Scheuer on London Attack

[kimiko]

Now all of a sudden in 2005 American and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan "fuels militancy"?

Say there is a fire burning, and one adds gas to it. Does the gas not "fuel" the fire? Of course it does- it burns as well. I think you are misinterpreting what AUP is saying- he's not saying US and British forces going into Iraq started the initial fire; he's suggesting that act exacerbated existing tensions. It added fuel to an already burning fire.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not alone, no. There's lots more to be done. And reasonable people argue about what -- I believe, as does the President, that creating stable, peaceful democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is an important step. Other people have different ideas.

But what else in addition to eliminating al Qaeda by capturing or killing its members needs to be done is not the question. Whatever else needs to be done, the question on the table right now is: Do you agree with the strategy of capuring or killing the members of al Qaeda? There's no use discussing anything further until your answer to that is crystal clear. Unless your answer is "no" and you're unwilling for some reason to admit it, I'm honestly flummoxed at your unwillingness to answer this simple question.

I just don't see it as a simple issue. Yes, Alqaeda needs to be fixed up. That might be a bloody act, but just going in with all guns blazing could make things worse. As Iraq has clearly demonstrated.

 

[Darat]

One correction: He doesn't buy into the propaganda, he disseminates the propaganda. I often think he doesn't believe half the things he says, but just likes to get a rise out of people.

This post has been reported. It is inappropriate, ensure that you focus on issues and not Members otherwise you may be subject to further sanctions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Darat]

Sorry a_u_p but only someone with limited intelligence would accept that America and Britain freeing millions of Iraqis and Afghanis is "fueling the militancy".

...snip...

I have seen no one in this thread that has suggested it is the freeing of millions that is the fuel for the terrorist.

What has been suggested is that the actions required to free those millions have been used as fuel by some people to promote their own goals.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I have seen no one in this thread that has suggested it is the freeing of millions that is the fuel for the terrorist.

What has been suggested is that the actions required to free those millions have been used as fuel by some people to promote their own goals.

I do not buy that the war in Iraq fuels the militancy. The militants fuel their own militancy and they use different excuses for said militancy depending on what suits them. The excuse du jour is "wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Ironically those "wars" freed millions of muslims from tyranny and gave them their very first taste of democracy - something unheard of in the arab world. A few short years ago the militancy was fueled by "American bases in Saudi Arabia", before that it was "America's policies in the middle east" AKA "support for Israel"...etc... the militants use turnspeak to blame their militancy on their victims.

It added fuel to an already burning fire.

It is alot easier for the average westerner to rationalize the militancy being fueled by the actions of America and Britain rather than a cult of jihadists who have gone wild - (by the way thanks alot Saudi Arabia) - and these jihadists will use any sales pitch to blow up infidels or behead them. Al Queda exsisted long before "the wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. So did Abu Sayyaf, the Abu Nidal organization, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade, Al-Quds Brigades, Armed Islamic Group, Ansar al-Islam, Asbat al-Ansar, Fatah Revolutionary Council, Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Hamas, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Jemaah Islamiyah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, The Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, The PLO, Takfir wal-Hijra.....they all were terrorizing, murdering people and blowing things up decades before the "war in Iraq fuels the militancy" excuse was in vogue.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by zenith-nadir
Ergo what should really stop the terrorism and militancy would be for millions of Iraqi muslims to have remained under Saddams harsh dictatorship and for the US to let the arabs destroy Israel. Now that would stop all that nasty militancy and terror... ...

I guess you know that the USA helped Saddam Hussein while they knew he was terrorising his people and that the USA has subverted a democratic movement in Iran?

If you believe that militants fuel their own militancy presumably that also applies to the acts of terror committed by the Stern Gang and Irgun.

Do you condemn the acts of terror committed by the Stern Gang and Irgun?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Do you have any evidence that they do or is this just speculation in place of fact?

Do you have any definition for 'tiny group' or was it a mere claim without basis in fact?

 

[Kerberos]

Al Queda exsisted long before "the wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually Al-Qaida was created during the Afghanistan war, the one against the Soviets that is. It was created specifically against a foreign attack in Moslems and it initiated its war against US after the first Gulf War. I don't regard the two wars as equivalent, but OBL and his ilk might very well.

So did Abu Sayyaf, the Abu Nidal organization, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade, Al-Quds Brigades, Armed Islamic Group, Ansar al-Islam, Asbat al-Ansar, Fatah Revolutionary Council, Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Hamas, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Jemaah Islamiyah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, The Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, The PLO, Takfir wal-Hijra.....they all were terrorizing, murdering people and blowing things up decades before the "war in Iraq fuels the militancy" excuse was in vogue.

I don't recognize all of these names, but the ones I do are all known for attacking Middle Eastern targets which hardly supports your "they attack just because" contestation.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I guess you know that the USA helped Saddam Hussein while they knew he was terrorising his people

America helped Saddam because at the time the Soviets were helping Iran. It was part of the cold war game.

and that the USA has subverted a democratic movement in Iran?

Somehow I find America subverting democracy in Iran hard to accept without a shred of documentation to back that claim up.

If you believe that militants fuel their own militancy presumably that also applies to the acts of terror committed by the Stern Gang and Irgun.

Whatever the Irgun or Stern gang did over 50 years ago has no bearing on this topic. It is a device used in an attempt to introduce an agenda. Nice try though..

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't recognize all of these names, but the ones I do are all known for attacking Middle Eastern targets which hardly supports your "they attack just because" contestation.

I did not say "they attack just because". They attack because we are infidels and as infidels we must be destroyed. Their goal is a global Islamic fundamentalist society, see: Taliban.

This reality used to be Israel's problem, now it is the western world's problem. Remember when Western peacekeepers went into Lebanon in the 80s? Militants attacked the American, French and Italian Multinational peacekeeping forces, they suicide bombed of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63, they suicide bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American servicemen, and they suicide bombed the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. That was decades before Afghanistan and Iraq or American bases in Saudi Arabia. Yet the militancy exsisted and was as bad back then as it is today. The only difference back then is that there was no 24-hour news channels to spead the gospel and the militancy was focused against Israel. So people in the Western world didn't pay attention or really give a crap.

After 9-11 American and Britain decided confront these psychopaths and they became a target. Perhaps I should admonish America and Britain for "perpetuating a cycle of violence" by hunting down terrorists... ever hear that zinger? It's used by Europeans against Israel all the time. Remember when Israel wacked Sheik Ahmend Yassin, founder of Hamas and grandfather of the suicide bomber? You would have thought Israel wacked Jesus the western world was so inflamed.

Anyhow, the excuse that American and British actions in Iraq "add fuel to the militancy" is turnspeak.

 

[Kerberos]

Remember when Western peacekeepers went into Lebanon in the 80s? Militants attacked the American, French and Italian Multinational peacekeeping forces, they suicide bombed of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63, they suicide bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American servicemen, and they suicide bombed the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops.

So they attacked infidels soldiers in the Middle East. Thank you for proving my (and Scheuer's) point.

 

[zenith-nadir]

So they attacked infidels soldiers in the Middle East. Thank you for proving my (and Scheuer's) point.

Militants attacked the West in Lebanon Kerberos. They bombed of the U.S. Embassy, the U.S. Marine barracks, the US Battalion Landing Team headquarters and the French paratroopers base. Their targets were western interests. They didn't simply attack "soldiers in the Middle East".

Unfortunately the US and France hightailed it out of town after that beating. I can count many other militant attacks on the West after those events....long before Iraq or Afghanistan. TWA flight 847, The Achille Lauro, the Rome & Vienna airport attacks, TWA flight 840, Pan Am flight 73, a USO club in Naples, The Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the World Trade Center in 93, a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, an Air France flight in 94, two U.S. diplomats in Karachi, the Khobar Towers, four U.S. businessmen in Karachi, 58 tourists in Luxor Egypt, the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya...Those attacks were no different than al queda bombs going off in London or Madrid 10-20 years later.

So I find the idea that "American & British actions in Iraq and Afghanistan" is fueling "the militancy" or causing never-before-heard-of islamic terrorism in the west to be utter turnspeak. The militants are doing today what they have been doing for decades. There are just more of them now because until 9-11 the only ones trying to stop them were wearing IDF uniforms. And that ain't no B.S.

 

[varwoche]

So I find the idea that "American & British actions in Iraq and Afghanistan" is fueling "the militancy" or causing never-before-heard-of islamic terrorism in the west to be utter turnspeak.

I disagree, though it's not exactly a point that can be proven one way or the other. Since the thread is about Scheuer, let's see what he said (in 2004):

I think someone should have gone to the president when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen.

article

 

[demon]

Scheuer:
" I think someone should have gone to the president when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen."


varwoche, here`s an interesting little article to be read in the light of the Scheuer comment you quoted above:

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Arabian Candidate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 20, 2004

In the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate," Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to "use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover."

The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest defender against communist evil.

So let's imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own version. This time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation's defender against terrorist evildoers.

The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy.

After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.

Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.

Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war's aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country's infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.

After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.

Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.

At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.

Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation's unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government's motives.

O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn't actually an Al Qaeda mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr. Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands - while Mr. Bush's supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see him as America's champion against the evildoers.

Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that read, "Kerry is bin Laden's man/Bush is mine." Administration officials haven't gone that far, but when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about a terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic process," many people thought he was implying that Al Qaeda wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072004.html



Of course, Scheuer is not alone in thinking that. Here's a small taste, mostly from "impeccable" establishment sources that agree with him:

U.S. Defense Science Board Strategic Communication Study

[The] "dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims."

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (reported in the Boston Globe)

"The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda ........ Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

UK Joint Intelligence Committee

"The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."

International Institute of Strategic Studies

"While the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of Al-Qaida and its followers, it has diluted the efforts of the global alliance against terrorism,.."

Dr Jeffrey Record, Visiting Professor, U.S. Army College of War

The invasion of Iraq was a "strategic error of the first order".

Professor Paul Wilkinson - Professor of International Relations and Chairman for the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, St. Andrews University

"most observers on counter-terrorism would accept that there was a very serious downside to the war in Iraq as far as counter-terrorism against al-Qaeda is concerned because al-Qaeda was able to use the invasion of Iraq as a propaganda weapon".

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Telling stuff, demon.

 

[Bikewer]

I recall a pre-war interview with Madeline Allbright, who spoke very prophetically about how difficult the invasion of Iraq would become, and how intransigent and resentful the Iraquis would be of any foreign invader.

 

[Mycroft]

Suppose England wanted a naval base in some unused island that belonged to Australia. Would you be offended by that? If so, why?

No answer, AUP? It's central to your thesis. If foreign troops on your soil is an afront to your sovereignty, you should be offended by the UK leasing some spot of Australia to service their navy. Would you be? Why or why not?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I do not buy that the war in Iraq fuels the militancy. The militants fuel their own militancy and they use different excuses for said militancy depending on what suits them. The excuse du jour is "wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

There is no reason that terrorists cannot use a multitude of reasons to recruit and as excuses. Their excuses change as times change. Even if they are knowingly lying, it does not matter.

In any case, I am not sure if you understand what Scheuer asserts.
1) OBL is a devout muslim.
2) OBL wants Talibanesque, cleric controlled government in all Muslims countries.
3) OBL believes any other form of government is an attack on devout Muslims.
4) The west supports tyrants who oppose rule by clerics (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and secular democracies.
5) Therefore all the actions by the west are an attack on devout Muslims e.g. crusaders/invaders.
6) It is the duty of all Muslim to wage defensive jihad against attackers.

OBL and Al Queda consistently use this logic to recruit and as rationale for attacks. The fact that the logic is based on a misreading of history and evil is irrelevant to his argument. It is effective and, in some ways, consistent and logical.

The important thing to understand is that it works and why it works. Without understanding this, we are limitting our effectiveness of defense.

CBL

 

[Bikewer]

I agree. Bin Laden also justifies his attacks on civilians in part because we are democratic societies. Civilians voted the people into office who are "attacking" Islam, and thus bear responsibility.

 

[Skeptic]

The important thing to understand is that it works and why it works. Without understanding this, we are limitting our effectiveness of defense.

We DO understand it quite well. What we do not "understand", since it isn't true, is the claim that if only OBL would be given everything he demands now--i.e., the establishment of a Muslim-only Khalifate from Morroco to China--then somehow this will placate him.

The words "This is My Last Territorial Demand" come to mind. "Understanding" the Islamists' demands leads to no insight any more than "understanding" what Hitler demands did; for it is obvious that anybody that makes such demands in the first place has not the slightest intent of keeping any agreement or promise to the infidels/inferior races, and the sole result of agreeing to any of their demands would be a reodubling of those demands and the making of new ones.

On the contrary: one should deliberately oppose any and every demand they make and deliberately anger and enrage them. We now know that if only the Democracies had stood up to Hitler by listening to the "warmonger" Churchill and deliberately asked Hitler to do his worse despite his repeated claims that, if Germany is "angered" and "offended" horrible, horrible things would happen, it is very likely that he would have been forced to back down, or, if he was going to attack, lose the war since his army was not ready. This would have prevented WWII.

There is no downside: does anybody really believe that it matters the least bit how "angry" those whose explicit goal is to kill or convert every infidel on the planet are today? That this makes the least difference in their desire or ability to kill us? No. What does make a difference is how frustrated their plans are and how unsuccesful their Jihad goals seem. That this makes them angry is natural, of course, but that's just all the more reason to make them angry.

So, by all means, let us understand what angers and fuels bin Laden's hatered... as long as we are resolved to continue to do just that.

 

[varwoche]

What we do not "understand", since it isn't true, is the claim that if only OBL would be given everything he demands now--i.e., the establishment of a Muslim-only Khalifate from Morroco to China--then somehow this will placate him.

Just curious, does anyone with a name other than Moe (or Abu) actually make such a claim? It's a new one on me.