|
New Al Qaeda tape threatens Norway?!?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zarathustra |
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? |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
Iraq has nothing to do with al-qaeda.
 |
|
|
| occrider |
| But it does demonstrate that you can't negotiate with terrorists and that they need to be stamped out everywhere. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
LOL.
Norway WTF>???? :stongue: |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| 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) |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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? :conf: :conf: 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. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
This is very very ed 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!!:wtf: 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 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:rolleyes: |
|
|
| rupert |
| They probably mention Norway because the Norweigan government hosted the Oslo accords which most arabs see as a sell out to Israel? |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| 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? :conf: :conf: |
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 |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| 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. |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| on what bases do u call EGYPT an oppressive goverment i would like to know? |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
