Huh? Terrorists???

[slingblade]

The last presidential debate showed that at least the democrats do exactly this: Playing with fears to gain support.

Oh, honey, everyone plays on your fears to get what they want. That's Marketing 101.

Beauty products speak to the fear of aging.
Insurance: fear of calamity.
Cars: fear of failure (yes, it's a phallic thing).
Diet products: fear of non-conformity.

And on and on.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're stating the obvious. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go about life not being oblivious to being manipulated.

 

[MortFurd]

So you prefer to believe your politicians, give up freedoms and support anyone who's scaring you about terrorism? This is indeed naive. Terrorism may not be as much recognized than before 9/11, but this is the price for wealth and foreign policies. No extraordinary News at all - at least to everywhere outside the US.

Oh, crap, Oliver.

The US still has more freedom than Germany has ever had - and the country isn't free of terrorist threats, either.

Freedom:
1. Germany requires all citizens to be registered and to have an ID card. Failure to to so results in a fine - possibly jail time if you vehemently refuse to register. Doesn't bother criminals, of course, just the average person who objects to being tracked by his government. Since I'm a foreign national (American) living in Germany, it doesn't bother me that I have to register. I'd watch them ferriners too.

2. All children must attend religion classes in grade school. Not comparative religion, but religion as taught by a representative of the the local predominant religion. Some places you get a choice - protestant, catholic, other. I have no objection to studying religion as it is the driving force behind a lot of history and politics. I object to teaching a religion to children in a publically funded school - as is done here. I've yet to find a way to get my kids out of having to attend without causing an enormous fracas.

3. Everyone who owns a TV or radio in Germany pays a special tax to support the state run radio and TV stations, and the politcians are trying to expand that to include anyone who owns a computer as well. The gov. operated stations are now available as streaming audio and video on the net, so if you own a computer you could watch their programming. I don't watch news on the gov. stations much. In addition to figuring out the station's agenda (as I have to do with private stations like CNN and NTV,) I also have to guess how much is subtly influenced by politics behind the scenes between the stations and the gov.

4. Germany is far closer to a police state than the US. If a local national (German) wants to work for the US gov in Germany, they get a background check done by the local Einwohnermeldeamt (citizens registration office.) It takes a couple of weeks, mostly because bureaucrats move slowly in anything. When it does come back, it is a complete report of anything you've done anywhere in the country that got you in trouble with the police. All of the information is centrally stored and coordinated, making it easy to provide a complete report. What is stored besides your police record? I don't know, and neither do you.

5. Rasterfahndung. You ought to know that one. Take all the info out of the citizen and police databases and whatever else is available, and find people who fit a particular profile for a particular crime and pick them up for questioning. No particular suspicion of that person, just a matching profile. It gets used to try to find terrorists, both home grown ones like the RAF and foreign ones. It hasn't caught a single one that I've heard of, but the mechanism still exists.

6. Monitoring cameras in public places. They've been somewhat helpful in a couple of cases in the last year. More effective would have been for the criminals to have been still in jail, serving sentences for the crimes they were earlier convicted of instead of released for "resocializing." I'd rather the little boy still be alive and a repeat offender child molester stay in jail rather than let the bastard out and catch him on video kidnapping an innocent child. Or the would be suicide bombers whose bombs (fortunately) didn't go off. Since the bombs didn't go off, no one got hurt. The cameras let the police arrest the guys afterwards, but wouldn't have done any good if the terrorists had been competent.

Loss of Freedom in Germany due to fear of terrorists:
1. Politicians pushing for more cameras. The installed ones haven't actually stopped a crime, and the crimes they've solved would have been solved by other means just as well - the boy I mentioned before was kidnapped in a public bus, with a bus load of people as witnesses.
2. Politicians pushing for electronic ID cards that can be read remotely. Said cards to include electronic photos and fingerprint data, as well as the remotely readable ID info.


There have been several attempted suicide bombings in Germany since 9/11. Some were caught by old fashioned police work, and others (like the train bombs) were stopped by their own incompetence.


That turned into a great rambling mess, but it cheeses me off for Oliver to bitch about the US and ignore the things closer to (his) home - most especially since he has no first hand experience of the US.

 

[Oliver]

September 11th, 2001. Over 3000 innocent people lost their lives. We have yet to bring the perpetrators to justice. So quickly some of us forget.

I guess that at least a million of people lost their lives violently since 9/11. Especially many in Iraq. So this isn't an argument anymore in a plain good sense. And I also pointed out that 9/11 can't happen anymore the way it did. And all the acts were exaggerated reactions while the Government had all the information but failed to listen to Richard Clarke and John O'Neill.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Oliver]

The mainstream leftist opinion about this (which I agree with) is that al-Qaeda is a result of "blowback" --- the only reason they have any support is because the US is in the Middle East: supporting Israel, bombing Iraq, etc. Basically, the more people we kill over there, the more people we recruit to al-Qaeda. This is an over-simplification, but it's true enough. You don't win very many friends by killing their families.

Al-Qaeda is a criminal gang. They should be handled like one. The tactics that Bush uses to root them out is like using a rocket launcher to combat an infestation of fleas. (e.g., bragging about taking out one leader of al-Qaeda, and downplaying the fact they took out an entire neighborhood to do it....)

The US can't even handle the gangs in the US! Why does anybody think they can take out a gang halfway around the world?

The Gang-Argument is a very valid point and I've read some articles complaining about this issue because the fight against Gang's has been reduced. Do you think that the "War on Terror" is a farce, an alleged reason to push other foreign policies in the name of "Axis of Evil"?

 

[brodski]

The Gang-Argument is a very valid point and I've read some articles complaining about this issue because the fight against Gang's has been reduced. Do you think that the "War on Terror" is a farce, an alleged reason to push other foreign policies in the name of "Axis of Evil"?

The fight against gangs is largely a state issue, whereas the war against terror (TWAT) is a federal issue, as the states have no responsibility for international policy.

You’re comparing apples and hand grenades.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't talking about Al Qaida.

Umm, that's the point. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Seriously, you need to understand what's being discussed before you butt in.

This doesn't explain how Iraq is relevant.

You obviously didn't read it or understand it. If you did, you would have realized that I haven't mentioned al-quaida or Iraq. I'm not talking about Al Qaida. I'm looking at the larger picture. I'm talking about Islamic fanaticism and terrorism and their longterm goals of an Islamic state and the threat they pose to America, the West and the free world in general..



Don't waste your time. I'm well aware of the term.



And I see you haven't got a clue about what I'm talking. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of what I'm saying, you'll be talking to yourself tomorrow.

Let me get this clear: are your presuming a monolithic Islamist threat, or an allied coalition of Islamist threats to America, and for that matter, non Islamic polity?

Iraq is relevant as a battleground for at least two Islamist forces to make gains. The irony that the two are somewhat opposed is part of why I wonder at the nature of "the Islamist threat" that you seem to be hanging your commentary on.

The Islamist state of Iran has a strategic interest in capitalizing on the American invasion to set up a client, or another Islamic republic, in all or parts of Iraq.

An opposed Islamic faction, Al Qaeda, has a strategic interest in using Iraq as recruiting ground and sanctuary from which to conduct further operations.

Another Islamist faction, in Saudi that is not Al Qaeda, has an interest in influencing Iraq, or what is left of it, to turn toward a Sunni oriented Islamist state.

Iraq is relevant because, for better or worse, the US chose to change it by force. Whether it should have been or not, it has been added to the calculus of the "War on Terror" and the previous struggle that Islamists, of varying flavors, waged and still wage, versus a more secular world.

As to Islamist terrorists, their strategic horizon strikes me as being measured in decades. They have already successfully changed some of the cultures and nations who oppose them. The question is how long they can sustain a campaign of using force, and the threat of force, to induce further change as a reaction to their politically motivated actions. Since they have privileged sanctuary in a number of Islamic nations, I am not understanding your line on the US, or the West, having the political power to use force agianst Islamists in, for example, Saudi. The fig leaf of "innocent Muslims" behind whom the Islamists hide, and the West's own scruples, have not only been used repeatedly, but have apparently been strengthened by the failures in the war of images and symbols as waged in Washington.

Thus, your dismissal of "weak" Islamist forces underestimates what their strengths are, and seems also to ignore the assymetry that you tell me you understand.

If they were strong, we would have suffered a much more debilitating attack and it would have been carried out by either bombers, cruise missiles and/or a real military.

That bit is what told my you are not grokking assymetry.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Your last name must be Bauer, since you seem to raise a lot of straw on your farm.

What freedoms have you lost in Germany due to any War on Terror?

Al Qaeda has been around for longer than George Bush has been in the White House. They don't care what you believe, if you don't agree with them. Do you?

So what?

How decent of you, Oliver Der Bauer.

DR

We also had this political argle-bargle and the travel and personal identification have been updated to include Bio-Metric data. I don't think that was necessary but 9/11 gave our politicans the possibility to push this issue.

Agree with whom? I disagree with many issues concerning the current White House - but concerning Terrorism and the whole "War against the Axis of Evil" is a farce - a fairytale. So I wonder why people believe it and are willing to give up freedoms for this political fairytale.

You might not know it but the "Hamburg Cell" that was involved in 9/11 was investigated by german and international agencies, also the US. They failed to put them on Terror-lists to avoid their travel to the US. And even if I don't understand how this could have happened, they had all necessary Information to avoid the entrance into the US.

Every passed law since then is an exaggeration, and people who care should know it, shouldn't they? Maybe the Media missed to educate very well - I see no other reason why anyone should accept all the passed laws and acts.

 

[Oliver]

The fight against gangs is largely a state issue, whereas the war against terror (TWAT) is a federal issue, as the states have no responsibility for international policy.

You’re comparing apples and hand grenades.

That's not what I've read. The information I have is that units were focusing on Terrorism while the Gang-Issue was neglected after 9/11 (ordered from federal level). And my latest info is that they're slowly shifting back now to the Gang-issue.

Sorry but I can't find the LAPD article anymore that was explaining it more detailed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It seems that I am the only one here concerned with external threats. Whether you guys like it or not, terrorism IS a threat. 9/11 is proof of that. If they can pull off such an intricate attack as that, what might happen if they got their hands on a nuclear device? The devastation would be unimaginable. To let them do as they please is unacceptable. 9/11 was an attack against our country. Do you guys really feel no anger from 9/11? Do you not feel for your fellow Americans who lost their lives on 9/11? the way I see it, an attack against ANY of my fellow Americans is an attack against me, and I won't stand for it.

Firstly this is just more of the same appeals to emotion in place of logic. Your fellow Americans lose their lives to lightning strikes and drunk drivers too, and presumably to your way of thinking a drunken collision with ANY of your fellow Americans is a drunken collision with you and you should not stand for it.

Of course I suspect what is really going on here is that herd mentality I mentioned earlier. Forming a gang to do violence to outsiders is much more fun than trying to stop insiders from behaving irresponsibly, even if those irresponsible insiders are a far greater threat to you and everyone you care for.

Secondly you are presenting a very common false dichotomy by implying that if I don't think Al-Qaeda is a real and immediate threat to everything pure and good then I must be in favour of letting Al-Qaeda run amok. Nobody sane in the western world is actually in favour of that.

Thirdly, yes, I'm Australian so I'm less likely to have a strong emotional response to 9/11. If there is a factual case for treating terrorism as a really important threat you should be able to make it in terms that don't rely on that kind of strong emotional response to be effective.

 

[Oliver]

Firstly this is just more of the same appeals to emotion in place of logic. Your fellow Americans lose their lives to lightning strikes and drunk drivers too, and presumably to your way of thinking a drunken collision with ANY of your fellow Americans is a drunken collision with you and you should not stand for it.

Of course I suspect what is really going on here is that herd mentality I mentioned earlier. Forming a gang to do violence to outsiders is much more fun than trying to stop insiders from behaving irresponsibly, even if those irresponsible insiders are a far greater threat to you and everyone you care for.

Secondly you are presenting a very common false dichotomy by implying that if I don't think Al-Qaeda is a real and immediate threat to everything pure and good then I must be in favour of letting Al-Qaeda run amok. Nobody sane in the western world is actually in favour of that.

Thirdly, yes, I'm Australian so I'm less likely to have a strong emotional response to 9/11. If there is a factual case for treating terrorism as a really important threat you should be able to make it in terms that don't rely on that kind of strong emotional response to be effective.

I don't know if you were interested in this issue and had the chance to compare the US-Media about terrorism with your Australian Media: Did you see any difference if you had the chance to compare?

It may sound strange but if I compare these two Medias, the US seemed to be at least a little bit paranoid about this issue - and also politicians use terrorism pretty much, which indicates that this still is an issue to gain votes.

In Germany, for example - this wouldn't work because nobody here is scared, even if we live much closer to the "Axis of Evil"-states. I guess it's the same in Australia, isn't it?

 

[mikex1337]

Are you superman? Your state of denial does not ward off death by fanatics.

 

[Oliver]

Are you superman? Your state of denial does not ward off death by fanatics.

It's no denial - but terrorism isn't new to me. So even if 9/11 was the biggest Terror-Attack yet, terrorism itself is pretty old in the rest of the world. Nothing that scares me at all. You just may not be familiar with terrorism if you are afraid of it - even after the security holes were fixed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thirdly, yes, I'm Australian so I'm less likely to have a strong emotional response to 9/11. If there is a factual case for treating terrorism as a really important threat you should be able to make it in terms that don't rely on that kind of strong emotional response to be effective.

Kevin, how did you react to the Bali bombing?

FWIW: In politics, weaving emotional appeal is part and parcel of generating support for a policy or course of action. It is simplistic to presume that one can do so in a manner devoid of emotion.

There is a case indeed for treating terrorism as a factual threat, the matter under question is the means and methods, not that it needs treating.

DR

 

[negativ]

Funny. That's how I KNOW they aren't much of a threat. If the worst the can do is hijack some planes and crash them into buildings, then we're in the clear. 9/11 was a display of their tenacity, but it was always a display of their sheer weakness.

Right, because 9/11 didn't have any short- or long-term negative "ripple effects" beyond just making a big mess in lower Manhattan.

Suppose the US had its own Beslan. Sure, the immediate result might only be a messed-up gymnasium and a few hundred dead kids, but what do you think the real effect would be?

How about a wave of Palestinian-style suicide bombers in a few suburban shopping malls? The jihadi equivalent of a Virginia Tech every few days for a month?

A handful of sufficiently sneaky and dedicated aspiring martyrs could quite easily set in motion a process that would have a much wider effect than the catalyzing events themselves.

Just sayin'.

 

[Ziggurat]

That wasn't my point. My point was that no matter what they can do. The West can visit it back upon them 1000 fold. They are fighting a losing battle.

Yes, they are weak, and yes, they are fighting a losing battle. But while their eventual defeat is all but certain, the COST, most especially to their side, is not. As you say, the West will visit it back upon them 1000 fold if they ever nuke us. But isn't it rather worth quite a lot to not let it get to that point? To defeat them before they are at a stage where they can accomplish such a thing, and before our vengeance becomes truly large? Radical Islam is the greatest threat to muslims, and while they may not pose an existential threat to the west, they CAN pose such a threat to the muslim world. The dynamic you yourself suggested can lead to terrorists destroying Islam. I would rather it not come to that, but if it ever does come to them or us, it will be them.

 

[marksman]

So you believe that anyone down there doesn't have bigger problems than the freedoms of the western world?

No. I repeat.

You asked why the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hate the West. I patiently explained the hisotry of Al Qaeda and how it is rooted in a philosophical hatred of pluralism, democracy and tolerance.

You then claimed that's not what they use ot recruit people.

I pointed out that the primary means for recruiting people is, in fact, threats of repealing modesty laws, or introducing democracy and Western-style licentiousness.

You then for some reaosn think this means I say that people in that region don't have bigger problems.

Let's explore all the fallacies.
1) We were discussing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, not everyone from the region.
2) We were discussing the reasons for their hatred of the West, not their problems in general.
3) We were discussing fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, who hail from such disparate regions as Indonesia, Algeria and Pakistan (and others). SO it is not clear at all to which "region" you refer.

And, of course, you still haven't been able to keep on topic.

I have now explained to you the history of Al Qaeda as a political movement founded in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It is not a response to the creation of Israel (which it predates), the explosion of AMerican commercialism (which it predates) or the invasion of Iraq (which it predates). It certainly uses these actions as additional points to recruit likeminded individuals, but its primary goal, as is the primary goal of most Sunni terror groups) is the re-establishment of the Caliphate over all of Dar-al-Islam, which encompasses any territory ever governed by Muslims (including Spain, Portugal, Greece, India and Israel).

You claimed to want information, but having been given this information you obfuscate by trying to change the subject.

Is my position clearer to you now?

 

[Tony]

Right, because 9/11 didn't have any short- or long-term negative "ripple effects" beyond just making a big mess in lower Manhattan.

Suppose the US had its own Beslan. Sure, the immediate result might only be a messed-up gymnasium and a few hundred dead kids, but what do you think the real effect would be?

How about a wave of Palestinian-style suicide bombers in a few suburban shopping malls? The jihadi equivalent of a Virginia Tech every few days for a month?

A handful of sufficiently sneaky and dedicated aspiring martyrs could quite easily set in motion a process that would have a much wider effect than the catalyzing events themselves.

Just sayin'.

Ok. What's your point? Do you think I don't know this? I've been posting on this forum for 4 years. I've made the same point and I've read othesr make the same point many many times. This doesn't change the fact that they're weak.

 

[marksman]

Al-Qaeda is not a threat to the USA, the EU or the existing world order in the way that Nazi Germany, imperial Japan or the USSR were threats.

I agree. It is a much milder threat than communism or fascism. That doesn't mean it is not a threat.

Al-Qaeda can definitely kill you, but for US residents the odds of being killed by it are so low that they do not rationally merit extraordinary attention.

Unless, like me, you live in a place that is a prime target for Al Qaeda. Since I lost two dear friends in 9/11, forgive me for thinking the odds aren't as sanguine as you believe.

What I find most interesting about the views parroted by people like Marksman is that they cannot be content with believing that Al-Qaeda is opposed to US involvement in the Middle East for misguided reasons. That could be a perfectly coherent view with a bit of work. Instead they have to believe that it is absolutely nothing to do with US involvement in the Middle East and that it is all because the USA champions democracy and exposed ankles.

I said nothing of the sort and shame on you for trying to bolster your argument with condescending terms liek "parroting".

I gave the actual history of Al Qaeda as a political movement, which predates the US involvement in the region. I also stated outright that I am against the War in Iraq, which you seemed to have ignored or failed to comprehend.

Yes, Amercian political and military actions in the Middle East have exacerbated the problem, but they are not the root cause of the problem. To remove themselves form the region, America would have to abandon democratic nations and allies such as Turkey and India (and that's even assumign we utterly abandoned Israel), as well as commercial parters like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, as well as our more unsavory allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We would have to forbid American businesses from exporting products there, particularly movies and television shows. and even were the US to utterly isolate itself politically from the region, the problem would not go away.

Even had we not accepted Saudi Arabia's plea to send troops intot he region to reverse Saddam's invasion of Iraq. Even had we not invaded Iraq. Even had we sat back as France and England withdrew from the former Ottoman Empire during the Cold war and ceded the vast majority of the world's oil supply to Soviet influence, Al Qaeda would still be a threat.

It would not be, and is not, as big a threat as Fascism or Communism. The War on Terror is absolutely overblown, miguided, misdirected and mismanaged. But just because the reaction to the threat is improper does not mean the threat is non-existent. That is a fallacy of deadly magnitude.

 

[Tony]

Yes, they are weak, and yes, they are fighting a losing battle.

I knew I could count on you to understand what I'm saying.

But while their eventual defeat is all but certain, the COST, most especially to their side, is not.

True.

But isn't it rather worth quite a lot to not let it get to that point?

Yes, but I think it's almost inevitable that it will get to that point. I hope it doesn't, but I don't think it's possible to utterly defeat them the way the conflict is being faught right now. We're pretty much in a voluntary stalemate, the West has the means, but doesn't yet have the will to do whats neccessary to break the stalemate. I think it will take something on the scale of a nuclear attack to give the west the motivation to break the stalemate.

To defeat them before they are at a stage where they can accomplish such a thing, and before our vengeance becomes truly large?

I hope we do, but I don't think we will.

Radical Islam is the greatest threat to muslims, and while they may not pose an existential threat to the west, they CAN pose such a threat to the muslim world. The dynamic you yourself suggested can lead to terrorists destroying Islam.

This is exactly what I'm saying and frankly, I wouldn't lament the destruction of Islam.

I would rather it not come to that, but if it ever does come to them or us, it will be them.

Yep.

 

[Oliver]

No. I repeat.

You asked why the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hate the West. I patiently explained the hisotry of Al Qaeda and how it is rooted in a philosophical hatred of pluralism, democracy and tolerance.

You then claimed that's not what they use ot recruit people.

I pointed out that the primary means for recruiting people is, in fact, threats of repealing modesty laws, or introducing democracy and Western-style licentiousness.

You then for some reaosn think this means I say that people in that region don't have bigger problems.

Let's explore all the fallacies.
1) We were discussing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, not everyone from the region.
2) We were discussing the reasons for their hatred of the West, not their problems in general.
3) We were discussing fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, who hail from such disparate regions as Indonesia, Algeria and Pakistan (and others). SO it is not clear at all to which "region" you refer.

And, of course, you still haven't been able to keep on topic.

I have now explained to you the history of Al Qaeda as a political movement founded in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It is not a response to the creation of Israel (which it predates), the explosion of AMerican commercialism (which it predates) or the invasion of Iraq (which it predates). It certainly uses these actions as additional points to recruit likeminded individuals, but its primary goal, as is the primary goal of most Sunni terror groups) is the re-establishment of the Caliphate over all of Dar-al-Islam, which encompasses any territory ever governed by Muslims (including Spain, Portugal, Greece, India and Israel).

You claimed to want information, but having been given this information you obfuscate by trying to change the subject.

Is my position clearer to you now?

Your position was clear to me all the time - nevertheless I don't believe that the initial agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood didn't change over the years. It's like saying the US is still fighting communism in the war on terror - which is a simple fallacy on your side.

The main reason nowadays aren't some dumb freedoms - it's the foreign policies. And -oh wonder- the Iraq war was exactly what Al Qaida proclaimed all the years before: "The US will invade an innocent country."

And with Iraq it's exactly what happened...

Please watch before you reply: (from 00:20:00)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE