Huh? Terrorists???

[Kevin_Lowe]

Another source: The 9/11 commission report:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

28.These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.

The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Michael Rolince interview (June 9, 2004).

Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent
contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.See, e.g., FBI report of investigation, interview of Mohammed Saleh Bin Laden, Sept. 21, 2001.As Richard Clarke noted, long before 9/11 the FBI was following members of the Bin Ladin family in the United States closely. Richard Clarke testimony, Mar. 24, 2004.

I think the reason Moore brought the issue up was that these people were highly likely to have information relevant to the investigation of 9/11. The mere fact that they denied this when asked is not very good evidence that they knew nothing.

Now US policy in such cases usually seems to be to whisk such individuals away and waterboard them for a few years. However this lot were waved out of the country by the FBI because they said they didn't know anything, mere days after 9/11 and long before a proper investigation could seriously begin. That's not normally what you do with potential suspects in the investigation of the murder of 3000 people.

 

[negativ]

I do not understand why we panicked after 9/11. Three thousand people were killed in a tragic act of senseless violence. More than fifty thousand people die every year in this country in traffic accidents. Thousands of people die all the time from preventable illnesses we lack the political will to treat affordably.

Brought to you by the Noam Chomsky Foundation for Deftly Ignoring Intent. Excelsior!

We know that 15 of the hijackers cam from Saudi Arabia, a country that has seen a precipitous decline in per capita income in the past thirty years, and yet we continue to support the brutish, theocratic regime of monarchical monsters who strangle that country merely because they're our ally in a region we don't much try to understand.

How refreshing to see that we can agree with Al Qaeda on these fundamental ideas. It's a small world after all. The only thing you left out was the necessity of slaughtering the present kafir regime and replacing them with True Muslims. Of course, I'm certain that you're extensively familiar with the roots of the conflict in the region and have chosen your position very deliberately. It's up to me to discern why you reject the Caliphate that's such a popular idea among the young kids these days.

We invaded a country completely unrelated to any acts of terrorism against the U.S because, well, I'm still not clear on what the administration's motives were. The poverty and social injustice we support, whether knowingly in some kind of cunning plan or, more likely, out of disinterest, in the Middle East has created fertile ground for these terrorists groups to recruit. They're very attractive to disenfranchised and poor young men angry with a system that involves American apathy. It's that very apathy and our arrogance which makes America a convenient scape goat for more complicated problems.

The really cool and spiffy thing about your point of view here is that you don't want to take anyone at their word. The Bush administration went on and on and on and on at great length about their various motivations for invading Iraq. That many of their facts were mistaken, misinterpreted, or outright fabricated is a matter for discussion, but their stated motives have never been a mystery.

Likewise, you also don't want to take jihadist terrorists at their word. Not all of them (and certainly not the strategists) are "poor young angry men". The fact is, as you will find explicitly and unequivocally stated by not only the terrorist leadership but also the aspiring martyrs themselves, that they simply wish nothing more than to die in service to Allah. An awful lot of people have a very hard time understanding that some people genuinely believe what their religion teaches. So many people want to ascribe political or economic motivations to people who have stated over and over that all they want is to die for God. You can't imagine wanting to die for God, but you CAN imagine hating a political or economic policy, so that's where you go.

I'm not as frightened of a bunch of self-righteous religious murderers as I am of our lack of empathy, our indifference, and our ignorance. In the long run, we're much more destructive to ourselves than any suicide bomber could be.

Let's stick you in a room full of 10 of each and see which group you're more successful reasoning with.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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?

The government has been trying to drum up fear of terrorism, with limited success, and the news channel have tried out various scare stories for ratings. It doesn't seem to be as extreme as the US media slant, nor does it seem to be reflected to the same extent in Australian popular sentiment as far as I am aware.

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.

"I refuse to believe it is unlikely that I will win the lotto, because I know two people who have won the lotto. How sanguine can the odds be?".

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.

You might as well blame Feuerbach for Stalinism as blame Wahhab for 9/11, seeing as Wahhab died in 1792.

Movements like Wahhabism depend on conditions on the ground here and now to cause trouble, and the causes of those conditions on the ground are a more fruitful set of causes to investigate if you want to get to the bottom of modern terrorism. You can't do anything about Wahhab because he died over two hundrd years ago, but you can do something about the situations in the Middle East right now that cause young men there to think that terrorism is a good idea.

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.

I think there are probably reasons why Iraqi youths hear about Wahhab and blow themselves up, where elsewhere in the world they usually hear about Wahhab and just become irrational and annoying.

In any case, you are drawing a false dichotomy here again. Abandoning courses of action that lead to widespread, murderous hatred of the USA is not synonymous with handing the keys to the Middle East to Wahhabist nutters. There will always be extremists, but you can avoid doing things which drive the mainstream to extremes.

For example, if the USA leaned on client states like Kuwait to institute democratic, liberal reforms and distribute the country's wealth in a more egalitarian fashion it might not only annoy the Wahhabists but it also might make sensible people in the Middle East more likely to think of the USA as a positive influence.

If I recall correctly, a reasonable number of Iraqis responding to surveys said that they were not opposed to the US overthrow of Hussein shortly after it happened. That number plummetted as US mismanagement led to widespread social collapse and a death toll in the tens of thousands. That says to me that the problem is not blind anti-Americanism as you would have it, but a rational feeling that US intervention in the Middle East is not at all in their best interests.

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.

Nobody ever said the threat was non-existent. The question is how serious the threat is compared to other threats, and what an appropriate response to that threat is.

This had been explained earlier. You must have missed it. Drunk driving, lightning strikes, murders, car accidents, etc are not malicious acts targeted specifically against Americans from outside sources. The mere fact that you would compare a terrorist attack to a drunk driving accident or lightning strike makes me question whether you are even worth debating.

I think you can already see how weak this argument is, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it by saying that my failure to accept it is evidence I'm not worth debating.

Dead is dead. If I'm dead because a terrorist blew me up or dead because a drunkard ran me down it makes no difference to me. If you want to protect your fellow Americans it makes no sense to want to protect them from low-probability external threats much more than high-probability domestic threats.

I do agree though that a malicious, external threat is much more fun than someone who drinks and drives occasionally, because you can get high on hatred and self-righteousness, dress up in camouflage pyjamas and drop napalm on them with a clear conscience. Or watch it on TV, which is just as much fun for some people and safer to boot. That doesn't make the actual risk any greater though, it just means that certain kinds of threat tend to provoke a violent response more than others.

You can sit there and argue all day that terrorism isn't that big of a threat and it should be put on the back burner. All I gotta say is that I am glad people like you aren't defending America. I wonder if you would say terrorism is not that big of a threat if they detonated a nuclear bomb in the center of New York?...

I'd say leopards are not a major threat to society, but I'd change my mind if millions of leopards invaded homes across the world. My position with regard to Al-Qaeda is about the same. There are all sorts of nutbags in the world I wouldn't want having a nuclear weapon, Al-Qaeda not least among them, and if there was any actual evidence any of them had a nuclear weapon than would be a cause for vast concern.

There is no such evidence however, and I don't think successfully acquiring, maintaining, deploying and detonating such a device is so easy that I should stay awake at nights over the possibility a terrorist cell might manage to do so.

Fantasies about Iranians giving terrorists nuclear weapons, or them buying them cheap from former-USSR states, seem to me mostly to be scare stories used to try to stampede people into inappropriately and extreme reactions.

 

[Oliver]

The government has been trying to drum up fear of terrorism, with limited success, and the news channel have tried out various scare stories for ratings. It doesn't seem to be as extreme as the US media slant, nor does it seem to be reflected to the same extent in Australian popular sentiment as far as I am aware.

"I refuse to believe it is unlikely that I will win the lotto, because I know two people who have won the lotto. How sanguine can the odds be?".

You might as well blame Feuerbach for Stalinism as blame Wahhab for 9/11, seeing as Wahhab died in 1792.

Movements like Wahhabism depend on conditions on the ground here and now to cause trouble, and the causes of those conditions on the ground are a more fruitful set of causes to investigate if you want to get to the bottom of modern terrorism. You can't do anything about Wahhab because he died over two hundrd years ago, but you can do something about the situations in the Middle East right now that cause young men there to think that terrorism is a good idea.

I think there are probably reasons why Iraqi youths hear about Wahhab and blow themselves up, where elsewhere in the world they usually hear about Wahhab and just become irrational and annoying.

In any case, you are drawing a false dichotomy here again. Abandoning courses of action that lead to widespread, murderous hatred of the USA is not synonymous with handing the keys to the Middle East to Wahhabist nutters. There will always be extremists, but you can avoid doing things which drive the mainstream to extremes.

For example, if the USA leaned on client states like Kuwait to institute democratic, liberal reforms and distribute the country's wealth in a more egalitarian fashion it might not only annoy the Wahhabists but it also might make sensible people in the Middle East more likely to think of the USA as a positive influence.

If I recall correctly, a reasonable number of Iraqis responding to surveys said that they were not opposed to the US overthrow of Hussein shortly after it happened. That number plummetted as US mismanagement led to widespread social collapse and a death toll in the tens of thousands. That says to me that the problem is not blind anti-Americanism as you would have it, but a rational feeling that US intervention in the Middle East is not at all in their best interests.

Nobody ever said the threat was non-existent. The question is how serious the threat is compared to other threats, and what an appropriate response to that threat is.

I think you can already see how weak this argument is, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it by saying that my failure to accept it is evidence I'm not worth debating.

Dead is dead. If I'm dead because a terrorist blew me up or dead because a drunkard ran me down it makes no difference to me. If you want to protect your fellow Americans it makes no sense to want to protect them from low-probability external threats much more than high-probability domestic threats.

I do agree though that a malicious, external threat is much more fun than someone who drinks and drives occasionally, because you can get high on hatred and self-righteousness, dress up in camouflage pyjamas and drop napalm on them with a clear conscience. Or watch it on TV, which is just as much fun for some people and safer to boot. That doesn't make the actual risk any greater though, it just means that certain kinds of threat tend to provoke a violent response more than others.

I'd say leopards are not a major threat to society, but I'd change my mind if millions of leopards invaded homes across the world. My position with regard to Al-Qaeda is about the same. There are all sorts of nutbags in the world I wouldn't want having a nuclear weapon, Al-Qaeda not least among them, and if there was any actual evidence any of them had a nuclear weapon than would be a cause for vast concern.

There is no such evidence however, and I don't think successfully acquiring, maintaining, deploying and detonating such a device is so easy that I should stay awake at nights over the possibility a terrorist cell might manage to do so.

Fantasies about Iranians giving terrorists nuclear weapons, or them buying them cheap from former-USSR states, seem to me mostly to be scare stories used to try to stampede people into inappropriately and extreme reactions.

Here in Germany this also was an political and an issue in the Media after the attacks. But the majority simply knows that Al Qaida is just another, even if a relatively new, Terror-Group - nothing more.

And I completely agree with the rest of your post, even I might add the intention for this thread:

1. There are dozens of Terror-Groups. Al Qaida is one more, so what?

2. The CIA had all necessary Info and a lot of warnings to avoid the attacks. Also the Idea to use Planes and fly them into buildings. All of this was already there - so every passed Act since then was unnecessary.

3. The FAA was responsible to implement secure doors in Cockpits. This pretty much eliminates a second 9/11 and also should eliminate the fears about another attack using planes.

4. The Government didn't react properly in terms of foreign policies. While the Afghan War is a fight against terrorism, the Iraq war creates new terror = new threats = new attacks.

5. The "Blowbacks" from foreign policies are part of own fault. To secure the own country, foreign policies have to be chosen in a way that they don't lead to Blowbacks. The CIA also tries to predict these reactions beforehand. Therefore Marksman's Idea that "people like you aren't defending America" is completely twisted.

6. Every Politician who's propagating "War on Terror, Terror, Attacks, Al Qaida, Terror" is an A-Hole or a Nut. There is no reason to believe these people.

Olbermann on "US-Post traumatic Stress Disorder":

 

[Oliver]

Here are more Fear-Videos ... brought to you from crazy Politicians:

 

[WildCat]

Another source: The 9/11 commission report:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

28.These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.

The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Michael Rolince interview (June 9, 2004).

Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.See, e.g., FBI report of investigation, interview of Mohammed Saleh Bin Laden, Sept. 21, 2001.As Richard Clarke noted, long before 9/11 the FBI was following members of the Bin Ladin family in the United States closely. Richard Clarke testimony, Mar. 24, 2004.

Do you know who gave the go-ahead to let the bin Ladin family out Oliver? I'll make it a multiple-choice quiz:

A) Richard Clarke
B) Richard Clarke
C) Richard Clarke
D) Richard Clarke
E) All of the above

Take your time Oliver. Oh, and you can post your evidence that any of them knew about the 9/11 attacks while you're at it.

 

[Oliver]

Do you know who gave the go-ahead to let the bin Ladin family out Oliver? I'll make it a multiple-choice quiz:

A) Richard Clarke
B) Richard Clarke
C) Richard Clarke
D) Richard Clarke
E) All of the above

Take your time Oliver. Oh, and you can post your evidence that any of them knew about the 9/11 attacks while you're at it.

Here's my evidence - Take your time to study it:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

The most prominent of these mentioned a possible plot to fly an explosives-laden aircraft into a U.S. city. This report, circulated in September 1998, originated from a source who had walked into an American consulate in East Asia. In August of the same year, the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center.

This is Tenet's view about the threat level:



This is Clarke's view about the "Bush laziness":
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8142285767776807556&autoplay=1

John O'Neill - the #1 expert on AQ who died in the towers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

More?

 

[Oliver]

And about the "go ahead":

Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said: ‘Fine, let it happen.’"

He first asked the bureau to check that no-one "inappropriate" was leaving.
"I have no idea if they did a good job," he added.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971322003

 

[marksman]

"I refuse to believe it is unlikely that I will win the lotto, because I know two people who have won the lotto. How sanguine can the odds be?".

First, odd aren't "sanguine".
Second, since I live in a high-target area, the odds are higher for me. Again, higher doesn't mean "astronomically higher". I know, living in Tasmania, it seems rather inconsequential to you.

The Lotto has the same small odds for everyone who plays. It's more like you, living in a place with no thunderstorms saying I, who lives with a lightning rod strapped to my children's backs in an area with a lot of thundershowers, shouldn't really be concerned about trying to find a way to remove the lightning rods.

Even with the lightning rods, my children may be more likely to ie in a car crash or of coronary disease after a long and healthy life. I'd still like the lightning rods removed.

Which, again (since you seem to forget my stance on the war), does not mean I would want my government to invade a country that has nothing to do with lightning.

You might as well blame Feuerbach for Stalinism as blame Wahhab for 9/11, seeing as Wahhab died in 1792.

I didn't blame Wahhab. Oliver asked for the origins of anti-Western sentiment among Muslim extremists.

If someone asks "Where did the Soviet Union come from?" and I explain the history of Marx, Engels and Lenin, am I blaming them for Chernobyl? No.

Movements like Wahhabism depend on conditions on the ground here and now to cause trouble, and the causes of those conditions on the ground are a more fruitful set of causes to investigate if you want to get to the bottom of modern terrorism.

I disagree. One cannot ignore the origin of a group. Modern causes are factors influencing how a group will try to accomplish its goals, but the goals of the group were established at its foundation and unless the group has abandoned those goals (which you have not evidenced) or accomplished them (which is transparently not the case), there is no reaosn to assume those goals have merely evaporated.

you can do something about the situations in the Middle East right now that cause young men there to think that terrorism is a good idea.

But you won't do so effectively if you do not understand what their goals are. If you proceed that the causes of terrorism are only due to recent events, you will do nothing to change the root, because every region always has problems. Make Israeli-Palestinian peace and you will still have terorrism (though it might be lessened). Leave Iraq and there will still be problems (though they may lessen). Ban Western business from importing products and entertainment to the region and you'll still have problems (though they may lessen). Abandon the West-friendly regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and, after an initial massacre, you'll still have problems (though they may lessen).

Why? Because these are problems not merely because of the superficial reasons, but because they are all part of the root reason -- cultural resentment among a portion of the populace generated by the cultural disintigration and ultimate fall of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent command of the region by colonial England and France.

I think there are probably reasons why Iraqi youths hear about Wahhab and blow themselves up, where elsewhere in the world they usually hear about Wahhab and just become irrational and annoying.

Most Muslims hear about Wahhab and remain peaceful. We don't worry about the peacful ones, or even the irrational annoying ones. Just the ones who organize the blowing up of things. And those people take Wahhab's lessons to heart. And Wahhab wasn't writing about American commercialism, the invasion of Iraq, or Israel, since those things didn't exist when Wahhab lived. They listen to his call for a fundamentalist and strong virtuous Caliphate governing all of Islam.

Abandoning courses of action that lead to widespread, murderous hatred of the USA is not synonymous with handing the keys to the Middle East to Wahhabist nutters.

I didn't say it would. I said abandoning moderate regimes in the region, like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and, yes, even Saudi Arabia, would hand the keys to Wahhabist nutters. (Abandoning Iraq at this point would likely hand the nation over to Shi'ite nutters, but I'm actually a litte more sanguine about their goals, save for their desire to destroy Israel.)

if the USA leaned on client states like Kuwait to institute democratic, liberal reforms and distribute the country's wealth in a more egalitarian fashion it might not only annoy the Wahhabists but it also might make sensible people in the Middle East more likely to think of the USA as a positive influence.

Except, of course, it didn't work in Egypt, where we did lean on them to have elections, which Egypt then had to rig to prevent the Wahhabist Muslim Brotherhood from gaining a large number of Parliamentary seats. And we did it in Algeria in the early 1990's and then the military had to negate the elections to prevent a Wahhabist party from winning parliament. No goodwill towards the West was generated by these attempts at democratic reform.

The problem is that Wahhabism has stong roots and encouraging democracy has, to date, not resulted in increased goodwill to the United States, but rather electoral gains for Wahhabist parties. I wish it were otherwise, but experience has shown that not to be the case.

If I recall correctly, a reasonable number of Iraqis responding to surveys said that they were not opposed to the US overthrow of Hussein shortly after it happened. That number plummetted as US mismanagement led to widespread social collapse and a death toll in the tens of thousands. That says to me that the problem is not blind anti-Americanism as you would have it, but a rational feeling that US intervention in the Middle East is not at all in their best interests.

The Iraqis (most of them Shia) liked and still like the idea of being able to elect a Shia government. Sentiment turned against the US when it became apparent that 1) the US was unable to effectively stop Sunni insurgent violence against Shia, 2) the US did not want to allow the Shia to use the power of the vote to disenfranchise the Sunni and Kurds (but mostly the Sunni). (And of course, the 30% that never supported the US invasion where the Sunni who complelte understood how the Shia would use democracy to justify suppression of their people.)

Nobody ever said the threat was non-existent. The question is how serious the threat is compared to other threats, and what an appropriate response to that threat is.

I agree.

I think you can already see how weak this argument is, or you wouldn't be trying to bolster it by saying that my failure to accept it is evidence I'm not worth debating.

I didn't say you weren't worth debating. Why do you keep making up stuff about what I'm saying?

[quuote]If I'm dead because a terrorist blew me up or dead because a drunkard ran me down it makes no difference to me. If you want to protect your fellow Americans it makes no sense to want to protect them from low-probability external threats much more than high-probability domestic threats.[/quote]
And you don't think America is doing anything about drunk driving... why? There's been a 20-year campaign on intoxicated-driving that consumes a lot more resources than the War of Terror ever did (and likely ever will), when you tally local, state and federal resources spent on education, punishment and rehabilitaion.

So you analogy to drunk driving is a flase one. America spends a lot of resources on that problem. That doesn't exclude them from spending resources on preventing terrorism.

The fact is that drunk driving and terrorism are both problems that cannot be cured. They can only be managed. We both happen to think that terrorism has been mismanaged. That doesn't mean it should not be managed at all.

if there was any actual evidence any of them had a nuclear weapon than would be a cause for vast concern.

I remember some saying about an ounce of prevention and the value of curing. I think the conversion rate was 1:16.

I don't think successfully acquiring, maintaining, deploying and detonating such a device is so easy that I should stay awake at nights over the possibility a terrorist cell might manage to do so.

I sleep fine as well. What makes you think there's insomnia involved?

Fantasies about Iranians giving terrorists nuclear weapons, or them buying them cheap from former-USSR states, seem to me mostly to be scare stories used to try to stampede people into inappropriately and extreme reactions.

And your unfounded perceptions about reality are more pertinent than other people's perceptions of reality.... because?

 

[Mephisto]

I'm like Brodski - all my life has been lived under the immediate threat of domestic terrorism so AQ now targeting the UK is just more of the same, it does not affect how I live my life.

That's great, Darat because as we learned after 9/11 (our own President even said it), if we stop shopping, the terrorists win.

 

[Oliver]

That's great, Darat because as we learned after 9/11 (our own President even said it), if we stop shopping, the terrorists win.

While I don't believe that Darat buys into this imaginary AQ-threat that is more dangerous than the IRA - for example, do you live in the UK?

 

[Mephisto]

While I don't believe that Darat buys into this imaginary AQ-threat that is more dangerous than the IRA - for example, do you live in the UK?

I don't believe that Darat buys into that notion either - terrorism is terrorism is terrorism and living under its threat only makes one more aware, but it shouldn't make one as paranoid as conservative politicians in the U.S. would like us to be - my previous post was poking fun at Bush's ridiculous claims.

He seems to want the "best" of both worlds - don't change your life by avoiding population centers (i.e. keep shopping, spending money), but be paranoid enough to believe that only HE and his administration can protect us.

 

[Oliver]

I don't believe that Darat buys into that notion either - terrorism is terrorism is terrorism and living under its threat only makes one more aware, but it shouldn't make one as paranoid as conservative politicians in the U.S. would like us to be - my previous post was poking fun at Bush's ridiculous claims.

He seems to want the "best" of both worlds - don't change your life by avoiding population centers (i.e. keep shopping, spending money), but be paranoid enough to believe that only HE and his administration can protect us.

My problem is that I don't understand the dynamics in this mass-hysteria - even if I know the concepts.

May I ask you who you meant by "our President"? Are you an US-citizen?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First, odd aren't "sanguine".

I think you should reread the snippet of text I was replying to.

Second, since I live in a high-target area, the odds are higher for me. Again, higher doesn't mean "astronomically higher". I know, living in Tasmania, it seems rather inconsequential to you.

Unless you are living in Baghdad, the odds of being injured or killed by an Al-Qaeda operation are still trivial compared to the odds of being injured or killed by cars, disease, crime and so forth. You have much bigger worries than Al-Qaeda.

I didn't blame Wahhab. Oliver asked for the origins of anti-Western sentiment among Muslim extremists.

If someone asks "Where did the Soviet Union come from?" and I explain the history of Marx, Engels and Lenin, am I blaming them for Chernobyl? No.

I disagree. One cannot ignore the origin of a group. Modern causes are factors influencing how a group will try to accomplish its goals, but the goals of the group were established at its foundation and unless the group has abandoned those goals (which you have not evidenced) or accomplished them (which is transparently not the case), there is no reaosn to assume those goals have merely evaporated.

I'm not so much interested in the historical background to why Wahhabists want what they want, as I'm interested in why people here and now find Wahhabist ideas so appealing they are willing to blow themselves up over them.

The thesis that the real problem is Wahhabism is a convenient one for people who want to perpetuate the current situation in the Middle East, because you get to say "All the problems are caused by lunatic pan-Islamists bent on regional domination, and we cannot let them win, so let's just keep on doing what we are doing".

An important question to ask is "What is the USA doing, that makes lunatic pan-Islamists bent on regional domination look good to the people of the Middle East by comparison?".

But you won't do so effectively if you do not understand what their goals are. If you proceed that the causes of terrorism are only due to recent events, you will do nothing to change the root, because every region always has problems. Make Israeli-Palestinian peace and you will still have terorrism (though it might be lessened). Leave Iraq and there will still be problems (though they may lessen). Ban Western business from importing products and entertainment to the region and you'll still have problems (though they may lessen). Abandon the West-friendly regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and, after an initial massacre, you'll still have problems (though they may lessen).

Who suggested any of these things?

I didn't say it would. I said abandoning moderate regimes in the region, like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and, yes, even Saudi Arabia, would hand the keys to Wahhabist nutters. (Abandoning Iraq at this point would likely hand the nation over to Shi'ite nutters, but I'm actually a litte more sanguine about their goals, save for their desire to destroy Israel.)

Who said anything about abandoning anyone?

Except, of course, it didn't work in Egypt, where we did lean on them to have elections, which Egypt then had to rig to prevent the Wahhabist Muslim Brotherhood from gaining a large number of Parliamentary seats. And we did it in Algeria in the early 1990's and then the military had to negate the elections to prevent a Wahhabist party from winning parliament. No goodwill towards the West was generated by these attempts at democratic reform.

The problem is that Wahhabism has stong roots and encouraging democracy has, to date, not resulted in increased goodwill to the United States, but rather electoral gains for Wahhabist parties. I wish it were otherwise, but experience has shown that not to be the case.

So existing policies cause such resentment that Wahhabism looks good by comparison to the people of the Middle East, and therefore we should keep going with them? I don't think that's going to be productive, nor do I think there is any magical wand you can wave to make large numbers of poor, angry, religious people into informed and rational citizens of the world.

I think the key is to arrange affairs to it is both true and obvious that cultural and economic exchange with the rest of the world actually benefits the people of the Middle East. As opposed to the current situation where it looks an awful lot like the USA props up unpopular despots to pander to its own economic elite, and has absolutely no interest in the welfare of the human beings in that part of the world.

If people actually thought that democracy, free trade, the free flow of ideas, religious freedom and so on were beneficial they might be more inclined to vote for them. If they see democracy as being conditional on US-friendly parties winning, free trade as being the expoitation of local resources for foreign benefit and so on then it's no wonder they use elections as an opportunity to give the USA the finger.

I didn't say you weren't worth debating. Why do you keep making up stuff about what I'm saying?

The current forum setup doesn't make it as clear as I would like, but if you look back you will see that at this point I was quoting someone else, and it was labelled as such. Previously the tag indicating who said what was larger and bolder, making these kinds of misunderstandings less likely.

 

[Mephisto]

My problem is that I don't understand the dynamics in this mass-hysteria - even if I know the concepts.

That book by Hoffer that I mentioned in the other thread will clear up the dynamics of mass movements. I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

May I ask you who you meant by "our President"? Are you an US-citizen?

I'm sorry I didn't answer this previously, yes I am an American citizen, and yes, I am sorry to claim George Dubya Bush as our President.

 

[Oliver]

That book by Hoffer that I mentioned in the other thread will clear up the dynamics of mass movements. I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

I'm sorry I didn't answer this previously, yes I am an American citizen, and yes, I am sorry to claim George Dubya Bush as our President.

I will try to get my Hands on his Book and I apologize, I thought you were an UK citizen, too. It would be interesting to know how the UK-Media portrayed the AQ threat - if they also exaggerated on this issue.

And you shouldn't mind - I guess someone will kick W's ass out of office anyway in 2008...

 

[Ziggurat]

The thesis that the real problem is Wahhabism is a convenient one for people who want to perpetuate the current situation in the Middle East, because you get to say "All the problems are caused by lunatic pan-Islamists bent on regional domination, and we cannot let them win, so let's just keep on doing what we are doing".

The invasion of Iraq was the biggest departure from what we've been doing in the middle east that any president has ever engaged in.

It is true, though, that Wahabism isn't the full extent of the problem, either (it's not what drives Shia extremists).

An important question to ask is "What is the USA doing, that makes lunatic pan-Islamists bent on regional domination look good to the people of the Middle East by comparison?".

That's begging the question - in the correct usage of the term. You're assuming that it IS some action of ours that makes pan-Islamism attractive. And in the process you're dismissing (intentionally or not) the possibility that it can be an attractive ideology in its own right, given the cultural values widely held in the region. You know, values which find Barbie dolls threatening.

 

[marksman]

Unless you are living in Baghdad, the odds of being injured or killed by an Al-Qaeda operation are still trivial compared to the odds of being injured or killed by cars, disease, crime and so forth. You have much bigger worries than Al-Qaeda.

Fortunately, being a human being, I have the capacity to worry about many thing simultaneously. There's not need for you to assume that because I worry about terorrism that I worry about nothing else.

I'm not so much interested in the historical background to why Wahhabists want what they want, as I'm interested in why people here and now find Wahhabist ideas so appealing they are willing to blow themselves up over them.

And I was responding to Oliver who was asking about the historical background (or appeared to be).

The thesis that the real problem is Wahhabism is a convenient one for people who want to perpetuate the current situation in the Middle East

Except of course, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the root causes are important to understand because addressing only immediate concerns merely shifts the focus to new immediate concerns. Every region has problems. Not every region deals with those problems though terorrism.

Blaming terrorism on the immediate regional problems appears to me to be inappropriate, particularly when the terrorist ideology predates those problems.

An important question to ask is "What is the USA doing, that makes lunatic pan-Islamists bent on regional domination look good to the people of the Middle East by comparison?".

That is an important question. However, it does not invalidate other important questions, such as "Why does the radical Islam appear to engender terroristic responses more often than other philosophies?" "Is this approach pertinent to the specific problems of the day, or a more entrenched problem reaching back generations?" and "Will solving the immediate concerns -- even assuming such a thing is possible -- actually rectify the underlying causes of terrorism?"

Who suggested any of these things?

You did by suggesting that fixing those things that America does to antagonize radical Islamists would solve the problem and that the original causes of the philosophy are no longer relevant to tday's situation.

Who said anything about abandoning anyone?

Well, since Islamists, by their own words are upset with American support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt, and since I was taking you at your word when you suggested that America rethink those actions that were antagonizing radical Islamists, and since the only other option is to encourage democratization there which, our recent experience shows, does not lessen radical Islamist influence or fervor, the only conclusion I could reach was that we should stop supporting such regimes.

So existing policies cause such resentment that Wahhabism looks good by comparison to the people of the Middle East, and therefore we should keep going with them?

No. I was saying that encouraing democracy -- which you suggested -- did not work in each of the instances in which we have actually pursued that policy in the region (Egypt and Algeria -- our attempts to democratize Afghanistan and Iraq aren't particularly successful either). Do you think we should continue with such a demonstrably failed policy?

I think the key is to arrange affairs to it is both true and obvious that cultural and economic exchange with the rest of the world actually benefits the people of the Middle East.

What, specifically, do you think can be affirmatively done to accomplish this vague goal? Let's start with, say, Egypt. What should we do so that people in Egypt think the cultural and economic exchange with the rest of the world will benefit them?

America has given Egypt a lot of humanitarian aid over the years. Egypt has an enormous tourist business and millions of Westrneres travel there evey year. And yet, whenever Egypt's regime loosens restrictions on political organization and freedom of the press, Wahabbists like the Muslim Brotherhood always garner large voting blocs. One would expect that of all the regimes in the Middle East, Egypt would be the most likely to be amenable to your argument. And yet every attempt there has failed.

As opposed to the current situation where it looks an awful lot like the USA props up unpopular despots to pander to its own economic elite, and has absolutely no interest in the welfare of the human beings in that part of the world.

Sometimes there is no immediate solution. Sometimes a problem must be managed, rather than solved.

If people actually thought that democracy, free trade, the free flow of ideas, religious freedom and so on were beneficial they might be more inclined to vote for them. If they see democracy as being conditional on US-friendly parties winning, free trade as being the expoitation of local resources for foreign benefit and so on then it's no wonder they use elections as an opportunity to give the USA the finger.

How do you propose to change their minds? Current American aid to Eygpt is contingent on two things only: not invading Israel and not allowing Wahabbists to take over. Egypt has a thriving tourist trade and no local resources being exploitated for foreign benefit. Yet, except for the political elite, the general population does not have warm feeligns for the US or the West in general.

I was quoting someone else

My apologies.

 

[brodski]

While I don't believe that Darat buys into this imaginary AQ-threat that is more dangerous than the IRA - for example, do you live in the UK?

Unless you live in Ulster AQ and inspired groups are more dangerous than the IRA- the IRA has declared that "the ar is over" and no are just engaged in organized crime. Islamic terrorists appear to sill be active in the UK and elsewhere.

Can you support your claim that the AQ threat is imaginary, rather than just over hyped?

 

[Oliver]

Unless you live in Ulster AQ and inspired groups are more dangerous than the IRA- the IRA has declared that "the ar is over" and no are just engaged in organized crime. Islamic terrorists appear to sill be active in the UK and elsewhere.

Can you support your claim that the AQ threat is imaginary, rather than just over hyped?

Of course I can support my claim: Al Qaida wasn't able to make another attack in the US yet. So where are all these Terror-Cells around the Globe? How many Terror-Cells did you capture in the US beside the hundred false alarms in the Media?

By the way: Were the Guys connected to AQ who tried to make this terror-attack in the military base some weeks ago?