TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US heading in the wrong direction in the war on terror?

US heading in the wrong direction in the war on terror?

'Bin Laden' offers Europe truce...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627775.stm

interesting

also it's sad to see that bush is now giving support for some of isreals settlements, that will certainly not help the war on terror...

What is so interesting about that. There is no way that I can understand the mentality of some people. Maybe Europe feels that by distancing itself it can avoid this scourge, if that is the case we know who the real allies aren't when it comes to dealing with such people who organized the events of 09/11. Thankfully many European governments wouldn't waste their time even acknowledging that "tall monkey in a turban" What does it say if your policies are to be determined by such beasts

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan What is so interesting about that. There is no way that I can understand the mentality of some people. Maybe Europe feels that by distancing itself it can avoid this scourge, if that is the case we know who the real allies aren't when it comes to dealing with such people who organized the events of 09/11. Thankfully many European governments wouldn't waste their time even acknowledging that "tall monkey in a turban" What does it say if your policies are to be determined by such beasts

nah it's more interesting to see, that violence breeds violence. that al qauida actually care if the country are in the middle east, fucking around or not. something that many people here denies.

As for Bush we all know he is a moron, he makes many statements that seem dumbfounding to understand. It is truly embarassing to have this man leading America. He seems to lack an understanding of the fundamentals of Middle Eastern politics and societies and his advisors are obviously not helping him very well. I only hope that Kerry wins and slowly distances America from that region and its pathetic conflicts. I would give anything to see Europe have to deal with being at the front of negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis and Palestinians are like two stubborn mules that will not budge so long as they feel they shouldn't, I am so disgusted with this conflict it is truly sickening.

Bush was never winning the war on terror... the other way around, he's been sparking more terror ever since I can remember.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew nah it's more interesting to see, that violence breeds violence. that al qauida actually care if the country are in the middle east, fucking around or not. something that many people here denies.

Europe does "fuck around" in the middle east as much as America did during the inception of Bin Laden's group. So long as the western world has a stake in the stability of the middle east there will always be cause for Al-Qaeda hostility. Sure it may offer a truce now, but let's say it drives America out of Iraq or whatever. You really think it's going to stop then? So they'll be back to pre-2003 conditions when Al-Qaeda was still going strong. Then the new demands will arise.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Europe does "fuck around" in the middle east as much as America did during the inception of Bin Laden's group. So long as the western world has a stake in the stability of the middle east there will always be cause for Al-Qaeda hostility. Sure it may offer a truce now, but let's say it drives America out of Iraq or whatever. You really think it's going to stop then? So they'll be back to pre-2003 conditions when Al-Qaeda was still going strong. Then the new demands will arise.

yeah so overthrowing saddam was a way of stabilizing the middle east? looks like they have more problem there now than they did before... or pumping in billions of dollar into israel support their ever so provocative settlements? to me this is just protecting american interests, which i can't see help stabilize middle east?

going into afganistan is of course another chapter since that coutry basically was governed by al qaida...

and i don't say that US should draw it troops back from iraq, that would indeed be a very stupid move to leave it half finished. what i say is that you shouldn't start those kind of things. and what exactly will their new demands be? the end of the state US, just because it is annoying, even though they don't do anything to them? that sounds as ridiculous as people stating that america want to take over the world and introduce Christianity...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah so overthrowing saddam was a way of stabilizing the middle east? looks like they have more problem there now than they did before... or pumping in billions of dollar into israel support their ever so provocative settlements? to me this is just protecting american interests, which i can't see help stabilize middle east? going into afganistan is of course another chapter since that coutry basically was governed by al qaida... and i don't say that US should draw it troops back from iraq, that would indeed be a very stupid move to leave it half finished. what i say is that you shouldn't start those kind of things. and what exactly will their new demands be? the end of the state US, just because it is annoying, even though they don't do anything to them? that sounds as ridiculous as people stating that america want to take over the world and introduce Christianity...

I agree that overthrowing saddam was a wrong approach on the war on terror. No one is disputing that. Your original post made the inference that the US was taking the wrong approach, and Europe was making the correct approach as evidenced by this truce that bin laden was offering. However, the truce does not imply anything of the sort since the truce would not have been offered had the US not involved itself in Iraq. The truce was offered on the basis of US action rather than European action.

Hehe oh yea, the truce was for 3 months ... what a deal!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew that sounds as ridiculous as people stating that america want to take over the world and introduce Christianity...

Oh but they do, don't you know its through a covert, Zionist conspiracy to control the world on the part of all Jews I figured that this would be popular fodder in some parts of Europe, its certainly the case in the Middle East, isn't it.

Osama bin Laden can send all the messages he wants to Al-Jazeera but he will continue to be a hunted rodent until the day he meets the devil, like a rabid dog he will be on the run, hunted in his mountain caves and one betrayal or one mistake is all that he needs to make. He probably shaved off that scragly beard of his and lives like a common rat as we speak. Remember Khalid Mohammed who was caught in Pakistan.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I agree that overthrowing saddam was a wrong approach on the war on terror. No one is disputing that. Your original post made the inference that the US was taking the wrong approach, and Europe was making the correct approach as evidenced by this truce that bin laden was offering. However, the truce does not imply anything of the sort since the truce would not have been offered had the US not involved itself in Iraq. The truce was offered on the basis of US action rather than European action. Hehe oh yea, the truce was for 3 months ... what a deal!

Occ are you surprised at all that there are those who would say this is a terrific thing, I would love to know who made Osama bin Laden tne "freedom fighter" for the Islamic World. The first to kick his ass would be the Muslim governments if they are threatend ala Saudi Arabia who sent him packing a while back and now are fighting against terrorism in their own nation.

There are two sides to every story St_Andrew and if you believe that these people can be reasoned with then you fail to understand what they want. These people teach violence, destruction, hatred and intolerance of anything that is different from them and yet you talk about them as though they are reasonable freedom fighters that can be negotiated with, truly sad.

On one more note, what actions does Europe have that will deal with the issue of terrorism that the "dumb" United States of America cannot figure out, or are you blowing more hot air that usually comes out of many European politicians, all talk while putting forth no ideas. The reason that I ask this question is that you say the U.S. is on the wrong track, is Europe on the right one and why is this so, please elaborate for this ignorant American.

This is not to launch a personal attack on you St_Andrew because our views are usually similar, with this topic however we profoundly disagree, while America might be on the wrong track on terror, just because Osama offered some truce to Europe doesn't mean that they have done anything terrific. If Osama aim was to split the U.S. and Europe on the subject of fighting terrorism, judging by your statement he is succeeding in that area.

I think we're all thinking on much too small of a time frame with both the war on terror and what is going on in Iraq. Al Qaeda has its roots back to the 1980 Afghan war. Iraq had been under the oppressive yet stable dictatorship of Saddam since the late 1970's. The hatred of the United States in the middle east has been present for just as long.

To say that the US would have the ability to go into this region, overthrow a dictator and somehow "win" the war on terror while attempting to establish a deomocracy and win the support of an entire ethnicity in a timespan roughly 1/25 as long as this mess has been occuring is the stuff of fantasy. This is going to be a long, drawn out progress, which fruits only a future generation may see. However, if it ultimately means that my children will not have to worry about half the things we do today I'm all for it.

This country is currently mired by congressional hearings into 9/11 proposing that the politicians of the past (and maybe of the present) did too little too late or nothing at all to stop terrorism on US soil. In 30 years I would rather look back and think that maybe my generation in fact tried too much to fix the problem then again too little. Even if the CURRENT side effect of this action is an increase of activity in a country and a region going through a painful change, I will only be able to tell you years from now if it was worth it. The current sentiment and violence towards America has been established in the middle east for the past several decades. To not think that it will take a greater amount of time to see beneficial results, and to pass judgement this early is naive at best.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan There are two sides to every story St_Andrew and if you believe that these people can be reasoned with then you fail to understand what they want. These people teach violence, destruction, hatred and intolerance of anything that is different from them and yet you talk about them as though they are reasonable freedom fighters that can be negotiated with, truly sad. On one more note, what actions does Europe have that will deal with the issue of terrorism that the "dumb" United States of America cannot figure out, or are you blowing more hot air that usually comes out of many European politicians, all talk while putting forth no ideas. The reason that I ask this question is that you say the U.S. is on the wrong track, is Europe on the right one and why is this so, please elaborate for this ignorant American. This is not to launch a personal attack on you St_Andrew because our views are usually similar, with this topic however we profoundly disagree, while America might be on the wrong track on terror, just because Osama offered some truce to Europe doesn't mean that they have done anything terrific. If Osama aim was to split the U.S. and Europe on the subject of fighting terrorism, judging by your statement he is succeeding in that area.

Please note the swiftness with which the European leaders have publicly denounced the Al-Quada "offer". Not all Europeans are spineless.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Please note the swiftness with which the European leaders have publicly denounced the Al-Quada "offer". Not all Europeans are spineless.

Obviously not. It was a smart decision.

If Bin Laden were actually offering a truce, I would interpret it as meaning he is desperate and has lost any "upper-hand" that he thought he had. Why negotiate with him if he's getting painted into a corner and is desperate? Sounds like the time to go for the jugular to me. Negotiating with terrorists only furthers their cause.

Nice to hear your take on the matter, Vesa. One point I might ask:

quote:

My point? If Al-Qaida keeps attacking Europe, many criminal organizations and ordinary gangs are going to adopt their methodology.

You offered a couple of examples that somewhat demonstrate your point, but I have to say those examples are not terribly convincing. Do you see other evidence that this copycat behavior occurs?

Re: Re: US heading in the wrong direction in the war on terror?

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Of course, Bin Laden would later break the truce with Europe when he's done with US and Israel. A truce offer is not the same as a peace offer, so Europeans must still prepare for a war against Al-Qaida, instead of going to sleep. But it would make a lot of sense to have detente with Al-Qaida for a limited time, so that Europe can first eliminate criminal gangs who are taking lessons from Al-Qaida. The less there are loose ends, the greater the chances of successfully combating Al-Qaida. I'm waiting with horror for the first terrorist act by European mafias

First of all it's not a truce agreement in the historical sense that both sides will stop fighting and hold the status quo. It's a demand whereby, "And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land," therefore in order to gain truce, Europe must submit to the demands of the terrorists, and once again we enter a situation whereby terrorists see successful results from their acts. It may be sensible in the short run, but hardly beneficial towards terrorist deterrance in the long run. A concession from European governments imo would do far more towards bringing about those domestic crises as you depicted than a refusal of their demands. Especially if ALL european governments respond in the same way. If all the european governments can agree on the same thing, to concede to terrorist demands for peace, then say hello to terrorism directed at individual governments domestically and from abroad.

Re: Re: US heading in the wrong direction in the war on terror?

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I'm waiting with horror for the first terrorist act by European mafias

You make some interesting and valid points. However, i think that relating the mafias to terrorism and adopting terrorist tactics is not something new - they have been using bombs, drive-by shooting for a long time. Hey, they were the ones who invented it.

Now suicide bombings is another case. That's specific of terrorism. Because of that, i think it is a method which will never be adopted by the mafias. First of all, to have a suicide bomber, you need to have a cause. Mafias have only one cause, and that is money/power (it's the same). So who will kill himself for money? It makes no sense.

Secondly, the real mafias, the hardliners would never do a "terrorist" attack (by terrorist attack i mean an attack killing large number of people, ie, 20 or more, and with the purpose of harming a nation as a whole) because they work closely with police and political forces. Remember payrolls still exist, and while many politicians and police can accept payments for closing their eyes for some drugs/weapons deals, the same is not true for terrorist attacks. Or maybe some will accept, but that will be 1/100 or less of the payroll for drug deals, especially because they KNOW they will get caught (terrorist attacks are followed by crazed arrests - everyone who *might* have a connection is immediately arrested).

I've read the news about the connections between the Madrid suspects. Supposedly there were 3 cells - the hardliner one, constituted of muslims, which were the suicides and idealistics - the second cell, which was a mixed one with some muslims and some westerners (these were the ones which financed the attack by selling drugs) and a third cell, which we can call logistics - they were the ones who got the explosives, etc. On top of the pyramid was a muslim cleric, which has disappeared (noone know who he is actually).

The interesting cell is the second one - the mixed cell. Some of these individuals were perfectly integrated in the spanish society. Now the head of this cell was a very specific individual "el chino" - the chinese. Apparently he was a normal guy, but a few months ago he got completely crazy - he married a 17 year old moroccan girl and obligated her to follow islamic principles very rigidly. Well, before that we hasn't that normal, he had a perfectly fine job (he was one of the best employees in his firm) but he was also a drug dealer. The other individuals, supposedly non-muslim, were all of arabic descent (mostly moroccans). They were regular thugs and drug dealers.

So you see, religion plays a major role here. In my opinion, this kind of terrorism always requires a very strong faith, faith for something. As organized crime is based on money and profit, not on faith, so they will never use this kind of tactics.
On the other hand, eco-terrorist are something to worry. These ones have a strong faith, but a different faith of course. But dangerous nonetheless, as it is very strong.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I agree that overthrowing saddam was a wrong approach on the war on terror. No one is disputing that.

90% of all the conservatives on this forum is disputing that...

quote:

Your original post made the inference that the US was taking the wrong approach, and Europe was making the correct approach as evidenced by this truce that bin laden was offering. However, the truce does not imply anything of the sort since the truce would not have been offered had the US not involved itself in Iraq. The truce was offered on the basis of US action rather than European action.

if us hadn't involved itself in iraq, the terror threat had been lower, as we just agreed on. So i don't think that we should thank you for this, "thank you america that you pissed them of so they don't attack us." just doesn't make any sense to me.

what this truce shows, is just that al qauida actually have some feelings, that they are not just pure evil and want to attack everything that moves. they have some reason for their moves.

quote:

Hehe oh yea, the truce was for 3 months ... what a deal!

okay i may have understood that wrong, but wasn't the deal that if they withdrawed their troops within 3 months, the truce would "be valid".

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Oh but they do, don't you know its through a covert, Zionist conspiracy to control the world on the part of all Jews

yes, indeed there are. but how foolish doesn't they look? don't be as bad

quote:

Osama bin Laden can send all the messages he wants to Al-Jazeera but he will continue to be a hunted rodent until the day he meets the devil, like a rabid dog he will be on the run, hunted in his mountain caves and one betrayal or one mistake is all that he needs to make. He probably shaved off that scragly beard of his and lives like a common rat as we speak. Remember Khalid Mohammed who was caught in Pakistan.

yeah i don't think that osama should be a free man or anything, i think he should be one of the most hunted men in the world. just that invading countries in the middle east does nothing to help that fight (therefore is the war on terror wrong..). but as it seems you have gotten plenty of help from countries such as pakistan in this war, that's the aproach.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Occ are you surprised at all that there are those who would say this is a terrific thing, I would love to know who made Osama bin Laden tne "freedom fighter" for the Islamic World. The first to kick his ass would be the Muslim governments if they are threatend ala Saudi Arabia who sent him packing a while back and now are fighting against terrorism in their own nation.

again, people would not support osama, if US didn't make so stupid moves in the middle east sometimes. much like in the US after sep 11, it was a unite and fight against them mentlity, even though many people thought that bush was a stupid guy already then, he got a great support whatever he did and however stupid things he did. the same goes with osama, he is no freedom fighter, but he is fighting against the "enemy" of them, so people support him because of that. he would get a lot less support if US didn't paly such big role in middle east conflicts.

quote:

There are two sides to every story St_Andrew and if you believe that these people can be reasoned with then you fail to understand what they want. These people teach violence, destruction, hatred and intolerance of anything that is different from them and yet you talk about them as though they are reasonable freedom fighters that can be negotiated with, truly sad.

terrorist are evil, yes. terrorists have plenty of hate, yes. but they don't have hate against everything for no reason. this truce is at least a bit of proof of that...

quote:

On one more note, what actions does Europe have that will deal with the issue of terrorism that the "dumb" United States of America cannot figure out, or are you blowing more hot air that usually comes out of many European politicians, all talk while putting forth no ideas. The reason that I ask this question is that you say the U.S. is on the wrong track, is Europe on the right one and why is this so, please elaborate for this ignorant American.

al quadia are hateful because of the US presence in the middle east. for example you have plenty of troops there on your bases, which are perhaps not necessarily (they hurt more than they help...). so just a thing such as pulling back all your troops from the middle east would help a lot. and note to tell them, which way they should live, and the u-know-the-best attitude. and of course isr-pal problem, which you really should put more pressure on israel, but that's another story, but if you really delt with those problems, al qaida should have small reason for hate against you, and therefore also getting harder gaining support, and therfore also getting harder to do new terror attacks.

quote:

This is not to launch a personal attack on you St_Andrew because our views are usually similar, with this topic however we profoundly disagree, while America might be on the wrong track on terror, just because Osama offered some truce to Europe doesn't mean that they have done anything terrific. If Osama aim was to split the U.S. and Europe on the subject of fighting terrorism, judging by your statement he is succeeding in that area.

Of course i don't see it as a personal attack, this is the political forum, we are supposed to have different views

and for the rest of that paragraph, i think my previous text covers that pretty well

Shakka now look what you've done - you set Vesa off! Just don't let it slip that you're a neo-con, or he'll tear you to shreds.

Back to the OP though, it's fairly evident that it isn't a real truce offer (in my opinion) - it's just more empty rhetoric. So, when you think about it, there isn't really much to discuss.

my take on the truce:

When Europeans heard the news they paused for a second, had a lightbulb go on in their heads and then said "No! Absolutely not!... Not under these terms anyway ".





my take on Vesa:

Becareful mate, I'm honestly thinking your 'political' party is starting to brain wash you. They are doing the same thing to you as Debka and fanatical Christians do to their converts - namely scare them with vivid and horrific scenarios.

The truth in the matter is that terrorism will not lead to more gang violence if governments are vigilant. Fortunately, you have the luxury of learning this lesson at the expense of others. Israel has been terrorized for its entire existance, however no real successful underground movement has ever been profoundly successful in the nation (and with the break up of the USSR, a million Russians, including the Russian mob made its way into Israel).

If a government is able to effectively combant a foreign enemy, that hides in unknown areas, with unknown friends, who has unknown suppliers, and unknown motives. Putting it on its home turf, with people it knows, suppliers it recongizes, and motives that are well established, criminal organizations don't stand a chance.

Further more, the more a government makes things like "targeted assasinations" acceptable to its populaces, typically by the reality of terror, it will condition the populace to understand that a heavy hand is needed to enforce peace and the law. When they understand this, the protections the laws give terrorist will not longer be so protective. This is a worse case situation.


Also heres some free political advice; Join one of the main Finnish parties and work with in the system. Its much more productive. Though I am sure you won't approve

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus my take on Vesa: Becareful mate, I'm honestly thinking your 'political' party is starting to brain wash you. They are doing the same thing to you as Debka and fanatical Christians do to their converts - namely scare them with vivid and horrific scenarios.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to shock you yet again Yoepus - but, I agree.

Vesa, the picture you are painting of Finland is not a flattering one, and as it has been some ten years since I last were there I cannot say that you are wrong. You are, however, wrong in generalizing to the whole of Europe. Yes, there are groups of hypocritical socialists in all European countries, and they do sympathise with radical Islam simply because it opposes the USA. But these groups are small and far between. In fact I would say that the group of religious (not fanatical) muslims constitute a much larger proportion of the European population than that of the socialist activists. Therefore, I consider this "alliance" to be of little relevance.

As to the mafia-link, I have yet to see any evidence that the mafia would gang up with muslim terrorists. In fact I think it would be counter productive for them to do so: As I understand the mafia's business model, the mafia thrives under stable conditions, where people are not afraid to go out and have a solid income. The muslim terror has as objective to scare the general public into hysteria (evidenced by the fact that the death tolls due to terror themselves are negligable compared to casualties related to traffic, pollution, etc.). Therefore the two "organizations'" objectives are so different that I cannot see any chance of a cooperation happening.

To me, the truce offered by Bin Laden felt like a mere publicity stunt. Even he can't seriously have thought the European leaders would agree to a truce where he sets the conditions (no matter how spineless some of you think Europe is).

No, this was more to show off that a single man, backed up by a organization (not a country,) can approach a whole continent of industrial countries and make them listen. Even though they rejected the "offer" right away, I think Bin Laden won just by getting a repsonse in the first place.

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