AtW

[Not So Wise]

Sorry going to have to agree with ATW.

Maybe it's my history with having lived in 3 places now that suffer from terrorist attacks (Northen Ireland in the mid 80's, Spain in the 90's and now London...i think i am jinked) that have shown me to look at both sides of the argument

While i can never condone targeting innocent civilians either by "official" military forces or unoffcial ones (terrorists/gurillias/Freedom fighters) i can understand why some would do it.

Like lets look at the reality here, currently every day in Iraq innocent civilians are dieing, not only at the hands of insurgents but also at the hands of western forces.

While we sit thouands of miles away going on about our daily normal lives either completely ignoreing the whole thing or go tsk tsk in front of the TV screens.

The arabs with any real brains know they cannot force the westeners out just though force of arms, they need to turn westeren public opinion against those in charge and their policies.

Now while the increased death toll of western troops is doing that to some degree it is slow going and it's costing the Iraq's for every death. Like look at at US reactions to troop deaths...they lose 3 men to an ambush so they mortar and bomb a whole village because they "think" there might be a few insurgents there? to me this bears an uncanny resembalance to historys "evil regimes" tactics of say killing 10 people of an occupied nations citizens if one of theirs gets killed by "freedom fighters"

So you are "freedom fighter" (as they say one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist) and you know you cannot win with direct confrontation but if you can undermine the enemy goverments public support enough they will be forced to pull out. What do you do?

Well you could first try a publicity campaign, but first off if a reporter if being very anti american he does not last to long in Iraq before being booted out, they control the main flow of information.

But even if you get the information out who will report it?
US: The goverment has way to much power over their media for you to stand a chance.
UK: OK here bit better of a chance as the goverment does not control the media so well but still got the problem that media is very western orientated, most of the reports of from their point of view and they like it that way.

So whatever you are saying is labeled as lies,retoric or that the media who publish's it gets slammed (like look how al jazeera is looked at)

So lets summarise so far
You cannot win by force of arms
You cannot win via propoganda war

But if you can somehow turn your enemys people against their goverments policys you can win

So now give me...and more importantly the terrorists another way to acheive their objectives

[DodgyAgent]

appeasement

So AtW you are both arguing for appeasement? in other words do not do anything that will upset these extremists. Where does it stop? would Al Quaeda relent from their terrorist activities if every western woman covered her entire body whenever she went out. Remember these terrorist activities began long before the invasion of Iraq.

The two of you are legitamising the tactics of deliberatly targeting civilians as a core part of the terrorist (sorry freedom fighters) strategy. In other words you effectively support them. However I am asking you to identify their cause and proclaim the legitimacy of their actions in the context of just who they represent and what popular mandate they have for their actions. I may be wrong, but I see these people as having an agenda of their own that is not representative of any popular mandate at all. If these people were exiles fighting for a popular cause to free their people from invaders (at the request of their own people) then maybe their cause would have legitamacy. But anyone who sets out to attack children, women muslims (their own) deliberately and indiscriminatley must surely be on very dodgy moral territory.

These people are thugs (correct me if I am wrong) they are not representative of anyone other than a twisted idealistic moral cause. They are only interested in control of others because they are scared. Scared of what? they are scared that western democracies with their freedoms, wealth and knowledge are showing the people who they control that there is more to life than submitting to their extreme religious laws.

[AtW]

So AtW you are both arguing for appeasement? in other words do not do anything that will upset these extremists. Where does it stop?

Not appeasement - lets look at specific things, not some vague "appease everything": war in Iraq is the reason for this bombing. Before UK joined USA in this war in Iraq it (UK) simply was not the target for extremists. Now it is: something I and others expressed worry about while you celebrated this adventure in Iraq that has not finished yet and there is no end in sight.

Remember these terrorist activities began long before the invasion of Iraq.

Not in the UK and not in Spain.

The two of you are legitamising the tactics of deliberatly targeting civilians as a core part of the terrorist (sorry freedom fighters) strategy. In other words you effectively support them.

I think you are crossing the line here. I never supported terrorists, do not support them now and not going to support them in the future. This is a serious subject and I think you should watch your words carefully as accusations of this sort are too serious to ignore.

You are holding this conversation in the same way as communists did in USSR: those who are not with us, are against us. This is not very democratic and very similar to attitude of the very same islamists you dislike so much.

[DodgyAgent]

the cause

I am just trying to find out from you AtW what cause these terrorists represent and who they represent. You are implying that they have a cause because of the Iraqi invasion. I am just asking you to tell me who these people are and who they represent. Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that they have no popular support from any section of the Iraqi population, and nor do they give a flying **** about the Iraqi people per se.

And the point I was making about terrorist activities taking place before the Iraq war is that these people will find an excuse for their actions come what may. after all the Anericans had invaded anyone prior to 9?11. In fact if anything they saved the lives of thousands of muslims through their previous military incursions into the Balkans.

[AtW]

Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that they have no popular support from any section of the Iraqi population, and nor do they give a flying **** about the Iraqi people per se.

Effective guerilla movement that can last for years (and Iraq is an example of effective guerilla movement that 150k well armed troops can't break) is that it is impossible without support from locals. The fact that insurgency lasts for so long clearly shows they have plenty of support.

And the point I was making about terrorist activities taking place before the Iraq war is that these people will find an excuse for their actions come what may.

That does not mean the West should be so stupid as to give them a fecking huge solid excuse such as illegal invasion of another country with tens of thousands of civilians killed in the process.

What would you rather have them: weak reason to fight or strong reason? One would have to be totally retarded to give the other party strong reason to fight, especially reason that calls for anything patriotic like defending homeland, ie: Iraq.

[DodgyAgent]

useful idiots

Religious fanatics need no reason AtW they will simply invent one. There will always be useful idiots like you with enough guilt and selfish motives to give their (non) cause the publicity and legitimacy that they crave.

[AtW]

Religious fanatics need no reason AtW they will simply invent one. There will always be useful idiots like you with enough guilt and selfish motives to give their (non) cause the publicity and legitimacy that they crave.

Ah, those "useful idiots", phase that I believe was invented by Lenin and used a lot by Stalin. This is just another sign of you being on the same grounds with communists.

Contrary to what you may think all fanatics (religious or not) need a cause. Something high up like freedom for all, or defence of your country, not something petty like getting money: criminals kidnap people for ransoms, but those criminals are not prepared to die for it.

[DodgyAgent]

Ah, those "useful idiots", phase that I believe was invented by Lenin and used a lot by Stalin. This is just another sign of you being on the same grounds with communists.

Contrary to what you may think all fanatics (religious or not) need a cause. Something high up like freedom for all, or defence of your country, not something petty like getting money: criminals kidnap people for ransoms, but those criminals are not prepared to die for it.

They have a cause, their religion and their own selfish ends.. they need an excuse to legitimise their cause to useful idiots around the world.

[AtW]

They have a cause, their religion and their own selfish ends.. they need an excuse to legitimise their cause to useful idiots around the world.

Very shortsighted view -- theory (religion) requires some material proof from practice, something recent and current that can have anger directed to. Invasion of Iraq became just that -- in may respects thanks to people like you.

[Not So Wise]

So AtW you are both arguing for appeasement?

Two senarios
A bully is beating up a little kid and the kid turns around and starts destroying the bullys property when he is not around.
Bully stops beating up the kid

A bully is beating up a kid
Kid gives bully his lunch money so bully will stop beating him up
Bully stops beating up the kid

One of these is appeasment, other is it stopping the (immoral/bad) action that was causeing the negative and undesired reaction

Guess which is which and which should apply here.

Where does it stop? would Al Quaeda relent from their terrorist activities if every western woman covered her entire body whenever she went out.

Now you are playing the extreamist looney fanatic card, if we give them back an inch (that really belongs to them) will they demand the mile after it (that really belongs to us)?

Sure there will be some fanatic out there will play that game but would they have the support, resources these terrorist have now? No and you know it. And without that support and backing they just fade away or are just mocked as looneys

But really, what is different to them trying to force their views on us via the gun barrel to what we are trying to them in our attempts to force via a gun barrel our "western values" and political systems on them? Hell on top of that we are neither consistant (Kuwait definatly was not and still is not a beacon of freedom and womens rights in the middle east, women in Iraq in Sadam actually had more rights than those in most of the rest of the middle east), as to our political systems, capitalist democracys like USA where money quite litterly rules and the system becomes ever increasingly under the control of religious christian groups every day?

Sure Arab systems are very far from great, but then so are western ones and unlike western ones theirs were getting better where ours are only getting worse.

One thing you and a lot in the west seem to try to gloss over time and time again, putting aside religion these people have real honest, genuine greivences against us, dateing from 1948 onwards and even if tomorrow something came along and disproved beyond doubt every religion out there those cause's of conflict would be still there.

I may be wrong, but I see these people as having an agenda of their own that is not representative of any popular mandate at all.

One thing about terrorists/freedom fighters, they cannot operate from within the general population unless they have the support of large portions of said population. Especially in such close nit society like those in the muslim world.

The west constanly trys to paint a picture of the insurgents in Iraq as "outsiders", but these foreign insurgents number less than 5% of the total insurgents, the rest are actually Iraqis (and this according to US intelligence it's self)

The two of you are legitamising the tactics of deliberatly targeting civilians as a core part of the terrorist (sorry freedom fighters) strategy.

Are you legitamising the tactics of deliberatly targeting non civilians knowing full well each time there will be civilian casualties (Sorry collateral damage)?

Sure you can say the intent is different but if the end result is the exact same i doubt if you would care if you were on the receiveing end.

These people are thugs (correct me if I am wrong) they are not representative of anyone other than a twisted idealistic moral cause.

Agreed.
But I guess you support the invasion of Iraq, Israels control of the occupied terrortries hell even how Israel it's self was formed
And that is were the difference lays between is, for me all those were "twisted idealistic moral cause's" as well

after all the Anericans had invaded anyone prior to 9?11.

No, but did they openly and virtually unconditionally support a country that did? Yes. Israel

Contrary to what you may think all fanatics (religious or not) need a cause.

Actually there think you are incorrect, fanatics don't need a cause to get started (USA's homegrown looney white power boys like Timothy McVeigh have proved that), but to maintain momentum, recruit more fighters and continue the fight they need help from non fanatics and this does always need a real cause.

Now considering muslim fanatics have been involved in a continuous non stop fight for 5 years (with just the west, ignoreing the 40 plus years with Israel beforehand) non fanatics seem to be finding more than enough reasons to support them. I wonder where they might be getting these cause's?

DA, your problem seems to you want to just blame this on religion and that to me is as blind and narrow minded view as that of a true religious fanatic.

Religion is the battle cry, just like the Alamo was for the Texans but the cause's and reasons are a whole lot more complex.

Solve those and the fanatics cries for a jihad become once again toothless