Our War is not against Terrorism

?
"Then the moderate religious leaders go out and preach the gospel of non-violence to the extremists and make them stop teaching little kids to hate non-Muslims. The religious groups within the country excommunicate or otherwise forbid the extremists from practicing their own perversion of the religion, and the extremists lose all their followers. "

Simplistic fantasy.

What the US has done is inflame the majority of Muslims all over the world. Many people think Muslims are only in the ME. There are millions of Muslims in Africa and Indonesia. Buscho has been the greatest recuiter for Al Q. and Al Q has grown huge since Bushco screwed up and invaded Iraq.

A Military solution and torture camps of Al Q. is a failure and will always be a failure.

Al Q. is an enemey that must be negotiated with.

I hear the right wing screams and groans already.

0 Replies

The US does not negotiate with terrorists.

0 Replies

Radikal, we'll send you over to negotiate your acceptance to AQ.

See if they will accept you if you refuse to convert to Islam, I don't think you'll live through it because they are not about acceptance in any way.

There is no room for negotiating with them as history has proven time and again, they only understand accept or die.

You have nice thoughts but your thoughts are nowhere near working in reality.

The centuries old extremist beliefs of AQ and their ilk do not fit into or work with any modern society and they are not about to change by negotiation or any other measure.

0 Replies

I disagree, too. You can't negotiate with Al-Qa'ida. Period. After 9/11, it would be a scandal. Plus, it would have no point. They have nothing to win by compromise, so they wont be looking for one.

Instead, you've got to isolate them by winning over those who might otherwise be won over by them - then slam them, period.

Isolating Al Qa'ida might involve compromising with Arab governments and popular opinion on "hot potatoes" Al Qa'ida is now preying on. Departure of US troops from Saudi-Arabia, for example. Mow the grass away from under their feet, as we say here.

But never deal with Al Qa'ida itself - deal with moderate forces, instead, that you will be seen to "reward" that way. Don't ever reward Al-Qa'ida. In fact, hunt down its leaders, arrest them, convict them and put them away.

Gotta deal with them in such a way that you dont trigger a flow of sympathy & sympathisers into their direction. So dont stoop to their level. I can imagine taking Osama out with a rocket, but otherwise - no torture, no homocide. Keep the moral high ground. Its the one selling point you got in the long run, in persuading the Arab mainstream to join you - or at least not join them.

Thaz the way I see 'em.

0 Replies

McGentrix

McGentrix wrote:

The US does not negotiate with terrorists.

How quickly you forget Ronald Reagan's adverture of trading arms for hostages when convenient for your theory.

BBB

0 Replies

How quickly you jump to the wrong information regarding arms for hostages...

0 Replies

How did the Iran/Contra deal not involve "negotiating with terrorists", McG?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I disagree, too. You can't negotiate with Al-Qa'ida. Period. After 9/11, it would be a scandal. Plus, it would have no point. They have nothing to win by compromise, so they wont be looking for one.

Instead, you've got to isolate them by winning over those who might otherwise be won over by them - then slam them, period.

Isolating Al Qa'ida might involve compromising with Arab governments and popular opinion on "hot potatoes" Al Qa'ida is now preying on. Departure of US troops from Saudi-Arabia, for example. Mow the grass away from under their feet, as we say here.

But never deal with Al Qa'ida itself - deal with moderate forces, instead, that you will be seen to "reward" that way. Don't ever reward Al-Qa'ida. In fact, hunt down its leaders, arrest them, convict them and put them away.

Gotta deal with them in such a way that you dont trigger a flow of sympathy & sympathisers into their direction. So dont stoop to their level. I can imagine taking Osama out with a rocket, but otherwise - no torture, no homocide. Keep the moral high ground. Its the one selling point you got in the long run, in persuading the Arab mainstream to join you - or at least not join them.

Thaz the way I see 'em.

Nimh
You put out some good posts but I never have agreed with one in it's entirety------except this one. Keep 'em rolling.

0 Replies

High praise indeed, nimh, could be the start of a beautiful relationship (?)

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

High praise indeed, nimh, could be the start of a beautiful relationship (?)

Nimh----I take most of that back-----my disbelief overcame my good judgement.

0 Replies

Oh good grief.

*I* agree with it wholeheartedly, anyway, which doesn't mean much since I almost always do.

0 Replies

Me 5, accept the part about arresting them. I don't think you can arrest 500-man strong armies that are willing to fight you to the death. Our casualty toll would be enormous. Better to use our superior firepower to remove them, unless of course they're holding up white flags (which isn't terribly likely).

0 Replies

!
The US govt. has negotiated with many of it's enemies, even some terrorsit groups but of course not in public. I feel that Al Q. is not as unyielding or insane as most people espouse. Winning against them is not possible because all it takes for them to inflict damage is a few of them. Thinking that the US Govt. can illiminate them all is a fantasy. Thinking that, so called moderate Islamic Govts. or non Govt. leaders will do the bidding of the US Govt.may garner a few results but it will not stop their Jihad.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:

High praise indeed, nimh, could be the start of a beautiful relationship (?)

and Perc said

Quote:

Nimh----I take most of that back-----my disbelief overcame my good judgement.

And I'm very sorry. My only role here is to bring people together in a spirit of mutual understanding, respect even L*** Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Me 5, accept the part about arresting them. I don't think you can arrest 500-man strong armies that are willing to fight you to the death. Our casualty toll would be enormous.

Yah. I was having second thoughts about that myself. In the end I decided to let it stand as what I propose in principle, in general, bottom line. But in practice I admit I wouldnt be all that upset if I heard the rocket attack meant to take out Osama ended up taking out the whole damned camp.

Still, all in all I think with Al-Qaeda you're not actually much likely to end up against 500-man strong armies, military excursions to Al-Qa'ida's Afghan homebase aside. There's still 18,000 Al-Qaeda people out there, apparently (according to the IISS), but to an overwhelming degree they're decentralised across the globe in small active or passive cells. To roll those up is traditionally more a question of intelligence and detective work leading up to (probably violent) individual arrests than of meeting each other on open battlefield.

In fact, one could say that if you're facing a 500-man army in full battle - say, Sadr's militia - you're not actually dealing with "terrorists" anymore, by definition - thats an enemy army you got there, or a guerrilla one at least.

0 Replies

Quote:

There's still 18,000 Al-Qaeda people out there,

This number seems to me, low, I could be wrong...

At the same time I think it has to be a WAG(wild ass guess), and no one really has a good estimate.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Quote:
There's still 18,000 Al-Qaeda people out there,

This number seems to me, low, I could be wrong...

At the same time I think it has to be a WAG(wild ass guess), and no one really has a good estimate.

Well it wasnt the most convincing element of that report's summary, for sure ...

Basically, the reasoning seemed to be, intel information asserts some 20,000 Al-Qa'ida recruits were trained in Afghan camps until the fall of the Taliban - some 2,000 are known to have been arrested or killed since - ergo ...

But methinks they must have recruited a whole lot of new volunteers, worldwide, over Iraq ... just they might not have had the chance to get an actual AQ-catered training anymore.

So, more than 20,000, probably, but generally not likely to come in army-like units of 500. My 5 c ... :wink:

0 Replies

Indonesia
TERRORISM AND ISLAM IN INDONESIA

SUMMARY:
There are multiple Islamic groups in Indonesia, and many of these are associated with, or accused of being associated with, terrorism. One such group is the Jemaah Islamiyah.

This group, headed by Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, has alleged connections to the Al' Queda terrorist network and is presently held responsible for the October 12, 2002 bombings on the Kuta Beach nightclubs in Bali. We are not sure, though, if this group is actually responsible for the attack, which was perceived as an attack on Australia and the rest of the Western World. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir runs this religious group out of his Islamic school.

This site offers links to articles discussing the effects of these bombings on Indonesia, Australia, and, effectively, the entire world, as well as information about Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, and Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, the individual who was convicted of being responsible for the bombing.

This act of terrorism was not singular in nature though; acts of terrorism occur with great frequency in Indonesia. This is merely an example of the kind of violence that exists in Indonesia and some of the politics that surround it. Indonesian Islam is not entirely based around terrorism, though: it is also a rich cultural and religious presence on the island nation.

http://students.washington.edu/lesliea/terrorism25.htm

0 Replies

Re: Indonesia

Radikal wrote:

This act of terrorism was not singular in nature though; acts of terrorism occur with great frequency in Indonesia. This is merely an example of the kind of violence that exists in Indonesia and some of the politics that surround it.

Hmmmm ... don't think I buy that. The Bali attack seemed strikingly different of character - in terms of target, means and scope - than any of the usual political/religious violence in Indonesia.

Radikal wrote:

Indonesian Islam is not entirely based around terrorism, though: it is also a rich cultural and religious presence on the island nation.

Well, yeh. In fact, considering there's some 200 million Indonesians out there, most of them muslim, and that religion-related violence is mostly confined to specific local ethnic conflicts (eg, Ambon, Timor), I'd say Indonesian Islam is hardly "based around terrorism" at all. Indonesian Islam has a name for being relatively open-minded and undogmatic in fact. Thats why its all the more alarming that AQ-like or -related groups have found a fruitful base even there.

0 Replies

Our War is not against Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know