The WTC bombing was at least in part to with the support the none too democratic regime in Egypt was receiving from the west. Mind you, those fighting the regime were too keen on democracy either.
If you do not want to get blown up by the Lebanese, do not go to Lebanon. Especially when not only has Lebanon just been invaded by Israel and you are Israel's number one supporter, you are also seen as a supporter of the Maronite Christians engaged in a civil war with the Muslims.
BTW the people that blew up the barracks were very different and had very different agenda to those that attacked the WTC.
Islamic fundamentalism tends to go hand in hand with repressive goverments, unsurprising really as only the most extreme survive in countries were suggesting democracy might be a good idea is enough to get you locked up. And the fact is the West is rather fond of such goverments. It is only a small step from there to thinking that in order to get rid of the regime, you have to get rid of its supporters.
cunningham said:
One can debate the efficacy of violence in its various guises till the cows come home but what is not open to debate is the sheer hypocrisy of the claimed belief of the US in representative democracy. You have bankrolled some of the most hideous regimes the planet has had to offer and are stiil doing so.
Re: Zaqawi
As claimed by the jokers that brought you the classic works of fiction " Death in 45 minutes" and "Here be WMD".
cunningham said:
As claimed by the jokers that brought you the classic works of fiction " Death in 45 minutes" and "Here be WMD".
cunningham said:
So what is it when you drop a bomb or target a missile at a target knowing that you will kill women and children?
We try to say it is different because we have an air force. I think it is even rational to argue that it is even necessary from time to time for a greater good. But let’s not kid ourselves that it isn't murder. It is probably possible to try to contort some moral logic to make them sound different but in the end it is a distinction without a difference. Which one you feel is justified depends almost entirely on which supports the just cause.
And lets not expect relatives of "collateral damage” from oh so carefully targeted missiles to feel it is not murder. Wouldn't you?
Yasser Arafat is not as simple a villain as you might think.
Here is description of how we got to this point. I am sure that some can point out inaccuracies or chronological mistakes but this is how I understand it:
The Jews and Muslims have lived quite well together in the area at many times in history. The British occupation and divide and set groups against each other style of control really stirred things up. Britain leaves and the ensuing wars over land builds legitimate grievances in the minds of each side.
Fast forward to more recent history. Keep in mind all the land taking and other humiliations imposed by Israel. Keep in mind the times Israel has been attacked by neighbors.
Remember that it was only a few years ago when the uprising consisted of rock throwing by youths. Not to say small groups of attackers did not try to come down from Lebanon into Tel Aviv every so often or set off a bomb now and them. But nothing on the scale of today.
Now imagine you are negotiating an actual peace with Israel and an Israeli withdrawal that will leave the Muslims in control of their territory. Arafat certainly may not have been sincere, but imagine for a moment that he was.
In order to make it stick you have to be the credible leader and get an agreement that the population will support. You have firebrands stirring things up just like Israel does trying to stop an agreement
Now imagine that the process is to leave some of the stickiest points till last so that confidence can be built.
The Israeli prime minister pushes hard for Israeli ownership of the Temple Mount as a must have, thinking that since it is similar to the de Facto arrangement in place at the time it should be an easy concession for Arafat . The Temple mount is quite sacred to the Muslims. The Western wall that forms part of it is very sacred to Jews.
Now imagine that there is an apocryphal story in the Muslim culture of the area that if the Jews take possession of the temple mount and the Muslim temple on top then the world will begin coming to an end. So this is something that Arafat can not possibly agree to and temporarily breaks of talks.
Now imagine that as this is going on the prime minister of Israel that is negotiating the peace is assassinated by a radical Jewish fundamentalist.
Now imagine that in the midst of the campaign to replace him, one of the possible leaders is Sharon. It is well known that he was reprimanded for allowing a massacre of Muslim women and children while he was leading the occupation of Lebanon as is regarded as a butcher by the West bank population. That may or may not be fully true that he was complicit in the massacre as opposed to negligent. But what is important is that is widely believed by the west bank population that he was actively responsible for it. This is also the widely held view in the arab world.
He also is a well known historic vocal advocate and supporter of building on Palestinian land. The idea of outpost land grabs was his and the program that implemented it was his. Israel now has 10% of its population on occupied land. It also sanctioned the tactic of blocking the arab population from accessing farm land that has been used for generation by that populace. It does this for sufficient time until it meets the ancient standard for “abandoned” property and takes the land from the traditional owners. This was ruled legal by the Israeli Supreme court not to long ago.
Sharon then takes it upon himself to round up camera crews and publicly walk on the temple mount. Violence erupts on the temple mount and begins to start accelerating in the occupied territories. Sharon then says he will crush the Muslims in the west bank into submission. His party wins the next election and he becomes prime minister.
The radicals revolt against Arafat and start trying to import arms. Arafat probably lends support from the Palestinian authority but a lot is coming in from other methods. He keeps control to some extent but power splinters.
Sharon at the same time starts a harsh campaign with tanks and pretty brutal tactics. This does not put down the resistance but moves the Muslim West bank general population from moderate to aggressive hate for Israel. Along the way suicide bombing becomes widely accepted as a legitimate and honorable way to strike the enemy.
After a several years of this with both sides taking heavy civilian losses we arrive at where we are today. Our $4-10 Billion dollar and larger grants of weapons to Israel somehow got viewed as supporting a perceived oppressor and aggressor. Hmmm. Not to hard to believe how that perception could have happened.
Whether you believe all of the items in this chonology or not, it is very clear that this is a very complex problem.
So it is not as simple as: That one is bad, this one is good. These problems have very complex forces at work. To solve these problems some day will require something other than choosing sides and dividing the world into evil-doers and those that are with us. Interpreting it as simple and defining your response on a single principle only make it worse and more deadly.
Long, long memories in this area of the world. Revenge is exacted over generations sometimes.
Here is description of how we got to this point. I am sure that some can point out inaccuracies or chronological mistakes but this is how I understand it:
The Jews and Muslims have lived quite well together in the area at many times in history. The British occupation and divide and set groups against each other style of control really stirred things up. Britain leaves and the ensuing wars over land builds legitimate grievances in the minds of each side.
Fast forward to more recent history. Keep in mind all the land taking and other humiliations imposed by Israel. Keep in mind the times Israel has been attacked by neighbors.
Remember that it was only a few years ago when the uprising consisted of rock throwing by youths. Not to say small groups of attackers did not try to come down from Lebanon into Tel Aviv every so often or set off a bomb now and them. But nothing on the scale of today.
Now imagine you are negotiating an actual peace with Israel and an Israeli withdrawal that will leave the Muslims in control of their territory. Arafat certainly may not have been sincere, but imagine for a moment that he was.
In order to make it stick you have to be the credible leader and get an agreement that the population will support. You have firebrands stirring things up just like Israel does trying to stop an agreement
Now imagine that the process is to leave some of the stickiest points till last so that confidence can be built.
The Israeli prime minister pushes hard for Israeli ownership of the Temple Mount as a must have, thinking that since it is similar to the de Facto arrangement in place at the time it should be an easy concession for Arafat . The Temple mount is quite sacred to the Muslims. The Western wall that forms part of it is very sacred to Jews.
Now imagine that there is an apocryphal story in the Muslim culture of the area that if the Jews take possession of the temple mount and the Muslim temple on top then the world will begin coming to an end. So this is something that Arafat can not possibly agree to and temporarily breaks of talks.
Now imagine that as this is going on the prime minister of Israel that is negotiating the peace is assassinated by a radical Jewish fundamentalist.
Now imagine that in the midst of the campaign to replace him, one of the possible leaders is Sharon. It is well known that he was reprimanded for allowing a massacre of Muslim women and children while he was leading the occupation of Lebanon as is regarded as a butcher by the West bank population. That may or may not be fully true that he was complicit in the massacre as opposed to negligent. But what is important is that is widely believed by the west bank population that he was actively responsible for it. This is also the widely held view in the arab world.
He also is a well known historic vocal advocate and supporter of building on Palestinian land. The idea of outpost land grabs was his and the program that implemented it was his. Israel now has 10% of its population on occupied land. It also sanctioned the tactic of blocking the arab population from accessing farm land that has been used for generation by that populace. It does this for sufficient time until it meets the ancient standard for “abandoned” property and takes the land from the traditional owners. This was ruled legal by the Israeli Supreme court not to long ago.
Sharon then takes it upon himself to round up camera crews and publicly walk on the temple mount. Violence erupts on the temple mount and begins to start accelerating in the occupied territories. Sharon then says he will crush the Muslims in the west bank into submission. His party wins the next election and he becomes prime minister.
The radicals revolt against Arafat and start trying to import arms. Arafat probably lends support from the Palestinian authority but a lot is coming in from other methods. He keeps control to some extent but power splinters.
Sharon at the same time starts a harsh campaign with tanks and pretty brutal tactics. This does not put down the resistance but moves the Muslim West bank general population from moderate to aggressive hate for Israel. Along the way suicide bombing becomes widely accepted as a legitimate and honorable way to strike the enemy.
After a several years of this with both sides taking heavy civilian losses we arrive at where we are today. Our $4-10 Billion dollar and larger grants of weapons to Israel somehow got viewed as supporting a perceived oppressor and aggressor. Hmmm. Not to hard to believe how that perception could have happened.
Whether you believe all of the items in this chonology or not, it is very clear that this is a very complex problem.
So it is not as simple as: That one is bad, this one is good. These problems have very complex forces at work. To solve these problems some day will require something other than choosing sides and dividing the world into evil-doers and those that are with us. Interpreting it as simple and defining your response on a single principle only make it worse and more deadly.
Long, long memories in this area of the world. Revenge is exacted over generations sometimes.
cunningham said:
Zarquawi was a minor player until the opportunity came to him from the Iraq war.
As I recall he entered the country as we made it clear we were gearing up to attack Iraq and started to organize followers. In any event he did not have much success recruiting until after the war and our occupation began.
He built a pretty effective organization. But at this point it is pretty self sustaining so even is we catch him it is not clear it will make any difference.
By the way, I definitely agree that democratic governments are less aggressive to there neighbors generally, because it takes longer to get the support from the people than a dictatorial government. Lots of evidence of that. It would be a nice place to get to in Iraq. Not sure it is possible though.
There is no example of an Oil based dictatorship becoming a stable democracy in a short time frame (less than 25years?). Certainly not one with three ethnicities that have historic grievances.
I stand corrected:
It looks like Zarqawi likely came to Iraq in the 2001. He was not particularly linked to Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather he worked independently. He came to Afganistan after a prison term in Jordam and a conviction in absentia on another charge.
From the BBC site:
"He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after losing a leg in a US missile strike on his Afghan base.
US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.
He is thought to have remained with them for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq. "
Sadam did not control these northern areas. As I remember Ansar al-Islam was anti-Saddam but also anti-Iran, fighting traditionally for a Kurdish homeland composed of parts of turkey and parts of Iraq.
There are claims that he is linked to bombings in Morocco and Turkey in 2002 and 2003 and perhaps the killing of US aid official Laurence Foley in Jordan, So he was having some impact but not linked to Sadam. Yes it is US officials arguing the liks to Morocco and Turkey but it is plausible.
Likely did not have anything to do with Sadam but Zarqawi certainly could have been using a haven in the Iraqi geography.
So if Zarqawi really was responsible for some of the events in 2002 and 2003 one could argue that the northern Iraqi area would fit cunningham’s bees nest scenario.
It looks like Zarqawi likely came to Iraq in the 2001. He was not particularly linked to Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather he worked independently. He came to Afganistan after a prison term in Jordam and a conviction in absentia on another charge.
From the BBC site:
"He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after losing a leg in a US missile strike on his Afghan base.
US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.
He is thought to have remained with them for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq. "
Sadam did not control these northern areas. As I remember Ansar al-Islam was anti-Saddam but also anti-Iran, fighting traditionally for a Kurdish homeland composed of parts of turkey and parts of Iraq.
There are claims that he is linked to bombings in Morocco and Turkey in 2002 and 2003 and perhaps the killing of US aid official Laurence Foley in Jordan, So he was having some impact but not linked to Sadam. Yes it is US officials arguing the liks to Morocco and Turkey but it is plausible.
Likely did not have anything to do with Sadam but Zarqawi certainly could have been using a haven in the Iraqi geography.
So if Zarqawi really was responsible for some of the events in 2002 and 2003 one could argue that the northern Iraqi area would fit cunningham’s bees nest scenario.
Al-Qaeda does not exist
WMD does not exist
Zarqawi does not exist
You have killed 100 000 girls, boys, women and men (0.44% of 22,675,617)
Iraki men and boys are your real ememy
Unless you have a gun, a uniform and your in Iraq, your not supporting anything, ideas dont win wars, killing does
Im glad bush is back in because now the "with hims" cant blame anybody elce
BTW did
osama u bin had sound a wee bit like a demacrat to you
WMD does not exist
Zarqawi does not exist
You have killed 100 000 girls, boys, women and men (0.44% of 22,675,617)
Iraki men and boys are your real ememy
Unless you have a gun, a uniform and your in Iraq, your not supporting anything, ideas dont win wars, killing does
Im glad bush is back in because now the "with hims" cant blame anybody elce
BTW did
osama u bin had sound a wee bit like a demacrat to you
00940 said:
http://www.cpcml.ca/tmld/D34169.htm#2
It was on my local CBC news as well, they were investigating this claim. It was confirmed the numbers and "peer review" came from the American Red Cross and AI to the Lancet. They allowed the Lancet to publish the figures, to minimize political censure.
The world media portrays Yasser Arafat as a kindly George Washington of the Palestinian people. The real Arafat is a blood-thirsty man. He Pioneered airline high- jacking's, and he was the god father of terror. Whole villages of Christians were massacred under his command in Lebanon. His P.L.O. conducted many cowardly campaigns of murder. Perhaps you may remember , in 1972, when 5 Arab terrorists entered the Olympic Village in Munich Germany, and Slaughtered 11 unarmed Israeli athletes in cold blood. Really advancing the Palestinian cause wasn't he.
Hummm.....I wonder if the thought has ever crossed these terrorists minds that maybe they are wrong. There isn't really a place where 7 virgins are waiting for them. What if when you die, you're just gone. Like being knocked out except you never come back from the blackness. Naw, they have been too brainwashed by religion. AKA Hitler in a head scarf.
cunningham said:
cunningham said:
I know your sort prizes ignorance highly but there is a difference between those fighting occupation and those supposedly fighting a holy war.
Even more so when one side has everything they need and are backed by one of the present biggest military powers and the other side doesn't even have a working tank(if any at all).rfbrw said:
The situation creates people who give up their lives for their believes, many of us can't understand that, but put youself in their situation, and don't kid yourself while doing so.
The main point for us is that live is nice, it's worth living and all, we have a family, we eventually have kinds, a job, a house, a car, whatever. What happens when you struggle to live, when your family is blown away, when your house is demolished? Is your point still there? What if all of the above happen? Would you still care about your live?(1) It's easy to say yes when you don't have any idea how it feels like. The same is true for the il people. I know both sides have their pro and cons and even more so, their reasons.
(1) - you only need 0.001% of the population to say no there to have enough suicide bombers. combined with a huge amount of hate, you just have them.
cunningham said:
Perhaps you should remember 40.3% of Iraqies are below the age of 14
So if you have killed 100 000 Iraqi civilians in your quest to save the world from oslamic bin terrorist, you have managed to kill 40 thousand, three hundred Iraqi kids
Remeber also that the Iraqi population is 18 times smaller than yours so 40,300 dead kids will feel like 750,000 dead kids if the same was to happen to you
Whats that going to do to the normal Arabs ?
After all your country went mad after a relatively small number (~3000) of grow'n ups were killed on 9/11
You make Arafat look like an amature, Shoron look like a big pussy cat and you are catching up to sadam himself at amasing speed
Where does the idea that "Imperialism" America wants to colonize the world? Did we colonize Japan after WWII? Is it a US colony now? What about South Korea? It seems to me these contries have become prosperous in the last 50 or 60 years. In fact, people used to think that Japan would take over the United States....economicly. Of course they started out rocky...so did the United States. However then there is North Korea. No representitive government and people have no control over who governs there lives. The contry has become isolated and impoverished and can't relate to the rest of the world. Kind of goes hand in hand. It may take 50 years but Iraq will prosper. If the people really want it bad enough, it will happen. I find it hard to believe that Arab people are content with having their desisions made for them be someone else and not having any power to make thier own. However, Islam is in need of reform, steering people into the modern world instead of the middle ages. Back then people were ignorant and uneducated, except for the wealthy. These people were more easily controled and personal thought was repressed. Christianity has a blighted history too. Change is not a bad thing, just uncertain. Humans are naturally afraid of the uncertain.
cunningham said:
I think the issue is that the US is supporting the oppressive governments. We have bases in Saudi Arabia etc.
Bin Laden talks about the Palestinians because it strikes a cord with the Arab world who sees us as funding an aggressor attacking them, I am not saying that is good, bad or accurate but that is the perception. We really do fund Israel heavily and have switched form balance policy to Pro-Sharron policy. We heavily backed the Shau in Iran who if I am not mistaken was originally installed by Britain via an overthrough. Sadam Hussein actually installed into power by the west. So ther eis a pretty long history to point to.
But if you look at what Bin laden really is after it is bringing down the regime in Saudi Arabia. Zaquawi's original target was the Jordanian royal controled dictatorship.
Bin Laden likely does not have a democracy in mind, but his view of the regimes and the needs of the people are actually quite similar to yours. The obvious difference is that he sees the US as a perpetuator (with some justification) and you see us as a promoter of change.
The long history of close links between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family do not help the perception of the Arab populas I should think.
We continue to arm our friends there and remain friendly with the dictatorships. Can you point to a single thing we have done that would look like we want the people to be free from repressive governments.
You can make a case for Iraq but it does not work well unfortunately for PR. Invading a country and then attacking there mosques does not play well apparently. A functioning free Iraq that was prosperous in the future would be a good example. The problem now though is if you show Iraq as an examole now, wouldn't it look a move to democracy is really about chaos, destruction and death.
Note Iran has moved back to backing the conservatives in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The reform movement now has little backing and is dead at least for a while.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.