TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- New Al Qaeda tape threatens Norway?!?

New Al Qaeda tape threatens Norway?!?

Read about it here

Nothing new here except for the mention of Norway. I don't get this at all. Wasn't Norway against the war in Iraq? I realize that nobody deserves to be threatened in this kind of way but what the hell did Norway do?

Iraq has nothing to do with al-qaeda.

But it does demonstrate that you can't negotiate with terrorists and that they need to be stamped out everywhere.

LOL.

Norway WTF>????

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But it does demonstrate that you can't negotiate with terrorists and that they need to be stamped out everywhere.

And I'd be interested to hear how you can do this beyond methods which to this point have been mocked; i.e.: furthering the peace process at high cost, only resorting to war as a final solution as opposed to the most convenient option, stealing the thunder of terror recruitment calls by being more of a positive force in their country than a negative one.

Physically going about trying to eliminate terrorism is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of; it's not as though terrorists are born into the world in a finite number, they're created.

They're created by frustration, mixed with religious fanaticism, and so on down the line. I don't agree with their methodology, but I think it's a fatal error to assume that terror can be eliminated reliably by any method beyond understanding *why* they've come into existence, and trying to eliminate the source of frustration (within the realm of reasonable obviously)

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb And I'd be interested to hear how you can do this beyond methods which to this point have been mocked; i.e.: furthering the peace process at high cost, only resorting to war as a final solution as opposed to the most convenient option, stealing the thunder of terror recruitment calls by being more of a positive force in their country than a negative one. Physically going about trying to eliminate terrorism is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of; it's not as though terrorists are born into the world in a finite number, they're created. They're created by frustration, mixed with religious fanaticism, and so on down the line. I don't agree with their methodology, but I think it's a fatal error to assume that terror can be eliminated reliably by any method beyond understanding *why* they've come into existence, and trying to eliminate the source of frustration (within the realm of reasonable obviously)

Well what I meant is that you can't negotiate with them because what they strive to achieve is oftentime beyond negotiation and is beyond feasibility. Case in point: what has Norway done to draw attention against it besides possibly being a western nation? Or, what can Norway do to avoid the cultivation of terrorist threats against it? The point is that terrorists are not the most rational or morale beings on this planet that you can negotiate with. To me, the argument that we should examine the root cause as the only viable solution is silly. What are we going to do? Transform the US into a 3rd world nation? Destroy Israel? I seriously doubt bin laden will cease his activities or suffer a drain on manpower if the US pulled out of the middle aast and Palestine was created. Many of their end objectives are ultimately infeasible and outlandishly unattainable.

Physically going around trying to eliminate terrorism WON'T eliminate all terrorism but it will seriously hinder the effectiveness and the frequency of terrorism in much the same way that the police hinder the effectiveness and frequency of crime.

As for methods I would employ ... hell I'm no counter-terrorism expert but I think that the world is making good progress in developing new techniques to combat terrorism. I'm not knocking the current systems in place, I think more time and cooperation is needed to effectively root out the more serious cells.

This is very very fucked up.

First of all,the vast majority of the entire norwegian population were against the war in the first place.Even the prime minister was against it,not to mention like half of the political parties.Second of all,on that tape,Ayman al-Zawahri said that Norway must be punished for killing many of the muslim brothers and sisters in the war.Which is complete BS,since Norway didn't participate in any sort of military conflict in the war against Iraq at all!! This leads me to believe that al-Zawahri must have misunderstood what country he wanted to attack. Cos other than being supportive to the US in general(even tho they did not support their stance to the war) and to Israel (which was mainy in order to be able to negotiate peace between them and Palestine) Norway has done jack shit wrong.

Meanwhile,the statement had its effect. Several Norwegian interests abroad have taken action in order to avoid any risk of terrorist actions (Like the Seamens Church in Dubai,which took their Norwegian flag down and blurred the signs on their buliding) and the muslims in Norway are getting more and more scared of being generalized as terrorists from now on.

Nice work,al-Zawahri

They probably mention Norway because the Norweigan government hosted the Oslo accords which most arabs see as a sell out to Israel?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well what I meant is that you can't negotiate with them because what they strive to achieve is oftentime beyond negotiation and is beyond feasibility. Case in point: what has Norway done to draw attention against it besides possibly being a western nation? Or, what can Norway do to avoid the cultivation of terrorist threats against it?

I agree that the demands of terrorists are oftentimes beyond the realm of feasible, my point is that you don't get those demands, and you don't have these groups in existence if conditions aren't bad enough to piss off a substantial number of people to begin with.

Norway is a serious wildcard in this whole thing, I have no idea why it was mentioned, and until something actually happens to the Norwegians I'll assume it was just a psychological attack, as Norway has already firmly established itself as an impartial party on the international stage.

quote:

The point is that terrorists are not the most rational or morale beings on this planet that you can negotiate with. To me, the argument that we should examine the root cause as the only viable solution is silly. What are we going to do? Transform the US into a 3rd world nation? Destroy Israel? I seriously doubt bin laden will cease his activities or suffer a drain on manpower if the US pulled out of the middle aast and Palestine was created. Many of their end objectives are ultimately infeasible and outlandishly unattainable.

Again though, look beyond what they're demanding and look at why they exist.

Groups like Al-Qaeda exist because of the widely held perception that America and the west in general are using the rest of the world, and abusing their power. They exist because there's a widely held perception that Israel is being unfairly favoured in the middle east issue.

I'm not saying that if the US pulled out and Palestine was created that things would instantly get better, I'm simply saying that if the US hadn't seen fit to demonstrate a heavy Israeli bias and interfere in the region for years that it'd be much harder for even extremists to rally people against the States.

That's why, IMO, it takes an extremely long term plan to fix the kinds of issues that exist today. You need to *start* somewhere and then *stay on course*.

The US to date has shown zero willingness to even consider why these people came into existence, and to me that illustrates either hubris, in that there's this naive concept of stamping out terrorism with more violence, or just an outright blindness to the fact that these people are created by the conditions that they're born into.

quote:

Physically going around trying to eliminate terrorism WON'T eliminate all terrorism but it will seriously hinder the effectiveness and the frequency of terrorism in much the same way that the police hinder the effectiveness and frequency of crime.

To me two vastly different issues.

Crime in general isn't always of the homicidal or large scale destruction of property type, and garden variety criminals are usually acting spur of the moment, out of passion or desperation.

Terrorists are usually responding to a lifelong situation and feeling of injustice, and they're oftentimes willing to lay down their lives. And as many have said, it's extremely difficult to stop a criminal who's willing to sacrifice their life to commit the crime.

I just fail to see how the current 'war on terror' has elminated anything in the way of terror, and I fail to see how it's going to suddenly be effective today if it wasn't yesterday.

That is all

quote:

Originally posted by occrider To me, the argument that we should examine the root cause as the only viable solution is silly. What are we going to do? Transform the US into a 3rd world nation? Destroy Israel? I seriously doubt bin laden will cease his activities or suffer a drain on manpower if the US pulled out of the middle aast and Palestine was created. Many of their end objectives are ultimately infeasible and outlandishly unattainable.

Can't agree with ya there mate. As CortexBomb said, the only long term solution to the terrorist problems is probably to try to investigate what the casues of terrorism are and try to prevent them. In case of the Terrorist vs the U.S (or the West for that matter) I believe it would be a good start to stop supporting opressive regimes (Saudi and Egyptian government for example) and butt out from the mid east as far as military presence are concerned. Maybe even pay a bit more attention to their culture and religion.

As for the Norway thing. I read in the mornings newspaper that Denmark are paying close attention to this incase the terrorist actually confused Denmark with Norway hehe. Anywas, Denmark supported the war on Iraq and Norway send some ground troops to Afghanistan. Not very a whole lot but enough to make headlines here in Scandinavia.

on what bases do u call EGYPT an oppressive goverment i would like to know?

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic on what bases do u call EGYPT an oppressive goverment i would like to know?

Ok, that one do indeed need an explanation. Egypt isn't close to the likes of Saudi Arabia but Egypt can't exactly be called democratic country either. I've actually lived in Saudi Arabia and have during the last 2 years visited Egypt 3 times (as a DJ). I have a bunch of friends with Egyptian decent and I have had a blast there on every visit. However, there is no denying that Mubarrak (sorry if misspelled) aint exactly keen on the opposition in the country. Their freedom of speech is somewhat limited and the government likes to have control over the press/media. I do not get the feeling Mubarrak would like a true democratic country. As one of the people I met in Egypt said as we where driving around in Cairo, there is a reason he has thousands of his elite guards right in the backyard.

The reason I braught up Egypt however, although there are arguably worse countries in the mid east, is that they are enjoying a good relationship with the US even though there is plenty to say about their human rights record.

probably the Oslo Accords, as well as our fav answer...OIL!

non-OPEC oil that is. al-Qaeda most likely isnt worried about the Iraq war in reference to Norway, tho if it is its because the competition(US/Iraq oil) will somewhat hinder the rediculous amounts of money they receive from Saudi Arabia to fund their schools for fundamentalism. the only other arguement is that of Scandinavias role in accepting lots of refugees from countries in the region. now i dont know much about Norways refugee situation so arguably this isnt a major reason.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I agree that the demands of terrorists are oftentimes beyond the realm of feasible, my point is that you don't get those demands, and you don't have these groups in existence if conditions aren't bad enough to piss off a substantial number of people to begin with. Norway is a serious wildcard in this whole thing, I have no idea why it was mentioned, and until something actually happens to the Norwegians I'll assume it was just a psychological attack, as Norway has already firmly established itself as an impartial party on the international stage.

And one of those conditions is the existence of Israel ... Another condition is that the world isn't the way THEY would wish it to be. Terrorist organizations aren't solely founded upon the concept of alleviating the suffering of people. As a matter of fact, if anything, terrorist organizations are moving away from aiding those in need and becoming more and more idealogically motivated. If terrorist organizations are truly concerned about the plight of people A) why do they purposefully hide among them when carrying out attacks such that they would be injured in order to cultivate world sympathy and B) why not actively protest more arab nations to alleviate the refugee crisis by giving those people rights and benefits??? Bin laden probably couldn't give a hoot about the palestinians, he's waging a war against the "great satan" (which will remain the great satan even if we pulled out of the middle east) and he wants an islamic fundementalist government, something similar to the taliban, in saudi arabia. So should we appease the "root" cause of his dissident behaviour and destroy israel and inspire revolution in Saudi Arabia??? No, because his motives and the motives of many of his followers are idealogically based. He deosn't have the mass following of his people to affect change in his country's foreign policy or its system of government so he's utilizing what followers he has to terrorize the region to attain his goals.

quote:

Again though, look beyond what they're demanding and look at why they exist. Groups like Al-Qaeda exist because of the widely held perception that America and the west in general are using the rest of the world, and abusing their power. They exist because there's a widely held perception that Israel is being unfairly favoured in the middle east issue. I'm not saying that if the US pulled out and Palestine was created that things would instantly get better, I'm simply saying that if the US hadn't seen fit to demonstrate a heavy Israeli bias and interfere in the region for years that it'd be much harder for even extremists to rally people against the States. That's why, IMO, it takes an extremely long term plan to fix the kinds of issues that exist today. You need to *start* somewhere and then *stay on course*.

The US has a heavy Israeli bias for the same reasons that we have a heavy UK bias ... we are ALLIES. We have been since 1948. Israel was the only nation that stood by us during the cold war when the Soviet sphere of influence had captured virtually every single other country in the Middle East. We were the only country to believe that Israel should exist through each of the Arab wars. Like it or not, we are tied together at the hip and no amount of terrorism is going to change that.

quote:

The US to date has shown zero willingness to even consider why these people came into existence, and to me that illustrates either hubris, in that there's this naive concept of stamping out terrorism with more violence, or just an outright blindness to the fact that these people are created by the conditions that they're born into.

Not true, the US has expressed willingness to consider why the Palestinians (I'm assuming you're referring to them) have been in existence for the past several decades. THat's why there have been so many attempts to conduct peace processes, that's why the US made Sharon promise not to kill Arafat, and that's why we've put forward so many proposals calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state! What keeps getting in the way to escalate the violence that ultimately result in the failure of peace talks???? That's right! Terrorists! They don't WANT to see peace talks carried through, they want the destruction of Israel. Examine the PLO charter or the Hamas charter. And they will ALWAYS have members supporting that cause.

quote:

To me two vastly different issues. Crime in general isn't always of the homicidal or large scale destruction of property type, and garden variety criminals are usually acting spur of the moment, out of passion or desperation. Terrorists are usually responding to a lifelong situation and feeling of injustice, and they're oftentimes willing to lay down their lives. And as many have said, it's extremely difficult to stop a criminal who's willing to sacrifice their life to commit the crime. I just fail to see how the current 'war on terror' has elminated anything in the way of terror, and I fail to see how it's going to suddenly be effective today if it wasn't yesterday. That is all

Well what about crimes that are planned in advance??? Crimes for personal gain, organized crime? Terrorism is similar in that its desired effect is to achieve a personal objective. Should we stop to examine why racist and apartheids groups are comitting terrorism against blacks or whites??? Should we appease them or try to understand why they are resorting to violence? No because there is a political solution to the problem and right now they are harming their cause more than they are helping it. I'm not advocating that we should ONLY resort to force. I'm merely stating that examining the root cause will in the end do just as much good as to only resorting to violence. Look at the current Palestinian situation ... Israel has pretty much accepted the road map to peace, the Palestinian PM has pretty much accepted the road map to peace, what's going to be the only obstacle? The terrorist extremist groups! They need to be stamped out so that the peace process can go forward.

According to an iraqi author who lives in Norway,the probable reason for targeting Norway is the fact that we contributed to the overthrowing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by doing various air raids.I guess that is a pretty solid explanation...

and biznology: ur sig is the best music news I've heard today.Kick ass.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And one of those conditions is the existence of Israel ... Another condition is that the world isn't the way THEY would wish it to be. Terrorist organizations aren't solely founded upon the concept of alleviating the suffering of people. As a matter of fact, if anything, terrorist organizations are moving away from aiding those in need and becoming more and more idealogically motivated. If terrorist organizations are truly concerned about the plight of people A) why do they purposefully hide among them when carrying out attacks such that they would be injured in order to cultivate world sympathy and B) why not actively protest more arab nations to alleviate the refugee crisis by giving those people rights and benefits??? Bin laden probably couldn't give a hoot about the palestinians, he's waging a war against the "great satan" (which will remain the great satan even if we pulled out of the middle east) and he wants an islamic fundementalist government, something similar to the taliban, in saudi arabia. So should we appease the "root" cause of his dissident behaviour and destroy israel and inspire revolution in Saudi Arabia??? No, because his motives and the motives of many of his followers are idealogically based. He deosn't have the mass following of his people to affect change in his country's foreign policy or its system of government so he's utilizing what followers he has to terrorize the region to attain his goals.

Since when were terrorists *not* ideologically motivated? If you find a case to prove a lack of ideology i would be amazed...

And since when were the Taliban and al-Qaeda the same thing? Bush played it like that, but the Taliban ended lawlessness in Afghanistan and only became involved in the al-Qaeda movement when a rich, enterprising Saudi offered to fund their government and fundamentalist schools. guess who?

the Taliban was never concerned with the politics beyond Central Asia, it was Bin Laden that had/has a quest.

quote:

The US has a heavy Israeli bias for the same reasons that we have a heavy UK bias ... we are ALLIES. We have been since 1948. Israel was the only nation that stood by us during the cold war when the Soviet sphere of influence had captured virtually every single other country in the Middle East. We were the only country to believe that Israel should exist through each of the Arab wars. Like it or not, we are tied together at the hip and no amount of terrorism is going to change that.

The Jewish Lobby. Thats all i have to say...

Tho another reason we support Israel is cause the UK gave up on them after creating the state...but thats unrelated to your point.

quote:

Not true, the US has expressed willingness to consider why the Palestinians (I'm assuming you're referring to them) have been in existence for the past several decades. THat's why there have been so many attempts to conduct peace processes, that's why the US made Sharon promise not to kill Arafat, and that's why we've put forward so many proposals calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state! What keeps getting in the way to escalate the violence that ultimately result in the failure of peace talks???? That's right! Terrorists! They don't WANT to see peace talks carried through, they want the destruction of Israel. Examine the PLO charter or the Hamas charter. And they will ALWAYS have members supporting that cause.

Well i like how you equate all Palestinians with terrorism...

the PLO or Hamas may always support the cause, but when the cause is stalemate, and you cant eliminate the cause or terrorists, what can you do?

quote:

Well what about crimes that are planned in advance??? Crimes for personal gain, organized crime? Terrorism is similar in that its desired effect is to achieve a personal objective. Should we stop to examine why racist and apartheids groups are comitting terrorism against blacks or whites??? Should we appease them or try to understand why they are resorting to violence? No because there is a political solution to the problem and right now they are harming their cause more than they are helping it. I'm not advocating that we should ONLY resort to force. I'm merely stating that examining the root cause will in the end do just as much good as to only resorting to violence. Look at the current Palestinian situation ... Israel has pretty much accepted the road map to peace, the Palestinian PM has pretty much accepted the road map to peace, what's going to be the only obstacle? The terrorist extremist groups! They need to be stamped out so that the peace process can go forward.

Hmm, i dont see how relating racial issues is the same as terrorism here. And if you think that Israelis running over Americans with US produced bulldozers is the 'road map to peace' youre talking out your ass.

Terrorism isnt a choice, its a response. it may have its causes, but both parties here arent angels|

thanx Snad Leaper, i do what i can...

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Since when were terrorists *not* ideologically motivated? If you find a case to prove a lack of ideology i would be amazed... And since when were the Taliban and al-Qaeda the same thing? Bush played it like that, but the Taliban ended lawlessness in Afghanistan and only became involved in the al-Qaeda movement when a rich, enterprising Saudi offered to fund their government and fundamentalist schools. guess who? the Taliban was never concerned with the politics beyond Central Asia, it was Bin Laden that had/has a quest.

Well the argument put forth was that we can eliminate terrorism by examining the "root causes" of their existence. What is the root cause of Al-Qaeda's existence? The destruction of Israel and an overthrow of most middle east governments . Thus part of the problem isn't simply the humanitarian conditions of the people they supposedly fight for. They have their own idealogical objectives that they wish to put in place through the use of force since they can't achieve it through politically peaceful means.

I never said the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were one and the same. I said, "he (Ossama Bin Laden) wants an islamic fundementalist government, something similar to the taliban, in saudi arabia."

quote:

The Jewish Lobby. Thats all i have to say... Tho another reason we support Israel is cause the UK gave up on them after creating the state...but thats unrelated to your point.

Haha no that's not all you have to say. Trying to explain our relations and historical ties to Israel with the simple explanation of the "jewish lobby" bespeaks of one who has failed to examine our historical backing of the country in its creation (before there even was a strong Jewish lobby) and our support over the cold war.

quote:

Well i like how you equate all Palestinians with terrorism... the PLO or Hamas may always support the cause, but when the cause is stalemate, and you cant eliminate the cause or terrorists, what can you do?

I like how you jump to conclusions before giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not a racist . I thought that Cortexbomb was referring to Palestinian existence since that is one of the main causes for terrorism. The cause is NOT stalemate ... the cause becomes stalemate as a result of terrorist activities. Think of what the main hold up on the peace process is ... it's security. Not security against the PLO or regular palestinians ... security against the rogue extremist groups such as hamas. For ANY progress to be made these groups need to be eliminated. How can the PLO speak FOR the people if they have no control OVER their people?

quote:

Hmm, i dont see how relating racial issues is the same as terrorism here. And if you think that Israelis running over Americans with US produced bulldozers is the 'road map to peace' youre talking out your ass. Terrorism isnt a choice, its a response. it may have its causes, but both parties here arent angels| thanx Snad Leaper, i do what i can...

And you think the situation in the middle east is NOT a racial issue??? Maybe you're talking out of your ass. Curbing Israeli extremism is needed just as much as a curbing of Palestinian extremism. The only difference is that I don't see unions of renegade Israeli bulldozer operators carring out suicide bulldozings of Palestinian civilians every other day. Besides ... what are you trying to imply with the statment that the bulldozer was made in the USA? Most palestinians use russian made ak-47s ... what's your point?

And terrorism is a choice. It's an effort by the minority to achieve with violence what they can't achieve peacefully or by convincing the majority.

I agree that neither POLITICAL causes are angels. I'm saying that BOTH will be better off without terrorists.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well the argument put forth was that we can eliminate terrorism by examining the "root causes" of their existence. What is the root cause of Al-Qaeda's existence? The destruction of Israel and an overthrow of most middle east governments . Thus part of the problem isn't simply the humanitarian conditions of the people they supposedly fight for. They have their own idealogical objectives that they wish to put in place through the use of force since they can't achieve it through politically peaceful means. I never said the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were one and the same. I said, "he (Ossama Bin Laden) wants an islamic fundementalist government, something similar to the taliban, in saudi arabia."

Okay, lets start from the top...

The 'root cause' of al-Qaeda is not the 'destruction of Israel', because Israel still exists.

This may be a goal of theirs, but 'destruction' isnt a cause for their formation. You are probably using the word 'cause' differently that I am, but as to why the terrorism started and continues has more to do with the oil and construction wealth among its leaders- as well as the growth in popularity of more fundamentalist Islam, specifically out of Saudi schools.

as for your preaching the desires of Osama himself, i think goals of toppling Western power and influence come well before the overhaul of Saudi govt. a Taliban-like regime would be nice in his quest, but he still gets his riches from his countrymen regardless.

quote:

Haha no that's not all you have to say. Trying to explain our relations and historical ties to Israel with the simple explanation of the "jewish lobby" bespeaks of one who has failed to examine our historical backing of the country in its creation (before there even was a strong Jewish lobby) and our support over the cold war.

before the strong Jewish lobby...

so you mean to say that only recently Jewish interests have become of importance within the US govt? i highly doubt that.

lets assume your assumption is correct, and our support of the founding of the state of Israel after WW2 was nothing but out of the goodness of our hearts. that may have been the case, but today we are pumping way more money, military and support into that tiny strip of desert than we ever have been in the past. the Jewish lobby of today does have something to do with that. im not a conspiracy theorist, because thats the truth.

as for the cold war, explain that, because we had more influence in Turkey during the cold war than in Israel, its a much more strategic country to Europe and the West and it was compeletly ignored after the fall of the USSR.

quote:

I like how you jump to conclusions before giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not a racist . I thought that Cortexbomb was referring to Palestinian existence since that is one of the main causes for terrorism. The cause is NOT stalemate ... the cause becomes stalemate as a result of terrorist activities. Think of what the main hold up on the peace process is ... it's security. Not security against the PLO or regular palestinians ... security against the rogue extremist groups such as hamas. For ANY progress to be made these groups need to be eliminated. How can the PLO speak FOR the people if they have no control OVER their people?

First of all, race doesnt exist. i think you are assuming that a religious or ethnic conflict is the same as a race based one, but outside of the US race based conflict isnt usually an issue.

if you are going to believe in racism tho, you also cant assume you arent racist. that, on the other hand, is a long sociological arguement i dont wanna cover. just drop the racism word in your discussion and you cant be as misconstrued...

again, 'cause' here is being mistaken i think.

of course the existence of Palestinians does not equate the existence of terrorists...

you claim that security -against terrorism- is the problem here. is it not all together possible that the lack of security the Palestinians feel is what has led to increased terrorism? when you have a tiny country, which in your eyes is occupying what was 50 years ago your land, financed by world superpowers, i dont think that security is holding the process back. i think its the Palestinians who feel insecure- albeit only a few that choose terrorism as the *supposed* solution.

if the PLO has no control, they cant speak- as simple as that. that doesnt mean the Palestinians should be ignored, or that their cause isnt valid tho-

quote:

And you think the situation in the middle east is NOT a racial issue??? Maybe you're talking out of your ass. Curbing Israeli extremism is needed just as much as a curbing of Palestinian extremism. The only difference is that I don't see unions of renegade Israeli bulldozer operators carring out suicide bulldozings of Palestinian civilians every other day. Besides ... what are you trying to imply with the statment that the bulldozer was made in the USA? Most palestinians use russian made ak-47s ... what's your point? And terrorism is a choice. It's an effort by the minority to achieve with violence what they can't achieve peacefully or by convincing the majority. I agree that neither POLITICAL causes are angels. I'm saying that BOTH will be better off without terrorists.

ok, now look who is talking out of their ass...(please try to be a little more mature here)

again, like i said. its not a racial issue. ethnic, religious yes- not 2 different 'species' of humans fighting one another.

all i was saying is that when you have a superpower-supported country bulldozing homes with US equipment- hell yah youre gonna feel threatened. palestinians use Kalishnakovs because they are dirt cheap. travel to the Balkans, less than 10 USD could get you an ak there. the israelis are using top of the line equipment- aks are ww2 tech.

so irael desires security from suicide bombings- how in the world would crushing homes help their cause? would it eliminate terrorists or create them? i think the answer is simple.

i understand your desire for terrorism to move out of the picture- but that will only be the case when both sides feel trusted as equals by the world and by each other. killing terrorists is like chopping up the broom in Fantasia- you just get more in the aftermath- not less|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Okay, lets start from the top... The 'root cause' of al-Qaeda is not the 'destruction of Israel', because Israel still exists. This may be a goal of theirs, but 'destruction' isnt a cause for their formation. You are probably using the word 'cause' differently that I am, but as to why the terrorism started and continues has more to do with the oil and construction wealth among its leaders- as well as the growth in popularity of more fundamentalist Islam, specifically out of Saudi schools. as for your preaching the desires of Osama himself, i think goals of toppling Western power and influence come well before the overhaul of Saudi govt. a Taliban-like regime would be nice in his quest, but he still gets his riches from his countrymen regardless.

Huh? So if the destruction of Israel was a root cuase it wouldn't exist?
Edit: Ahhh ok I understand now ... you're arguing semantics. Ok well to clarify my position, the root cause for most middle east terrorist groups is the plight of the palestinians which had engendered hatred for israel ... blah blah blah ... their objective is to destroy israel. Happy?

It may not be the fundamental 'cause' for Al-Qaeda's creation but it most certainly is for Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. As for Osama's goals with Al-Qaeda, think about it ... he's not a stupid man, he must know that he can do very little to actually hurt the US or Europe. So what are his actual objectives?

Osama bin Laden may not be winning his war with America, but it's far from clear that he's losing. That's not simply because he remains at large while reports of his spokesmen threatening new terror outrages have become a media staple. It's because an important measure of Bin Laden's strategic success or failure is the extent to which his worldview is embraced, or repudiated, on the Arab street. The fundamental strategic objective of al-Qaeda's terrorism is to channel the widespread anti-American anger in the Muslim world into the overthrow of pro-Western rulers, and their replacement by radical Islamist regimes. Whether the targets of its attacks are in the U.S. or Europe or the Middle East, their purpose is to fuel Islamic revolutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world.
http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...,300503,00.html

quote:

before the strong Jewish lobby... so you mean to say that only recently Jewish interests have become of importance within the US govt? i highly doubt that. lets assume your assumption is correct, and our support of the founding of the state of Israel after WW2 was nothing but out of the goodness of our hearts. that may have been the case, but today we are pumping way more money, military and support into that tiny strip of desert than we ever have been in the past. the Jewish lobby of today does have something to do with that. im not a conspiracy theorist, because thats the truth. as for the cold war, explain that, because we had more influence in Turkey during the cold war than in Israel, its a much more strategic country to Europe and the West and it was compeletly ignored after the fall of the USSR.

No I'm saying that Jewish interests have ALWAYS been important to the US government even before the strong Jewish lobby today. I don't deny the fact that the Jewish lobby is VERY strong in the US, I'm merely stating that our support for Israel cannot ONLY be explained with the simple statement that it's because of the Jewish lobby. There is a history of support and public sympathy for the existence of Israel post WW2.

Although technically part of the middle east, turkey is not really a part of the middle east in the sense of where the oil is. Additionally, with much of the middle east turning towards becoming pro-Soviet, Israel became much more of a priority in cold war politics. Once again, yes the jewish lobby has an influence but the relationship is much deeper.

The turning point came in 1962. Israel had attempted previously to persuade the US of its potential strategic value against the Soviet Union, and the USSR's support of Egypt and Syria were perhaps instrumental in Kennedy's decision to start directly selling arms to Israel for the first time. When Israel emerged victorious from the 1967 War with its neighbours, the US notably did not force it to withdraw from its newly occupied territories. By this stage America had come to see Israel's military supremacy in the region as beneficial to US interests, and this view was strengthened by Israel's promise of assistance should Hussein of Jordan have fallen to extremists identified with the USSR in their 1970 rising. Although successful efforts were made thereafter to maintain relationships with some Arabs, from then on Israel's special relationship with America was secure, as were its own borders. What made Israel unique among the proxies involved in the Cold War was the extent of its influence over one of the super powers. This allowed it to receive sufficient support even when it was not in that power's interests to give it. Although capitalist and democratic, Israel was more interested in its own expansion and survival (which it considered connected) than in fighting the Cold War. By 1967, the Cold War had become another asset to Israel, and this ensured its support from America, while Israel's influence in the US freed it from the degree of control other proxies were subjected to, as witnessed in its willingness to provoke the Soviet Union.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pvteac...papers/06b.html

quote:

First of all, race doesnt exist. i think you are assuming that a religious or ethnic conflict is the same as a race based one, but outside of the US race based conflict isnt usually an issue. if you are going to believe in racism tho, you also cant assume you arent racist. that, on the other hand, is a long sociological arguement i dont wanna cover. just drop the racism word in your discussion and you cant be as misconstrued...

Very well, I'll simply say instead that you were mistaken in your assumptions that I believe all palestinians are terrorists.

quote:

again, 'cause' here is being mistaken i think. of course the existence of Palestinians does not equate the existence of terrorists... you claim that security -against terrorism- is the problem here. is it not all together possible that the lack of security the Palestinians feel is what has led to increased terrorism? when you have a tiny country, which in your eyes is occupying what was 50 years ago your land, financed by world superpowers, i dont think that security is holding the process back. i think its the Palestinians who feel insecure- albeit only a few that choose terrorism as the *supposed* solution. if the PLO has no control, they cant speak- as simple as that. that doesnt mean the Palestinians should be ignored, or that their cause isnt valid tho-

Well of course the existence of Palestinians does not equate the existence of terrorists ... I was referring to the existence of the Palestinian plight.

But speaking in the present day, I think that the issue of security is a huge part of the peace processes falling apart. The lack of control of the PLO is resulting in Israel taking things into its own hands to curb attacks against it. Then as the cycle of violence spirals out of control the peace process flies out the window. Nobody said anything about ignoring the palestinian cause.

quote:

ok, now look who is talking out of their ass...(please try to be a little more mature here)

Look buddy, I'm not going to do a whole tit-for-tat thing here but reading back, you were the one that brought up the whole talking out of the ass thing. So lets both be mature and drop it .

quote:

again, like i said. its not a racial issue. ethnic, religious yes- not 2 different 'species' of humans fighting one another. all i was saying is that when you have a superpower-supported country bulldozing homes with US equipment- hell yah youre gonna feel threatened. palestinians use Kalishnakovs because they are dirt cheap. travel to the Balkans, less than 10 USD could get you an ak there. the israelis are using top of the line equipment- aks are ww2 tech. so irael desires security from suicide bombings- how in the world would crushing homes help their cause? would it eliminate terrorists or create them? i think the answer is simple. i understand your desire for terrorism to move out of the picture- but that will only be the case when both sides feel trusted as equals by the world and by each other. killing terrorists is like chopping up the broom in Fantasia- you just get more in the aftermath- not less|

Ok ok religious-ism or whatever not racism ... the concept of hatred is still the same.

I'm not saying that the Israeli approach to counter-terrorism is the correct way. I'm merely stating that even if both sides trust each other as equals, the terrorism will not stop. In most situations their demands are ridiculous, and as such force must be used. Especially with regards to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the terrorism must be stopped in order for both sides to come to an agreement to eliminate the root causes of why terrorism has arisen. I don't think the Israelis should step in and do it all themselves. The answer is for the PLO themselves to consolidate their authority over these groups.

Edit: Sharon has just formally accepted the road map to peace. Now that both sides have accepted the conditions to achieve peace who wants to take bets that there's going to be a terrorist attack in an attempt to derail the peace process?

I'm not going to delve much more into this thread, but a few minor comments to make:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok ok religious-ism or whatever not racism ... the concept of hatred is still the same.

I think the two issues are completely different, and that equating them is a huge mistake.

'Race' is an outmoded concept that humans have fundamental biological differences depending on where they or their ancestors came from, simple skin tone.

Religious differences speaks to differences of *world view*, something that people are indoctrinated into, but generally change during their lifetime in some way, though most end up finishing where they started in this regard.

I mean, how can you compare, say, KKK people burning crosses in the lawns of black people to say, the never-ending disputes between Communists and Fascists? One is the result of complete ignorance, the other as a result of clashing world view.

quote:

I'm not saying that the Israeli approach to counter-terrorism is the correct way. I'm merely stating that even if both sides trust each other as equals, the terrorism will not stop.

I'd go more along the lines of 'until both sides decide to make some serious concessions terror isn't going to stop.'

Allow me to say here that I have deep empathy for the Jewish people. I'm a student of Nazi Era Germany history, and if anyone understands and feels for what those people have had to go through it's me. But that doesn't mean that Israel was a good idea, especially not being placed where it is.

I understand that the site is extremely important for Jewish people, but that doesn't mean they neccessarily had a 'fair claim' to it. Western powers saw fit to confiscate land to establish the state, and say what you want about how deserving the people were, it was still a bad move IMHO and the constant violence seems to back me up on that count.

The US might have had long term ties with Israel, but the fact of the matter is that in dealing with issues like the peace process you absolutely have to be able to throw things like that out and deal impartially. Neither side is willing to get shafted, and both are convinced from a religious (ie: irrational) standpoint that they're justified in using any means neccesarry.

I don't care how anyone wants to paint it, Sharon is just as bad as Arafat, and the issue isn't going to resolved without a strong international cooperative that's willing to set aside personal feelings and just *do what it takes to make both sides happy*.

To me, this situation, more than anything, speaks to why religion, for all the good it can do for *individuals*, is a horribly dangerous thing on a large scale.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I'm not going to delve much more into this thread, but a few minor comments to make: I think the two issues are completely different, and that equating them is a huge mistake. 'Race' is an outmoded concept that humans have fundamental biological differences depending on where they or their ancestors came from, simple skin tone. Religious differences speaks to differences of *world view*, something that people are indoctrinated into, but generally change during their lifetime in some way, though most end up finishing where they started in this regard. I mean, how can you compare, say, KKK people burning crosses in the lawns of black people to say, the never-ending disputes between Communists and Fascists? One is the result of complete ignorance, the other as a result of clashing world view.

IMO I would disagree. Historically religious-ism (anybody know the correct word for it?) is more akin to racism than political dispute. Look at past history ... the holocaust and the crusades for example. The state of mind is that Jews or Muslims are lesser human beings or infidels because they are not roman catholic or X. That's a very different state of mind than thinking that Communists are stupid because Capatalism is the obvious answer.

quote:

I'd go more along the lines of 'until both sides decide to make some serious concessions terror isn't going to stop.' Allow me to say here that I have deep empathy for the Jewish people. I'm a student of Nazi Era Germany history, and if anyone understands and feels for what those people have had to go through it's me. But that doesn't mean that Israel was a good idea, especially not being placed where it is. I understand that the site is extremely important for Jewish people, but that doesn't mean they neccessarily had a 'fair claim' to it. Western powers saw fit to confiscate land to establish the state, and say what you want about how deserving the people were, it was still a bad move IMHO and the constant violence seems to back me up on that count. The US might have had long term ties with Israel, but the fact of the matter is that in dealing with issues like the peace process you absolutely have to be able to throw things like that out and deal impartially. Neither side is willing to get shafted, and both are convinced from a religious (ie: irrational) standpoint that they're justified in using any means neccesarry. I don't care how anyone wants to paint it, Sharon is just as bad as Arafat, and the issue isn't going to resolved without a strong international cooperative that's willing to set aside personal feelings and just *do what it takes to make both sides happy*. To me, this situation, more than anything, speaks to why religion, for all the good it can do for *individuals*, is a horribly dangerous thing on a large scale.

I agree ... both sides need to make massive amounts of concessions to achieve peace. I think that one of the concessions in the road map to peace is the withdrawal of Israeli settlers. I'm all for that. But one of the concessions the PLO has to make is to eliminate hezbollah and hamas terrorism. The PLO doesn't have the capabilities that the IDF has to combat terrorism, what they need to do is cooperate with the IDF in order to attach legitmacy and backing of IDF operations. This also means that the PLO should have an equal say in the matter of what and when to strike.

The Palestinians have no more historical claim to the land than the Israelis have ... does the fact that they are the most recent tenants attach legitamacy to their claim? The world doesn't work that way ... for those of you who are advocates of the UN, the UN has legally established the existence of Israel! It has a right to be there so get used to it.

I used to think that Sharon was just as bad as Arafat until Arafat couldn't agree with his own PM in establishing a cabinet! If you missed the articles I posted of Arafat feuding with Mahmoud Abbas just do a search. As of late, Sharon has made many concessions with respects to accepting the road map to peace and withdrawing Israeli settlers! And if you think I'm a diehard pro-Israeli nut believe you me, if you look back to my previous posts I ALWAYS thought Sharon was just as bad as Arafat. However, my beliefs are never constant and as a result of current events my opinions are subject to change.

quote:

The Palestinians have no more historical claim to the land than the Israelis have ... does the fact that they are the most recent tenants attach legitamacy to their claim?

As I have always said for an honest albeit pro-israeli history of the Arab-Jewish conflict read Benny Morris Righteous Victims.

The Jews are just the last of the Europeans to think that it was okay to steal land from and exploit non-europeans.

What is taken by theft can never be legitimised by diplomacy.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider IMO I would disagree. Historically religious-ism (anybody know the correct word for it?) is more akin to racism than political dispute. Look at past history ... the holocaust and the crusades for example. The state of mind is that Jews or Muslims are lesser human beings or infidels because they are not roman catholic or X. That's a very different state of mind than thinking that Communists are stupid because Capatalism is the obvious answer.

I can see your point here, at least in that religious differences are usually between two groups that have very little understanding of what the other group even believes, so it has that element of ignorace that's inehrent to racism.

The Crusades ia a good case in point, but those were more political than religious anyway. You have to remember at that point in time the church was a major world political player, and it often did things because it was politically opportune, not just because of the religious end of things.

In general, yes, most religions that teach exclusivity are going to be going down the same path as racism in at least a few ways.

quote:

I agree ... both sides need to make massive amounts of concessions to achieve peace. I think that one of the concessions in the road map to peace is the withdrawal of Israeli settlers. I'm all for that. But one of the concessions the PLO has to make is to eliminate hezbollah and hamas terrorism.

I can appreciate the thought here, but I don't think you can actually have terrorism 'stopped' until the ordinary people aren't pissed off and desperate anymore. No official sanction is going to do that, regardless of *who* is endorsing it.

If an outright elimination of terrorism is one of the things that's expected before the peace process works then I can safely say it's never going to happen. Terrorism will end in the region when the dispute is settled and both sides feel they've gotten at least a *fair* deal. Until that point no amount of words or desire will likely be able to stop it.

quote:

The Palestinians have no more historical claim to the land than the Israelis have ... does the fact that they are the most recent tenants attach legitamacy to their claim? The world doesn't work that way ... for those of you who are advocates of the UN, the UN has legally established the existence of Israel! It has a right to be there so get used to it.

I'd have to say, yes, being the most recent tenants *does* attach a skosh of legitimacy to their claim. After the imperialist adventures at the close of the 1800's/early 1900's I was under the impression that the *ideal* at least was to respect the sovereignty of nations (for once) and the creation of Israel, regardless of who it was sanctioned by, was a gross abuse of power IMHO.

Just because the UN sanctioned it and I'm a UN supporter doesn't mean that I'm inclined to agree with them on the issue.

Unlike standard US politics right now dissension is still permitted in the UN

quote:

As of late, Sharon has made many concessions with respects to accepting the road map to peace and withdrawing Israeli settlers! And if you think I'm a diehard pro-Israeli nut believe you me, if you look back to my previous posts I ALWAYS thought Sharon was just as bad as Arafat. However, my beliefs are never constant and as a result of current events my opinions are subject to change.

I'm aware of his current stance, but I tend to look at the long term as well. If Sharon shows over the course of a few *years* that he's a different man *then* I'll be willing to reevaluate him. A few things here and there in the present do nothing for my view of him though, for all I know they could be standard political moves designed to take people's minds off some of the reprehensible bulldozing he did in the recent past.

I'm still firm that both of the leaders are bastards, but what can you do? Go to war to depose them?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.