This statement was made by RedDart in another GD thread, and it was interesting enough that I thought it deserved its own thread:
I’ll have to muse over this a bit myself, but my burgeoning thoughts might have something to do with my belief that this is similar to living in constant fear, which I don’t think we can really do, or afford to do. But like I said, my train of thought is still very undeveloped.
What do you Dopers all think?
It is true that the terrorists have won. Terrorism has traditionally been very effective. When one talks about terrorists and them winning, though, one has to be clear about which terrorists we speaking of.
The world’s largest terrorists are based out of Washington D.C. By far the most extensive, and successful, terrorist operations known to Mankind have been run from D.C. and Langley. They usually win.
Terrorist actions directed at the U.S. have the predictable effect of giving the U.S. terrorists even more power to wage their own much more massive terrorist operations around the world. It is a win-win situation for them. They can only hope that there are many more such terrorist attacks against the U.S., and their actions are designed, in part, to ensure a steady supply of anti-American terrorism.
“Paging Doctor Jack. Doctor Hi Jack!”
I realize I am disobeying orders by not concentrating like a laser beam on the crimes of the official enemies, but try to at least pretend like you are not blindly obedient.
RexDart and Chumpsky don’t really understand what is going on here.
For the terrorists to ‘win’, we (America) must:
Convert to Islam.
“…reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.”
Adopt ‘Sharia’ as our governing law.
“…take an honest stance with [our]selves…to discover that [we] are a nation without principles or manners…”
Stop any and all support to Israel, Russia, Phillipines, and India.
Pull completely out of ‘their lands’.
Etc.
They don’t give a flipping f*ck if we have ‘less freedom’ or more. They don’t care if we have stringent wiretapping regulations or loose wiretapping regulations. They are zealots, and as such, defy any sort of logical negotiations.
Some people (Rex and Chump at the forefront here, it seems) have deluded themselves into thinking that the terrorists (Al Queda and Co.) have some sort of rational game plan. They do not. Appeasement will do no good with this crop of loonies.
Although, truth be told, ‘RexDart ibn Chumpsky’ has a nice ring to it. They better like it, if they want to roll over and beg for for mercy to Al Queda.
And some people have deluded themselves into thinking that the U.S. is not a leading terrorist state.
At any rate, there are several ways to try to deal with the terrorism that is directed against us. This is a negligible amount of the total amount of terrorism, but it should be addressed, obviously.
There are basically two approaches, what I like to call the “Israel approach,” and the “U.K.-Ireland approach.”
The “Israel approach” is just to kill everybody in the immediate vicinity of a suspected terrorist. Preferably from a distance. This approach has not been very successful even within Israel, where Israel has total control of the area. To think that it could work around the world for the U.S. is quite insane.
The “U.K.-Ireland” approach has been shown to be somewhat effective. This involves police action to hunt down the criminals and an attempt to address the grievances that lead to terrorism.
In fact, I could end all anti-U.S. terrorism within one year. Simply do the following:
Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from foreign military bases.
Immediate cessation of U.S. aid to states with poor human rights records.
Immediate cuts in the military budget to $30 billion per year. Of the remaining $370 billion, put $100 billion into reparations for U.S. crimes and to humanitarian efforts around the world.
Set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate U.S. crimes and actually punish the criminals.
Apologize to everybody that has been the victim of U.S. crimes.
Let’s see: I’m being called “blindly obedient” by a guy whose posts always have the exact same bias, and who never tires of his repetition.
Hmmm… not exactly damning.
The op was clearly about Islamic terrorists, but you’ve ground your paranoid axe for so long, it must resemble a butterknife by now.
I don’t have a major problem with your politics (though I’ve rarely met somone as spectacularly misguided as yourself) but do you have to be so damned repetitive? Show some variety once in a while. You hate the U.S. government and rich people! We GET it, already! That “disobeying orders” rhetoric is simple martyr bullshit.
As for the OP: Their motivation has always been sheer power; the various claims and grievances are just window dressing. To continue the Nazi analogy started in the op, the bulk of men who participate in the various terror groups enjoy their power, much as the wartime SS did. They are thugs, plain and simple, who enjoy having life-and-death power over others, and that desire is unlikely to go away with appeasement.
You can try to cut off their support from the civilians by giving those civilians something, which is vaguely what happened in Ireland when the civilians had finally had enough of the IRA. Trouble is, modern terrorism doesn’t require very much in way of finances and material (the Sept. 11 hijackers used small-scale credit fraud and box knives to stage their operation) and the number of potential targets is huge.
The Marshall Plan could pacify Germany because the Americans were willing to occupy them for a generation while setting up viable democratic systems. Unless something similar happens in the Arab nations (and the various governments are not likely to cooperate) I don’t see any lasting solution, here. The terrorists haven’t won; at best it’s an uneasy draw.
This exhibits a stunning ignorance of political realities.
Among the Arab nations, most of them are already U.S. client states. Your solution is to escalate U.S. intervention, in the form of outright occupation. Yeah, that’ll work.
The anti-American sentiment in the Arab world stems from U.S. policies in the region. The U.S. props up authoritarian regimes that oppress their own people. This is done for the obvious reasons of ensuring that profits from oil flow to the west.
Recall that bin Laden was a favored ally of the U.S. in the 1980’s, when the CIA organized the most fanatical Muslims it could find to fight against the beleagured government in Afghanistan. After the bin Laden/U.S. partnership succeeded in forcing the USSR out of Afghanistan, they left Afghanistan to be ripped apart by various warlords. Out of the chaos came the rise of the Taliban, who were welcomed by much of the population weary of decades of civil war.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, bin Laden appealed to the Saudis to support him in a Holy War to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Instead, the Saudis refused, and welcomed U.S. forces onto the Holy Land. THIS is why bin Laden turned against his former friends.
While most Arabs despise and fear bin Laden, his words have a certain resonance. When bin Laden speaks of U.S. intervention and its support for vicious regimes that abuse basic human rights, this resonates among the population, since it is true. Further intervention will be the best recruiting tool for al Quaeda imaginable.
If the U.S. had the slightest interest in democracy or human rights, it would press its client states in the region, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, etc., to respect human rights. It would not supply these regimes with massive amounts of weaponry to keep the people down.
Look, it’s not that complicated. If you want to eliminate terrorism, you do two things. First, you stop engaging in terrorism yourself. This, in itself, would drastically cut down on the amount of terrorism in the world. Secondly, you stop supporting terrorist regimes. This would further drastically cut down on terrorism.
We should not look on this situation as one between “us” and the terrorists. We should look at it as a battle against competing terrorists. You have the world leaders in terrorism in Washington, and then you have the inevitable terrorist reactions to these terrorists. If you want to decrease terrorism, you have to address both aspects.
Excuse me, are you under the impression that bin Laden is concerned with human rights?
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!
What color is the sky in your world?
No.
So, is he really concerned about human rights, or is it just a rationalization he uses to manipulate others?
Does the fact that people of Arab descent living in the west have many, many more human rights (even if you include the Patriot Act) than anywhere else have any bearing on this discussion?
Like I said, most Arabs fear and despise bin Laden, but what he says about the corrupt regimes in the region does resonate. As to what he is really concerned about, only he knows. If you really want to learn about bin Laden, I would suggest reading Robert Fisk, who has interviewed bin Laden more than any other western journalist.
From what I can gather, bin Laden really does believe he is a freedom fighter. He lives in humble circumstances, and does seem to care about certain things. He is a religious fanatic who knows nothing of the western world, and doesn’t want to know.
But, I think that what bin Laden actually believes is sort of irrelevant. The fact is that what he says about the U.S. and its corrupt clients does hit home for many in the Arab world. If you want to further exacerbate the situation, simply escalate U.S. interventionism.
Why would it?
People of Arab descent enjoy many more rights here than do their counteparts in the Arab world because of the decades of bitter popular struggles in the west that WON these rights. These struggles were fought against the exact same people who guide U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The ruling class in the U.S. fought tooth and nail against every progessive reform. To give THEM credit for the liberties we enjoy is to completely miss the point.
The U.S. ruling class cares nothing about human rights, and never has. This is a feature of any system that selects out the most ruthless and shiftless to rise to the top. Just because popular movements have won rights from them does not mean that they will treat those in foreign lands any better. In fact, it means quite the opposite.
Well, if the masses can win their rights through decades of bitter popular struggle, why haven’t they overthrown their corrupt U.S.-supported regimes?
Like Cuba and Nicaragua you mean?
Ya. They sure have won their rights in Cuba.
The Sandinistas did lead a popular revolt against the blood-soaked U.S. puppet Somoza. The early initial success of the Sandinista government in alleviating poverty caused panic in the hearts of U.S. imperialists. They were terrified that the Sandinistas would succeed, and encourage other oppressed populations to overthrow their oppressors.
The U.S. then launched what is, as far as I know, the most extensive terrorist operation in history to make sure that the government could not carry out its program. U.S. proxy forces killed about 50,000 people in Nicaragua, and tortured and maimed many more. In fact, the U.S. is the only state ever condemned by the World Court for international terrorism. The ruling came in 1986 for its heinous atrocities in Nicaragua.
However, the ruling was rejected with contempt, and terrorist activities were stepped up. The tactic worked, and Nicaragua was returned to U.S. control in 1990, showing, once again, that terrorism usually works, especially when it is carried out by the powerful.
At times, they have. Cubans threw out Batista. Nicaraguans threw out Somoza. Brazilians threw out the Brazilian generals. Venezuelans are now struggling to maintain gains they have won against the Venezuelan oligarchy. Columbians have been struggling against their oligarchy for 40 years.
It is a constant struggle, one that is waged by the powerless against the most powerful state in the world. In fact, Latin American struggles are often quite inspiring. We should support their struggles against their oppressors.
You should write a manifesto. You have the lingo down to a science!
I’d be willing to do #5 and #6 at the drop of a hat. IMHO, that would be enough to get them off our back. Most people are motivated solely by what goes on in their own backyard. US presence in the Mideast and support for Israel is a tangible wrong, in their eyes. (And in mine, for what it’s worth.) You can motivate a suicide bomber with things that hit close to home, appeal to him on the grounds of what the world will be like for his children, things like that. I bet it’s pretty hard to find many people willing to go halfway across the world and die attacking civilians because some remote nation hasn’t adopted the Sharia and joined the worldwide union of believers. That’s too remote for the rank-and-file.
My point in general was not just that Islamic terrorists have won this specific battle. We now live in a world in which terrorism is not only effective, it’s unstoppable and carries with it a cost too high to be ignored. If they want to, they will destroy a major US city in nuclear fire. I guarantee it. Give 'em time. Not only have terrorists won, “terrorism” has won out as the most effective way to project power in this world. The potential for modern weaponry to cause mass destruction has made this so. You no longer need mobs, riots, crowds of people to take alot of lives. You need one guy with a white van. Terrorism has won. It’s time to admit it, and deal with it.
To paraphrase General Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove: We are rapidly approaching a moment of truth, both for ourselves and for our country. Now the truth is not always a pleasant thing to hear. Nevertheless, it is time now to make a choice between two, admittedly regrettable, yet distinguishable outcomes: one in which US power accepts the limitations imposed upon it by the power of terrorism, and one in which the inhabitants of a major metropolitan area are destroyed in nuclear fire. I’ll take the first option, thank you very much.
I don’t think they care about how much freedom we have. My point was that we do. To even have a chance at stopping terrorism, if such is even possible, we would have to adopt measures that violate all the principles of personal liberty that we supposedly hold dear in this country. We cannot simultaneously stop terrorism and maintain our freedoms. Our only solution is to remove the motivation for people becoming terrorists. At least stop doing things so egregious that they cause someone to be willing to die in the attempt. IMHO, points 5 and 6 on your list will do the trick.
I always supposed that the goal of terrorists is to provoke a reaction which will be perceived as grossly disproportionate by a large number of dissatisfied but unradicalised people. IIRC, Carlos “the Jackal” said something to this effect.