Why terrorism will fail

I can virtually guarantee you that if Sharon and Israel decided to cease any and all retaliatory attacks against the Palestinians that the homicide bombings would continue. The Palestinians will not cease until (a) they have killed every Jew within their reach (good luck on that one) or (b) they are given their land back (good luck on that one as well).

But just because what their doing is completely wrong, doesn't mean they don't have a vaild point.

What was their point? You're discussing two different issues. The conflict with the Israelis/Palestinians does not correlate with the events of 9/11.

PS - Sorry to hear about your Uncle.

 

I'm not saying that Sharon should sit on his hands and do nothing, but I think that in this particular instance, he should have given Abbas a chance to make good on his promise to handle it.

 

you have an excellent idea. Thats the way it should be done, and the right thing to do as well. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.

That's way I did agree that it was a good theory. Abbs in know leading Palestinians. Maybe like DG said it's time someone else was leading the people of Israel. Sharon and Arafat had the chance and well look what happened dead people on both sides.

America is pretty much just watching

WE have tired to help by getting both sides to sit down. But still it again Sharon and Arafat were not helping. Arafat is gone. So know there is only Sharon. Also to we trying to fix something it has been going on for some odd 1000's years. So really other then may theory I don't really see any way of getting ether side to stop. But I here what your saying to. I just don't really agree with that one side should be the one to give up if the other side won't won't give up ether.

Edit: But again I think DG is right it's time for someone else to lead the people of Israel.

Edit: I'm not saying that Sharon should sit on his hands and do nothing, but I think that in this particular instance, he should have given Abbas a chance to make good on his promise to handle it.

DG this it the Frist I have really agreed with you on anything. Your right. Sharon did not give Abbs a chance. Not only that but like Arafat Sharon has failed.

 

I'm not saying that Sharon should sit on his hands and do nothing, but I think that in this particular instance, he should have given Abbas a chance to make good on his promise to handle it.

How many chances do they get?

 

How many chances do they get?

It's not how many chances but let's see Abbs at work and see what he can do. If he does nothing then ok Sharon can go for. But if Abbs is able to do something then there is some hope.

 

How many chances do they get?

Abbas is a new face, and he seems determined enough to do the job (or did; Israel's last strike seems to have pissed him off). Given just a little time, he could have taken the appropriate steps; now, it seems like Israel's decided that he doesn't matter.

 

Abbas is a new face, and he seems determined enough to do the job (or did; Israel's last strike seems to have pissed him off). Given just a little time, he could have taken the appropriate steps; now, it seems like Israel's decided that he doesn't matter.

Point taken about Abbas being new. However, let's be real here. How many of these attacks, in your opinion, should Israel absorb while they let Abbas work the kinks out?

 

Of course it's his job to protect his people, but what has this constant retaliation accomplished, except to perpetuate the cycle?

It has achieved nothing accept maintain the Status Quo and ensure that the peace process cannot progress. That is certainly what some members of his cabinet want and given his own record I suspect that this is also what he wants.

 

So I say get Sharon out of there. He is no longer helping. I really feel that someone else coudl really ehlp Israel. Someone who will work with Abbs. And someone Abbs can work with.

And again like DG said give the new guy a chance to see what he can do. If does something and helps put a stop to it good for him he's taken that frsit step. But if he does nothing then well...

 

It has achieved nothing accept maintain the Status Quo and ensure that the peace process cannot progress. That is certainly what some members of his cabinet want and given his own record I suspect that this is also what he wants.

Status quo? What are you implying?

So I say get Sharon out of there. He is no longer helping. I really feel that someone else coudl really ehlp Israel. Someone who will work with Abbs. And someone Abbs can work with.

It doesn't matter. You can have Sharon, Billy Crystal or Goldberg in that seat and it wouldn't matter. Any leader of the Israeli people has an obligation to protect his people when attacked. Bottom line.

Middle East peace is a pipe dream.

 

Moon, your right, 9/11 and the Israeli conflict have nothing to do with each other. My point was that even though my first thought was to go to afgahnistan myself and kill osama, after thinking about it I realized that although what they did was wrong 100%, all they want is liberation much like we did in the Revolution. They are defienetly going about it the wrong way, and because of it alot of Israelis don't have uncles, fathers, and/or mothers. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they deserve, just as much as the Jews deserve, to have their own land, which Israel contiually denys the Palestinians. I figure that if both sides would just let things be, and Israel would just give them the Gaza and West Bank, things would get better. As far as Osama goes, I say kill em all for what they did to me and hundereds of other families, but understand that Osama is a product of American training. We did train him, and now we wonder how he did what he did.

PS
Thanks Moon for my uncle. But obviously it wasn't your fault so no need to apologize, but thanks anyways man!!

 

My point was that even though my first thought was to go to afgahnistan myself and kill osama, after thinking about it I realized that although what they did was wrong 100%, all they want is liberation much like we did in the Revolution.

Heh? I think you're confusing the issues again. UBL's actions are in no way comparable to the American Revolution.


As far as Osama goes, I say kill em all for what they did to me and hundereds of other families, but understand that Osama is a product of American training. We did train him, and now we wonder how he did what he did.

We didn't train UBL to seek out the extermination of America and the Jewish people.

 

Moon,

Im not sayin OBL and the PLO conflict are the same. im just using osama as an example to demonstrate that I know how the Israelis feel, that that the Palestinians still have a valid cause.

And although Im sure the CIA didn't train osama to kill Americans and Jews, we still trained him. So he's like an experiment gone bad. Thats what Im saying, America made a mistake, and now its coming back to haunt us.

 

And although Im sure the CIA didn't train osama to kill Americans and Jews, we still trained him. So he's like an experiment gone bad. Thats what Im saying, America made a mistake, and now its coming back to haunt us.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He is not an experiment gone bad. We trained him to resist Soviet occupation of his land. We did not train him to organize world-wide terrorist activities.

 

And although Im sure the CIA didn't train osama to kill Americans and Jews, we still trained him

PPOR

There is no credible evidence that Osama received training from the CIA.

 

The CIA admitted to training Osama a few months after 9/11... and its in the 9/11 report that was shown to the publc.

Second, we trained Osama to resist the Soviets because they occupied Afghanistan. Ain't it ironic how now we occupy his homeland of Saudi Arabia? Although its not a military occupation, we have troops there, and he's not liking that too much. We did train him, and now we regret we did

 

Second, we trained Osama to resist the Soviets because they occupied Afghanistan. Ain't it ironic how now we occupy his homeland of Saudi Arabia? Although its not a military occupation, we have troops there, and he's not liking that too much. We did train him, and now we regret we did

You really have your facts distorted. We do not occupy Saudi Arabia. Seriously, where do you come up with this garbage? Yes, we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. That's not a secret. But to say that the United States is occupying Saudi Arabia is absurd and does nothing to bolster any argument you might have.

 

The CIA admitted to training Osama a few months after 9/11... and its in the 9/11 report that was shown to the publc.

Second, we trained Osama to resist the Soviets because they occupied Afghanistan. Ain't it ironic how now we occupy his homeland of Saudi Arabia? Although its not a military occupation, we have troops there, and he's not liking that too much. We did train him, and now we regret we did

Again I say PPOR. This is a wild myth that has no basis in reality. Osama was spouting his anti-american hatred way back in the early 1980's and the CIA hardly played a role in Afghanistan apart from funding which went through the ISI.

 

no no no no.. bad choice of words on my part. What i meant to say was that we have troops in Saudi Arabia, and he doesn't like this. He even volunteered to help expel Saddam from Kuwait, but the Saudis said no and let the Americans help instead of him. That pissed him off, and since then he doesn't like the fact that American troops are in Saudi. Thats what I meant to say.. Ididn't mean that they were occupying it like Israel occupys the West Bank. Bad choice of word and I apologize

 

What i meant to say was that we have troops in Saudi Arabia, and he doesn't like this.

That's what I hoped you were saying!!

Back to the issue, WGAF if he doesn't like American troops in Saudi Arabia. His government apparently doesn't have a problem with it. His fellow countrymen don't have a problem with it. At least not enough of a problem that we see/hear about it. To top it off, UBL has pretty much been disavowed by Saudi Arabia.

He even volunteered to help expel Saddam from Kuwait, but the Saudis said no and let the Americans help instead of him. That pissed him off, and since then he doesn't like the fact that American troops are in Saudi.

I have never heard of his offer to oust Hussein from Kuwait. Why would he? What vested interest did he have in Kuwait? That pissed him off too? Too damn bad I say. You (UBL) got an axe to grind? I don't think masterminding the activities he has is the best way to get your point across.

 

yeah, he wanted to oust saddam cause he didn't like saddam's regime cause saddam is a secular leader, while osama is all about Islamic fundamentalism. This all changed of course as soon as America invaded the 2nd time... pretty much like having a common "enemy truce" thing.

Listen, I agree with you that Osama and Al-Qaeda need a good ass whippin, and there is no excuse for what they did. I agree with you there, and that if he has a problem with us he should just stick a plane up his ass and stop complaning. But I still feel the palestinians are so oppressed by the israelis, and feel for them. But I also think that the killing of innocent people is wrong, and feel like they're going about it the wrong way. Also, America really shoud put more pressure on Israel to leave to settlements, and that would solve a whole lot, but we won't cause we have too much at intrest with israel and will only advise, not pressure. But I do agree with you on the terrorism.. its flat out wrong no matter what the cause

 

I have never heard of his offer to oust Hussein from Kuwait. Why would he? What vested interest did he have in Kuwait?

He made the offer because he believes that Saddam is an apostate. He has repeatedly condemned and apparantly tried to kill him.

 

You guys are correct re: Osama/Hussein. On my long drive home from work I recalled an article I read in Foreign Affairs about a year ago. It spoke of the fundamental differences within the Muslim community. Basically, it stated that both UBL and Hussein were in 'violation' (for lack of a better term) of the true Islamic faith. They were putting their nationalistic desires ahead of the betterment of Islam. I'll see if I can find the article online and I'll link it.

 

I find that whenever there is a terrorist attack, people don't care what statements terrorist groups are trying to make or what they are trying to accomplish. Living victims of terrorist assaults never negotiate or cave in to any demands or wishes of terrorist groups. We all just want them to go away because we're getting sick and tired of it.

Terrorism will fail because any sympathy the populous may have for individuals or groups disappear once they kill innocents.

 

I'm just going to inject a few points here; DarthKarde is dealing with the other stuff I'd otherwise address. (and he's right, there is NO CONNECTION between Usama bin Laden and the Central Intelligence Agency. None. Nada. Zip. Ask Milton Bearden; he ran the CIA's Afghan program.)

Terrorism, contrary to the confident assertion made by jedizen, will not fail. It will, in fact, continue to exist well into this century.

Terrorism, you see, is a very useful tool. The actions of the SOE against Nazi Germany; or the CIA against the Castro regime, were terrorist actions. Since 9/11, the literature has produced a very emotive climate which tends to produce alot of very skewed analysis of terrorism. A perfect example is to read books about terrorism written before 9/11 - such as Paul R Pillar's (who ran CIA's CTC) Terrorism and US Foreign Policy - published Febuary 2001. Then read such drivel as Alan Dershowitz's Why Terrorism Works. Let's see - pre-9/11, we get a former CIA counter-terrorist expert writing a rational, analytical book about what the US does and could do about terrorism. After 9/11, we get a civil defence attorney writing emotional claptrap and jumping on a bandwagon.

Terrorism needs two things to surive - an actual, and a percieved inequality. So long as you have those two factors, terrorism will survive. The inequality can be political (like a percieved inequality in the balance of power; or the marginalisation of a certain ethnic group), social (e.g. discrimination, ideological greivances between extremists on the left or right, and the moderates, or religious inequalities), or economic inequalities.

The perceived inequalities "inspire" the ideologues. bin Laden, who is a monster, nevertheless has some validity when he talks about basic facts in US/Arab relations (which he then destroys with his insipid rantings). Once your ideologue is aware of these inequalities, they will undoubtedly have skewed them to suit their particular outlook. Let's use bin Laden again. bin Laden will see the end result of our realpolitik engagements and our economic pursuits and then turn it into some Zionist anti-Muslim conspiracy.

The actual inequalities rely upon the charisma of the ideologue in the aforementioned paragraph as well as the sense of desperation experienced by the inhabitants of these countries. For example; Saudi Arabia's per capita GDP has dropped sharply in the last decade whilst the national GDP has risen. The House of Saud is getting richer; the people getting poorer. Coincidently, the US established a military presence in Saudi Arabia a little over a decade ago. You take your average Saudi, they're getting poorer. bin Laden tells them it's the un-Islamic al-Saud family who are puppets of the infidel Americans. If you're faced with no money, no job prospects and a poor future, any alternative can resonate. Such was the situation in Nazi Germany - the poor economic state and loss of national pride and strength is the [apparent] fault of the Jews.

So long as those factors exist, terrorism too will exist. Especially as globalisation stretches the gap between rich and poor. If groups are marginalised - yet another inequality - they will become more desperate and find more extreme measures appealing as they offer some remedy to satiate that frustration. But similarly, so long as we have any geopolitical insecurity, we won't be above using older styled terrorism for our ends.

Partially, I take issue with the post-9/11 claim that terrorism is linked to the death of civilians. It, simply put, does not.

It is about influencing civilians. If that requires the death of civilians, then so be it. It is, however, about inspiring terror through whatever means. For example: The CIA terrorised the population of Cuba during the early years of the Castro revolution because we wanted Castro gone - he "went South" and was unacceptable. By destroying cargo ships in the harbour at Havana, and by torching sugar cane - Cuba's main export crop - the C