should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestinians?

[Inuyasha]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

I don't know what he is referring to, but he may loosely be referring to the indoctrination.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna. Their foundation belief is that “Allah is our objective and the Prophet is our leader. Qu’ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The vast majority of terrorists are members. They live within a sea of fundamentals full of futureless youth. At age 8, the combatant begins to read and learn the Qu’ran and the place of women. At age 12 he reads the Qu’ran several hours per day as the father indoctrinates him into the faith. At age 18 he has memorized the entire Qu’ran and after age 18 he comes to America and other countries as a member of the Brotherhood.

This is the "general" procedure.

I do not deny that this method is or at least can be used but it is time consuming and I would venture to say more rare than other types of indoctrination that would work more rapidly and create larger numbers of Jihadists faster. I think the majority are probably indoctrinated much like the skinheads and KKK members.

One government line follows a similar way that the skinheads and neo.Nazi's are indoctrinated. Get young people in their late teens and early twenties. They are discouraged and see no future for themselves. The enemy is taking their land and their opportunities away from them. The only recourse is to band together and fight back. This works wonders. In our society it is that the white man is nobody, he has no opportunism and is discriminated against etc. etc. Keep it up for a year or two and you have a very explosive person. In short there is no difference in creating a terrorist. Most of the ones who are active neo-Nazis or Muslim fundamentalist lack determination of themselves and become prey to the leaders of the movement. They also have low level or very narrow education skills and this exacerbates the problem. Naturally I can't put the whole thing into 2 paragraphs but that is the gist of the situation. You don't need 10 years to create a terrorist or a counter terrorist. The brain washing of a terrorist doesn't take 10 years. If the person has that advantage (if you can call it an advantage) he is better equipped like the Klansmen whose father was a Klansman they have a longer exposer but that is not a prerequisite by any means.

 

[python416]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Well, we can't do it all at once. If you are watching the news, you can easily see that the Arab elite in every country is being hard pressed.


Democracy anywhere in the Middle East is going to be ugly at first. With Iraq, we conducted a stunning battlefield victory in Kuwait (1991) and we ensured that Iraq would not suffer a "power vacuum," but would remain a soveriegn state within its existing borders--even though Iraq was an unnatural, constructed state by Europeans, not an organic one, and the price of its continued existence was the slaughter of Shiites in the south, the continued suffering of Kurds in the north, and the deprivation of the remainder of Iraq's population to suit the vanity of a criminal dictator. Infatuated, as usual, by the mirage of a restored status quo ante bellum, we still face the same enemy we did a decade ago. Another reason for leaving Saddam in place was our fear of offending neighboring Arab monarchs and leaders, who themselves dread deposition. Our reward has been their discreet approval of the worst terrorists in history (no Arab or other Islamic state has made a serious effort to interfere with Osama bin Laden or his confederates; on the contrary, many are quietly gleeful at American suffering, even while professing their "deepest sympathies," and elements within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have provided funding or other support for anti-American terrorism).

Removing Saddam in 2003, was an act of defiance to "Old Europe" thinking. The dinosaurs of Washington and in our military which is still clinging to the Cold War mentality are dying off.

You are correct. We do need to stop providing life-support to terminally ill governments, and we must be open to new, unprecedented solutions, from plebiscites that alter borders to emergent or re-emergent forms of administration in failed states, whether enlightened corporate imperialism or post-modern tribalism. If the corporation can manage more humanely than the dictator, why not give it a chance? If the tribe can govern more effectively than a thieving, oppressive government, why not let the tribe reclaim its own land? (This may be the order for Iraq's future.)

However, cutting ties to all of the "stability" operations that maintain brutal dictators and the Arab elite around the globe is not a flip of the switch. But how can you object to ousting Saddam, yet wish America to stop "supporting" dictator regimes? There seems to be a conflict.

I object to the order. Before the US earns the right to start ousting the regimes it wants to, if it is in the name of "democracy", START by not supporting dictators, than move on to war - maybe that way the US wouldn't have to go it alone (ok, almost alone).

But in light of the way Iraq has been going for the last 3 days, I find it hard to believe anyone can say this was a good idea. We are at the brink of civil war, 24 hour curfew, death sqauds in the streets, body's pilling up in the morgues with torture marks.

I mean if this blows up into civil war (if you want to try and say that hasn't happened already), then what? Will this still have been a good venture in your opinion if it ends in a US widthdraw, civil war, and a theocratic Shia regime? Cause that is the most likely outcome from where I am looking.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but post realizing that Colin Powell was lying, everything has pretty much been right on the mark of my predictions.

OK, what do you think is going to happen now?

Is this a civil war?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article347806.ece

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

I do not deny that this method is or at least can be used but it is time consuming and I would venture to say more rare than other types of indoctrination that would work more rapidly and create larger numbers of Jihadists faster. I think the majority are probably indoctrinated much like the skinheads and KKK members.

One government line follows a similar way that the skinheads and neo.Nazi's are indoctrinated. Get young people in their late teens and early twenties. They are discouraged and see no future for themselves. The enemy is taking their land and their opportunities away from them. The only recourse is to band together and fight back. This works wonders. In our society it is that the white man is nobody, he has no opportunism and is discriminated against etc. etc. Keep it up for a year or two and you have a very explosive person. In short there is no difference in creating a terrorist. Most of the ones who are active neo-Nazis or Muslim fundamentalist lack determination of themselves and become prey to the leaders of the movement. They also have low level or very narrow education skills and this exacerbates the problem. Naturally I can't put the whole thing into 2 paragraphs but that is the gist of the situation. You don't need 10 years to create a terrorist or a counter terrorist. The brain washing of a terrorist doesn't take 10 years. If the person has that advantage (if you can call it an advantage) he is better equipped like the Klansmen whose father was a Klansman they have a longer exposer but that is not a prerequisite by any means.

Of course. The "indoctrination" is performed in Radical families who are a part of the "Brotherhood."

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

I object to the order. Before the US earns the right to start ousting the regimes it wants to, if it is in the name of "democracy", START by not supporting dictators, than move on to war - maybe that way the US wouldn't have to go it alone (ok, almost alone).

There is a more underlying reasons America goes it alone. Look beyond Iraq and you'll see it. Our "friends" in Europe have a habit of waiting for America to expend their money and blood. Our "friends" don't bother with things that they know America will eventually do for them.

Current example: Sudan. The UN makes no effort to keep silent about that war zone of brutality and murder. Not many people know that their U.S. Marines are located in Chad and Ethiopia and run missions into Sudanese towns to stop "cleansings" that are closer to the borders. The German military is also there (though shooting unarmed civillians is common for them). Where is that great voice of humanity from the UN? (It should be noted that the French confine themselves to western Africa where they have business interests.)

But in light of the way Iraq has been going for the last 3 days, I find it hard to believe anyone can say this was a good idea. We are at the brink of civil war, 24 hour curfew, death sqauds in the streets, body's pilling up in the morgues with torture marks.

It was inevitable. These people need to get along or kill each other off until one side stands. If America is going to every stop "supporting" dictators and oppressive regimes for the sake of "stability," then this is the way it is going to happen. People who have been thrusted together and maintained through abuse and terror as they live together within borders must recognize that in the 21st century there is no longer such a thing as Shi'ite land, Sunni land, or Muslim land. Good idea or not, it is the future. The general American who complains about our governments role in keeping "stability" in the Middle East got exactly what they wanted with Iraq. We removed the dictator.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, we did a noble deed where we freed people who are unfortunately unable to sustain themselves (right now) without the brutality and oppressions of their former leaders. In Iraq, they following in Pakistan's footsteps.
- First, democracy faces an uphill struggle in tribal cultures where blood ties trump national interests.
- Second, democracy has no worse enemy than corruption. (And the Arab elite have developed corruption and hypocrisy to a super human strength.)

I mean if this blows up into civil war (if you want to try and say that hasn't happened already), then what? Will this still have been a good venture in your opinion if it ends in a US widthdraw, civil war, and a theocratic Shia regime? Cause that is the most likely outcome from where I am looking.

This isn't civil war yet. You'll know. A civil war might not be a bad thing as I said above. It might be the natural course this country must take to make it whole. I don't see a Shi'ite theocracy. Everything we know suggests the opposite. Don't be so quick to believe commentators that are forming stories around a shred of evidence or the intelligencia who look to failures to predict the future (It is always safer to predict failure - it's common).

Although a coalition backed by the senior Shiite clergy won nearly half the votes, Tehran won't dominate Baghdad. Iraqi Shiites have deep differences with their Iranian counterparts. The ethnic rivalry between Arabs and Persians predates the coming of Islam. Saddam Hussein trusted his Arab Shiite soldiers to fight their Iranian co-religionists. Did Christianity unite Europe's hereditary enemies? Of course not.

Will the new Iraq have ties to Iran? Of course. Iraqis have to live with their restive neighbor. Even the pro-American Kurds will seek a functional cross-border relationship. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush developed useful ties with his Mexican counterparts, but he didn't sell Texas back to Mexico. During Saddam's reign of terror, many Iraqis, both Shiite clerics and common citizens, found asylum in Iran. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, Iran opened its borders to thousands of terrified refugees. And trade, legal and illegal, has continued down the centuries. But Iran's government of mullahs will never be a model for Iraq.

Iraq's key clerics understand that the Iranian model has failed. Far from inaugurating a perfect society, the tyranny of the mullahs alienated the young from religion and generated cynicism toward the clergy. Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution brutalized Islam. Iraq's mullahs likely will press for greater social strictures than we would like to see, but they're not going to bind themselves to an Iranian government that they view as living on borrowed time. There's a greater likelihood that Iraq's free elections will inspire the people of Iran. About 70% of Iran's population is younger than 30, and disenchanted. Iraqi democracy may prove the downfall of Iran's mullahs, not the other way around.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but post realizing that Colin Powell was lying, everything has pretty much been right on the mark of my predictions.

OK, what do you think is going to happen now?

Is this a civil war?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article347806.ece

No. It is still a controlled environment. When the Iraqi military begins to break apart from all of the strides they have made and withdraw into formed militias based on religious sect, tribe, and sector.......civil war. That's when we need to go.

We ousted Saddam. He is no longer a threat of any kind to us and we have given them the bike. If they fall off, they will have failed themselves. We always knew that this was a possibility.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Your last two posts have been very informative except for this. !0 years to make a terrorists? I think not. If that were true we'd be fighting a bunch of people in walkers. Do you have some concrete proof on how long it takes to become a terrorist? If what you say is true Walker and Padilla had to start becoming terrorists at age 12. I don't think so. You make excellent points then in one fell swoop you put them all in doubt with a gross exaggeration like this.

No, my points are still excellent. While terrorists have to be born into a family that is infected with the disease, people don't start thinking independently until they're seven or eight, and then it'll take'em about a decade to become well enough indoctrinated and versed in their illness to become a wilfull and knowing threat to others.

So if we kill the known terrorists now, those incubating families that haven't announced their presence (those not as strongly infected with rabid islam, as it were), will need a decade to produce a new crop of cowardly murderers.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Most people in the US don't seem to even know that bin Laden was armed and brought into a position of power from the US arming of the Mudahadeen - which makes listening to this "they hate us cause were free" crap very pathetic.

And this is relevant in what way? Oh, it's not relevant at all.

The world is less safe now then it was in the 80s. For example (and one small one), the standoff the the Bush administration has built with Iran could potentially spark a lot more than a pimple on a rhino's ***. "Axis of Evil", yeah let's make it a holy war! He personally added that to Frum's speech. Nice one George!

Yeah, a "stand-off" between the world's superpower and a stone-age barbaric tribe aspiring to nuclear ambitions is clearly far far more hazardous than when we stood of a super-power wanna be with enough extant nuclear weaponry of it's own to destroy the earth three or four times over, not to mention their stockpiles of virulent smallpox and the ICBM MIRV'd delivery system for such.

You must have only have one eye. You don't seem able to gain perspective.

My point is that the US "fight for freedom" and "democracy" is a bunch of marketing junk (at least for this administration). All the US cares about is making money and maintain military power. Saddam, Saudi, whoever - don't matter who the US supports, as long as it serves its interest.

At the time, our use of Iraq was futhering the cause for freedom. It put a very effective lid on the real foe in the region, Iran, for almost a decade, enabling the US to focus on the world's real enemy, the USSR. Which, by the way, we wrecked in a historically unique manner.

What you're seeing now is the isostatic adjustment to the collapse of an empire, and this is what happens whenever an empire collapses.

Well that may not be that bad, but when you killing innocent civilians under the false claim of supporting freedom, I think the least you could do is be honest about what you are doing, and be as responsible as possible to collateral damage. DU, Iraqi reconstruction, bad post-invastion planning, oil based motives, etc. show that neither of these are the case.

There's no such thing as an "innocent civillian" in a war. They're only civillians, and war isn't about guilt or innocence but self-presevation. People that conflate innocence and war don't understand either.

Take out the word democracy and the enemy would be the US! The US has destabilzed the region, and it looks like the US will be responbile for creating either a civil war where all hell breaks lose, or a Shia-Islamic style government. Iran would love that. Nice job!

We "destalblized" what? A regional balance of dictatorships and terrorists breeding grounds. We had some mysterious obligation to maintain those dictatorships so people like you, as you did in your earlier paragraph, complain that the US is supporting dictatorships? Your hypocrisy is of the day-glo variety.

I don't have to read the evidence on it, because I understand the biology and physics behind it. You can't claim there is no risk without trying to re-write physics that has been on the books for over 100 years, and over 50 years of biology. Quoting articles doesn't make science go away.

No, that's why DU isn't the hazard you want to pretend it is.

A curie is a unit of measure of the rate of radioactive decay. Which again, is inversely proportional to the half-life. How is this ignorant? You are probably more concerned with Rads, which would count absorbion.

No, you're the one getting excited that DU has a longer half-life than naturally occuring uranium, and then claiming that makes it worse. I was explaining your error. And the nuclear industry employs the concept of rem as the measure of whole-body dose.

I realize this is a subtle difference, but that is the way proper scientic understanding is. It is like thinking pounds are a unit of weight. They are not.

No, pounds are a form of money.

Yes, those innocent Iraqis had no choice. The US needed to pierce those tanks cheaper - I mean there was a lot of people to kill and it was costing to much money. I'm sure they will grow up to understand.

The US needed to penetrate that armor, period. Cost may play a role, but there's other, engineering, decisions to make in the design of weaponry. But, yeah, it's probably cheaper. That's a good thing, too.

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Most people in the US don't seem to even know that bin Laden was armed and brought into a position of power from the US arming of the Mudahadeen - which makes listening to this "they hate us cause were free" crap very pathetic.

Wrong. Jealousy of the west is a very big prevailant problem among the terrorist within the Radical element of this civilization. It is a psychological fact that they do indeed hate us for our freedoms. Our free uncontrolled lifestyles are a threat to every elitist, Mullah, and Cleric in the Middle East. Baghdad fell to the shame of every one of them that prefers a militant despot over western inspired democracy.

I encourage you to study about the mind of terrorists and the Middle Eastern Radical. Their problems with us range from their environment, their social issues, our foreign policy of the past to keep unstable and brutal governments stable, their religion, and the psychological mind of an Islamic terrorist.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Do you have any evidence to the countrary? If you want evidence of growing Islamic to American/west hatred - read a newspaper. Look at the cartoon mess, look at this weeks pre-civil war in Iraq. The field is ripe for radicalization, and al-Qaeda will capitalize on it.

Yes. LOOK at the "cartoon mess". Our culture demands that the individual have the freedom to speak his mind, no matter how offensive it may be to others. Their culture demands that the individual be as identical as bullets from a mold, with no one permitted to stand opposed to established religious orthodoxy.

There's NO PLACE for compromise. The "cartoon mess" illustrates as clearly as nothing else that we cannot afford to ignore the threat of radical looney Islam. It's only a cartoon, and the animals are killing for it.

The US misjudges the enemy at almost every turn, and continues to make this mess worse instead of better. Throwing away more and more global political captial at every turn. Making the world more and more unsafe with each sucessive mistake. Ohh 2006 elections, can you please save us from this unchecked administration and their short-sighted and idiotic mistakes?!

How? By electing Democrats who wish only the freedom to **** their pants and surrender to the god of global multi-culturalism? If we had a political party with the balls to stand up for America, we should elect them. Since we don't, we're forced to keep the Democrats out of office, since they're the bigger threat to the US.

Oh yeah, Hussein was the same pig he was when the US liked him. Too bad he didn't see the US getting so mad about Kuwait. But the US had to support democracy so they came to Kuwait's defence. Oh wait they aren't a democracy. Well they had to support the Saudi's. Oh wait, they are a bruital dictatorship also. Well at least they bought some fighter planes from the US, so they must be the good guys. Oh wait, that is why bin Laden was pissed off at us in the first place. Geez, maybe we should have sold those weapons to someone else - I mean we gotta sell weapons to someone!

The US didn't support democracy in the first Gulf War. We opposed Hussein. There's a difference.

The US has no problem with dictators and no problem with breaking the "rule of law". So don't use them as arguements for removing Saddam.

I don't. I don't need to justify the removal of Saddam since we were never under any obligation to not remove him. He was a tool for a while, then we discarded him when he was no longer useful, as is the fate of all tools.

Try and remember that when everything falls apart, or if there should be another attack. The rage of "towelheads" over the situation the US has engineered over there will probably spill back on the US. Just like the Mudahadeen enpowerment did on 9/11. It is a good thing that GOP administrations (Iand their supporters) are usually too short-sighted to see this in advance, and too ignorant and arrogant to see it in retrospect.

Oh, I'm not short sighted at all. That's why I'm a firm advocate of nuking the whole region and being done with them. I have no use for them, may as well kill them before they hurt someone else. If they were a rattlesnake, I'd leave them alone, but rattlesnakes have more sense.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

I do not deny that this method is or at least can be used but it is time consuming and I would venture to say more rare than other types of indoctrination that would work more rapidly and create larger numbers of Jihadists faster. I think the majority are probably indoctrinated much like the skinheads and KKK members.

One government line follows a similar way that the skinheads and neo.Nazi's are indoctrinated. Get young people in their late teens and early twenties. They are discouraged and see no future for themselves. The enemy is taking their land and their opportunities away from them. The only recourse is to band together and fight back. This works wonders. In our society it is that the white man is nobody, he has no opportunism and is discriminated against etc. etc. Keep it up for a year or two and you have a very explosive person. In short there is no difference in creating a terrorist. Most of the ones who are active neo-Nazis or Muslim fundamentalist lack determination of themselves and become prey to the leaders of the movement. They also have low level or very narrow education skills and this exacerbates the problem. Naturally I can't put the whole thing into 2 paragraphs but that is the gist of the situation. You don't need 10 years to create a terrorist or a counter terrorist. The brain washing of a terrorist doesn't take 10 years. If the person has that advantage (if you can call it an advantage) he is better equipped like the Klansmen whose father was a Klansman they have a longer exposer but that is not a prerequisite by any means.

See? About ten years or so. I just didn't bother to post the details.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

We ousted Saddam. He is no longer a threat of any kind to us and we have given them the bike. If they fall off, they will have failed themselves. We always knew that this was a possibility.

Until Saddam Hussein is hung until he's dead dead dead, he'll be a threat.

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Until Saddam Hussein is hung until he's dead dead dead, he'll be a threat.

One way or the other, his days are over.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

One way or the other, his days are over.

No, it's perfectly possible that a civil war could give him a chance to re-ascend to power. How big a chance depends on circumstances, but it's only guaranteed that he won't come back when he's dead.

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

No, it's perfectly possible that a civil war could give him a chance to re-ascend to power. How big a chance depends on circumstances, but it's only guaranteed that he won't come back when he's dead.

Like I said, one way or another his days are over. We did not fight to end his days in 2003 just to alow him to still be alive or free when we leave.

 

[python416]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

And this is relevant in what way? Oh, it's not relevant at all.

Because everyone else in the world sees through the hypocracy of Bush's propaganda, and that is why the US is bearing the cost for this war all by itself.

Yeah, a "stand-off" between the world's superpower and a stone-age barbaric tribe aspiring to nuclear ambitions is clearly far far more hazardous than when we stood of a super-power wanna be with enough extant nuclear weaponry of it's own to destroy the earth three or four times over, not to mention their stockpiles of virulent smallpox and the ICBM MIRV'd delivery system for such.

That might be true if Iran was the only threat. It isn't the only threat.

At the time, our use of Iraq was futhering the cause for freedom. It put a very effective lid on the real foe in the region, Iran, for almost a decade, enabling the US to focus on the world's real enemy, the USSR. Which, by the way, we wrecked in a historically unique manner.

What you're seeing now is the isostatic adjustment to the collapse of an empire, and this is what happens whenever an empire collapses.

You are calling Al-Qaeda isostatic force? Maybe the US should plan better if these isostatic forces are so powerful. Cause right now, I think US policy only serves to make Al-Qaeda stonger. Radicalize more people, get the US poplution to give up its freedoms, isolate the US from world politics, beat the US into making this the "holy war" bin Laden wants. Amplifying the isosatic force instead of dampening it.

There's no such thing as an "innocent civillian" in a war. They're only civillians, and war isn't about guilt or innocence but self-presevation. People that conflate innocence and war don't understand either.

This war in Iraq is not about self-preservation. Are you suggesting that it was? Fighting Nazi Germany was self-preservation. This war is not.

We "destalblized" what? A regional balance of dictatorships and terrorists breeding grounds. We had some mysterious obligation to maintain those dictatorships so people like you, as you did in your earlier paragraph, complain that the US is supporting dictatorships? Your hypocrisy is of the day-glo variety.

Hypocracy? Please. Hypocracy is cheering about overthrowing dictators while you sell weapons to other dictators. The US still maintains dictatorships TODAY! That is as hypocritical as you could possibly get.

No, that's why DU isn't the hazard you want to pretend it is.

No, you're the one getting excited that DU has a longer half-life than naturally occuring uranium, and then claiming that makes it worse. I was explaining your error. And the nuclear industry employs the concept of rem as the measure of whole-body dose.

No, pounds are a form of money.

The US needed to penetrate that armor, period. Cost may play a role, but there's other, engineering, decisions to make in the design of weaponry. But, yeah, it's probably cheaper. That's a good thing, too.

DU is naturally occuring Uranium, minus the U235. I don't think we need to continue this part of the conversation. You can believe what you want about DU; I will continue to believe what I want.

 

[python416]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Wrong. Jealousy of the west is a very big prevailant problem among the terrorist within the Radical element of this civilization. It is a psychological fact that they do indeed hate us for our freedoms. Our free uncontrolled lifestyles are a threat to every elitist, Mullah, and Cleric in the Middle East. Baghdad fell to the shame of every one of them that prefers a militant despot over western inspired democracy.

I encourage you to study about the mind of terrorists and the Middle Eastern Radical. Their problems with us range from their environment, their social issues, our foreign policy of the past to keep unstable and brutal governments stable, their religion, and the psychological mind of an Islamic terrorist.

The only formal study of suicide terrorism done that I know of is that published in Robert Pape's "Dying to Win". What do you consider a good source on the "mind of terrorists"?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Like I said, one way or another his days are over. We did not fight to end his days in 2003 just to alow him to still be alive or free when we leave.

Is he dead yet? No. That means he can still become a problem. Don't know what you're quibbling about, that's the simple reality.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Because everyone else in the world sees through the hypocracy of Bush's propaganda, and that is why the US is bearing the cost for this war all by itself.

Yeah, like the French, the Germans, and the Russians, all of whom acted in the UN Security Council to prevent international action because they were making money with Saddam in power.

What's not ever stated is that Iraq is part of a natural strategic plan. It's in the middle of the map, after all.

That might be true if Iran was the only threat. It isn't the only threat.

Well, if that's the case, why did you claim that we'd be in a stand-off with Iran? Backing away from an unsupportable position, are you?

You are calling Al-Qaeda isostatic force? Maybe the US should plan better if these isostatic forces are so powerful. Cause right now, I think US policy only serves to make Al-Qaeda stonger. Radicalize more people, get the US poplution to give up its freedoms, isolate the US from world politics, beat the US into making this the "holy war" bin Laden wants. Amplifying the isosatic force instead of dampening it.

You do realize that those straws won't keep you afloat? Perhaps you don't know what the term "isostatic adjustment" means? Clearly this is so.

This war in Iraq is not about self-preservation. Are you suggesting that it was? Fighting Nazi Germany was self-preservation. This war is not.

All wars are about self-preservation. There could have been other ways to deal with Iraq, but then we'd have appeared to be coddling dictators, and you're already on record for opposing that, aren't you?

Hypocracy? Please. Hypocracy is cheering about overthrowing dictators while you sell weapons to other dictators. The US still maintains dictatorships TODAY! That is as hypocritical as you could possibly get.

Yeah, the real world isn't a nice place, is it? Deals with unpleasant people are necessary when the alternatives are worse. Why did we arm the Mujehadeen in Afghanland? Because at the time we couldn't afford to let Gorbachev succeed in stealing that place. Why did we arm Hussein? Because he was helpful in squashing Iranian expansionist ambitions.

Both tactics had their place, they were successful, and we're better off for employing them. For the same reason, Roosevelt made a deal with Stalin against Hitler.

DU is naturally occuring Uranium, minus the U235. I don't think we need to continue this part of the conversation. You can believe what you want about DU; I will continue to believe what I want.

I'll never deny anyone the freedom to be wrong. Enjoy yourself.

 

[akyron]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

The only formal study of suicide terrorism done that I know of is that published in Robert Pape's "Dying to Win". What do you consider a good source on the "mind of terrorists"?

The Psychocultural Foundations of Contemporary Terrorism

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Yeah to bad your are making more new terrorists faster then you can kill the origainal ones. Great plan!

This is not a good time to be claiming the Iraq war is an effective means of anything but destabilizing the region and war profittering. In case you have notice, this week we are getting one step closer to civil war in Iraq.

How good of an idea will you think this war was when this is a full out civil war?

Because these sects liked and tolerated each other before we showed up ... right..... NO WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Just another little lie used by the cryin liberal base to complain about something to do with the president. They have been killing each other for generations. You just didn't care before.

Long as the animals are in Iraq. if we don't keep em there .. then they will come here. And you have made it so easy to get in, organize and kill our citizens that we gotta keep them busy in another country

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Is he dead yet? No. That means he can still become a problem. Don't know what you're quibbling about, that's the simple reality.

OK. Allow me to say it more plainly. Saddam Hussein will recevie a bullet to the face before he is allowed to gain any powewr again.

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

The only formal study of suicide terrorism done that I know of is that published in Robert Pape's "Dying to Win". What do you consider a good source on the "mind of terrorists"?

There are plenty of studies. Aside from books...

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/frd.html

www.mipt.org/pdf/Psychology-of-Terrorism.pdf

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/soc_psych_of_terrorism.pdf

www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000736.html

There are two types of terrorists - practical and apocalyptic.

At the core of many a terrorist leader is a spoiled brat disappointed by the failures of adulthood. Perhaps the most routine commonality between the practical and apocalyptic terrorist is the male terrorist’s inability to develop and maintain healthy, enduring relationships with women – although the practical terrorist is more apt to idealize members of the opposite sex, who then disappoint him, and to imagine himself re-created as a storybook hero of the sort he believes would appeal to his fantasy woman (Timothy Mcveigh), while the apocalyptic terrorist fears, despises, and hates females (Mohammed Atta, whose testament perfectly captured the Islamic fanatic’s revulsion toward women). Practical terrorist may be puritanical, but they are much more likely to accord women admission to and high status in their organizations (from numerous historical left-wing terrorist groups to the Tamil Tigers). The Apocalyptic terrorist usually mistrusts and shuns women (Al Queda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are classic examples, although some e Christian fringe groups also seem to believe that a word “evil” is derived from the root word “Eve”).

Terrorists are disturbed, unhappy men. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection of reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces, and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions – and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily-married terrorist.


1) A "pure" practical terrorist is an idealist (historically, secular universities have been excellent recruiting grounds for terrorists who want to force improvement upon the world). We have long struggled with this type in history and they have tangible goals and a logical approach to achieving them. Their logic may be cruel or cynical, but there is a rational relationship between their long-term goals, means, risks, assets and interim objectives. Ideology can dominate their thinking, bit it does not break loose entirely from mundane reality. Even when championing a particular religious minority, practical terrorists are concerned with rights, status and apportionment in the here and now, not beyond the grave (the IRA or the Stern Gang). The practical terrorist may have ambitious dreams - the overthrow of a state or the institution of a radically-new political system - and may be willing to undergo great hardship and sacrifice to pursue those dreams, but he is rarely suicidal and does not view death and destruction as goals unto themselves (The Unabomber targetted specific individuals in his attempts to "alert" the American society and did not use his abilities to attack undifferentiated citizens in a broad manner.) He may be convinced of his beliefs and embittered from society and the "system", but his goals are always the re-creation of the society or state, not its total annihilation. In other words, he wishes to "improve" society...not destroy it.

2) The hellish counterpart, the Apocalyptic terrorist, are a far more serious matter than even the deadliest practical terrorist. They are mentally divorced from our world and its values, and from any respect for flesh and blood. The practical terrorist has dreams, but the apocalyptic terrorist is lost in a nightmare. Jealous of our success and our power in the western world, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the 21st century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their god. Nothing we can do will persuade them otherwise (it is a dangerous peculiarity of Americans that we can "explain everything" satisfactorily to those who hate us - apocalyptic terrorists and their masses of sympathizers don't want explanations, they want revenge.) They can live among us and see only evil, even as they hypocritically enjoy video games and prostitues. Their extreme vision of the world constructs evil even from good, and easily rationalizes away the virtues of other societies and civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with, appeased, or even intimidated. No human voice can persuade the man who believes that God is speaking in his other ear. The apocalyptic terrorist may seem to have explanations, even justifications, for his attacks. He "wants the U.S. and Zions out of all Islamic countries," or reviles the invasive corruption of the West, or desires the establishment of a Palestinian state. But upon closer inspection, all these relatively rational purposes begin to blur and dissolve (Zarqawi slaughters secular Muslims.) The apocalyptic terrorist is also a coward. Most are not suicidal and are not so eager to blow himself up, yet cheer for those who are. It is impossible to content the apocalyptic terrorist. His agenda is against the world, not of it. Viewed closely, his vision is incohate, intuitive and destructive without limit. It is reality that has not pleased him, and he wants to destroy it. There is no greater blasphemer in any religion than the killer who appoints himself as "God's" agent, or assumes a godlike right to judge entire populations for himself. Pretending to defend his religion, he creates a vengeful splinter religion of his own.

 

[Pacridge]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

OK. Allow me to say it more plainly. Saddam Hussein will recevie a bullet to the face before he is allowed to gain any powewr again.

Isn't Hussein Sunni and thus in the minority? Even if Iraq continues to spiral toward chaos, how could/would he gain power? Seems like a Shiite leader would have a better chance at grabbing power then him.

 

[MSgt]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

Isn't Hussein Sunni and thus in the minority? Even if Iraq continues to spiral toward chaos, how could/would he gain power? Seems like a Shiite leader would have a better chance at grabbing power then him.

This is true, however don't forget that Baghdad fell to the collective shame of all those dictators and Arab elite that prefer an Islamic or militant despot to western inspired democracy. Another reason for leaving Saddam in place after the 1991 Gulf War was our fear of offending neighboring Arab monarchs and leaders, who themselves dread deposition. Our reward has been their discreet approval of the worst terrorists in history (no Arab or other Islamic state has made a serious effort to interfere with Osama bin Laden or his confederates; on the contrary, many are quietly gleeful at American suffering, even while professing their "deepest sympathies," and elements within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have provided funding or other support for anti-American terrorism). If supporting Saddam in his rise to power in Iraq will garner up the same diversion that the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict has, they will do it.

 

[Inuyasha]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

There are two types of terrorists - practical and apocalyptic.

1) A "pure" practical terrorist is an idealist (historically, secular universities have been excellent recruiting grounds for terrorists who want to force improvement upon the world). We have long struggled with this type in history and they have tangible goals and a logical approach to achieving them. Their logic may be cruel or cynical, but there is a rational relationship between their long-term goals, means, risks, assets and interim objectives. Ideology can dominate their thinking, bit it does not break loose entirely from mundane reality. Even when championing a particular religious minority, practical terrorists are concerned with rights, status and apportionment in the here and now, not beyond the grave (the IRA or the Stern Gang). The practical terrorist may have ambitious dreams - the overthrow of a state or the institution of a radically-new political system - and may be willing to undergo great hardship and sacrifice to pursue those dreams, but he is rarely suicidal and does not view death and destruction as goals unto themselves (The Unabomber targetted specific individuals in his attempts to "alert" the American society and did not use his abilities to attack undifferentiated citizens in a broad manner.) He may be convinced of his beliefs and embittered from society and the "system", but his goals are always the re-creation of the society or state, not its total annihilation. In other words, he wishes to "improve" society...not destroy it.

2) The hellish counterpart, the Apocalyptic terrorist, are a far more serious matter than even the deadliest practical terrorist. They are mentally divorced from our world and its values, and from any respect for flesh and blood. The practical terrorist has dreams, but the apocalyptic terrorist is lost in a nightmare. Jealous of our success and our power in the western world, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the 21st century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their god. Nothing we can do will persuade them otherwise (it is a dangerous peculiarity of Americans that we can "explain everything" satisfactorily to those who hate us - apocalyptic terrorists and their masses of sympathizers don't want explanations, they want revenge.) They can live among us and see only evil, even as they hypocritically enjoy video games and prostitues. Their extreme vision of the world constructs evil even from good, and easily rationalizes away the virtues of other societies and civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with, appeased, or even intimidated. No human voice can persuade the man who believes that God is speaking in his other ear. The apocalyptic terrorist may seem to have explanations, even justifications, for his attacks. He "wants the U.S. and Zions out of all Islamic countries," or reviles the invasive corruption of the West, or desires the establishment of a Palestinian state. But upon closer inspection, all these relatively rational purposes begin to blur and dissolve (Zarqawi slaughters secular Muslims.) The apocalyptic terrorist is also a coward. Most are not suicidal and are not so eager to blow himself up, yet cheer for those who are. It is impossible to content the apocalyptic terrorist. His agenda is against the world, not of it. Viewed closely, his vision is incohate, intuitive and destructive without limit. It is reality that has not pleased him, and he wants to destroy it. There is no greater blasphemer in any religion than the killer who appoints himself as "God's" agent, or assumes a godlike right to judge entire populations for himself. Pretending to defend his religion, he creates a vengeful splinter religion of his own.

This is an excellent picture of terrorism in a capsule. it also reinforces what I said a few posts back which was that long term indoctrination is certainly a technique that is used in forming terrorists but it is not the only technique that is used. Effective short term indoctrination is as effective as long term and produces a terrorism that is very potent. The practical terrorist can be trained and brainwashed in a matter of months but the long term indoctrination may work better for the apocalyptic terrorist.

Another point is that while to the majority here terrorism is mainly Muslim and/or Arab. I am speaking to a broader form.

 

[python416]

Re: should the international comunity Recogniz a governement chosen by the palestini

There are plenty of studies. Aside from books...

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/frd.html

www.mipt.org/pdf/Psychology-of-Terrorism.pdf

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/soc_psych_of_terrorism.pdf

www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000736.html

There are two types of terrorists - practical and apocalyptic.

At the core of many a terrorist leader is a spoiled brat disappointed by the failures of adulthood. Perhaps the most routine commonality between the practical and apocalyptic terrorist is the male terrorist’s inability to develop and maintain healthy, enduring relationships with women – although the practical terrorist is more apt to idealize members of the opposite sex, who then disappoint him, and to imagine himself re-created as a storybook hero of the sort he believes would appeal to his fantasy woman (Timothy Mcveigh), while the apocalyptic terrorist fears, despises, and hates females (Mohammed Atta, whose testament perfectly captured the Islamic fanatic’s revulsion toward women). Practical terrorist may be puritanical, but they are much more likely to accord women admission to and high status in their organizations (from numerous historical left-wing terrorist groups to the Tamil Tigers). The Apocalyptic terrorist usually mistrusts and shuns women (Al Queda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are classic examples, although some e Christian fringe groups also seem to believe that a word “evil” is derived from the root word “Eve”).

Terrorists are disturbed, unhappy men. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection of reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces, and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions – and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily-married terrorist.


1) A "pure" practical terrorist is an idealist (historically, secular universities have been excellent recruiting grounds for terrorists who want to force improvement upon the world). We have long struggled with this type in history and they have tangible goals and a logical approach to achieving them. Their logic may be cruel or cynical, but there is a rational relationship between their long-term goals, means, risks, assets and interim objectives. Ideology can dominate their thinking, bit it does not break loose entirely from mundane reality. Even when championing a particular religious minority, practical terrorists are concerned with rights, status and apportionment in the here and now, not beyond the grave (the IRA or the Stern Gang). The practical terrorist may have ambitious dreams - the overthrow of a state or the institution of a radically-new political system - and may be willing to undergo great hardship and sacrifice to pursue those dreams, but he is rarely suicidal and does not view death and destruction as goals unto themselves (The Unabomber targetted specific individuals in his attempts to "alert" the American society and did not use his abilities to attack undifferentiated citizens in a broad manner.) He may be convinced of his beliefs and embittered from society and the "system", but his goals are always the re-creation of the society or state, not its total annihilation. In other words, he wishes to "improve" society...not destroy it.

2) The hellish counterpart, the Apocalyptic terrorist, are a far more serious matter than even the deadliest practical terrorist. They are mentally divorced from our world and its values, and from any respect for flesh and blood. The practical terrorist has dreams, but the apocalyptic terrorist is lost in a nightmare. Jealous of our success and our power in the western world, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the 21st century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their god. Nothing we can do will persuade them otherwise (it is a dangerous peculiarity of Americans that we can "explain everything" satisfactorily to those who hate us - apocalyptic terrorists and their masses of sympathizers don't want explanations, they want revenge.) They can live among us and see only evil, even as they hypocritically enjoy video games and prostitues. Their extreme vision of the world constructs evil even from good, and easily rationalizes away the virtues of other societies and civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with, appeased, or even intimidated. No human voice can persuade the man who believes that God is speaking in his other ear. The apocalyptic terrorist may seem to have explanations, even justifications, for his attacks. He "wants the U.S. and Zions out of all Islamic countries," or reviles the invasive corruption of the West, or desires the establishment of a Palestinian state. But upon closer inspection, all these relatively rational purposes begin to blur and dissolve (Zarqawi slaughters secular Muslims.) The apocalyptic terrorist is also a coward. Most are not suicidal and are not so eager to blow himself up, yet cheer for those who are. It is impossible to content the apocalyptic terrorist. His agenda is against the world, not of it. Viewed closely, his vision is incohate, intuitive and destructive without limit. It is reality that has not pleased him, and he wants to destroy it. There is no greater blasphemer in any religion than the killer who appoints himself as "God's" agent, or assumes a godlike right to judge entire populations for himself. Pretending to defend his religion, he creates a vengeful splinter religion of his own.

Thanks for the links. I'll throw that into the queue of material I have and get back to you. It might take a while; I got a large queue.