ISTM the major flaw in trying to understand what the terrorists might do is that rational people decide on an objective, and then come up with things that will bring them to that objective.
I don’t think the terrorists are thinking in those terms.
What was the objective in 9/11, as Broomstick asks? I seriously doubt if it was the opening shot in a war with clearly defined or obtainable objectives. ObL and Co. may have had some vague fantasies of establishing fundamentalist Islam across the globe, and no doubt used such rhetoric to convince his followers to volunteer for kamikaze missions. But I seriously doubt if he has a coordinated plan to conquer the world for Muhammed.
I can’t find the article, but there was a cite to an analysis of 9/11 that claimed it was basically a gesture - that ObL was making no further a point than that he hates the US and the West, and wants to kill our men and enslave our women. He was making a point, in a public and spectacular a way as he knew how.
Which is the scary part. Terrorists with access to nukes may not have anything more in mind than to kill people.
“The purpose of power is power. The purpose of torture is torture. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.” - George Orwell, 1984
And so it may not be possible to say, “What makes sense to do, from the perspective of a terrorist?” He may not be interested in making sense.
So al-Queda and the North Koreans are almost equally scary.
“It’s called evil” ? Dramatic hmmm… doesn’t mean they are sadistic thou. We are talking about people who planned WTC for 2 years or more… to call it evil simplifies it. Black and White BS.
Thou I agree that there may be no master plan behind 9/11… just a strong poltical gesture. A nuclear 9/11 would be an even bigger gesture too. In the end it makes sense to him and his people… not for us thou.
I think you can make an argument for your position, but when you have a videotape of someone saying he feels his organization has some sort of right to kill “their” children, and that there are no civilians among his enemy - essentially, everyone is fair game - it sounds to me like killing large numbers of people is an essential part of the plan. Sounds to me like there are large categories of people this person and organization considers expendable, with no remorse. I’m not sure you should assume these guys would “prefer converts to corpses” in all cases.
Which makes perfect sense to me - a self-defense force needs to be capable of defending and that implies both a certain size and the ability to expand if needed.
One thing that does irritate many in the US is the perception* (rightly or wrongly) that certain other countries depend so heavily on the US to act as defender that they’ve allowed their own military to atrophy. It’s all very well to desire peace, quite another to leave yourself vulnerable to attack. I realize that right now the US is perceived as an overbearing bully by many (with some justification) but the reality is that most of us would prefer NOT to be embroiled in so many disputes around the world.
An example of this (to pull it out of the Middle East) is the mess Yugoslavia dissolved into. On a certain level, from an American perspective this was somewhat like Ohio declaring war on Kentucky, a matter that would have been handled quickly and interally here in the US. Of course, Europe is a different place. The US would have been happy to let Europe handle it collectively as an internal-to-Europe matter, but no, Euope wanted us involved. The perception is that Europe can’t handle it’s internal problems. If an Amercian brings up the “we saved your butt in WWII” statement he or she probably has this in the back of the head somewhere. We don’t regret (much) fighting in Europe in WWII, but we aren’t particularly eager to get that involved in someone else’s conflict again. No, we didn’t lose as many people as Europe did - but we were also fighting a war in the Pacific - how many European troops were helping us there?. Not only do we get asked to intervene, there is a serious doubt on our part that if WE ever needed help it wouldn’t be there - because in the past very seldom has anyone aided us. I realize that to many outside the US it might seem inconceivable that we would need help, but it’s always a possibility. We weren’t always a world power, and we still remember being a former colony everyone in Europe made fun of.
There’s a long standing and growing discontent with Americans being involved in every hot-spot in the world. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Take Liberia - there’s a definite contingent of folks there who WANT America to show up and help clean house - but we know as soon as we set foot there somebody is going to be shooting at our guys because that slice of the country doesn’t want us there. No matter what we do, it will be both too much and too little at the same time.
For most of our history there has been considerable tension between those who are isolationists - they’d rather put up a wall around the country and ignore the rest of the world - and those who feel the US should be world’s policeman. If anyone outside the US wonders why we seemed to withdraw during some administraitons and the next we get pushy again, there’s your reason - it depends on which side of the “get involved” fence the guy in charge falls.
Oddly enough, Dubya started his term as an isolationist. My perception of him is that he had little interest in foreign affairs (and certainly little experience) prior to taking office. Hence, he’s clueless about other cultures. In some respects, he’s pretty clueless about America outside of Texas, much less the rest of the world.
*** Let me clarify that when I say “perception” I do not necessarially mean MY personal view on a subject, or that the “perception” in question actually reflects the true facts of a situation. In this case “perception” should be taken to mean “an opinion”.**
I think what has changed since WWII is that Japan no longer has ambitions to build an empire. The Japanese, however, still have a culture that embraces self-sacrifice and determination. They still, in many respects, value the group over the individual (which is not to say they don’t recognize and value individual rights, but not to the degree the US does), I didn’t mean that they would necessarially be sadistic, but they would be ruthless and direct in achieving their goal. They’re not an unstoppable force, but when they decide on a course of action they usually achieve the goal, regardless of the blood and treasure required to achieve it. There’s a lot to admire in such a trait, but it’s not something I’d like to confront on the battlefield.
Depends on the terrorist. You have fanatics that act without much thought to long-term goals. That’s one level of danger - and pretty nasty if they did get ahold of a WMD like a nuke. But, because they don’t do long-term planning well, they are less likely to get ahold of such a thing than a really well-organized group.
Al Qaeda is NOT a bunch of idiots. I’m sure they have foaming-mouth fanatics in their ranks (they make useful cannon fodder, for instances) but the leadership is pretty savvy. The exploitation of our systems over here, the years and money required to place agents and train them to fly - this speaks of a group of rational, long-term planners at the helm. These guys are far more likely to either acquire or build a WMD than disorganized fanatics - but if they do so, they will be very cautious and thoughtful on how it is deployed. But, that also makes them somewhat more predictable. If you can determine their end goals and thought-processes you can better anticipate their actions than a pack of terrorists acting on whim and impulse.
I’m not sure we know the end objectives of OBL. He just might have the hubris to dream of a world empire. Or, what he has released for public consumption might be all lies and propaganda.
I do know that the American objective is to find him and his cronies and “bring them to justice”. How you define “justice” might vary, but that’s the goal at this point, in that matter. As the world has noted over the past two years, there’s a scary aspect to the US when it’s pissed off. Many of the citizens aren’t too happy with the crew in DC, but don’t doubt for a minute that we’re still mad as hell about 9/11/01 and would happily set aside our differences for an opportunity to deal with the perpetrators in a direct and physical manner.
That was one hell of a gesture, then. But it doesn’t quite reconcile with statements supposedly from Al Qaeda talking about elminiating the US and killing every man, woman, and child. Then again, they are translations I’m referring to, which are subject to error.
Yes, that’s what makes them terrorists.
Hmm… North Korea is a different kettle of fish, and not just because their an established and sovereign nation rather than a multi-national club. Unfortunately, I have to end the post here and get to work, but maybe I’ll come back to that.
As to the purpose of 9/11, I think it’s fairly clear that ObL’s objective was to get the US to pull out of the Middle East in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular. 9/11 was intended to be a hornet sting to the nose of America. Obviously, ObL miscalculated our response. Instead of backing slowly away from the hornet’s nest, we decided to go in and smash it up. (For better or worse).
I think ObL wanted to send a message to America that he could attack the American government at its heart and the American economy at its heart. There was (to repeat myself) a hard logic to the choice of targets, to which we need to be attuned as we try to imagine what the next target might be. Would al-Qaeda nuke a US city if it could? Probably, but I think it would choose the city for its symbolic value. This suggests (for example) Washington (obviously) NY (obviously) Chicago (symbolic for its position in the heart of the country) or LA (source of the perceived “virus” of American culture).
Only in a sense. It is not the point of the “plan” per se, just probably in their minds a likely outcome. In other words genocide is not their goal, control is. I got the impression you were arguing that they favor a genocidal solution re: the western world, something I don’t think is the case.
Absolutely. However that does not imply that killing is a goal in of itself, but rather a means to an end.
Well, I don’t in ‘all cases’. They will kill without hesitation when it is expedient and where they think it will gain them something.
Hmmm…I’d like to see that cite, if you have it around. Are you sure it wasn’t more an example of boilerplate rhetoric a la “we’ll succeed in our goals even if we have to kill every man, woman, and child in the U.S.”? As repellent a comment as that is, that’s not quite the same thing as a stated goal. More in line with belligerent grandstanding, which I sincerely doubt they believe themselves.
While having elements of truth, I’d argue that if not exactly wrong, it is a rather skewed perspective. The issue being that U.S. government ( if not necessarily Joe Schmoe down the street ) was just as happy to take the lead stance as other countries were to abrogate them ( or, to be frank, were flat out incapable of taking such a position ). This applies to both NATO and the Japan situation ( and of course first arose in the context of a dominant, largely undamaged U.S. compared to ruined Europe and Japan, which in the case of Japan was also occupied and dictated too as regards their future military capabilities ).
Not a very good comparison. Kentucky and Ohio aren’t sovereign countries with different languages and cultures.
Again, Europe isn’t a country. So speaking of “internal-to-Europe” issues has never made much sense to me, even when coming out of the mouths of Europeans ( except perhaps re: the members of the European Union and then mostly in the area of economics ).
I’d say that is arguable. Certainly certain schools foreign policy thought in the U.S. think otherwise under certain circumstances.
How many could? The British were engaged in Burma. ANZAC troops fought in the Pacific theatre. The Netherlands was occupied by Germany. The U.S.S.R. was tied up in the European theatre, however they did honor their pact and declare war on the day they said they would ( and stealing a page from the German blitzkrieg, completely crushed the 600,000 man Japanese Kwangtung Army in short order ), however unecessary the A-Bomb ultimately made that engagement.
Criticizing Europe in this particular case seems a bit specious.
I don’t, but I might be younger than you :p.
I agree that the above is a legitimate criticism/problem. Self-inflicted in part, but still real.
While I don’t necessariy disagree with the analyses to date, I think comparing the Japanese in WWII and al-Queda in 2001 makes my distinction clear.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as part of a co-ordinated plan. They wanted to set up their Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, and run the Pacific nations as their private batch of colonies. They attacked Pearl Harbor both to destroy the US fleet, and to scare the US into letting have the Pacific as their playground. That is, they had an overall plan, and were prepared to follow-up that plan with co-ordinated action.
Obviously, Imperial Japan had more resources than al-Queda, and their notion that the US would tamely surrender was wildly off-base, but it seems they really believed in their end-goal, and that Pearl Harbor was a concrete step in furtherance of that goal.
I don’t think al-Queda has the same sort of plan of action in mind. They have shown no sign of being able to follow up the destruction of the WTC with anything like a series of actions that will bring about their purported goal (world Islam - I think the stuff about the Palestinians is just propaganda).
You could argue that the overthrow of the Taliban denied ObL a base from which to operate, and government support. And I wouldn’t deny that the War on Terror has had much success in preventing further large-scale attacks.
But consider that ObL had two cracks at the World Trade Centers before. And failing did not cause him to change to another target, but continue to attack. And note that he concentrated two planes on the WTC and only one on the Pentagon, and one on the White House. Which argues that he concentrated on symbolic rather than military targets.
I don’t think he had a serious plan for world conquest. He has it in for the West and its commercial, secular society, and he attacks symbols of that society - not as part of a plan to conquer it, but just because he hates it.
Why don’t you think that is the case? Do you have a reason for this belief? Do you not want to believe people are capable of planning such a thing? Or is it a matter of there is not enough proof to convince you that genocide is a goal?
Nor does it eliminate the possibility.
Looks like my memory still works - this was back in 2001. A few of the more damning excepts: Videotape of bin Laden discussing the 9/11/01 attacks: from bin Laden: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. " - looks like he’s taking credit for the attacks to me.
Discussing various quotes by bin Laden: I remember a video with this passage in particular, but I have not been able to re-find it: "Mr Campbell said the videos showed Bin Laden saying killing Jews was a “top duty priority”, the murder of innocent people could be justified on “legal, religious and logical” grounds and the 11 September hijackers were “blessed by Allah”, said Mr Campbell. " Sounds like an argument for geocide against the Jews (or at least Isreal) and then there’s that creepy justification for killing innocents and children.
Oh, I think this is what I recalled: Why it’s OK to kill innocent people: “Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically.”
“Those who talk about civilians should change their stand and reconsider their position”
“We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them.”
There’s more just on the BBC site. Mostly, this stuff came out between September and December 2001
Which is why I pointed out in my post that it does not represent either my personal position or necessarially the position of many other Americans - but it is a viewpoint that does exist out there.
Ah, but for four years they WERE on opposite sides of a war. Michigan and Ohio actually did declare war on each other at one point during the early 1800’s during a border dispute(granted, it didn’t amount to much of a battle - worst injury resulted from someone falling into a thorn bush). West Virginia seceded from Virgina in the 1860’s. California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, as part of the country of Mexico, fought against the United States prior to inclusion within the union (and, indeed, much of those states still are, as they have been for centuries, predominantly Spanish-speaking and possessing a somewhat different culture than the “Anglo” rest of the US). So there IS precedent for the various state of the United States coming to blows, both during the War Between the States and otherwise.
That’s a little like saying that Canada, the US, and Mexico have no common ground or interests - but they do, since they share the continent of North America. Certainly, since WWII the nations of Europe have worked to solve common problems and in their common interests. What happens upstream on the Danube affects those downstream - even if they’re in a different country. Economics IS important - trade has, historically, been a strong force in Europe working against warfare
Well, yeah, if some mad dictator start taking over Europe and exterminating various ethnic groups by the millions I think we’d pay attention and do something - but that’s a far cry from the people of Sarajevo planing landmines in the streets and lobbling mortars at each other across the alleys. Except, of course, there was that little matter of the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo that was one of the triggers of WWI, which lead to WWII… I’d never say never, but if you recall your history the US was not that eager to step into either of the two world wars.
That was my point - for the most part, no one could. We were the only ones fighting on two fronts who won. That was NOT because we had a huge military before we got involved - indeed, Pearl Harbor was a massive blow to our naval forces. We built all that up after we declared war. Name another country that fought a war on two fronts (much less more than one continent) and won - I can’t think of one, can you?
My comment wasn’t so much to criticize Europe as to point out that we haven’t been able to rely on folks coming to our aid. It’s not a matter of a lack of will but of capability. During WWII there was no way any European power could lend significant assistance to our efforts in the Pacific - yet, while we were fighting the Japanese in the East, we were aiding Europe in the West. And, on the whole, I think most of us were glad we were able to do that.
[quote]
Originally posted by Tamerlane
[quote]
Originally posted by Broomstick
There’s a long standing and growing discontent with Americans being involved in every hot-spot in the world. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I think there’s also a moral obligation to use power as well as to restrain its use. The trick is figuring out the proper time and place to use power (be it military, economic, or whatever). WWII was pretty cut and dried on many levels. Most other conflicts are not.
A study of the background and history of these groups doesn’t lead me to believe they are genocidal per se ( which isn’t to say they aren’t capable of committing genocide or near-genocide ). They are religious supremacists, concerned primarily with establishing actual or quasi-theocratic government throughout the Islamic world. Ultimately they hold to a medieval concept that calls for the extension of Islam on a universal scale, but as I said this seems to be more of a distant future goal ( it could be argued al Qaeda seems to be in favor for a global conflict between the Islamic world and the west, but more as a unifying action and to eject a supposed western presense from Islamic lands, rather than from any immediate hope for actual global conquest ).
I believe they are more than capable of it and it is not at all unlikely that a Jihadist success in say, Israel ( insanely improbably as that is ), might result in a near-genocide. My only argument is that such is not a goal in of itself.
That as well.
Your cites are fine, but they don’t really indicate a genocidal intent. It’s splitting hairs ( something I’m probably notorious for on this board ), but what they indicate is a bloodthirstyness, willingness and a self-justification to kill in the name of their struggle, not an end goal of exterminating all non-Muslims ( and all non-Jihadist-Salafist Muslims who are also their opponents ). The final result might be nearly as bad, but I think classing them as genocidal psychos can lead to missing possibly important nuances ( especially the interface where their calls for action have wider appeal ).
The only possible exception - the special case of Israel. In that case I have heard some genocidal comments.
Now, that’s splitting hairs ;). American states don’t equal European countries no matter how many minor border spats they’ve had or how much Oregonians dislike California carpet-baggers.
Sure they have more common interests, just as continental European countries generally have more common interests based on proximity than they do with the U.S… However that doesn’t quite equate to a European civil war being an “internal to Europe” issue. A violent civil war between Quebec and the rest of Canada certainly shouldn’t be considered an “internal to North America” issue. At least I hope not - not in this global climate.
I guess I just don’t see the significance of this.
All this talk about genocidal intentions from terrorists has got me thinking again about what someone said regarding the assumptions underlying the usage of a nuclear bomb. First of all, someone pointed out that a nuclear blast would leave very little in terms of forensics as to pointing out the culprit. As in, “hey there’s some Californium in here, it must be from a French reactor…” That type of physical evidence is unlikely to be present.
So, what would the initial assumptions be? I think there would be an easy willingness to look at traditional bad guys, ranging from terrorist groups to their nations traditionally sympathetic to them. And to pull off a nuclear attack, it would probably be a heavily favored notion that there was at least some cooperation from a state. So, investigations ensue, leads come in, and in the meanwhile you have America bloodthirsty for revenge. The administration will feel immense pressure to absolutely go apeshit on an offending nation. Will this apeshittiness take the form of a nuclear attack? I think Broomstick, with his cogent analysis, pointed out that in all likelihood, America would still rather just go in with overwhelming conventional arms.
But the question is, would terrorists think that? I mean, America is after all the only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon in warfare. Would a terrorist group at least not think twice before provoking a possibly genocidal retaliation on their own beloved homeland? Now, I am not saying that terrorists have to be rational, but again, as it was pointed out, any group capable of obtaining (or creating) and then exploding a nuclear device has to have some clever brains at the top. These brains should be clever enough to know that raising the stakes to go nuclear could seriously jeopardize a good portion of the Islamic community, if they are linked to that community. Perhaps they would be willing to commit genocide against The Great Satan and his allies, but would they be willing to risk genocide of people they call brothers and sisters?
I am not so sure that they would.
I mean risking a possible World War, one in which all safety locks on WMDs are clicked off, would be more the province of an Armageddon-minded cult or such, not a fanatical-but-still-bound-by-a-certain-code terrorist group, right?
Or would they (the terrorist group, not the Armageddon folk) think they could get away with something as big as this and not expect enormous repercussions against their community? Or perhaps would they be willing to risk sacrificing their community for such an act?
I am going to have to protest (mildly) the idea that the US is “randomly” dispensing violence on Muslins.
We went into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden, who we (most of us) believe was behind the 9/11/01 attacks. World opinion at that time, as best I recall, was that such an attack justified us going in guns blazing and there seemed to be some relief that there was a focus for our rage.
Iraq was not randomly chosen - the Bush family has had connections in the Middle East since the early part of 20th Century - it was either the grandfather or great-grandfather of the current president Bush that helped open the Kuwait oil fields. Between the personal connection to the first Gulf War, and the radical right in our own country desiring an excuse to go to war with Iraq, while the choice to invade may not have been entirely rational or based upon solid facts it was not random.
At least in my area, anger about 9/11/01 and situations in the Middle East seem directed more at Arabs than at Muslims in particular. (We also have a number of people who don’t understand that Arabs can also be Christian or other other religions, though obviously the categories of “Arab” and “Muslim” have considerable overlap) Even so, in the last quarter of 2001 we had local non-Arab Christians and others standing guard at Muslim mosques, business properties, and homes to prevent them from being harmed by bigots and folks who weren’t thinking clearly. This wasn’t anything official from the government - it was our tendency to self-organize during a crisis again. Nobody (except a very small minority) wanted to see the situation deteriorate into mass violence. Did some anti-Arab/Muslim hate crimes occur? Oh, yes - one well publicized one involved a Sikh being mistaken for Muslim and being gunned down in public. And each and every one of those crimes was a tragedy and should not be minimized. But we did NOT engage in a massive pogrom against Muslims. The Muslims where I work still came to work, and we had non-Muslims offering to escort them to cars or to commuter trains if they felt they needed some company. Even in cases where folks are openly bigoted about Muslims, the comments have been more in line with “deport 'em back to where they came from” rather than “kill them all”.
Is there random violence in Iraq right now? You bet - it’s called “war”. In that sense - the random nature of how death occurs, the dumb accidents, the deaths from mistaken identities, etc. - it is no different from any other war. The difference is that this one is on camera and thus scrutinized.
We knew when we went into Iraq that Americans were going to die. Hence, no mass outrage over the body bags and wounded - yet. And certainly Iraqis were going to die. You can’t have a war without killing people and breaking things, and some of those killed and some of things broken will be by mistake. We’re still in a war there, despite what Dubya has claimed about a “mission accomplished”. More people will die on both sides before it’s over. I’m not happy about it, but I do recognize it as a reality.
I’m going to try to be brief (gotta get to work again), but there is a significant and major difference between a terrorist group like Al Qaeda using a nuke, and a nation like North Korea using a nuke.
Al Qaeda may have camps or other physical structures, but the organization itself is not a part of any country. As we have seen, they can melt away and reform as an entity elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense to nuke them in return, because the most likely have dispersed and you’ll only wind up killing a lot of innocents, which means even MORE people will have a grudge against you.
You may not agree with the actions of the US, but they do tend to follow a certain reasoning. Despite the claims of our enemies, we do NOT delibrately target civilians. In fact, we go to some effort to avoid civilians as much as possible (although in any combat situation innocent bystanders do stand a high likelihood of severe injury or death). Hence all that effort we have exerted on making our munitions more precise, as just one example. Nor did we lay waste to Afganistan while seeking bin Laden - we could have, but we didn’t.
We have, indisputedly, bombed entire cities, though - so what’s the difference? Mainly, a declared war against another soverign nation. When we fire-bombed Dresden it was after years of open and brutal warfare with Nazi Germany. When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (among other Japanese cities that were bombed with conventional weapons) it was after years of declared and open warfare with the nation of Japan. It should also be noted that Tokyo had been considered as the target of the first nukes, but was rejected - we wanted to make Japan surrender, not destroy them as a people or provoke even greater anger. Given the prominence of Tokyo, both of those two extremes were considered possible. So, while we Americans can be quite brutal and ruthless, and capable of extreme violence, in the context of war we are not prone to kneejerk reactions. If we should ever target a city for either Dresden-style bombing or (hopefully never) nukes, it will be for a reason beyond just “we’re pissed off”. It takes a LOT to provoke a city-destroying reaction from the US.
Which brings me to Korea. IF North Korea nuked American soil it would be significantly different than if Al Qaeda had done so. For one thing, you can’t roll up North Korea, stuff it in a suitcase, and move elsewhere. We’d have a non-moving target.
So… how crazy is Kim Jong Il? The man is not stupid - by all accounts he’s probably smarter than average. And eccentric. He doesn’t think like an American, that’s certain, but he’s quite capable of reasoning. The questions is - if he was going down in defeat, would he hesistate to use any weapon at his command or not? And I, for one, can’t answer that question. I just don’t know.
But if, hypothetically, North Korea DID blow up a chunk of the US I honestly don’t know if we’d respond in kind or not. There would still be an impulse to use conventional arms only because most of us over here don’t think the average North Korean means us that sort of harm. They may not like us, they may not give a damn about us, but I don’t think they wake up in the morning and think “let’s exterminate America”. As a cultural thing with us, we like to think of ourselves as the good guys (doesn’t everyone?) and in our mind good guys don’t drop nukes on people, or commit genocide. If we have done these Bad Things in the past (and we have) then right now we’d like to go forth and sin no more, that is, we want to avoid making those mistakes again. This will tip the scales towards conventional arms in response.
But you never know for sure…
And if more than one city is hit then all bets may be off. If the US faced 4 nukes like we faced 4 hijacked planes on 9/11/01 then I would not be surprised to see a mushroom cloud dropped on someone else. I wouldn’t be happy about it, either, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
But what I am wondering is… would the terrorists think this? It seems logical to believe the way you do, but you’re also coming from within the country, within the culture. It may not seem thus to the actual terrorists; from my perception of their point of view, the U.S. has invaded and toppled the governments of two countries as a response to an attack that ‘only’ took the lives of 3000 people. A nuclear attack has the potential to kill in the millions and is a totally different ballgame.
Wouldn’t the smarter terrorists (i.e. the ones who are smart enough to carry off a nuclear attack) think about these consequences for their community (even if they are not likely to come to pass, from our more informed perspective)? And by “community”, I mean whatever location or locations the members of the group can be linked to, or have connections or ties with, a place they may still think of as home. Now, I know that some of the 9/11 hijackers are linked to Saudi Arabia, and there doesn’t seem to be much heat directed at Saudi right now, but a nuclear attack would be on a totally different level of provocation. And they do have the example of Iraq and Afghanistan for just 3000 deaths; if they multipled this 100 or even 1000-fold, the terrorists would have to think that the US would lash out in an extremely aggressive manner, and that there’s a chance this will be against the place that at least some of them call home. Would they really be willing to risk the bombing and invasion of Mecca, for example? You and I may think the US wouldn’t invade without at least some good evidence of wrong-doing by a country, but would the terrorists think that, especially given the Iraq invasion? If I were one of the more clever terrorists who still felt ties to a country like Saudi, I would definitely think long and hard about exploding a nuke in New York… I mean, at that level of tension, a single photograph of me (the terrorist) together with some random Saudi official may be enough justification for the US to go apeshit, at least in my terrorist mind. I’m not sure I’d want to risk that.
What if the US was threatening to invade or bomb North Korea ? Kim decides a distraction is needed. Then N.Korea smuggles a nuke into the US and blows it up. Destroying a mid size city and 250k people.
Who do you think would be blamed for it ? Unless the CIA/FBI/NSA gang were onto to it… they would blame Arabs. Even if they did have beforehand knowledge would they admit as much about failing to stop it ? How do you prove its a “gook” bomb or a “raghead” bomb ?
So much for the tough talk and worries about "community". If the US retaliates anything I suppose they will be more worried about disabling other nukes first. Outright blowing up cities doesn't make for good taste in retaliations either.
Following is a truncated version of the 39 principles of Jihad as described by Al-Qaeda in Al-salem’s book:
Preparing and urging the mind for Jihad.
Sincere desire to attain martyrdom - equivalent to the Saheed’s reward (72 virgins and secure a close place near the Divine presence in Heaven) even though he may die from natural causes.
Taking part in the Jihad - Every Muslim has to take an active role in holy war against the infidels.
Financing Jihad.
Supplying the fighters’ needs.
Taking care of the Mujahid’s family.
Assisting the fallens’ families.
Assisting the families of prisoners and wounded fighters - by supplying their necessities.
Fund raising for the Mujahideen.
Granting charity donations to the Mujahideens.
Financing medical treatment for wounded Mujahideen
Praising the Mujahideen and their deeds.
Encouraging the Mujahideen to stick to their ways - in order to
strengthen their spirit and moral.
Protecting the Mujahideen.
Publicizing the disgrace of hypocrites and defeatists - who strive to weaken the Islamic Nation.
Preaching to Jihad.
Providing strategic advice to the Mujahideen.
Keeping secrecy concerning the Mujahideen
Prayers to Allah for the sake of the Mujahideen and for the defeat of the enemies.
Holding special prayer to avoid misfortune and to strengthen the Muslim community.
Publishing the Mujahideens’ activities in order to arouse the notion of solidarity and strengthen pride and hope among the believers.
Participating in the publishing process of books on the Mujahideen
Publishing Islamic laws supporting the Jihad … to strengthen the Jihadi organizations worldwide by publishing Islamic laws justifying terror suicide attacks and holy war against the infidels.
Keeping steady, consistent contact with scholars and preachers … to support them and urge them to persist with the call to Jihad.
Physical practicing.
Acquiring shooting skills.
Practicing swimming and riding horses.
Learning first aid.
Learning the doctrine of Jihad - Al-Salem recommends dozens of books, articles and Islamic laws published in recent years by Muslim radical leaders and scholars most of them Saudis by origin (Osama Bin Laden, Hamoud Al-Oqala Al-Shuaibi, Abd Aziz Jarbou’, Yusouf Al-'ayyiri, Naser Al-Fahed, Ali Al-Khudier, Suliman Al-Olwan and more). One of them is the Al-Khudier’s Islamic law which justifies the use of weapons of mass destruction against
the U.S.
Supplying refuge and shelter to the Mujahideen
Expressing hostility and hatred toward infidels.
Constant action to achieve the release of all prisoners.
Performing electronic Jihad.
Alienation of infidels - Believers in other religions have to be isolated from Muslim communities so they will be prevented from committing hostile actions.
Educating the younger generation to adore Jihad.
Abandoning the luxuries of materialism - which might weaken the spirit of Jihad.
Boycotting enemy’s commodities - as part of the economic Jihad.
Avoiding the employment of foreign workers - from enemy countries.
Would it not be fairly safe to assume that people who are raised to follow such rules would be happy to perform the kind of atrocities as the 1997 Luxor massacre, where 58 European tourists, mostly Swiss, and including young children, plus several Egyptian tourist guides, were gunned down for no other reason than the fact that they were infidels or associated with same.
You are very familiar with Islam and the thought processes, such as they are, of its adherents and the answers you have provided so far to various questions raised here seemed, to some extent, a little bit equivocal.
What does that strange term you used in the second line of the body of your quote above mean.
Does it mean allowing one mating and fecund couple to live? After all, Mohammed and his companions did not allow a single male member of the Jewish Quraysh tribe to live.
Actually even assuming such a list is not an individual take, but rather a comprehensive platform, I still I see no conflict with anything mentioned there and anything I’ve said.
Certainly.
Of course, they weren’t targetted solely because they were infidels. They were also, and more directly, targetted in an attempt to sow terror and disrupt the tourist trade, thus weakening their chief enemy, the Egyptian government.
They’re a lot equivocal. I trust no one that has black and white answers on most of these topics. They’re usually blind partisans or simply misinformed.
In my mind it means an more or less undirected orgy of violence that may have the same net effect as an attempted genocide, without necessarily the intent to commit one.
I’m not sure what any particular group of terrorists thinks. Clearly, there has been more than one group of people who have thought that by striking America first they could discourage us from getting involved in a conflict, or from continuing to have a presence in a particular area. For all that people complain that Americans are insensitive and ignorant of other cultures, they seem to forget that America also has a particular culture and mindset. ANY attack on our homeland will be greeted with great hostility.
But let’s turn that around - what if the goal of a hypothetical terrorist group is to CREATE a war? What if the goal is to instigate a winner-take-all showdown between “the West” and their side? In which maybe they knew a terrorist attack costing thousands of lives would provoke a war. In which case… 9/11/01 was mission accomplished for them. Except… what if the war they got wasn’t the war they expected? Most of the 9/11/01 highjackers were Saudi - perhaps they were hoping that the US would invade Saudi Arabia, perhaps even Mecca - which would be enormous provocation to the Muslim world. But instead we went into Afganistan.
BTW - Al Qaeda has no love for Iraq, either - they’re probably just as happy that a secular Muslim such as Hussein was toppled and don’t really care who did it. If the topplers by their very presence created more unrest in the Middle East that leads to further polarization so much the better. For all we know, the US invasion of Iraq furthers one of their many aims. These are the guys that fought the Soviets to a standstill in a guerilla war of attrition, after all. We don’t really know what their end goals are, what they value most, and the methods they find acceptable. We have indications, but it would be foolish to think anyone on the US side has all the information.
Who or what is their “community”? Do they identify most strongly with their country of birth, or with the extra-national organization they joined and are willing to die for? These people are not afraid to die - some of them are actualy eager to do so. They seem to expect others to feel the same way. Given that, I wouldn’t bank too strongly on their feelings for their families “back home” to restrain their killing impulses. What if they feel that bombing the infidel would further their aims, even at the cost of a couple cities in the Middle East? (or elsewhere)
Perhaps they would. Mecca has been the site of Muslim-on-Muslim bloodshed in the past. Like every other patch of ground in the so-called “holy land” it’s been soaked multiple times in human blood.
Again, although the US would, if provoked, lash out in an “extremely aggressive manner” that does not mean we would use nukes to express that aggression. Now, supposedly, during the first Gulf War Saddam was warned that the use of chemical weapons would result in nuclear retaliation, which indicates that perhaps it wouldn’t take a nuke to provoke the US into using a nuke - but was that a real threat or a bluff? How can you tell?
Oh, I think the US is quite capable of manufacturing evidence should it suit a particular administration - it’s been done before. Of course, that’s true of every other nation on Earth. But, in general we would not do that, and we certainly wouldn’t due that without some sort of motivation. In other words, I think there were real reasons we invaded Iraq - I just don’t happen to think any of those true reasons were ever mentioned in Dubya’s speeches.
Maybe YOU wouldn’t risk it - but what if the goal is to trigger an Armageddon-level holy war? In which case it would make sense to do such a thing. If the goal is war then blowing up part of New York City pretty much garauntees somebody is going to be facing the US military in the near future.
