Terror or anger

[Dogger807]

One of the most basic things to do in conflict is to know thy enemy. I'm going to ask a question just to put our usual debates on edge and view them from a different angle.


Do you think that another successful terror attack against the United States would be productive or detrimental to the goals of islamic extremists?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

One of the most basic things to do in conflict is to know thy enemy. I'm going to ask a question just to put our usual debates on edge and view them from a different angle.


Do you think that another successful terror attack against the United States would be productive or detrimental to the goals of islamic extremists?

---
It will only show that we are NOT closing up our borders.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

---
It will only show that we are NOT closing up our borders.

Or people will draw whatever conclusions they want from the next attack.

• Bush hasn't protected us, twice
• We need to do more of what Bush wants to do to protect us
• They're coming across our borders
• There are cells in America, we should do X (insert whatever authoritarian bullshit you want)
• Liberty for safety, etc...

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Or people will draw whatever conclusions they want from the next attack.

• Bush hasn't protected us, twice
• We need to do more of what Bush wants to do to protect us
• They're coming across our borders
• There are cells in America, we should do X (insert whatever authoritarian bullshit you want)
• Liberty for safety, etc...

---
True, what I posted is my conclusion.

 

[Dogger807]

Good points, but not what I was looking for.

Personally I was thinking such an attack would be detrimental to islamic extremists because Americans don't get scared from these attack nearly as much as we get mad. I think they would be further from their goals of world domination ,,,, not closer.

 

[bhkad]

Good points, but not what I was looking for.

Personally I was thinking such an attack would be detrimental to islamic extremists because Americans don't get scared from these attack nearly as much as we get mad. I think they would be further from their goals of world domination ,,,, not closer.

AIP Conference, Chicago Illinois, 1996

Speaker - Abdulrahman Alamoudi, Executive Director of the American Muslim Council (AMC)

"If we are outside this country we can say O Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America."

The Clintons, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and the Myth of "Moderate" Islam

The bottom line to what Phares has to say is this; the enemy is much bigger, better organized and has much clearer goals than most people imagine. If you think that the only people out to get us are Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, you're only seeing a tiny part of the picture.

The point is that people we consider "terrorists" are only a part of the enemy. Many are not trying to kill us, at least not yet.

Phares relates a debate that took place on al Jazeera shortly after 9-11. The show was titled Opposed Directions, and it was set up like a Hannity and Colmes or Crossfire, where the arguments get hot and heavy. The two guests, Phares says, were almost literally at each other's throats.

The question at hand was over the "worthyness" of bin Laden's attacks, whether he had done good or bad to the Arab world. However, one was not for the attack and the other agains. They both argued in favor of the attack. The only difference was that one thought that bin Laden should have waited a few years until the time was more ripe.

This debate, Phares says, was representative of what went on across the Arab and Muslim worlds.
http://theredhunter.com/2007/03/book_review_future_jihad_part_1_the_logic_of_jihad.php

There are many Holy Warriors who will not understand or heed any admonitions to avoid violence in America, so we can not rest securely in the pipe dream that there won't be attacks in America. Personally, I think there will be. And if there are it will remove the doubt in some people's minds and stiffen our resolve.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

One of the most basic things to do in conflict is to know thy enemy. I'm going to ask a question just to put our usual debates on edge and view them from a different angle.


Do you think that another successful terror attack against the United States would be productive or detrimental to the goals of islamic extremists?

Very good and original thread, Dogger807. If we assume that the immediate goals of Islamic extremists are to encourage America to leave Iraq and to lessen support for Israel, then I believe that an attack on America would be a detriment to those goals. Islamic extremists have seen America's resolve in aggressively seeking out those that would perform terror, regardless of whether we find them or not. More aggressivity is not what they want to create. Also, from a public relations/political standpoint, an unprovoked attack would less support from around the world and could, finally, bring into the open, the more moderate of their ilk.

 

[dixon76710]

I think we would fold like a cheap suit. The rush to abandon Iraq would accelerate. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would be blamed for their anger. The calls for "diplomacy"(give them what they want) with Iran and Syria would increase. It would propel candidates for President and Congress, who have opposed the war in Iraq, into office. Their interest would be served. The effectiveness of their tactics would be validated and their popularity in the Islamic world for standing up against the evil empire would increase.

 

[Cephus]

I said it wouldn't matter, simply because the majority of Americans neither know nor care about the real goals of Islamic terrorists, they only know what the claims and talking points of American politicians are. All most Americans know about Muslims is "they hate us for our freedom" when the real answer is closer to "they want us to leave them the hell alone!"

 

[dixon76710]

I said it wouldn't matter, simply because the majority of Americans neither know nor care about the real goals of Islamic terrorists, they only know what the claims and talking points of American politicians are. All most Americans know about Muslims is "they hate us for our freedom" when the real answer is closer to "they want us to leave them the hell alone!"

They want us to leave them alone so they can achieve their "real goals".

 

[Gardener]

I believe it would help since it would show us to be vulnerable. We are dealing with those who view us as morally weak and decadent, and what better recruiting tool than by exploiting our weakness?

THe roots of Islamic terrorism lies in the psychology of the culture producing it. As far as I'm concerned, much of the root cause for Islamic terrorism lies in the cognitive dissonance between the fact that people have been indoctrinated into seeing their culture as superior but are faced with the stark reality that it isn't. The retreat into a barbarous form of religion and the terrorization of others is an enormous acting out as it were. From this standpoint, successful terrorist acts just play into the general psychology as it reinforces the illusion that they really are superior.

The q'ran is filled with chaevenistic rhetotic, and reinforces its own superiority constantly. Most importantly,it reinforces it's superiority, not just against ancient tribes long since gone, but by direct reference to Jews and Christians. Islamism is an expression of superiority and what better way to show that those who have the power are actually inferior than by attacking them where they are weakest?

 

[Kasmos]

It would be very detrimental as it would give Bush another excuse to invade some foreign Middle Eastern country, yet again putting another country into distress.

And if you think I believe Bush would pull the same sh!t he pulled with Iraq after 9/11 if another terrorist attack occurred, you'd damn well be sure I think he's stupid enough to do so.

 

[dixon76710]

It would be very detrimental as it would give Bush another excuse to invade some foreign Middle Eastern country, yet again putting another country into distress.

And if you think I believe Bush would pull the same sh!t he pulled with Iraq after 9/11 if another terrorist attack occurred, you'd damn well be sure I think he's stupid enough to do so.

Wow! Heaven forbid we do something "detrimental to the goals of islamic extremists"(sarcasm). You must be a Democrat or an extremist.

 

[dixon76710]

I The q'ran is filled with chaevenistic rhetotic, and reinforces its own superiority constantly. Most importantly,it reinforces it's superiority, not just against ancient tribes long since gone, but by direct reference to Jews and Christians. Islamism is an expression of superiority and what better way to show that those who have the power are actually inferior than by attacking them where they are weakest?

....until they are in a state of subjection.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

[rivrrat]

Well, as others have pointed out... it depends on what their goals are. If their goal would be to strike terror into our hearts and make us retreat, they would fail miserably. As upset as I was when I watched the Pentagon burn outside my office building, and watched the towers on TV... I wasn't terrified. They didn't scare me. They pissed me the **** off. I daresay that was a common sentiment.

If their goal was to have us limit our own liberty, thereby restricting our freedom in the name of freedom roll, then I think they would succeed. Because they've succeeded on that front already.

If their goal was to have more Muslims put into our jails, or held and questioned, and decrease public opinion of Islam, they would succeed.

If their goal was to be "superior", they would fail.

If their goal was to get us out of the ME, they would fail.

If their goal was to kill innocent people, I'm sure they'd succeed. But if they think that would make a country full of armed citizens cower and hide and submit, they'd be dead wrong.

 

[Cephus]

They want us to leave them alone so they can achieve their "real goals".

See, you've fallen for the ultra-right lies too.

 

[dixon76710]

See, you've fallen for the ultra-right lies too.

If by ultra-right you mean Wahhabi or Salafi Islam, yes, I take them at their word. I'll believe what they tell us are their motives before I'll believe what some Muslim apologist tells me their motives are.

 

[Gibberish]

The outcome relies on America. If we, as we did after 9/11, performed acts out of pure emotional then yes it could be productive for the terrorists once that emotion wore off and America saw with clear vision at what they chose to do.

Those acts that we will perform are key. If they are a catastrophe, like Iraq, then that would be productive to terrorists. If we succeed in our act and produce a positive result then that would be detrimental for terrorists.

If we are attacked again by Al-Q, America will want someones head. We just don't know if it's Bush's or Bin Laden's.

 

[dixon76710]

The outcome relies on America. If we, as we did after 9/11, performed acts out of pure emotional then yes it could be productive for the terrorists once that emotion wore off and America saw with clear vision at what they chose to do.

Those acts that we will perform are key. If they are a catastrophe, like Iraq, then that would be productive to terrorists. If we succeed in our act and produce a positive result then that would be detrimental for terrorists.

If we are attacked again by Al-Q, America will want someones head. We just don't know if it's Bush's or Bin Laden's.

????? Soooo if we go for Bush's head its a benefit to the terrorist, if we go for Bin Laden's its a detriment???... or is it the other way around?

 

[Gibberish]

????? Soooo if we go for Bush's head its a benefit to the terrorist, if we go for Bin Laden's its a detriment???... or is it the other way around?

No. My seconds paragraph dictated what would be or would not be a detriment. My third paragraph is merely what America's emotional outcry might be after another attack.

If we would have succeeded in Iraq then it would have been terrible for Al-Q. The problem here is we can never succeed in Iraq because our success is determined on the Iraqi's doing as we envision, which is not the case and will not be the case. Al-Q is reaping the awards of the anarchy caused by our invasion of Iraq.

 

[dixon76710]

Well, as others have pointed out... it depends on what their goals are.

no one but Allah!

Bin Laden 1998 Fatwa
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

 

[Arillious]

The goal of a terrorist is to instill terror. Another attack on the United States would do that. Thus, it would be productive to their cause.

 

[niftydrifty]

Good points, but not what I was looking for.

Personally I was thinking such an attack would be detrimental to islamic extremists because Americans don't get scared from these attack nearly as much as we get mad. I think they would be further from their goals of world domination ,,,, not closer.

I don't think it's an either/or. We get scared. and we get mad. and we react without learning. but primarily we go off and use the terrorist attack as a rationale for other stuff in the middle east unrelated to the perpetrators of the original attack. Islamic extremists will be delighted if they strike again successfully and our next response is just as off-the-rails as the last one.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I said it wouldn't matter, simply because the majority of Americans neither know nor care about the real goals of Islamic terrorists, they only know what the claims and talking points of American politicians are. All most Americans know about Muslims is "they hate us for our freedom" when the real answer is closer to "they want us to leave them the hell alone!"

---
If the answer is like you said 'they want us to leave them alone' then how do you explain them hitting us on 911?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

"IF" we get hit again what poor country will Bush invade because of it?
Canada, Mexico, Japan, France?
I am sure that most countrys are praying that we do not get hit again for fear that Bush may go after there country even though they had nothing to do with the hit just like Bush did to Iraq when they had nothing to do with 911.