I do not follow your reasoning which implies Al Qaeda is a constant quantity whih would use the same number of attacks no matter what. I find this affirmation ridiculous. I believe Al Qaeda has been strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe the number of dead (Americans and Iraqis) would have happened in America had the USA not invaded Iraq. Not to mention that, as the daily news reports, it seems the USA is under direct threat anyway and flights are being cancelled and/or delayed. The USA lives under more fear of terrorism in 2004 than it did in 2002. I would say the events of 2003 have made matters worse, not better.
Just wanted to add that, unfortunately, I firmly agree that there is not a fixed number of terrorists out there. Events like this war create more of them in the future and maybe the immediate present.
You’re presupposing an either/or choice by Al Quaeda, this thread is all about demonstrating that Al Quaeda has to make that choice. So please do.
The war in Iraq was never meant to make things safer in the short term.
Of course America invading a middle eastern country would inflame passions. No doubt about that, it was always going to happen.
The judgement is that the removal of Saddam (and therefore the removal of the sanctions) would deflate passions in the long term. When OBL made his fatwa against the US he cited three things:
- that America is hurting muslims by supporting Israel against the Palestinians
- that America is hurting muslims by imposing sanctions on Iraq
- that America is defiling muslims by stationing troops in the Holy Land
In answer to this fatwa America has:
- published it’s “road map” to help solve the Palestine issue
- got rid of Saddam (and therefore the sanctions)
- removed it’s troops from the Holy Land
Therefore every one of al Qaida’s demands has been addressed (to some extent). Those demands that haven’t been fully addressed are open to negotiation - everything is open to negotiation.
Al Qaida are not reasonable people. They live in a dream world where all non-muslims are “the enemy” and must be subjugated. Sam Stone talked about the “root cause” of terrorism. He posited that once democracy is installed in these countries the people will be happier and will no longer feel the need to hate the west.
I think that once democracy is installed in these countries, the people WILL indeed be happier but they will still hate the west. This is because the “root cause” isn’t their political system but their religious system which appears to teach that:
1. Islam is the only true religion and all other religions are false
This isn’t unique to Islam. All religions teach that they are the only correct one and that all others are false. The problem lies in the fact that:
2. Islam believes that all non-muslims should be accorded inferior status and should be subjugated
Witness dhimmi status, jezyah etc. Copts in Egypt have to jump through incredible hoops to get permission to build a new church including getting permission from the President of Egypt himself. This is despite the fact that there is a sizeable christian population in Egypt (10%).
In Saudi, the homeland, no christian churches at all are allowed.
Even the fact that Islam believes that all other people are inferior wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that:
3. Islam’s dictats permeate all levels of society
Islam has rules for how you should run your government, what laws you should have, what you should think, what morals you should have. It controls the macro and the micro.
The more fervent followers also follow it’s dress codes - believers should all dress like Mohammed (wearing a simple garb of two pieces of linen) and should all look like Mohammed (by wearing a beard but no moustache).
Criticism of Mohammed and Islam is not allowed in most muslim countries. And yet, if you are a christian or a hindu for example, then criticism of Mohammed is inherent in what you believe since obviously you think he was mistaken.
Marley said that “al Qaida is not going to fight the US army”. I disagree, I think they will. Because they live in a dream world. You are making a mistake because you are thinking logically, you are thinking:
“They would have to be mad to face up against the US army when they could be plotting attacks elsewhere”
You are thinking logically and not thinking islamically. Islamic thinking is somewhat different. In the Islamic mind you are striking a blow against the infidel enemy and guaranteeing yourself a place in paradise - even if all you do is kill one American soldier with an otherwise pointless suicide bombing.
Islam is a fairly fatalistic religion - insh’allah (God Willing) is a popular refrain. They think everything is pre-determined by God. They think that there will one day be a big war in which lots of muslims will die and Islam will shrink and be confined to Mecca where it started. Then Jesus will return and the “mahdi” will come and Jesus will go to Mecca and pray behind the mahdi as a sign that Islam was right and then everyone will convert.
So Bin Laden and his followers don’t actually expect to win this war. All they want to do is fight the infidel in the cause of Islam and if any of them are lucky enough to get killed in the process then that’s OK because they will go to paradise.
Islam as an ideology is insane - if you find yourself living on a world with several different religions then it’s unwise for one of those religions to have “subjugating all the others” as an article of faith. Makes war and unease inevitable.
Since God knows everything then one would have thought that God might have thought all this through a bit more carefully before He created His one true religion, Islam.
So the root cause is Islam but it’s just far too big an issue for most people to think about. Makes people uncomfortable to think that they share a planet with 1 billion borg.
Jojo,
You’re not really addressing the subject of the thread here. As for the rest of your post… “1 billion borg”? How many people do you talk to that practice Islam?
ok the borg remark was over the top. But I did address the thread subject - has the Iraq war made the US safer? Short term no, long term yes. Once the US has pulled out and Iraq has it’s own government and a few years have passed then muslims will start to realise that al Q have no real concrete gripes anymore.
There will still be terrorists though because a religion of 1 billion is bound to have a few extremists especially when that religion’s holy book exhorts it’s followers to “kill the infidel” and to “not take unbelievers as friends” and to accord dhimmi status to the unbelievers etc etc.
Osama has never met me and yet he hates me simply because I don’t agree with his conception of God. The reason he thinks like this is because he thinks the quran tells him to. It’s possible the quran doesn’t say this but, having read it, I can understand how he made the mistake.
I, on the other hand, don’t hate Osama. I feel sorry for him. He’s trapped by a dud ideology inside a mental prison of his own making (like all muslims). My pity can only go so far though - the prison IS of his own making after all, he can leave any time he wants.
Have you ever tried to ask yourself the question “What do al Qaida actually want?” It’s a very simple question. It works with most terrorist groups - FARC, ETA, IRA. You can define what it is they actually want. Try it with al Qaida, I’ve come up blank. And yet this would appear to be the most important question of all.
JoJo, your rant on Islam is of a kind that would ask a new topic to go into it if I felt any wish to do so. Which I do not, until you open one and come up with a more reasonable defense of your arguments.
So until then - and acting in line with Islamic teachings - I wish you
Salaam (= peace). A
This thread is considerably more specific than that I would say. Although since you feel that in the short term ( or at the present moment) we aren’t safer then you wouldn’t really be making the argument that is in the title of this thread.
far_born said:
I reproduce the OP of this thread in full:
I agree with you that the west (and the US) is no safer now since the opening of a new battlefield in Iraq. But I think that the opening of a new battlefield will draw al Qaida recruits to it. Radical muslims will not be able to resist the opportunity to fight America directly, believe me. So they will come to Iraq in the same way they came to Afghanistan to fight Russia.
There is a slight difference though. Russia was shit, America is a meat grinder. All radical muslims that throw themselves at the US army in Iraq will die. Afghanistan is a difficult country to defend, so mountainous. The Russians had problems with people popping up from behind a rock and firing a rocket launcher at a helicopter.
America doesn’t have this problem because America is supporting a regime that is in opposition to the Taliban. Most Afghans didn’t like the Taliban (especially the Kabul Afghans) so most Afghans support a change of government. They may not like the Americans but they don’t want the Taliban back.
In muslim circles they see the fight against America in Iraq as similar to the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Resistance to the infidel in muslim lands.
However, people who see it this way are mistaken in a couple of ways:
1: The only reason the mujahadeen were successful against Russia was because they had American backing. Without American backing they are fucked.
2: The current US army is the largest and most powerful military force ever to grace the planet. They are a whole different ball game to the Russians (who were technologically poor, innefficient and corrupt). The US army is like a meat grinder, it kills whatever it comes near. It absorbs whatever it meets. The more suicide bombers that throw themselves at the US forces in Iraq the better. The less there will then be to throw themselves at us civilians.
That’s one of the things about suicide bombers - each one that blows himself up is one less for us to worry about!
Suicide bombing is, in fact, a shit tactic of war.
So my argument is that, in the short term, Iraq will draw radical muslims to it like moths to a flame (but unfortunately they will all die) and then in the long term, moderate muslims will realise that Iraq is probably better off without Saddam Hussein and his mad sons.
So the whole thing will calm down.
We will however have a rough ride in the intervening years. But then there was no choice, Saddam had to go because of the following logic:
-
The sanctions against Iraq were pissing off the world’s muslims big time so the sanctions had to go.
-
The sanctions could not go while Saddam Hussein was in power for 3 reasons
(i) If the sanctions went then Saddam would try to build nuclear weapons - remember that he tried to build them in the mid-80s. We only found out about this because one of his ministers defected. Turned out he had a huge nuclear weapons program.
(ii) When Saddam dies, his sons would have taken over and they are even madder than he is.
(ii) America would lose face. The US fought a war against this guy not long ago. They couldn’t then say “All is forgiven”. They would lose face. So in order to remove the sanctions, America had to get rid of the guy who triggered them. And his sons.
Aldebaran said:
Peace?
You are wishing me peace?
I know all about the muslim vision of peace.
I think that your definition of peace is different to my definition of peace.
The Islamic version of peace is otherwise known as surrender or submission. The only “peace” that Islam recognises is the kind of peace whereby one comes to terms with living under the Islamic regime.
This site is called dhimmitude.org, it points out the rights of non-muslims living in a muslim state:
[quote]
1)
Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
Musta’min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta’min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta’min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.
This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.
Islamic Law and Zimmis
Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed. […]
[material removed due to copyright concerns --Gaudere]
[quote]
To be continued…
continued…
Anyway, I’ve probably quoted too much, you can read the rest yourself.
Now, I’m not saying that all of the above is agreed upon by all muslims but it is the general gist.
You know what, Aldebaran, I’ve got a proposition for you.
How about you stick your dhimmi status, your jezyah humiliation tax and your “peace on our terms” up your fat muzlim A-hole?
(Apologies to any moderaters reading this but I am not attacking the poster personally, I am attacking his ideology and my quote was long but I wanted people to get an idea of the kind of stuff islam teaches).
countdown begins…10…9…8…
I think JoJo is a great example of the sort of multicultural understanding and tolerance, together with diplomatic understanding, that will make it possible for us to see peace in our time and an end to this conflict. I wish everyone was so understanding, open-minded and non-confrontational.
Now that we have bridged this issue, maybe we could get down to the really constructive part and start calling eachother names and insult eachothers mothers.
Salaam.
<Whoa. I have no love for Alde, but still, whoa.>
Anyway, FWIW, we’re no longer on Orange Alert-- we went back to Yellow Alert this morning, by executive order. Whew. I don’t care if you think that it was all silly hyperbole or that our brave DHS thwarted the ruthless bastards, I think we’re all glad the holidays passed without incident.
Jojo,
Attacking his idealogy? Give me a break.
Start your own thread for these issues, apparently you may need to go to the Pit to do so.
Furthermore you didn’t even relate your beefs with Islam to the thread.
That’s really all I have to say to you.
Jojo:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Jojo, you are CLEARLY attacking the poster personally here, and you will refrain from such insults in this forum if you wish to keep your posting privileges. Also, do not quote large chunks of copyrighted materials; use short excerpts or a link ONLY.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
In my opinion this member would be better off if he would start reading some books about Islam, and its history, instead of posting a demonstration of The Great Wisdom of Those Who Know Nothing.
Why does this “nothing” suddenly makes a link in my mind with “Fawlty Towers/Manuel”…I don’t know. Honestly
Salaam. A
Well heck, if all it takes to lower the threat of international terrorism is an executive order then GW better get signing! By signing executive orders he somehow mystically connects with the terrorists planning activity and convinces them to hold off. Now the actual threat has been reduced and the alert level can be lowered.
Or maybe the actual threat hasn’t changed one bit now that the signature is on paper and it has done nothing more than further discredit an already dubious alert system.
Enjoy,
Steven
oh ok, I thought it was funny. Nevermind.
As regards tolerance, well, we have to live with these religions but I don’t have to like it.
I don’t really understand how I was attacking Aldebaran personally though. I have nothing against him, I was attacking an ideological system that holds a large part of world in bondage.
By pointing out the deficiencies in that ideological system I hope that I can encourage some of them to rethink their positions. A futile hope, I know, but it gives me something to do.
The problem with tolerance and respect is that everybody is so damn tolerant and respectful and so afraid of upsetting anybody that nobody ever says anything.
Islam is directly related to this thread because it’s the driving force of al Qaida who are the terrorists in question. Baader Meinhof were marxist so marxism is relevant when talking about them, al Q are islamic so islam is relevant.
I think that an ideology that can sentence a 16 year old girl to 100 lashes because she’s pregnant could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect itself.
But hey, maybe islam is great and it’s me that’s weird.
There is no such animal as “Islam”. There is no such entity, it covers ground all the way from the madly puritanical Wahabbist sects to the odd, zen-like mysticism of the Sufi. The alleged identity “Christianity” includes Dorothy Day, Pat Buchanan, and Mother Theresa. Would you place responsibility for the Inquisition burnings at the feet of the Berrigan brothers?
Forget the concept “Islam”. No such thing.