak for the veracity of globalsecurity's info, but here is a nice list of the Maddhabs to give you an idea of the branches within Islam.

Now, the problem with dealing with the Salafists is, as I understand, that they refuse to accept any of the maddhabs (or the Shia), denouncing them as apostates.  Anything after the initial generation of Muhammed and his companions (the Salaf or predecessors) is Islam gone bad - they believe pure Islam can only be found in the Qu'ran and the Hadith.  Salifism doesn't necessarily have to be militant - it exists peacefully in the Tablighi branch - but when it does, it breeds revivalists extremists.  Much of what we see is the product of Qutb, who modernized Salafist thought by reaching back to Taymiya's notion of _jahiliyya_, which was drawn up to allow Muslims to fight Mongols who converted to Islam without breaking the Golden rule of Muslims fighting Muslims.

It seems to me that the Salafists will be a do-or-die group to deal with.  Cut off their supply and deliver hell and brimstone upon them.  The trick is to do this without throwing the rest of the Muslim world in their corner....

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## paracowboy (8 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Paracowboy is right.


at all times, and in all things!



> It seems to me that the Salafists will be a do-or-die group to deal with.  Cut off their supply and deliver heck and brimstone upon them.  The trick is to do this without throwing the rest of the Muslim world in their corner....


well, they seem to do that pretty well themselves. By blowing up innocents in the various Muslim nations, they rapidly turn the local populace against them. It seems to me, from reports on the ground (at the sharp end, and not the view from the air-conditioned bar in the local hotel), that in every nation, the Salafists are more dis-liked than the Crusader armies in place, or the tourists partying.


----------



## KevinB (8 Sep 2005)

Listening to the boys on the ground in Iraq, the locals are WAY more accepting them these days than they where months ago.  Especially with a legitimate government forming in Iraq, and the attacks on it and its security forces, the same folk the Americans are being atacked by...


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Sep 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> This can indeed be slippery and nebulous philosophical territory - the WW1 Allies did not put Hitler in power, did not create Nazism, did not explicitly put Germany on the path to war. But the onerous sanctions imposed by Versailles created the conditions that allowed Hitler and friends to come to power and proceed from there, so there is a certain degree of culpability amongst the Allies of WW1 for what happened during WW2.



 :
If you ever get robbed, I hope the cops tell you that you're "culpuable to a certain degree" because you were carrying a wallet.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> I think the West would be best served by cleaning up the messes in which we are directly involved (Israel, Afganistan, and sadly, Iraq) and otherwise staying clear of meddling in the politics of the area, and let Muslims sort out their internal development free of our ham-handed attempts to influence things.
> 
> This, of course, runs the risk that the "bad guys" win - but that then sets the stage for direct, conventional conflict, rather than all the shadow war stuff.



That's been discussed before.  Isolationism doesn't work.  It never has.  And in our modern global economy it would be an even worse failiure than it was when the yanks and japs tried it.  Wether you like it or not, we're all connected to eachother and we cannot afford to sit on our asses.  Trying to make tihngs better, and making mistakes along the way, will always be better than sitting back and hoping things turn out ok.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2005)

Interesting look into Islam today.   I was going through some MEMRI translations of Hadji TV and I found this interview.   It is my own opinion that this is going to be one important facet of winning the war - convincing much of the Islamic world *within its own frame of reference* that many of its actions are not those of a good Muslim.   Call it Psyops or whatever, but this will be important to undercut the support of Militant Islam.

We will have to seek out the thoughts and ideas of men like this Saudi scholar - these learned men of the Ulema have much weight in determining what is the action of a good Muslim (so much so that Osama bin Laden adopted his own _shura_ of _alim_ to justify his jihad against America - Islam is probably one of the most communal of religions and, as I understand it, demands consensus).   Muslims are more likely to listen this man then they are to an Westerner.

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S2

Anyways, going through Islam to undercut Militant Islam will probably be a vital tool in winning - not the only tool, but an important one none-the-less (as an example, look to how the US courted al-Sistani following the fall of Iraq).

Anyways, just more grist for the mill
Infanteer

[edit: fixed the link]


----------



## paracowboy (10 Sep 2005)

I would have thought this to be self-evident. That's what Hearts and Minds campaigns are: convincing the locals that you are the good guys and your enemies are the bad guys, and using their own frame of reference to do so. That's what the SAS did, US SF, USMC CAP, etc. It does no good to try and apply your mentality to the PsyOps campaigns. You gotta get in their (whomever "they" may be, this campaign) heads.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2005)

Well, I knew you would know the answer Paracowboy....


----------

