Scheuer on London Attack

[Mycroft]

I didn't say he did, but there seems to be some extremist forces on both sides forcing a wedge between the middle ground.

So you admit OBL had no right to speak for Iraqis, Pakistanis or Palestinians. What do you think his "just cause" is?

How are we forcing a wedge between the middle ground?

The middle ground or moderates are now allowed to vote and elect their own representation in Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, we're driving a wedge between the moderate and the fanatic where the alternative is allowing the fanatic to rule the moderate.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Why not find out what the dirtbag says are his reasons in his own words?

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

Many references to Palestine, Al-Aqsa (the desired capital of the version of the state of Palestine that looks exactly like Israel), the economic sanctions against Iraq (remember... those sanctions that were working peacefully before we decided to plunder Iraq for the oil?), and, oh yes, Somalia.

Edited to add:





Let's get the b*stards who attacked London.

 

[The Fool]

The middle ground or moderates are now allowed to vote and elect their own representation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then who do the current Iraqi and Afghani governments represent and who elected them?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Then who do the current Iraqi and Afghani governments represent and who elected them?

The people who risked their lives to get blue fingers.

 

[Mycroft]

Then who do the current Iraqi and Afghani governments represent and who elected them?

The people who voted.

How do you think that compares to their previous administrations?

 

[Freakshow]

Terrorism, IMHO, is often based on a just cause.

A couple of questions...

Do you typically think that behavior has a "just cause"? If behavior has a "just cause", then does that mean that said behavior is "justified"?

 

[The Fool]

A couple of questions...

Do you typically think that behavior has a "just cause"? If behavior has a "just cause", then does that mean that said behavior is "justified"?

There are many just causes but I don't see anyone saying that any sort of behavior in the name of a just cause is justified?

Many here believe that the foundation of Israel was a just cause but not too many of them think that terrorist bombings done by some who were fighting for that cause were justified..

 

[The Fool]

The people who voted.

How do you think that compares to their previous administrations?

My apologies for the confusion...its my old eyes. I read "now" as Not and could not figure why you were saying that they were not allowed to elect reps.....I really should drink less turpentine.

 

[Freakshow]

There are many just causes but I don't see anyone saying that any sort of behavior in the name of a just cause is justified?

Many here believe that the foundation of Israel was a just cause but not too many of them think that terrorist bombings done by some who were fighting for that cause were justified..

So if behavior is not justified, then why appease it? If bombing subways and buses in London is not justified, then why seek to change policies in response? The behavior isn't justified, after all.

 

[The Fool]

So if behavior is not justified, then why appease it? If bombing subways and buses in London is not justified, then why seek to change policies in response? The behavior isn't justified, after all.

I'm a bit confused as to the point you want to make. Are you suggesting policies should never be changed due to behavior that isn't justified?

Personally, I would like to see the perpetrators identified then maximum effort put into bringing those perpetrators before a British court to be charged with multiple counts of murder and/or conspiracy to murder. I believe that is what the British Police and government are planning....Hopefully not just an increasing the resources dumped into a war against a word with no clear goals or objectives.

 

[Freakshow]

I'm a bit confused as to the point you want to make. Are you suggesting policies should never be changed due to behavior that isn't justified?

Personally, I would like to see the perpetrators identified then maximum effort put into bringing those perpetrators before a British court to be charged with multiple counts of murder and/or conspiracy to murder. I believe that is what the British Police and government are planning....Hopefully not just an increasing the resources dumped into a war against a word with no clear goals or objectives.

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that policies should almost never be changed due to behavior that isn't justified.

 

[The Fool]

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that policies should almost never be changed due to behavior that isn't justified.

almost never? sounds like a fairly safe position to take.

It seems we agree because I think we should almost not change our approach to dismantling AQ.

 

[a_unique_person]

So you admit OBL had no right to speak for Iraqis, Pakistanis or Palestinians. What do you think his "just cause" is?

How are we forcing a wedge between the middle ground?

The middle ground or moderates are now allowed to vote and elect their own representation in Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, we're driving a wedge between the moderate and the fanatic where the alternative is allowing the fanatic to rule the moderate.

I did not admit anything, I never claimed he had the right.

 

[Grammatron]

I did not admit anything, I never claimed he had the right.

Then exactly whom should we be appeasing with our troop withdrawls?

 

[Darat]

Posted in wrong thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then exactly whom should we be appeasing with our troop withdrawls?

You refer to appeasment. It is not a matter of 'appeasing' anyone, in WWII terms. Hitler was taking land and people over. Withdrawing troops from places they should not have been in the first place is a completely different matter. OBL doesn't rule these places either. He can cause terrorism, but I don't believe he would be accepted as any sort of popular ruler. Witness the recent fighting in Iraq between exremists Islamics and nationalists.

 

[egslim]

I think there are about 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world. They can be roughly divided into three groups: Supporters of these attacks, opponents and fence-sitters. Our goal should be to reduce the number of supporters.

Unfortunately the use of violence, no matter how well justified in our eyes, will shift a number of fence-sitters to the position of supporter and move opponents in the same direction.

We need to carefully weigh these effects against the benefits of using violence ourselves. And try to limit them by using good PR.

Unless our goal is to kill 1.8 Billion people we have no choice but to get them on our side, or at least make them fence-sitters. That means the War on Terror is first and foremost a battle for the hearts and minds of people.

So far, my impression is that the PR-side of this has been handled extremely poor.

 

[Kaydens]

Terrorism, IMHO, is often based on a just cause. The IRA, for example. England should not have ever invaded Ireland for Imperialist reasons. It is still living with the conseqences.

This seems to me to be a slightly simplistic approach to The Troubles. We're talking hundreds of years of history that has left a complicated situation invloving the attempted liberation of the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or the UK for short).

If we were to take your view of it, then the English should never have invaded the Welsh or the Scottish, come to think of it the Normans should never have invaded the Saxons. But then the Saxons should never have invaded the Ex-Roman Britons. And the Romans shouldn't have invaded the Celts, who shouldn't have invaded the Ancient Britons. How far back can you take the grivance without it being ridiculous?

The secret is to deal with things on their individual merit, I don't think that generalisation is productive in these cases.

Kaydens.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think there are about 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world. They can be roughly divided into three groups: Supporters of these attacks, opponents and fence-sitters. Our goal should be to reduce the number of supporters.

Unfortunately the use of violence, no matter how well justified in our eyes, will shift a number of fence-sitters to the position of supporter and move opponents in the same direction.

We need to carefully weigh these effects against the benefits of using violence ourselves. And try to limit them by using good PR.

Unless our goal is to kill 1.8 Billion people we have no choice but to get them on our side, or at least make them fence-sitters. That means the War on Terror is first and foremost a battle for the hearts and minds of people.

So far, my impression is that the PR-side of this has been handled extremely poor.

That's what worries me. The 'hearts and minds' idea was well known in Vietnam, I don't know that it has ever recieved more than lip service.

You send in trained killers, (and if you want troops to win, that is what they are), I find it hard to believe they are going to be good ambassadors.

Regular Joes, a different matter, they don't want to die, they will kill if they have to. They want to get in, get out,and live with the consequences.

But the trained killers, you have to change a man to achieve that, from what I can tell.

The war is not so much against the terrorists, as for the 'silent majority'. The majority that just wants to get on with their lives, and see their children grow up in one piece. If you can offer them that, you have won to a large extent.

I think the biggest shock for many is not that the USA is so strong, but so vulnerable. They mistake the military superiorty for superiority in everything.

 

[a_unique_person]

This seems to me to be a slightly simplistic approach to The Troubles. We're talking hundreds of years of history that has left a complicated situation invloving the attempted liberation of the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or the UK for short).

If we were to take your view of it, then the English should never have invaded the Welsh or the Scottish, come to think of it the Normans should never have invaded the Saxons. But then the Saxons should never have invaded the Ex-Roman Britons. And the Romans shouldn't have invaded the Celts, who shouldn't have invaded the Ancient Britons. How far back can you take the grivance without it being ridiculous?

The secret is to deal with things on their individual merit, I don't think that generalisation is productive in these cases.

Kaydens.

I agree one hundred percent, in that simplistic is not good enough. Lets talk about the shades of grey, the differences, the need to understand an issue. But what worries me is that while I can do this, so many here just see a war that needs to be fought, until all those on the other side are dead.