Scheuer on London Attack

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Skeptic
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.

Only a fool would ever appease terrorists and expect it to work.

Likewise only a fool would not consider whether an action would increase terrorism or not. For example, before we invaded Iraq, we should have (perhaps we did) whether it would increase or decrease terrorism. It might still make sense to invade if it increased terrorism but it is one of many factors to consider. Likewise, we should consider whether Gitmo helps in the war on terrorism by increasing our intelligence or hurts by recruiting new members.

On the contrary: one should deliberately oppose any and every demand they make and deliberately anger and enrage them.

Doing things just to anger terrorists is stupid. If an action has little upside and will increase terrorisms, it may feel good but it idiotic. If it will decrease terrorism, it is an intelligent decision. The goal is to reduce terrorism and arrest/kill terrorists not to get them mad. I do not really care if they are mad or happy today as long as they are in graves or prisons or otherwise harmless tomorrow.

We need to reduce their effectiveness in anyway possible. This does not mean appeasing them or angering them. It means a combination of military action and drying up their recruitment base via actions and propaganda. This requires understanding them - not sympathizing with them but understanding them.

CBL

 

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
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".

You know the last time I checked Lebanon was located squarely in the Middle East. Did it move while I wasn't looking? It is a basic characteristic of human beings that they care more about what happens in their corner of the world (defined more culturally than geographically) than what happens elsewhere, and I don't see any reason why Islamist terrorists and insurgents are different in that regard. You should feel free to acquaint me with any such evidence, but attacks on US and or French interests in response to a military presence in the Middle East supports my POW not yours.

Originally posted by zenith-nadir 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.

Again I don't recognize all those attack, but most of those I recognize are after the Gulf War.

Originally posted by zenith-nadir 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.

You might find it so, but I’m still waiting for any logical support for that opinion.

 

[Kaydens]

Again I don't recognize all those attack, but most of those I recognize are after the Gulf War.

Quickly googling that list of incidents (I recognise a few):

TWA Flight 847: Trans World Airlines Flight 847 was hijacked on June 14, 1985. It was apparently taken by armed men from Lebanon who were demanding the release of Shiites imprisoned by Israel.

The Achille Lauro: An italian cruise liner which was hijacked on October 7th 1985 by 4 members of the PLF who demanded the release of Isreali held palestinians. If I recall correctly this incident was made into a film starring Burt Lancaster.

Rome & Vienna airports: were attacked by terrorists on December 27th 1985 by members of Abu Nidal who were reported to be retaliating over the Israeli bombing of the PLO's HQ. Libya was accused of funding the attacks. They denied it but did praise the action.

TWA flight 840: is a regular flight from Rome to Athens. On April 2nd 1986 a bomb was detonated on board killing 4 people. The plane managed to land and the other 110 passengers survived despite rapid decompression of the cabin. A group calling itself the Arab Revolutionary Cells claimed responsibility, saying it was committed because of "American arrogance" and the US clashes with Libya in the Gulf of Sidra the week before.

Pan Am flight 73: was hijacked as it was due to depart from Karachi to New York (via. Frankfurt). Over 20 passengers and crew were killed by the hijackers without the plane ever leaving the ground. The Hijackers were members of Abu Nidal seeking the release of Palestinian prisoners in Cyprus.

USO Club Naples: 14th April 1988, The Organisation of Jihad Brotherhoods exploded a car bomb outside of a Naples USO club killing one sailor.

Those are the attacks listed prior to the Gulf War.

I would also add December 21st 1988. Pan Am flight 103 was detonated over Lockerbie in Scotland. The attack was carried out by Lybian terrorists and killed 270 people.

Kaydens.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Of course it does. You yourself referred to things that have happened nearly fifty years ago in this very thread when you stated 'During the 60's, 70's and 80s...' so your hypocrisy is duly noted as is your differentiation between acts of terror. Talk about dodging the issue. What is it that makes you build an apartheid wall around which terrorist you will and will not speak about.

You have also chosen deliberately to make an unsupported personal claim against another poster. If you are interested in the truth and the objects of this site I challenge you to to do something simple like define your own claim and provide evidence to support it.

In the paraphrased words of Edmund Blackadder, 'your MO is as transparent as something very transparent.'

Pip pip.