posted
This is one of the most sensible essays I have read. Mabus sent it to me. It says everything I wanted to say about this "War on Terrorism but couldn't because I am a bit dumb and not articulate enough. http://www.americanrespect.com/readessay.htm
quote:So if you want to stop terrorism, do you attack the terrorists or do you try to understand their issues? Whether their cause is right or not, the important part is that terrorists believe passionately that they are right. Terrorists are not inherently malevolent. They are filled with passion and a sense of being aggrieved — as true of al Qaeda as the Palestinians under Israel, the Algerians under the French, the IRA under England and the Spanish under Napoleon.
quote: First, we should pursue terrorists aggressively. Terrorism as an international movement relies on, in part, its leaders and the weapons with which to conduct their activities. By identifying and isolating these individuals and interrupting their access to the tools of disseminating their fear and anger, we have an opportunity to replace their influence with new seeds of prosperity and peace. Going into Iraq diluted our efforts in this regard. We should both continue to intelligently pursue true terrorists and increase our efforts to monitor and control the development of nuclear weapons — perhaps our world’s greatest long-term threat. One of the great tragedies of our action in Iraq is that it has damaged the credibility and effectiveness that we can bring to these infinitely more important tasks. In pursuing terrorists, however, we should be realistic enough to know that a terrorist leader killed or captured is often quickly replaced from within and often attains a martyr’s status as a result.
quote: We should be careful not to use the rhetoric of self-righteousness, haughtiness or power. Our response to the stunning terrorist blow we received should have been equal parts force against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and outreach to the peoples of the Middle East and to the many nations whose hearts ached with ours. Instead, our response was comprised almost entirely of force and arrogance, accompanied by the rhetoric and symbolism of self-righteousness and vengeance. Even in a justified pursuit, to use words like “dead or alive” or “bring ‘em on” stands in contrast to the words of our forefathers, who instead inspired a nation with messages of love, forgiveness, humility and healing. We recall Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, “with malice toward none, with charity for all” … or Washington in his farewell address to Congress, “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Are these not still the values by which we wish to be judged and represented in the world? Friendship, respect and love are far more powerful than force and vengeance will ever be.
I wish I knew who wrote it because it's so true. Attacking at terrorists will not solve anything. It will create more terrorists who will swarm like wasps and keep attacking until they use up America's resources. It seems like the best way to fight terrorism is something unconventional. Not shock and awe, but something subtle, less flashy that could take ages but it would ACTUALLY work!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh that's inspiring, so when my grandchildren are dead, we'll still be using this subtle approach to fighting terrorism. I would say that terrorism can't actually be eliminated but we should pursue it aggressively as possible in order to limit it as much as possible so that as few people as possible will die.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there some sort of middle ground? Some way to aggressively pursue terrorism without creating more terrorists?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, appeal to God and He'll smite all the evil doers from the face of the earth.
Actually I would look to what Israel has done and you'll see a sharp decrease in attacks after the implentation of the barrier and the assasination of three Hamas leaders, the latest in Syria.
posted
There are attacks, but they are fewer and farther between which is why we need to limit them and not seek to fulfill some impossible goal at the expense of innocent lives.
Just because we wish for world peace doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in war when seeking to acheive something more important.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The PAST for Israel was "land for peace." Basically appease the aggressors until they stop attacking. NOW, a more aggressive approach is being taken which has seriously damaged the terrorists' ability to make war.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, newfoundlogic and Kwea, you guys don't think that under Rabin a workable peace was actually being moved toward? If he hadn't been assasinated (by a Jew rather than a Palestinian, mind you) I suspect that that part of the world would be in a better place today. It really looked like he was going to be successful there for a little while.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, did they use appeasement or a bandage on a gaping wound approach? Decreasing terrorism doesn't mean stopping it. Someone said something interesting this article from the New York Time's magazine comparing terrorism and the conditions that start it to a swamp. Terrorism is a sympton of a disease. It's a side effect. Kill one leader of terrorism and another one will take his place and use the other person's death as a reason to keep fighting. Perhaps eventually they would be drained, but that would take as long or if not longer than a more difficult and long decision. Either way, there is danger involved... But pure aggression is NOT working.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, killing the leaders is a bad thing. That's why we're trying to capture the leaders. We've probably had Bin Laden in some sniper's scope about a hundred times, but killing him would be much worse than letting him run around. It's going to be hard to capture, detain, and try all these terrorist leaders, but I think that's what we're trying to do.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabin made what certainly appeared to be great strides toward peace. Today it has been shown however that Arafat doesn't hold up his end of the bargain though. While I certainly respect Rabin's efforts, results are actually being realized under Sharon's administration. If there was a Palestinian leader who didn't deal in bad faith and horde billions of dollars intended for the Palestinian people Rabin's method would have most likely worked.
It was appeasement and worked only with an Egyptian government that was too tired of war to go back on the deal (having your armed forces decimated multiple times over by country with a fraction of your size and population is pretty demoralizing). What your missing is that a system that comes pretty close to "pure aggression" IS working. It is reducing terrorist attacks to their lowest levels in years and the most recent attack was even forewarned with great accuracy, took place outside of Israel's borders, and is resulting in greater cooperation between Egyptian and Israeli forces.
People keep on repeating that when you kill one leader hundreds more will spring up. This is exactly what was warned by Hamas. This is exactly what was threatened by Hamas after Ahmed Yassin was successfully assasinated. This is exactly what appeared was going to happen when two hundred thousand Palestinians showed up to Yassin's funeral. But so far this has not happened. And what people are missing is that when you kill a leader, the people you replace him with will be worse at their job, and that there is simply one less terrorist. I don't believe bin Laden has been in American sniper sights because America hasn't shown an aversion to simply kill leaders without taking them into custody.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:People keep on repeating that when you kill one leader hundreds more will spring up. This is exactly what was warned by Hamas. This is exactly what was threatened by Hamas after Ahmed Yassin was successfully assasinated. This is exactly what appeared was going to happen when two hundred thousand Palestinians showed up to Yassin's funeral. But so far this has not happened.
Yes, it has happened. Do you think there's any shortage of terrorists now who wouldn't blow themselves the second they find a crack in Israel's near-police-state security? Killing terrorists has done nothing to reduce the threat even though they've been pursuing the strategy for years and years now. Any look at Israel's current troubled state should reveal that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: People keep on repeating that when you kill one leader hundreds more will spring up. This is exactly what was warned by Hamas. This is exactly what was threatened by Hamas after Ahmed Yassin was successfully assasinated. This is exactly what appeared was going to happen when two hundred thousand Palestinians showed up to Yassin's funeral. But so far this has not happened. And what people are missing is that when you kill a leader, the people you replace him with will be worse at their job, and that there is simply one less terrorist. I don't believe bin Laden has been in American sniper sights because America hasn't shown an aversion to simply kill leaders without taking them into custody
newfoundlogic Unfortunately, recent Israeli tactics have not meant "one less terrorist" but "one less (alleged) terrorist plus civilian dead/injured who happened to be near the target," due to increased use of Hellfire missle strikes. The US has used similar tactics, with mixed results. It is one thing to put a sniper bullet through someone your government considers an enemy; it is quite another to blow up an area in hopes of getting someone.
I have read that President Bush likes to cross an 'X' through pictures of terrorist leaders when they are captured or killed. It has been pointed out by the media that this is reminiscent of the film "The Battle of Algiers." In the film, a french policeman does the same. Towards the end of the film, all the suspected leaders of the Free Algeria movement had 'x's on them--but the French lost the war and had to withdraw.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference in Israel's current policy is not that they are attacking terrorist, but who they are attacking.
Before, it was the foot soldiers and their families that bore the brunt of Israel's wrath and reprisals. The leadership of Hamas and other groups sat untouched.
Now, those leaders are being attacked. Yes, others will and have stepped into their places and they are being lauded as martyrs by some. However, those new leaders are becoming more and more aware that they are on the chopping block now.
The new leaders cannot operate as easily and openly as before. They also, with each death, lose the personal contacts that the previous leader had. And that, truly, slows down the flow of the materials needed for a terrorist organization.
Also, if you look at Arafat, you'll see how much money he has personally horded away. I can imagine that these other leaders have done much the same on a smaller scale. Now those groups start losing some of their funds and the war chest gets smaller.
Will it stop everything? Nope. But it is slowing the attacks.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, good points Lost Ashes. I think a government has a debateable right to target terrorists and their leaders. You and others can certainly make a case for it. But when the attacks are so general as to kill neighbors, passersby, people in cars nearby, etc., how is this distinguished from terrorism itself? Aren't governments killing innocent people to advance their politcal aims?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't kill terrorism with weapons. You might stop it for awhile, but it will return.
Take Ireland for example. Britain tried for hundreds of years to control Ireland. That's hundreds of years of executing leaders, of cutting away resources to fight with. But still we kept rebelling, and we kept rising up and eventually we got Britain at the right time, with the right leaders and she had to give in. A comprimise was agreed, we made peace.
If Britain had continued to try to beat Ireland into submission, would we still be at war with her today? All evidence from the troubles in the north of the Ireland points to yes. With those only slowing down in recent years with the agreement of talks.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, as I've already said repeatedly current Israeli policy is different from old Israeli policy. Sharon has gotten more aggressive since he's taken office. There are less terrorists and there are less attacks. In Algiers there were dead terrorists but not reduced attacks. Its the second part that is more important to note. Just take the last two terrorist attacks. The first was actually stopped by two policemen, one of whom gave his life. The second was accurately predicted in advance, but the warnings were ignored, and the attack itself was unstoppable by Israeli forces as it took place on Egyptian soil.
Part of the difference between Ireland and Palestine is that Israel is trying to break away Palestine in action. They are trying to force a withdrawal of their settlers and erect barriers. The Palestinians want a state but are opposing Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. They also oppose the barrier because it makes it difficult for them to use Israeli hospitals and get to Israeli provided jobs. Do they think that once they have a state its going to be like a Middle Eastern EU where they can pass freely from one country to another? In reality Israel will be free of the little responsibility they have now to keep the Palestinians happy. On top of that I wouldn't expect Israeli incursions to stop either as Israel has bombed Iraq, bombed Syria recently, and blew up a Hamas leader's car in Syria.
For hopefully the last time I don't think it will ever be possible to ever rid the world of terrorism. It is only possible to limit it. Ireland today is not devoid of infrequent attacks.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's true, the problems in the north of Ireland are still quite present.
But compared with 10-15 years ago? It's a huge improvement. Why? Peace talks. It may take twenty, thirty, fifty or even a hundred more years for the problems to completely vanish. But I fully believe that it will happen, and can happen everywhere.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing to keep in mind. Israel and Palestine entered into a "Land for Peace" swap. Israel has given up/back alot of land to the Palestinians.
What peace has Israel received in return?
Also, "appeasement" of the terrorists is thus:
1. You become a Muslim
2. or at the very least stay out of any quarrel where a Muslim is involved. You're a Kafir and have no right telling a Muslim how to act or what we should do.
If you are for Appeasement, put on your Burkha or start growing a beard.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, many Palestinians are Christians.
edit: I put "many" before I looked for an exact statistic. On wikipedia it quotes a British census as saying the Palestinian population is 88% Muslim and 11% Christian.
posted
Israel has tried peace talks. Currently the US, possibly because we have the most pro-Israel president ever, has finally realized that Arafat doesn't deal in good faith. Bolstered by European and Arab support Arafat remains in power. Legally he is little more than figure head, but in a world with no history of democracy figure heads can weild considerable authority. Arafat has personally supported terrorism openly and more recently under the table. But when the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claims responsibility for the death of young children finding the connection to Arafat is easier than connecting numbered dots. And why should Arafat deal in good faith? His personal safety is ensured not only by the EU and the Arab world, but by the US as well. His wife and children are financially secure in Europe feasting off his billion dollar plus fortune.
quote: What evidence do you have to support this? I would say there seem to be MORE terrorists in the region since Sharon stepped up the aggression.
What evidence do you have to support that? When a Hamas leader gets killed, he's dead, that's it, he's simply not alive anymore therefore there is one less terrorist. As far as there being less attacks, there simply are. Since Yassin was assasinated there have been a clear and obvious drop off in attacks. Its not as if the media just stopped reporting them.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: CStroman, many Palestinians are Christians.
edit: I put "many" before I looked for an exact statistic. On wikipedia it quotes a British census as saying the Palestinian population is 88% Muslim and 11% Christian.
Tell me how many of the Palestinian Christians have been terrorists?
And the reason is....
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd really like to see a source where you got that from. I'm searching on Google at the moment, but not finding anything.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Article Eleven: The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.
quote: Article Thirteen: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.".....
These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?
quote: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.
quote: Article Fifteen: The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
Article Sixteen: It is necessary to follow Islamic orientation in educating the Islamic generations in our region by teaching the religious duties, comprehensive study of the Koran, the study of the Prophet's Sunna (his sayings and doings), and learning about Islamic history and heritage from their authentic sources. This should be done by specialised and learned people, using a curriculum that would healthily form the thoughts and faith of the Moslem student. Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included.
quote: The Role of the Moslem Woman:
Article Seventeen: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.
Article Eighteen: Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation.
She has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned, because economy and avoidance of waste of the family budget, is one of the requirements for the ability to continue moving forward in the difficult conditions surrounding us. She should put before her eyes the fact that the money available to her is just like blood which should never flow except through the veins so that both children and grown-ups could continue to live.
"Verily, the Moslems of either sex, and the true believers of either sex, and the devout men, and the devout women, and the men of veracity, and the women of veracity, and the patient men, and the patient women, and the humble men, and the humble women, and the alms-givers of either sex who remember Allah frequently; for them hath Allah prepared forgiveness and a great reward." (The Confederates - verse 25).
quote: Article Thirty-One: ...... Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
quote: It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
