ForumGarden

posted by jester

The hunt for Osama and the work in Iraq againt terrorism are not one and the same but they are interconnected.

The terror orgs were using Iraq as a staging area prior to the liberation, and some of them at the behest of Osama, and other groups. The battle ground became Iraq because of that. And Iraq remains a strategic region for many reasons.


Not according to your own 911 commission. there's a brief synopsis here and you can download the whole thing if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The Commission also concluded 15 of the 19 hijackers that carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabia, but found no evidence the government of Saudi Arabia conspired in the attacks, or that it funded the attackers.[2] According to the Commission, all 19 hijackers were members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, led by Osama bin Laden. In addition, while meetings between al-Qaeda representatives and Iraqi government officials had taken place, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq"

The Commission's final report also offered new evidence of increased contact between Iran and al-Qaeda. The report contains information about how several of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran, and indicates that officials in Iran did not place entry stamps in their passports. However, according to the report (Chapter 7), there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot. Iran has since implemented several widely-publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country.




Get that? No credible evidence of a connection between the terrorists and Iraq. If anything they would hostile to each other since saddam would see the islamic fundamentalists as opposition to his regime. IMO anyomne that thinks there was no funding coming from saudi banks to fund the terrorists groups is turning a blind eye. Follow the money and cut off the funding. It's saudi banks that need to be sorted. It was cutting the funding from america that finally had the IRA sitting down to make peace. Too bad it took so many deaths for the IRA to cease being gallant freedom fighters in the eyes of americans.

posted by jester

If we pull out, the killing will be far worse, and the war will be broader in scope, with other arab countries further polorizing, yes it can get far worse. The only hope Iraq has of being a stable country again now and relatively free is for the US and coalitions forces still there to stay the course and try as we can to give as much security as possibel so that the common Iraqi citizen will rise up to make thier stand agasint the fascist groups that want to destroy peace, destabilize, then re-control by force, and terror.


Left alone saddam would have eventually fallen and the iraquis sorted themselves out, regimes like his always fall. Whenever you leave the iraqis will have to sort things out for themselves and you wouldn't have british and american soldiers dying-in the case of the British because we had a PM that saw himself as a world player and our MP's too gullible to stop him.

There will now be sectarian warfare thanks to the liberation whereas before there might not have been-who knows. It's not fascism it's sectarianism. You don't have to worry about muslims attacking the US like christians and protestants they would rather kill each other. Ordinary people that want to live in peace get sucked in.

fascism

/fashiz’m/

• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.

— ORIGIN Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis ‘bundle’.


Your two political parties are right wing by european standards although hopefully the liberal tendency of the american people will come to the fore soon. You also tend to be very nationalistic and your foreign policy is undoubtedly militaristic. You won't find the same kind of overt nationalism on display in europe for the simple reason we know where it leads.

posted by jester

What you see on the news, and the blogs is the tip of the iceberg of what the coalition is doing and what the terror orgs are doing... this war has been largely behind the scenes.


Not as secret as you think although obviously the british are naturally better at it. :sneaky:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/ju ... fghanistan

Sources confirm reports of frustration and rivalry between the two - notably last December when US commanders prevented the SAS from searching for al-Qaida fighters in the caves around Tora Bora, where it was believed that Osama bin Laden was hiding.

The Americans wanted US special forces to do the job. But by the time US commanders had discussed the risks involved and what air cover was needed, Bin Laden and his al-Qaida fighters had left, sources say. They say the SAS have been repeatedly frustrated by the practice of American commanders of referring operational decisions to command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and Washington.


There's plenty of books coming out about what the sas were up to in the middle east, ireland and elsewhere. Don't know about the US so much as naturally it's not quite so interesting to a non US citizen.

Jester;846234 wrote: The hunt for Osama and the work in Iraq againt terrorism are not one and the same but they are interconnected.

The terror orgs were using Iraq as a staging area prior to the liberation, and some of them at the behest of Osama, and other groups. The battle ground became Iraq because of that. And Iraq remains a strategic region for many reasons.

If we pull out, the killing will be far worse, and the war will be broader in scope, with other arab countries further polorizing, yes it can get far worse. The only hope Iraq has of being a stable country again now and relatively free is for the US and coalitions forces still there to stay the course and try as we can to give as much security as possibel so that the common Iraqi citizen will rise up to make thier stand agasint the fascist groups that want to destroy peace, destabilize, then re-control by force, and terror.

What you see on the news, and the blogs is the tip of the iceberg of what the coalition is doing and what the terror orgs are doing... this war has been largely behind the scenes.

I was involved in a number of fights between both governments and rebels and vice versa depending on the situation and the region. Im certain some were in violation of what you'd call international law and some were in full open view of international law. I am an american, my loyalties are not to any other country unless those loyalties cross inside my oath and to my people.


Have you any published sources for this - as GMC says, it goes against the findings of your own government.

The longer the Coalition intervention in Iraq goes on the more

problems will be created for the future. Carry on the way we are and the common Iraqi citizen will so hate the west that he will join the insurgents just to get us out of there.

posted by jester

I am Nationalistic and I am Militartistic no doubt, hoepefully my last resort clause comes out but I have a different idea of last resort than most.




Militarism always leads to warfare and invariably the ones that have to fight get little out of it their loyalty and patriotism cynically used for

to quote one of realpolitik's greatest exponents Otto Von Bismarck

"A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one."


posted by jester

And last but not least... Iraq would have crumbled into sectarian fighting the second saddam died if there hadn't been the colaition forces in the country, there are 17 major groups with the ability to conduct large to small scale military operations within Iraq. All of them kept at bay by saddams payment, and agreements to leave them alone or his dominance over them, sectarian fighting was continuous in iraq. Its foolish to think that without saddam they'd have just all kept up what they were doing. Iran would have pushed big time to destabilize and then reinforce Shiia forces to take as much of Iraq as they could.


There might have been there might not, now there certainly will be. These kind of problems are for the Iraqis themselves to solve not outsiders to come in and enforce peace. Both countries know only too well what warfare is like, both lost hundreds of thousands the last time they went to war.The notion that iragis would welcome an Iranian invasion any more than they do an American one is ludicrous or that they want to see the copuntrty paritioned along religious grounds but in any case the choice is theirs.

What is this you are advocating-manifest destiny for the 21st century?Actually looking at John McCain maybe you are

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101f ... eedom.html

Now it is this generation's turn to restore and replenish the world's faith in our nation and our principles. President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that great purpose was to erect the structures of peace and prosperity that provided safe passage through the Cold War. In the face of new dangers and opportunities, our next president will have a mandate to build an enduring global peace on the foundations of freedom, security, opportunity, prosperity, and hope.


It's like a cross between a medeival religious fervour and 19th century imperialism. When did america fall for this nonsense?

Jester;849919 wrote: None, and if I did I doubt I'd share them, this is purely my opinion. And if you had ever been to Iraq and have the common Iraqi invite you and your team to tea, and have them openly and warmly welcome you then you'd not think the way you do. In my experince the typical civilian who wants nothgin more than to get passed the fighting and on with the rebuilding want the US there sicne we truly are thier best hope for the level of security they need to get thier country started again.

I think the exact opposite of you Bryn. Go figrue eh?


but that's half the fun surely :-6



If you're going to post an opinion and present it as fact when it runs counter to established authority then you really do need to be able and prepared to back it up - otherwise there's no point in posting it.

Jester;849941 wrote: Trueman was a socialist, Id no sooner agree with him than cut my thumb off with a spoon.

Im saying that for now, we are Iraq's best hope in the current state of affairs we/they find ourselves in. We cannot go back, we must move forward... and pullingout is a mistake that will get lots of the most innocent killed in real time.

I like John McCain, I think he's the best option we have, but in my book he isnt as strong of a leader as most think he is. I think he's more of a pacifist than we need right now. My vote will go to him as my choice of the lessor of the two evils in the political spectrum.

My best method for dealing with terroism is two fold... first the leadership of any country that harbors terrorist will be given a 30 day notice to turn them over or be added to the list for assassination asap. Second if they claim they dont have them or they cant help us we will gladely do the job for them, give us the green light to enter and do what we need to to get them and I want clean quick small scale in and out surgical strikes for Number 2. Either help us get them or get out of the way.




Then do not be at all surprised when your President ends up assasinated along with half your administration.

Open up that avenue and the genie will never go back into the bottle.

Disemboweled then torn apart for teaching women


I don't care what religion they are, THAT is outrageous. Filthy and depraved beyond my ability to express it.

Out of interest, has anyone heard any Muslim say that it was not a good thing to do? I do think that most Muslims are just ordinary folk trying to get on with their lives, but the complete silence on issues like this makes me doubt it. Or is it that these decent opinions don't get reported because it isn't half as "newsworthy"?

Clodhopper;850033 wrote: I don't care what religion they are, THAT is outrageous. Filthy and depraved beyond my ability to express it.

Out of interest, has anyone heard any Muslim say that it was not a good thing to do? I do think that most Muslims are just ordinary folk trying to get on with their lives, but the complete silence on issues like this makes me doubt it. Or is it that these decent opinions don't get reported because it isn't half as "newsworthy"?


There you reach the nub of the problem

Jester;849941 wrote: Trueman was a socialist, Id no sooner agree with him than cut my thumb off with a spoon.

Im saying that for now, we are Iraq's best hope in the current state of affairs we/they find ourselves in. We cannot go back, we must move forward... and pullingout is a mistake that will get lots of the most innocent killed in real time.

I like John McCain, I think he's the best option we have, but in my book he isn't as strong of a leader as most think he is. I think he's more of a pacifist than we need right now. My vote will go to him as my choice of the lessor of the two evils in the political spectrum.



My best method for dealing with terroism is two fold... first the leadership of any country that harbors terrorist will be given a 30 day notice to turn them over or be added to the list for assassination asap. Second if they claim they don't have them or they cant help us we will gladly do the job for them, give us the green light to enter and do what we need to to get them and I want clean quick small scale in and out surgical strikes for Number 2. Either help us get them or get out of the way.


Truman was hardly a socialist-but that's way off topic- it was your would be president John McCain that was quoting him but I assume his admiration for a "socialist" president will not affect your voting. I also assume you are not accusing John Mccain of being a closet socialist by association. Those kind of sentiments are hardly socialist rather that kind of nationalism is more akin to fascism than socialism. It is manifest destiny for the 21st century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

posted by jester

My best method for dealing with terroism is two fold... first the leadership of any country that harbors terrorist will be given a 30 day notice to turn them over or be added to the list for assassination asap. Second if they claim they dont have them or they cant help us we will gladely do the job for them, give us the green light to enter and do what we need to to get them and I want clean quick small scale in and out surgical strikes for Number 2. Either help us get them or get out of the way


Wonderful sentiments. Took you long enough to cut off the funding for the IRA and two planes flying in to a building for you to finally realise that maybe they weren't gallant freedom fighters after all. That's what helped bring brought peace to northern Ireland-lack of money. I look forward to the day when the US finally accede to British requests for the extradition of IRA Terrrorists. Although I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. Now there's a lesson for you if catholic and protestant can live in peace why not shia and sunni?

I would refer you t this part of John McCain's speech in that link.

So long as we can succeed in Iraq -- and I believe that we can -- we must succeed. The consequences of failure would be horrific: a historic loss at the hands of Islamist extremists who, after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, will believe that the world is going their way and that anything is possible; a failed state in the heart of the Middle East providing sanctuary for terrorists; a civil war that could quickly develop into a regional conflict and even genocide; a decisive end to the prospect of a modern democracy in Iraq, for which large Iraqi majorities have repeatedly voted; and an invitation for Iran to dominate Iraq and the region even more.


Who helped the mujahadeen succeed in the first place? They went from being gallant freedom fighters to terrorists in a surprisingly short space of tiome. They didn't change. Unless of course you are going to argue that US arming and training of the mujahadeen was of little benefit to them. Perhaps if you were less ready to fund terrorists groups around the world you wouldn't get in to these kind of messes. Don't suppose Rambo three will be on american TV any time soon. Might raise awkward questions as to why rambo is helping terrorists. 1988 it was made, before most of the soldiers fighting now were even born.

Posted by jester

Thats a wonderful thing about a forum, you can actually say 'this is my opinion, and my experience'... and post soemthing based on that, its then up to the reader with thier own set of predjudices and experince to say, Dang right preach it Jester, or Nah yer a nutter Jester, and thats all.




a prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. As such reason or experience should allow them to change.

posted by jester

And whether my opinion runs counter to established authority or not is subjective on your part. And if your authority is the biased media, then I reckon that's one level strike again it already.


If that authority happens to be a commission appointed by your elected government to investigate something and you think it is biased or not properly informed. Either your opinion is wrong or you have a serious problem at the heart of your government

Jester: I'll keep it brief because I am biased in the matter: The Provisional Irish Republican Army was a paramilitary force funded in large part by an American "charity" called Noraid. Other major sources of funds, weapons and explosives were Gaddaffi's Libya and the then communist Czechoslovakia (sp?).

Jester: No need. It's over now thanks in large part to two remarkable men - McGuinness and Adams, as well as Major and Blair.

Takes something to renounce a crusade which has dominated your life, but they did it and there are dozens of people alive unmaimed today who would not be if they had not made a decision to use peaceful means to reunite Ireland, and the reputation and political skills to take the PIRA with them. Much respect.

Jester;851971 wrote: GM, The commision contains a lot of fact, and a lot of truth, but its highly opinionated and limited in scope. I can take the same fact and truth and come up with a slightly more credible determination.

I know very little about the IRA.

And yes sometimes decisions the US makes come back to bit us on the butt, big time.



I have no comment on the IRA, I do not know the facts.


The commision contains a lot of fact, and a lot of truth, but its highly opinionated and limited in scope. I can take the same fact and truth and come up with a slightly more credible determination.


In that case would that not be your highly opinionated determination? Since you appear to accept the facts and truth (your words not mine) as reported by the 911 commission-unless you have evidence that the facts as contained in the report are actually wrong it would be interesting to see how you come to a different determination. If you have valid reasons fair enough but if you are claiming to have knowledge that the 911 commission did not have access to then you really do have a serious problem with your democracy.

I know very little about the IRA.


You really do surprise me since the US claims to be at the forefront of the war against terrorism and you also appear at times to claim personal knowledge of the fight. How can you know so little about an organisation that has carried out one of the longest terrorist campaigns in recent history and has been involved in training other terrorists groups in the same methods and with connections worldwide with other terrorists organisations from the PLO to farc. . Certainly the israelis have been worried about the connection with Palestinian terrorism since the seventies. I hope for your sake the islamic terrorists don't learn from the IRA and start using the same kind of tactics in American cities as they used in mainland Britain and ETA used in spain. Good grief even hollywood gets involved in making films about them like Patriot Games with harison ford (if i remember correctly there was even a scene where the CIA watch by satellite a supposed SAS attack on a Libyan training camp where the IRA and PLO were training).

And yes sometimes decisions the US makes come back to bit us on the butt, big time.


Well yes but you always seem surprised and not see any connection.

Jester;851971 wrote: GM, The commision contains a lot of fact, and a lot of truth, but its highly opinionated and limited in scope. I can take the same fact and truth and come up with a slightly more credible determination.

I know very little about the IRA.

And yes sometimes decisions the US makes come back to bit us on the butt, big time.



I have no comment on the IRA, I do not know the facts.


So what it boils down to, Jester, is that we should not listen to the 9/11 commission we should listen to you because you are more expert.

Similarly, we should not listen to the IPCC but we should listen to you because you are more expert.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you want any weight given to your opinions then you must back them up or they're not worth the electrons they're published with.

You set yourself up as a higher authority - not only as a higher authority than anyone else in the Garden but as a higher authority than the expert bodies in the subjects yet you provide no basis for your conclusions, no sources for the "facts" you produce.

Could you give me one good reason why we should take any notice of a single word you say?

As usual this thread has descended into a diatribe against the US and its foreign policy. As an aside, while I'm not suggesting that the IRA were particularly nice or friendly people, I am not sure I can remember a case of them disembowling and then tearing apart a fellow Irish person because they taught Irish children how to speak English can you?

Lumping all paramilitary and terrorist organizations into one amorphous mass is as facile as saying all criminals are the same, they are not, you can discriminate quite easily between different catagories of organizations and people. Based not on some fashionably complex anthropolgic theory, but on their basic actions.

The responsibility for that crime against an innocent man was not the "world" situation, or American foreign policy, or the lack of strong governance in Kabul, or the heroin trade, it was the merciless sons of bitches that did it to him, what is so hard to understand about that, why all this equivocation?

The responsibility for that crime against an innocent man was not the "world" situation, or American foreign policy, or the lack of strong governance in Kabul, or the heroin trade, it was the merciless sons of bitches that did it to him, what is so hard to understand about that, why all this equivocation?


Agreed. No need to worry, though: Global warming should kill everyone in a few hundred years, then there'll be no evil feckers left to do things like that. Some days, I feel that this is a good thing.

Galbally;852501 wrote: As usual this thread has descended into a diatribe against the US and its foreign policy. As an aside, while I'm not suggesting that the IRA were particularly nice or friendly people, I am not sure I can remember a case of them disembowling and then tearing apart a fellow Irish person because they taught Irish children how to speak English can you?

Lumping all paramilitary and terrorist organizations into one amorphous mass is as facile as saying all criminals are the same, they are not, you can discriminate quite easily between different catagories of organizations and people. Based not on some fashionably complex anthropolgic theory, but on their basic actions.

The responsibility for that crime against an innocent man was not the "world" situation, or American foreign policy, or the lack of strong governance in Kabul, or the heroin trade, it was the merciless sons of bitches that did it to him, what is so hard to understand about that, why all this equivocation?


As an aside, while I'm not suggesting that the IRA were particularly nice or friendly people, I am not sure I can remember a case of them disembowling and then tearing apart a fellow Irish person because they taught Irish children how to speak English can you?


Well no but a bit of gentle knee capping for associating with the wrong people or the sight of adults terrorising primary schoolchildren whose only mistake was to go to a mixed religion school is hardly edifying either. Just for the record I reckon the protestant paramilitary were equally culpable and certainly as capable of the most appalling acts of violence as any of the IRA. At least in ireland between catholic and protestant there is a "good" historical reason for the hatred.

Is disembowelling someone any worse than a fundamentalist Christian blowing up doctors at family planning clinics? It's the same demented mentality. I'm justified because my god tells me so.

Lumping all paramilitary and terrorist organizations into one amorphous mass is as facile as saying all criminals are the same, they are not, you can discriminate quite easily between different catagories of organizations and people.


Very true but the global war on terror is a term coined by the present US administration so I think it reasonable to point out the selective nature of what is being classed as a terrorist organisation. Selective blindness and hypocrisy irritate. The mujadadeen went from gallant freedom fighters to being the villains in Afghanistan. They didn't change nor did what they intended to do, or what they were fighting for. Saddam used to be a hero of the west in the fight against islamic fundamentalism lauded by the likes of Dick Cheney. To go from that to harbourer of terror groups like al queda is a remarkable turn around that bears examination.

It's the lumping of it all in to a world conspiracy aimed at bringing down the west based on some fashionably complex anthropological theory I object to when the reality is very different. It's also kind of hard not to talk about world politics without bringing in US foreign policy in to it. What I find disappointing is how difficult it is to discuss objectively without simplistic accusations of anti Americanism being levied. so little seems to be known of what has gone on in the past and how what happens now has been influenced by it. Just for the record I also object strongly to the actions of the british government over the same issues.That the SAS were involved in the training of the mujhadeen is a fact that probably does little for the morale for the british troops involved in now fighting them in a conflict that started before most of them were born. Thankfully I can express such an opinion without being accused of being unpatriotic or accused of supporting terrorists.

The responsibility for that crime against an innocent man was not the "world" situation, or American foreign policy, or the lack of strong governance in Kabul, or the heroin trade, it was the merciless sons of bitches that did it to him, what is so hard to understand about that, why all this equivocation?


Very true. That such merciless sons of bitches feel they can get away with it and are justified in their actions does rather raise the question of what happened that they got that kind of power. Yes they are responsible for their actions but Extremism is not the norm for any society no matter how primitive or backward it may seem to be.

Galbally: I'm not sure that tying people behind trains to be flayed to death on the stones between the rails is any better than disembowelling and tearing apart. (mentioned by Seamus Heaney in one of his poems in the North collection, iirc).

Anyway, the great thing about the Northern Irish conflict is that it is over. At least, for the time being.

More generally, being got at for your foreign policy is what happens when you are the leading world power. We Brits still get it for our time as top dog! The internet just allows the recriminations to happen in real time.

Yes they are responsible for their actions but Extremism is not the norm for any society no matter how primitive or backward it may seem to be.


gmc: I wonder if what is happening is that the boundaries between "excuse" and "explain" tend to become blurred in discussions of this sort? Hmm. Or is disembowelling the sort of thing that happens wherever religion mixes with politics? (thinking out loud...)

Clodhopper;852635 wrote: gmc: I wonder if what is happening is that the boundaries between "excuse" and "explain" tend to become blurred in discussions of this sort? Hmm. Or is disembowelling the sort of thing that happens wherever religion mixes with politics? (thinking out loud...)


You can't really separate the two. Religion has always been used as a means of control if only to persuade people to put up with injustice on earth-as epitomised by that verse from all creatures great and small

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them, high or lowly,

And ordered their estate.


a verse nowadays carefully omitted from most hymnals.

The western preference for a separation of church and state and a secular society stems from experience of the horrors that arise when you give too much authority to the church-any church. The catholic/protestant wars are on one level as simple as the divine right of kings anointed by god or rule by the people all equal in the sight of god with both sides ganging up on anyone who suggests it doesn't really matter let's all live in peace.

When people talk of the horrors of the middle east it should be remembered that Europeans and the west are almost in a class of their own when it comes to warfare and the horrors we are capable of when provoked.

Is disembowelling any worse than burning heretics? Both are done to save souls.

Well no but a bit of gentle knee capping for associating with the wrong people or the sight of adults terrorising primary schoolchildren whose only mistake was to go to a mixed religion school is hardly edifying either. Just for the record I reckon the protestant paramilitary were equally culpable and certainly as capable of the most appalling acts of violence as any of the IRA. At least in ireland between catholic and protestant there is a "good" historical reason for the hatred.

That was actually catholic children being intimidated by a protestant rent-a-mob, and I am sure there were similar instances on the other side, and yes its disgusting to watch blind human hatred in action. Ireland should be an example of what can happen when hatreds and ethnic conflicts are allowed to develop, particularly based on Religion, its a lesson that the English may need to take heed of I fear.

Is disembowelling someone any worse than a fundamentalist Christian blowing up doctors at family planning clinics? It's the same demented mentality. I'm justified because my god tells me so.

When did I say that pro-life people blowing up doctors was acceptable? I am not making moral comparisons here, you are.



Very true but the global war on terror is a term coined by the present US administration so I think it reasonable to point out the selective nature of what is being classed as a terrorist organisation. Selective blindness and hypocrisy irritate. The mujadadeen went from gallant freedom fighters to being the villains in Afghanistan. They didn't change nor did what they intended to do, or what they were fighting for. Saddam used to be a hero of the west in the fight against islamic fundamentalism lauded by the likes of Dick Cheney. To go from that to harbourer of terror groups like al queda is a remarkable turn around that bears examination.

Again, yes thats true, of course the Mujadadeen loved the Americans when they were giving them weapons and arms no questions asked but became their enemies when it suited them, so what goes around etc etc, they are hardly innocents abroad, but what bearing does that have on the act we are discussing?

It's the lumping of it all in to a world conspiracy aimed at bringing down the west based on some fashionably complex anthropological theory I object to when the reality is very different. It's also kind of hard not to talk about world politics without bringing in US foreign policy in to it. What I find disappointing is how difficult it is to discuss objectively without simplistic accusations of anti Americanism being levied. so little seems to be known of what has gone on in the past and how what happens now has been influenced by it. Just for the record I also object strongly to the actions of the british government over the same issues.That the SAS were involved in the training of the mujhadeen is a fact that probably does little for the morale for the british troops involved in now fighting them in a conflict that started before most of them were born. Thankfully I can express such an opinion without being accused of being unpatriotic or accused of supporting terrorists.

One of the clearly stated goals of Islamic fundamentalism is to destory the west, and convert Europe and the US into realms of Islam, so its a brilliant secret consipracy in that its not a secret and therefore by definition its not a conspiracy, and its only pie-in-the-sky western intellectuals who choose to ignore uncomfortable realities. I think there are a whole range iof world issues that do not involve American foreign policy, generaly those things where the Americans are not involved. Let me also state, I am and always have been against the Iraq war, and also the idea of the "War on Terror" is a nonsense, its a clash of civilizational ideas, and may become one of civilizations in general, it should be referred to honestly.



Very true. That such merciless sons of bitches feel they can get away with it and are justified in their actions does rather raise the question of what happened that they got that kind of power. Yes they are responsible for their actions but Extremism is not the norm for any society no matter how primitive or backward it may seem to be.

Again, blame the US, so predictable, they were all happy desert nomads until 1776.

:-5

I'm not sure that tying people behind trains to be flayed to death on the stones between the rails is any better than disembowelling and tearing apart. (mentioned by Seamus Heaney in one of his poems in the North collection, iirc).

I am unaware of that poem or that story, but yes there have been extreme acts of brutality in Ireland, just not one directly comparable to this as far as I know. The murder of several Catholic women who were accused of being informers could be considered similar, but they were shot, not publicly torn apart. This is what happens when you start trying to develop a moral sliding scale of how brutal brutal acts are, they are all wrong, which is why moral relativism is such a crock of sh*t.

Anyway, the great thing about the Northern Irish conflict is that it is over. At least, for the time being.

Yes, everyone agrees on that score.

More generally, being got at for your foreign policy is what happens when you are the leading world power. We Brits still get it for our time as top dog! The internet just allows the recriminations to happen in real time.

Sure, and the American's have earned plenty of the criticism they get, no question, but also blaming the US for basically everything is eroneous, lazy, and shows a basic misunderstanding of how planet earth works.

gmc;852799 wrote: When people talk of the horrors of the middle east it should be remembered that Europeans and the west are almost in a class of their own when it comes to warfare and the horrors we are capable of when provoked.


Just because Europe has experienced its own horrors, that does not imply that Europeans do not have the intellectual ability or right to say that horrors perpetrated by non-Europeans in other parts of the world are wrong, stop the guilt trip, its 2008 not 1945.

You can't really separate the two.


Oh, I think you can. US foreign policy may or may not explain the actions of the men who did the disembowelling, but it does not excuse it: we are all responsible for our own actions (assuming "normal" mental health, whatever that means), so I don't look at this event and say it was the fault of the US, I look at it and say it was the responsiblity of the men who did it.

We always have a choice.

Just again thinking of this equivalence thing, I guess the case of the Shankill Butchers who were a rouge UDA gang that started murdering Catholics in pretty horrible ways for fun in the mid 70s could be considered in the same league, but they were considered out of bounds even by their own side eventually and their leader was shot by other Loyalist paramilitaries. I think it was considered to be more to do with pyschopathic behaviour as much as ethnic conflict, a very horrible case.

Sure, and the American's have earned plenty of the criticism they get, no question, but also blaming the US for basically everything is eroneous, lazy, and shows a basic misunderstanding of how planet earth works.


Yes, but it's such FUN. Oh, you are a spoilsport with these damned rational points.

I'll still keep kicking the administration for its appalling lack of planning in Iraq, though. I've stopped using the word "cretin" and use the word "cheney" these days instead. Same sort of thing with other key morons too: "You bloody bush cheneyesque rumsfield" has a satisfying flow to it, like all good obscenity.

Galbally;852819 wrote: Just because Europe has experience its own horrors, that does not imply that Europeans do not have the intellectual ability or right to say that horrors perpetrated by non-Europeans in other parts of the world are wrong, stop the guilt trip, its 2008 not 1945.


Whose on a guilt trip? Personally I think there's a lot to be said for being part of one of the most warlike nations on earth.

Many of these and similar posts are usually along the lines of what these people have done and the reason they have done this thing is because of what they are i'e' muslim. arab, iranian, chinese middle eastern. I was merely pointing out-clearly unsuccessfully-that such atrocities are hardly confined to any particular culture or religion and to post in a manner that suggests it is something peculiar to the middle east or Afghanistan s inaccurate.

posted by galbally

Very true. That such merciless sons of bitches feel they can get away with it and are justified in their actions does rather raise the question of what happened that they got that kind of power. Yes they are responsible for their actions but Extremism is not the norm for any society no matter how primitive or backward it may seem to be.

Again, blame the US, so predictable, they were all happy desert nomads until 1776.




Actually galbally if you read it again you will find I was actually agreeing with you. hence the two words at the start of the sentence (very true. Yes they are responsible for their action and no one else But also that they feel they can carry out such an atrocity without fear of being caught does raise the question of how did their society break down to the extent to allow such things to happen. Our own society is quite capable of producing the same kind of individuals that are capable of atrocities-just look at northern Ireland.

poasted by galbally

That was actually catholic children being intimidated by a protestant rent-a-mob, and I am sure there were similar instances on the other side, and yes its disgusting to watch blind human hatred in action. Ireland should be an example of what can happen when hatreds and ethnic conflicts are allowed to develop, particularly based on Religion, its a lesson that the English may need to take heed of I fear.


I know it was and I also knew that you would be familiar with the incident as well. There was wrong on both sides. there always is.

Just again thinking of this equivalence thing, I guess the case of the Shankill Butchers who were a rouge UDA gang that started murdering Catholics in pretty horrible ways for fun in the mid 70s could be considered in the same league, but they were considered out of bounds even by their own side eventually and their leader was shot by other Loyalist paramilitaries. I think it was considered to be more to do with pyschopathic behaviour as much as ethnic conflict, a very horrible case.




It's a toss up which side had the most vicious thugs. As it happens I think the protestants are more vindictive.

Again, blame the US, so predictable, they were all happy desert nomads until 1776.


I'm not blaming them but they played a part in this as did the french and british in their day. You can hardly argue their policy hasn't had an impact when it has resulted in the deliberate overthrow of democratically elected governments (who had the cheek to want to nationalise the oil) in favour of ones more favourable to western interests. You could put a good case that they were skillfully manipulated by the british at least so far as iran and iraq are concerned. To pretend it has had no effect is naive. the great game continues it's just the players have changed somewhat with old players fading away and new ones taking control of the dice. Ever since it's use was discovered oil has been at the centre of everything that happened in the middle east. If it wasn't there no one would care what they did to each other.

To continue in the same manner and use military force to preserve those interests as a long term strategy sucks IMO and won't work.

posted by galbally

Again, yes thats true, of course the Mujadadeen loved the Americans when they were giving them weapons and arms no questions asked but became their enemies when it suited them, so what goes around etc etc, they are hardly innocents abroad, but what bearing does that have on the act we are discussing?


Again i was agreeing with you when you said. In fact i agree with most of yoru views on this.

Lumping all paramilitary and terrorist organizations into one amorphous mass is as facile as saying all criminals are the same, they are not, you can discriminate quite easily between different catagories of organizations and people.


But also pointing out that the global war on terror is doing just that when in fact one time friends and allies are now the enemy. They didn't change in what their goals were they were terrorists and/or dictators then when they were being supported by the west and remained the same when that support was withdrawn. It's relevant as they are now portrayed as being part of that amorphous mass. The IRA are relevant in response to some of jesters posts. How can a global war on terror ignore their existence-and someone who mentions their part in the fight against terror also claim to be unaware of them as a terrorist group.

Never mind Iran and syria. Pakistan will be the next country to go islamist. Same pattern, blind support of a dictator because of short term interests resulting in his replacement with something far worse and hostile to the very interests supposedly being protected.

posted by galbally

One of the clearly stated goals of Islamic fundamentalism is to destory the west, and convert Europe and the US into realms of Islam, so its a brilliant secret consipracy in that its not a secret and therefore by definition its not a conspiracy, and its only pie-in-the-sky western intellectuals who choose to ignore uncomfortable realities. I think there are a whole range iof world issues that do not involve American foreign policy, generaly those things where the Americans are not involved. Let me also state, I am and always have been against the Iraq war, and also the idea of the "War on Terror" is a nonsense, its a clash of civilizational ideas, and may become one of civilizations in general, it should be referred to honestly.


It's also the stated goal of christian fundamentalists and the catholic church. well the convert part anyway they've given up on the destroy bit for the moment. All of them are hostile to liberal democracy and for the same reason. The liberal bit freaks them out as people should really not be allowed to think for themselves and question religion. Hence the common lamentations about the break down of society and the decline of religion in society. It's the 21st century for goodness sake what are we doing listening to these people?

posted by galbally

Again, blame the US, so predictable, they were all happy desert nomads until 1776.


as a completely irrelevant aside the marine hymn conatains a reference to the first time US troops were used to over throw an African government in 1805.

From the halls of Montezuma

To the shores of Tripoli,

We fight our country's battles

In the air, on land, and sea.

First to fight for right and freedom,


OK they were a bunch of pirates and it was probably a good thing but that was about commercial interests as well.

Funnily enough this editorial piece was in one of our Irish newspapers today.

Europe slumbers as wars of civilisation rage on frontiers

By Kevin Myers

Wednesday April 30 2008

An apocryphal internet tale provides a double insight into the fundamental problems of the Western world. A senior Australian army officer, General Peter Cosgrave, is being interviewed by a woman presenter. She questions him about a scheme to introduce boy scouts to army barracks. What will they do there, she asks; he replies, climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting.

"Shooting? Don't you admit that that's a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers."

"Well ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, and you're not one, are you?"

Now, this story is widely believed, not least because we all have come across the depravity of the effeminate feminist who thinks that all will be well if we just get rid of violence. But it has also been widely denounced as a foul, "sexist" internet-myth. Myth it is, but sexist it is not. Any woman is equipped to be a prostitute, and only in the querulous PC world of the 21st century would a statement of this obvious truth, be denounced as "sexist". Moreover, the pathetic and intellectually juvenile language of soppy feminism is incapable of capturing the awfulness of the world we live in.

Mohammed Halim, a 46-year old schoolteacher in Ghazni, in Afghanistan, was recently abducted by the Taliban for the crime of teaching girls. They disembowelled him, still alive, and then, tying his arms and legs to motorbikes, tore him apart. His remains were put on display as a warning to others.

The fate of this Muslim schoolteacher is a terrible indictment of the Western failure to confront Islamicist terrorism in its home bases. For, contrary to the feel-good, all-will-be-well emotions so typified in the spurious interview above, passivity in Afghanistan could lead to disaster. A victorious Taliban would merely confirm the Islamicist belief that the West is not serious, and would undermine the most important allies we have: moderate Muslims in Pakistan and Turkey.

It would, moreover, strengthen the grip of the fundamentalists in Iran. Worst all of all, it would increase the chances of Islamic jihadists getting nuclear weapons from rogue regimes in Iran or Pakistan.

Europe slumbers. Britain aside, no European country has taken its UN-mandated obligations to fight the war in Afghanistan seriously. But the British experiences both there and in Iraq have been utterly demoralising. The British army has been defeated in Basra. It can no longer take on the Mahdi militia in the city. Indeed, its

rule extends solely to the perimeter of the single air-base from which one day soon it will make its ignominious, Saigon-style vertical exit, to be replaced by the US Marine Corps.

In Afghanistan, it is fighting the same enemy, in the same places, that it was fighting years ago, only now that foe is more numerous and more skilled, does not count its loss, and only exults in martyrdom. Moreover, this is a war which can only be won by Afghans holding the ground once Western troops have withdrawn, and so far the Afghan army has not developed the tactical skills or the autonomous culture which would enable it to do just that. Indeed, far from the initiative resting in any sense with the Karzai government in Kabul, the president narrowly escaped with his life during an assassination attempt last Sunday.

In other words, the situation is critical -- but you'd never know it from politicians, military leaders or the media. You'd never gather from the BBC or ITN that in Basra, the British face their biggest military humiliation since Tobruk. "The difference is, we fought at Tobruk," one British officer observed dryly. There is actually one other difference. Rommel's men were civilised. The characters who govern Basra are murderous savages, who burn girls alive, or rape and stone them.

Yes, you can state the obvious -- that the British are the authors of this calamity. But that is history. We must live with the present and the future. The US is incapable of taking on any more military burdens in the two war-zones. The British army is facing defeat in one, and unsustainable stalemate in the other. The Canadians and Australians have more than done their bit. Time for the Fifth Cavalry of Europe to come over the hill. But the despicable EU arm of NATO is far too interested in foisting incomprehensible, ten-zillion word treaties on its unwilling peoples than it is in taking its rightful place: on the right of the line in the war of civilisations being fought on the frontiers of its homeland.

We are back to the Crusades, but now with Muslim allies. And unless Europe helps those allies now, we must soon fight without them. For, in our absence, they will surely be slain, seduced or suborned. And then, when this real conflict starts, as it certainly will, the Islamicist Fifth Column across Europe will be fully armed and ready. Still, at least we'll have our European constitution -- and that's all that really counts.

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

Galbally;853882 wrote: Funnily enough this editorial piece was in one of our Irish newspapers today.

Europe slumbers as wars of civilisation rage on frontiers

By Kevin Myers

Wednesday April 30 2008

An apocryphal internet tale provides a double insight into the fundamental problems of the Western world. A senior Australian army officer, General Peter Cosgrave, is being interviewed by a woman presenter. She questions him about a scheme to introduce boy scouts to army barracks. What will they do there, she asks; he replies, climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting.

"Shooting? Don't you admit that that's a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers."

"Well ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, and you're not one, are you?"

Now, this story is widely believed, not least because we all have come across the depravity of the effeminate feminist who thinks that all will be well if we just get rid of violence. But it has also been widely denounced as a foul, "sexist" internet-myth. Myth it is, but sexist it is not. Any woman is equipped to be a prostitute, and only in the querulous PC world of the 21st century would a statement of this obvious truth, be denounced as "sexist". Moreover, the pathetic and intellectually juvenile language of soppy feminism is incapable of capturing the awfulness of the world we live in.

Mohammed Halim, a 46-year old schoolteacher in Ghazni, in Afghanistan, was recently abducted by the Taliban for the crime of teaching girls. They disembowelled him, still alive, and then, tying his arms and legs to motorbikes, tore him apart. His remains were put on display as a warning to others.

The fate of this Muslim schoolteacher is a terrible indictment of the Western failure to confront Islamicist terrorism in its home bases. For, contrary to the feel-good, all-will-be-well emotions so typified in the spurious interview above, passivity in Afghanistan could lead to disaster. A victorious Taliban would merely confirm the Islamicist belief that the West is not serious, and would undermine the most important allies we have: moderate Muslims in Pakistan and Turkey.

It would, moreover, strengthen the grip of the fundamentalists in Iran. Worst all of all, it would increase the chances of Islamic jihadists getting nuclear weapons from rogue regimes in Iran or Pakistan.

Europe slumbers. Britain aside, no European country has taken its UN-mandated obligations to fight the war in Afghanistan seriously. But the British experiences both there and in Iraq have been utterly demoralising. The British army has been defeated in Basra. It can no longer take on the Mahdi militia in the city. Indeed, its

rule extends solely to the perimeter of the single air-base from which one day soon it will make its ignominious, Saigon-style vertical exit, to be replaced by the US Marine Corps.

In Afghanistan, it is fighting the same enemy, in the same places, that it was fighting years ago, only now that foe is more numerous and more skilled, does not count its loss, and only exults in martyrdom. Moreover, this is a war which can only be won by Afghans holding the ground once Western troops have withdrawn, and so far the Afghan army has not developed the tactical skills or the autonomous culture which would enable it to do just that. Indeed, far from the initiative resting in any sense with the Karzai government in Kabul, the president narrowly escaped with his life during an assassination attempt last Sunday.

In other words, the situation is critical -- but you'd never know it from politicians, military leaders or the media. You'd never gather from the BBC or ITN that in Basra, the British face their biggest military humiliation since Tobruk. "The difference is, we fought at Tobruk," one British officer observed dryly. There is actually one other difference. Rommel's men were civilised. The characters who govern Basra are murderous savages, who burn girls alive, or rape and stone them.

Yes, you can state the obvious -- that the British are the authors of this calamity. But that is history. We must live with the present and the future. The US is incapable of taking on any more military burdens in the two war-zones. The British army is facing defeat in one, and unsustainable stalemate in the other. The Canadians and Australians have more than done their bit. Time for the Fifth Cavalry of Europe to come over the hill. But the despicable EU arm of NATO is far too interested in foisting incomprehensible, ten-zillion word treaties on its unwilling peoples than it is in taking its rightful place: on the right of the line in the war of civilisations being fought on the frontiers of its homeland.

We are back to the Crusades, but now with Muslim allies. And unless Europe helps those allies now, we must soon fight without them. For, in our absence, they will surely be slain, seduced or suborned. And then, when this real conflict starts, as it certainly will, the Islamicist Fifth Column across Europe will be fully armed and ready. Still, at least we'll have our European constitution -- and that's all that really counts.

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers


Sorry I just don't buy in to this global conspiracy at all. Yes there is a religious revival going on but I reckon the rise of christian fundamentalism in the US is just as big a cause for concern-especially when become influential in deciding who gets elected and start seeing events as part of a greater religious crusade. Present policy is helping the islamic fundamentalists gain support. Pakistan is a far bigger threat than Iran is likely to be and support for musharaf has done much to make an islamic takeover more likely.

Every time the west overthrows a government and replaces it with one more "sympathetic" to the west or helps keep in power one perceived to be friendly like in pakistan., it gets replaced with something more extreme. That's what happened in Iran, Iraq, afghanistan it's probably about to happen in pakistan.

Iraq is a disaster that anyone with half a brain could have foreseen so is afghanistan. The time to take out Saddam was after the first gulf war when the invasion might have been welcomed by the iraquis themselves so long as the occupation wasn't interminable. The taliban could have been dealt with if Iraq hadn't been seen as a more appealing target. We should never have helped the taliban to power in the first place. It's all about oil and always has been. short sighted realpolitik with no long term aims except hanging on to control with no moral concern except self interest.

The biggest culprit in all of this is Saudi arabia. That's the source of wahibism encouraged by the rulers as an outlet for opposition since they don't allow any political dissent. That's where all the money is going through but do you hear any calls for the saudi banks to be investigated? The royal family have helped create a monster they think they can control but it's getting away from them.

The only way islam could take out the west is all out open warfare and they don't have the resources for that and if they tried the middle east would be reduced to rubble. Never mind the US the european nations could manage that if we had to. The idea that we will somehow agree to be "islamised" is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of the way democracy works. we don't simply do what we are told by opur leaders, people can and do make up their own minds

If the islamic fifth column are stupid enough to try imposing islam they would very soon find out just how intolerant a tolerant society can become if pushed. There always will be those who think terrorism is a way of getting people to do what they want.just as there are those who think we should be frightened. It doesn't work. people get worried for a while then they get annoyed.

You can't fight terrorists with conventional warfare. You can't occupy a country unless you have actually conquered it completely like germany and japan after ww2 or your military might is so overwhelming like russia in eastern europe. even with that at some point you will be leaving. The US will have to leave iraq someday , Ireckon if any of our political leaders sid they would pull british troops out if elected they would be on a winner. Do I worry about islamic fundamentalist occupying the UK. NO I don't.

Jester;853215 wrote: That's funny, I wasnt selling anything. I'm just stating my opinions based on my life experience I have never claimed to be any kind of an expert except maybe in weapons, you can take my opinions or leave them, and anyone else you speak for can do the same.


I speak for no one but myself and never have.

It is nothing to do with buying or selling as well you know - it is, however, about presentation. You present your opinions as facts and then refuse to substantiate them - it is never "I think" it's always this is the way it is.

As opinions I'll take note of them and give them the consideration they deserve. As "facts" I'll oppose them as falsehood.