4
   

major incident in London

 
 
churchofME
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 10:20 am
I think now is a good time to re-assess the war on terror, it's methods and it's operational areas.

For this discussion let's set aside the Palastinian question and Lebanon which have generally been regional conflicts.

The great rallying cries, muster points and training centres for modern Islamic fundamentalism have been:
1. Afghanistan in the 1980's
2. Chechnya and Bosnia in the early 1990's
3. Kosovo and Chechnya in the late 1990's
4. Afghanistan again
5. Iraq

There are well established lines of continuity of personnel, tactics, and doctrine which connect these conflict zones together.

The most worrying ones for Europe in the future are bosnia and kosovo.
Both of them are in continental Europe.
Both of them are fairly lawless areas run by fundamentalists who have either supported, advocated and in the case of kosovo actually committed brutal acts of terror against christians.
Both places seek independence and are actively seeking entry into the European Union.
Furthermore for some unknown reason both areas are currently supported and propped up by europe and america.
Bosnia and kosovo are the only places on the list where we are not actively hunting down islamic terrorists.
Its a trojan horse in europe!!

If europe wants to take a large step forward in protecting itself from terror then the war on terror needs to go to the balkans.

America as well should be wary of the goings on in the balkans, afterall OBL was given a bosnian passport and several of the 9/11 hijackers operated openly in the balkans during the 1990's

If we are to win the war on terror through military solutions then they must be properly targeted. Otherwise we just make the problem worse (i.e. Iraq) and take our eye off the ball. Lets get serious and start dealing with the threat on our doostep, not just the threats from further afield.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:00 am
nimh wrote:
... I know a lot of people who think going to war in Iraq served no proportional reason in terms of the war on terrorism, and is in fact strengthening the hands of our opponents in that war every day. There's been even government reports underlining that the Iraq war is increasing the number of our opponents, not depleting them.

Any rhetorical insinuation that those who think the Iraq war was and is a folly in terms of fighting the war on terrorism in fact must just be opposing the war on terrorism is baseless and despicable. It should be far below your standards, Timber, and the only excuse I can come up with for it is that you must still be very upset. I expect you to come back on it.


I know some folks don't - or won't - see that the Iraq matter is a component - a major component - of the War on Terrorism. The entire WMD deal - as presented by both sides - is a distraction, a misdirection, IMO, and I've stated as much any number of times. As far as I'm concerned, The Administration erred in using it as the key selling point, and The Opposition errs in saying Iraq has been exonerated in regard to WMD.

And yes, I am upset - I'm upset that partisan politics wholly unrelated to The War on Terror have overshadowed and distorted perceptions of what is before us. I have no quarrel with those who conscientously oppose war in and of itself - war is destable. What perturbs me is what I see to be the shortsighted, wrong-headed politicization of The War on Terror. I feel very strongly that we ("we" as in "Civilization") are in it, we didn't start it, it was brought to us, that we have taken the fight to the enemy, that we can and must win the fight, and that we are doing so.

I hold no illusion that the struggle will be without setback, or that it soon will be over, or that the enemy is anything but fanatically committed, ruthless, unprincipled, and by defintion evil - not the footsoldier, the "average muslim" from whose ranks the leaders draw their unfortunate dupes, but the leaders of the footsoldiers, those who twist and pervert a religion, and now twist and pervert a liberation from tyrany, to press their fascist agenda.

I'm not anti-muslim, but I am irrevocably anti-armed militant radical islamofascist.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:06 am
timberlandko wrote:
nimh wrote:

I'm not anti-muslim, but I am irrevocably anti-armed militant radical islamofascist.


Mmmh, I'm not anti those who start sentences with "I'm not anti-xxx ....", but lifelong experience and history has taught ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:09 am
timberlandko wrote:
I know some folks don't - or won't - see that the Iraq matter is a component - a major component - of the War on Terrorism.

Quite. Then don't assert that those of us who opposed the war in Iraq are against the war on terrorism (as in, "some folks still fail - or refuse - to understand what The War on Terrorism is about, [..] how foolish it is to oppose the war.").

We are not; we disagree with you about how to fight it.

In fact, we think you're doing a lousy job of it, and are quite upset about that ourselves.

timberlandko wrote:
And yes, I am upset - I'm upset that partisan politics wholly unrelated to The War on Terror have overshadowed and distorted perceptions of what is before us.

Good. So am I. Accusing the other side of opposing The War on Terror whenever they disagree with your folks on how to fight it, I would say, is exactly such "partisan politics". Pshaw, I say.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:23 am
You've prolly got something of a point, nimh - I'm likely as guilty of hyperbole and overgeneralization as are those I oppose.

On the other hand, I simply cannot agree with you that the US prosecution of the War on Terror is being handled poorly, nor can I agree with those who ascribe motive of personal gain or other general malfeasance to the principals of The Administration in their conduct of the war. That last really riles me up.

I see a lot today of what I saw while Reagan was effectively winning the Cold War. History will tell.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:27 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
I'm not anti-muslim, but I am irrevocably anti-armed militant radical islamofascist.


Mmmh, I'm not anti those who start sentences with "I'm not anti-xxx ....", but lifelong experience and history has taught ...


... has taught you what? You can state a point on these threads, Walter. You aren't penalized for completing a thought, you know. No bonus points for making others guess at what you mean to say.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 11:53 am
churchofME wrote:
For this discussion let's set aside the Palastinian question and Lebanon which have generally been regional conflicts.

Yeah, lets set aside the one single major rallying focus for the Islamic cause. Just for argument's sake.

churchofME wrote:
The most worrying ones for Europe in the future are bosnia and kosovo. [..] Both of them are fairly lawless areas run by fundamentalists

Bosnia is run by fundamentalists?

Reality check: High Representative Paddy Ashdown basically has veto power over all fundamental government questions at hand there.

Under him, of course, you have the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina: three men, of which one (Christian-Orthodox) Serb, one Muslim and one (Catholic) Croat.

The national government meanwhile is composed of five parties, including the main Serb, Croat and Muslim parties (SDS, HDZ and SDA).

Otherwise, the country is divided into two constituent parts: the Republika Srpska, where Serbs dominate government and parliament, and the Federation, currently ruled by a Croatian President, a Muslim Prime Minister and Serb and Muslim Vice-Presidents.

Run by Islamic fundamentalists?

churchofME wrote:
who have either supported, advocated and in the case of kosovo actually committed brutal acts of terror against christians.

Yup. There have been brutal acts of violence in Kosovo by Albanians against Serbs, since the war ended. Dont know how religion, rather than nationality/ethnicity suddenly gets to be the label for the violence here, but sure.

Of course, that was after the Serbs committed brutal acts of violence against Albanians, on a much larger scale. Doesnt make any of it better, but perhaps fair to include...

Meanwhile in Bosnia, the "brutal acts of terror" that raged so ruthlessly in all directions (Serbs against Muslims, first of all, then Croats against Muslims, Muslims against Serbs, Muslims against Croats) have pretty much ceased since the war, if mostly thanks to international oversight.

Again I dont see how that then gets translated into Muslims "supporting and advocating" violence against Christians - period.

Last news item I heard was - just this week! - about how they defused a bomb that was set to explode during the commemoration in Srebrenica of the thousands of Muslims who were captured and killed there in the war.

If it had not been discovered, that would have been a major terrorist attack against the Muslims, which could have killed a lot of family members who had been lucky enough to survive back then.

churchofME wrote:
Both places seek independence and are actively seeking entry into the European Union.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is already independent. (Sorry, but do you have any clue what you're talking about?)

churchofME wrote:
Furthermore for some unknown reason both areas are currently supported and propped up by europe and america.

To be more precise, it is the international organisations in which EU and US play a dominating role that actually administer the places. In Kosovo it's a UN administrator (currently Søren Jessen-Petersen) who has far-reaching veto powers over the government of the country, just like Ashdown does in Bosnia.

The "unknown reason", by the way, probably has something to do with Europe and America having bombed the fighting parties in both places into a cease-fire a few years ago ... we took over control back then and are still there.

churchofME wrote:
Bosnia and kosovo are the only places on the list where we are not actively hunting down islamic terrorists.
Its a trojan horse in europe!!

Ehm ... international administrators (in Kosovo appointed by the UN, in Bosnia appointed by a Steering Board of 55 countries and international organisations) are actually in charge of these countries - and that's bad, because we shouldn't be propping these countries up, right? But at the same time the accusation is that we're not in there, hunting for terrorists? <scratches head>

Reality check: just last March, those international administrators actually apprehended the Prime Minister of Kosovo and sent him to The Hague to appear before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 01:36 pm
timberlandko wrote:
You've prolly got something of a point, nimh - I'm likely as guilty of hyperbole and overgeneralization as are those I oppose.

On the other hand, I simply cannot agree with you that the US prosecution of the War on Terror is being handled poorly, nor can I agree with those who ascribe motive of personal gain or other general malfeasance to the principals of The Administration in their conduct of the war. That last really riles me up.

I see a lot today of what I saw while Reagan was effectively winning the Cold War. History will tell.


The difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror is immense. In the Cold War you dealt with another centralized state with a conventional army. You had two clearly defined entities competing for dominance. Terrorism is vague, and the terrorists themselves are an amorphous enemy. Terrorism is a tactic, and certainly not the monopoly of "Islamic fundamentalists", and it is something the U.S. itself is guilty of. To declare war on a tactic is foolish. It also explains why there is no clear endpoint in sight, and why people like Rumsfeld and Bush can state that this conflict will last as long as it takes, which means it can be years or decades or even a century.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 04:02 pm
The difference between the Cold War and The War on Terrorism is that the Soviet ideology that defined The West's opponent collapsed, while the ideology that defines our opponents in The War on Terror is not yet defeated. Certainly, by its amorrphous, stateless nature, Terrorism is more difficult to mentally compartmentalize than "The Soviet Threat", but in the end, there is little difference. The ideology is the enemy, and will be defeated.

And it is ludicrous to the point of sheer stupidity to seek to impose a timetable on a war, or to define an endpoint other than victory. That one might propose such indicates that one has no concept of the reality of war.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 04:11 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I see a lot today of what I saw while Reagan was effectively winning the Cold War. History will tell.

As much as one would like to ascribe personal responsibility for ending the Cold War to Ronald Reagan, the fact is that the citizens within the USSR had much more to do with toppling it than the U.S. ever did.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 04:13 pm
Reagan won the cold war is a favorite conservative myth, DD, don't rain all over the parade, now.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 04:41 pm
... and insisting that it had nothing to do with the military buildup under Reagan is a favorite liberal mantra. So let's none of us rock the boat, huh?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 05:02 pm
DrewDad wrote:
... the citizens within the USSR had much more to do with toppling it than the U.S. ever did.

Granted. None the less, it was Reagan who saw and exploited that vulnerability, and who, despite broadspread and heated opposition foreign and domestic, still was standing when the dust settled. Perhaps all he did was provide the push which sundered the already decrepit edifice, but he pushed. That war is over, and he is remembered as being the victor.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 05:22 pm
IF anyone is credited with the downfall of the USSR it should be Lech Walesa but tnen, he was a leftist, a republican horroshow a union organizer. Reagan, on the other hand was a union buster whose only defense from crimial charges (were there 11 convictions?) was "I don't remember." Nixon even commented that Reagan must have been a genius to avoid impeachment of far more serious crimes than himself by the simple(minded) defense "I don't remember." To give credit where it's due, Reagan in his fall-back from the bombing in Lebanon sucessfully invaded Grenada. Death Valley Days was Reagans career highpoint.
0 Replies
 
churchofME
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 05:47 pm
Bin Laden's Balkan Connections

KLA are Terrorists and Drug-dealers, The Washington Media Finally Admits
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 06:25 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
... and insisting that it had nothing to do with the military buildup under Reagan is a favorite liberal mantra. So let's none of us rock the boat, huh?


The aggregate of the Soviet Union's military "over-extension" was not the sole product of Reagan's economically irresponsible military build-up either. The decision to go into Afghanistan before Reagan was a glimmer on the political horizon was the proximate cause of the Soviet inability to maintain their economy. People throughout the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc took advantage as the Soviet commitment in Afghanistan deepened, most notably in the Baltic Republics. This lead to even further military commitments. Ironically, Marxist doctrine refuses to see the proletariat as cannon fodder, so beyond two years of national service, the Soviets could not compel service--even their lower ranking NCO's were taken from the ranks of the conscripted, because too few career private soldiers signed up to fill all of the NCO slots. As their situation demanded more and more troops, they were obliged to offer more and more to recruit and retain NCOs, officers and special forces. Most of this had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. The Soviet Union itself was as responsible for the Cold War situation which each President from Truman was obliged to deal with both militarily and dimplomatically. Reagan had no more, and no less to do with the outcome than any other President in that period. Let's not muddy the waters unnecessarily, OK?
0 Replies
 
churchofME
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 06:49 pm
Also Nimh

The Muslims are more than capable of planting explosive at Srebrenica themselves. Explosives which were planted days before the commemoration and which were found and diffused after a tip off.

Even if the explosive devices had gone off at the commemoration this would be nothing new to Bosnia, What about the Markale Marketplace bombings in 1994 and 95, and firing mortars from hospitals to elicit return attacks and using civilian hostages or shields.

All this they have already done to Further their propaganda of victimization and retain western support for their fundamentalist movement.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 06:50 pm
re Setanta's post:
Yes, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan in December of 1979, but it had economic problems earlier already.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 09:58 pm
timberlandko wrote:
we didn't start it


Do we have any blame in it at all?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 10:45 pm
satt_fs wrote:
re Setanta's post:
Yes, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan in December of 1979, but it had economic problems earlier already.


Yes, and that just underlines my point that all the hooraw about Reagan "winning" the cold war and bringing down the Soviet Union is just that--hooraw.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:35:09