Counter-Radicalization: Tackling Emotions to Tackle Terrorism

Atrocities are attacks on civilians, not combat between armed forces.

Some of the "combat" that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was indeed attacks on civilians, not on armed forces.

MIT, I see another Viet Nam in the making. I hope we learned something there in relation to the people who will be most affected the citizens of that area. In Viet Nam we turned the people there against us with our policies, but we have a head start in Iraq and the other Moslem countries. They already hate us so maybe if we worked to make them like us we might win. But knowing our Generals and politicians the chances are slim.

Thx Wandel. Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the initiative, just trying to understand it, and how it may avoid some potential issues. I believe in ideological warfare. I'm just worried that it could be fought poorly and prove inefficient or counter-productive. Kids don't tend to respect institutional messages and 'official truths'.

I'm really at a loss when it comes to Viet Nam, and my knowledge is meager. I've heard lots regarding the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war.

I am very aware the US is thoroughly hated in the middle east, and a lot of it is of our own making. Our interest in the middle east has always been oil and one of the reasons the US props up Israel, making the zionist nation a super power in the region with its nuclear facility. Bin Ladin wanted the US completely out of the Middle East. Since the brazen invasion of Iraq by the GWB administration, Arab anger and hatred against the US has been compounded. The fact that we allow Israel to wantonly kill as many Palestinians is unforgivable, and the double standard used by America. Instead of censuring Israel, the US vetoes all resolutions against the Zionist nation at the UN. The US allows Israel to take as much land as it wants from the Palestinians and only pay lip service to this.

No wonder the Middle East hates the US. What's not to understand?!

And those are atrocities and should be punished, but that's very different from a blanket condemnation of all NATO troops in Afghanistan.

In a related topic regarding Middle East culture, I must mention a conversation I had with a top tech computer specialist this past Sunday. My Microsoft Word would not allow me to begin a new letter, yet I could do so with older Microsoft word document by deleting the contents. I called the company and they said my current version was outdated and I needed to upgrade. Fine, I was able to download a copy or rather Microsoft's computer technician took control of my computer and downloaded a copy to my computer for $139.99. It took some time because he had to upgrade fonts etc to go along with the new copy, and while waiting we got into an engaging conversation.

It was clear to me he was from Asia because of the heavy accent and we got to talking regarding the middle east conflicts. He said he was from India but was Muslim. I mentioned to him I could not understand why people in the middle east use all the latest technology, like Cell phone, computers, the Internet, etc, yet they still cut off heads, and a hand if one is caught stealing.

The Muslim Computer technician for Microsoft said he agreed they should not cut off hands because people have to make a living and with one hand it's harder to get a job. He suggested a foot should be chopped off instead!!!!!!!!!

This Muslim Indian appeared so intelligent with computers but yet so totally backwards when it came to handing out punishment for a trivial crime of stealing food by a hungry person. Had I not been a part of the conversation I would have found it difficult to believe.

Frank Apisa is correct in that with the cultural, religious mindset of many Arab countries in the middle east, a dictator is what is needed and when they are ready to change, it will have to emerge from within the culture as it cannot be imposed.

In Iraq, the new government is encouraged to make a priority to bring in the Kurds, Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs, so every demographic will be represented as part of the Iraq government, something Maliki,the former Iraqi president refused to do.

Have a good evening, Rabel.

No blanket condemnation from me. I posted: "some of the servicemen who fought in Afghanistan or Iraq did... "

No more paranoia; we shud be safe from Saddam,
at least until Halloween.



He DID.



He got into 2 wars with us, anyway.



Your post tacitly ASSUMES
that he was of sound mind. I don t.
He was a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us,
living next door to a lot of nukes.



Yes.




Well, I was among those yelling for him to do it.
I 'm glad that he did; better late than never.



Not likely, in my opinion.





David

Saddam Hussein was homicidal, but he was no maniac. He was not in the business of suicide.

The first war was a miscalculation, the second war was unavoidable. The American president was a homicidal maniac with a grudge, and nukes.

And a father who had been humiliated by Saddam.

I remain skeptical of his mental health.


He coud have and shud have negotiated it away.
W was almost begging for it.


That criticism is un-justified.

No he wasn't, he was determined to invade Iraq the moment he took office. 9/11 gave him the excuse he was looking for.



I think it's spot on. He was champing at the bit to invade Iraq. Some people have suggested 9/11 was either a CIA job, or it was allowed to happen. I wouldn't go that far, but it was a real gift for Dubya's ambitions.

Yes. I was very enthusiastic about that, too.
His dad botched the job, leaving Saddam intact.
We needed W to clean up that mess.

Yes, but even so, Saddam coud have negotiated it away.
W gave him plenty of opportunity.





David

Negotiated away? He had no WMDs. UN investigator Hans Blix asked for more time to verify there were no WMDs. George Bush refused. Where's the negotiation?

W was too damn slow.
Saddam had enuf time to get them to Syria.
I wonder if thay r still there ?

Do u think that the King of England looked upon the American Revolution
as a religious war ??????




I dont remember the details, but there were a lot of them.
Its been a while. It took forever to get that invasion going; frustrating!

I have no idea what George III thought, he went mad you know.


Iraq had no WMDs, that's a fact. Hans Blix was not given more time to verify said fact, that's another fact.

All your stuff about Syria is speculation. Stick to the facts.

Forget the details; here's the big picture:

THE US FOUND NO WMD IN IRAQ WHATSOEVER, AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ANY PRIOR TO THE INVASION.

I hope you get it. If you forget it again, I stand ready to remind you, every single day if necessary...

This is one of those rare occasions where I not only agree with you completely, Olivier...I also want to let the world (particularly David) know that I do.

Me too. Before they changed A2K I was in the Iraq thread under "revelette" for a couple of years arguing against it. I mean, it was so out in the left field at the time to say the least about it.