Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Terrorism - Welcome ]

Tuesday 2nd December 2008 02:42:35 AM

Home/Society & Culture/Terrorism

Question Board

Return to Question Board

Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
International Terorism	curious98	07/04/05
This answer is actually for Itsdb, of the Christianity board, but he is not appearing in the list of experts in this board. I hope you don't mind my using your name instead. I'll advise him in the other board, "I've decided to answer yous post in this board because your post had nothing to do with Christianity and I feel it would have been much better placed here, intead. In a very successful raid the Spanish police dismantled last week a Moroccan organization in Gerona (North East Spain) where youngsters were mentally being conditioned and trained for suicide missions in Iraq. A total of 56 were arrested. It is therefore a fact that a great amount of these suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by Muslims from other countries, many, indeed, from Morocco. But there is nothing to be surprised about, I’m afraid. During World War II, the Japanese military perfected the technique of kamikaze pilots — "cherry blossoms" as they were called after the Japanese ideal of evanescent beauty — who aimed their Zero fighter planes at U.S. targets for the love of land and emperor. Literally translated as "divine wind" in Japanese, kamikazes — like the Palestinian shahids today — were also hailed as heroes in a country battling U.S. air superiority. In Viet Nam, the same spirit that inspired the kamikazes imbued the Viet Cong soldiers who, most often than not, fought to the bitter end, preferring death over dishonor. We should remember both cases quite clearly. Palestinians came next and they claimed the tactical justification for them taking recourse to suicide bombings were the discrepancies of military resources of the two sides, where approximately 75 percent of Washington's $3 billion annual aid to Israel comprised military aid, while Palestinians lack an army or any legitimate access to arms. "You're talking about thousands of Israeli tanks, F-16 fighters, all the weapons in the world against a few people with no army and few weapons; then yes, Palestinians will do anything to defend their freedom," says Rafeeq Jaber, president of the Illinois-based Islamic Association for Palestine. Unless we are blind as to being willing to negate the evidence, we should admit the Palestinians were left with on other alternative but suicide bombing and the terror it spreads. When 4 years ago, on my last visit to Israel, I was visiting once more the Masada plateau, the famous "fortress", located in the Judean Desert, I commented with my Israeli guide the political situation of the country. He told me “these Muslim dogs want to throw us from our land, and they do not realize we are willing to die to the last man, if need be, as we already did here once (in Masada) before the Romans”. I, then, told him “but what if the Palestinians think the same…? And he shrugged and said smiling “well, in that case it will be the beginning of Armageddon..! According to Hussein Naboulsi, a Beirut-based spokesman for Hezbollah, the militant group widely hailed as the only group to have scored a victory against Israel, Palestinians have a "full and legitimate right to defend themselves." Now, it is up to Iraq to use the same tactics. They cannot fight the US army in an open conventional war (nobody can, at present) but that does not make them less frightening and terrible. You surely did not expect the Iraqis to welcome you with open arms, did you? In some of the past conflicts your country has participated from the 2nd half of last century to this last war, your military have been always basically over optimistic or entirely wrong in the evaluation of the enemy forces they were fighting. You have either neglected their fanaticism, their spirit of their religion. In Korea, you stumbled upon the criterion of the Politicians, who simply ignored Gen. McArthur, who certainly had a better knowledge of Orient than Truman, and new how to put a victorious end to the conflict. Instead you had to agree to some sort of agreement who simply divided the country in two. And, furthermore, you have there a potential nuclear enemy to eventually face… In Viet Nam, I still remember the war newsreels and the US press claiming for years that the war would be over in a couple of months, and that the Cong was about to be finally defeated. It lasted 18 years, the first part from 1957 to 1965. In this period many Americans didn’t even know there was a conflict going on in South East Asia, where they were participating… Then from 1965 until April 1975, when South Vietnam surrendered… and you had to fly in a hurry from Saigon… You thought the thousands of tons of bombs (more than in WWII) would destroy their spirit. But of course Nixon knew nothing of that spirit. In 1972 he unleashed the first sustained bombing, that killed at least 100,000 communist troops and civilians!! And spread tons of napalm over their rice fields. But 3 years later the Cong came out of their miles and miles of tunnels, and they were victorious! In Operation Desert-Storm, there was one General who knew what he was doing: Gen. Schwarzkoff. But he was not allowed to proceed any further when the war was over, so that ended up in preparing the field for the new game 10 years later. The US last experience in Somalia was not very encouraging either; your military thought that the poor bastards would surrender without shooting… and they got a nasty surprise, instead. Now, in Iraq your military thought they would be kissed as they were in Paris, after WWII. But there were a few differences between Iraqis and French. Had you left the country shortly after their defeat, you might have avoided a lot of casualties. The same Iraqis would not have allowed Hussein to recover their status. They would have probably killed him. But now, to a good part of the Iraqi population you are the enemy, too, the invaders, as you were considered in Nam. And those who smile at you and claim to be your friends, are not to be trusted either. You should not forget that Iraq is sacred land for most Muslims and above all, they are Muslims… So suicide bombing will still go on, and on, and God only knows its cost in human lives. And another thing you should not forget. It is not that difficult to convince a fundamentalist Muslim to day to become another Allah’s martyr, if he achieves his objective to kill invaders and receives the prize of the virgins waiting for him in Paradise. After all, Christianism also have had thousands of martyrs who gladly offered their lives in the hope of reaching their Salvation… For these Muslims suicide-bombing is just as legitimate an act of war as your bombing Mosul or Baghdad from jet bombers. In fact, they are the jet bombers of their army… And you can bet your life this is not going to stop, and they will be coming from friendly countries, which, perhaps, you may not understand, but again, you must remember they ALL belong to the same country, i.e. ISLAM! Now, therefore, this sort of war cannot be fought in any conventional way! There are more than 1 billion Muslims, and they are spread in your own country as well as in the rest of the world. The big thing, however, is that out of these colossal amount of people only a few hundred thousand are truly fundamentalist, whether you are speaking of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc. The rest of them are just plain people, like you and me, that just want to live their lives in peace. Now the problem lies on how can you tell the bad ones from the good ones, when all of them will be looking like good ones? And you cannot kill Muslims wherever they are (including the American ones), or attack all Muslim countries because of their religious status, for you run the risk of actually initiating a truly religious war against Islam, which would, once more, cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and which you could not possibly win. Remember that American Muslims are, first of all Muslims and secondly, American. One noted case, for instance, was famous boxer Cassius Clay. Their religion comes first. This is precisely what the new Iranian president's "wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world" comment, actually meant. And believe me, Steve, the answer is not attacking Iran next (unless you want to do with Nuclear weapons) but start beheading the terrorists factions wherever they may be. Modern medical science is gradually succeeding healing cancer by trying to detect it before it grows and become a metastasis, and extirpating it. They just don’t kill the patient to get rid of the disease… And with terrorism we are facing a terrible cancer which affects all our societies. So we have to extirpate it before it spreads all over the body. If the International Community feels the present Iran’s President is one of such eventual terrorist heads, it must be a thousand times easier to get rid of him than to start a new war, don’t you think so. Let’s not make the same mistake we did 11 years with S.H. Curious98
Clarification/Follow-up by friedpotatoes on 07/06/05 12:04 am: to excon parently you know nothing about the history of the palestinian/israeli conflict!.palestinians have asked many times to sit on the table with israel nd make peace but israel always make excuses not to coz she doesnt have to coz shes the stronger side by america standing beside her...nd did u forget about she not commited to the 1967 agreement for giving palestin a lot of their stolen land... check ur facts before u speak Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/06/05 3:13 am: friedpotatoes wrong. At Camp David the Israeli's conceeded to almost all the Palestinian demands ;except the right of return to lands inside the State of Israel . Arafat turned it down and then started another intafada . The Palestinians to this day are not serious about a Palestinian State living side by side in peace with Israel. For all practical purposes ;the outline for defeating Israel that was documented in the Palestinian charter is still in operation. Clarification/Follow-up by curious98 on 07/07/05 5:13 am: Dear Tomder55 I’m sure you may disagree with my statements about American miltary performance in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. It is normal. 1st you are American. 2nd I always say I can be wrong. But I’m open to discuss it at your convenience, either here or at my private e-mail, which you already know. Regarding Iran I am in complete agreement with what you say. When you were there in the mid 70s, I also used to travel to Teheran quite often on business. Great Country and wonderful people, most of them. But then, in 79, Khomeini and his bigots took over and Iran lost most of his charm, at least for me. Re. its president, I’m sure he is a terrorist alright, or at least he was 26 years ago… But Arafat was also a confirmed terrorist and the International Community apparently forgot it when he became Palestinian head, and he was well accepted and welcome by ALL western countries, including yours. Therefore, the question, in my opinion, that matters now is whether this fellow is still a terrorist at heart, or his demeanor as Teheran’s Mayor proves otherwise. I do not know, for I haven’t followed his trajectory. But if Ahmadinejad is a threat he should be disposed of quietly and discreetly. I know this is terrible to say, coming from someone that considers himself a passable Catholic. But, if you read my posts you’ll see I never consider myself an example to follow, though I’m able to tell the way we should all follow. What happens is that I evaluate the loss of one person, as compared to the loss of thousands of lives, which would be the natural consequence of another war… As for Khameini and the Mullahs, it is true they are the leaders right now in Iran. And they should not be touched. But they would get the message, don’t you think so? Iran will not abandon his nuclear weapons program, but depending on how this problem is tackled it may turn out to end up in another country becoming nuclear. In the area you have Pakistan and India, the first one a Muslim country too. And though your Administration treats them like friends, I would not trust them with a ten yards pole… If you think Iran is your enemy, don’t stop for a minute keeping an eye on Pakistan, either. The North Korea is also Nuclear, and China, and Russia, and some former Soviet republics… So we cannot declare war on all nuclear powers, can we? As for the inspection teams of Muhammad_al-Baradei, I don’t have any hope either. The world situation completely changed as of 9/11/2001. And war on terror cannot be fought as conventional wars were so far. You have seen what has happened today in London. 7/7 will also be a day to remember by the British, and by the entire world. Nobody can say the British were not vigilant and on the alert… But how can you control hundreds of subway stations and millions of people going in and out? Could you do it in New York, with the scores of abandoned and long forgotten tunnels, ideal to set up explosives or gas bombs? No you couldn’t. Today Mr. Bush said he would go on with his work on terror. But what has he actually accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, other than capturing SH, which could have been done long ago at infinitely less cost…? What does Bush mean, now? Looking for the responsible parties of the London attacks in Iran. If he should look somewhere he should do it in Morocco. These attacks have been designed in very much the same way as the 3/11, in Madrid. And the responsible then were almost all Moroccans. But King Mohammed VI is Bush’s friend. So, how can Mr. Bush suspect him. But let me tell you. He is just as bad as Ahmadinejad, for he is more sophisticated. Very few people are aware of the wall his father built, named the wall of shame, 2500 miles long, 10 ft. high, where 120.000 soldiers watch the Sahrawis, who in the number of 250.000 are kept prisoners behind this wall… Terrorism has to be fought in the same way. Spreading terror amongst their responsible parties, not against civilians. On fraction of the cost of any conventional war can make miracles for that purpose… Curious98 Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/08/05 3:29 am: Arafat regrettably was embraced by that idiot Clinton. Bush realized that he could not be dealt with. I have no hope of turning this generation of Islamo-facists around . But Bush is forward thinking . He has determined that a long term goal is to offer an alternative to the rhetoric of hate they are taught in the madaras' . That is what his push for democratization is all about. To leave them alone to their own devices as some suggest does not get it done. They are being taught to Islamicize the world . To intervene without offering this alternative is also asking for warfare for generations to come. Clarification/Follow-up by curious98 on 07/08/05 11:47 pm: I agree with you, Tomder55, but the answer is not -I'm sure- full conventional war. As the Crusades were not either. Those expeditions were undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. They were a Christian "jihad", and nothing was accomplished, at least not in long run. For the Holy Places went back to the Otomans. You seem to agree with Bush's own idea of another Christian "jihad", but we can hardly start another Crusade against Islam, on the grounds that "madrassas" are teaching the wrong Islamic religion. This is true, but only partially. Not all "madrassas" teach the same subversive and radical Islamism. But many of those which do, are in Pakistan, run by Taliban Muslims, where nothing has been done to reform them, despite the promise made by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, two years ago, when he said the move was necessary because some of the private Islamic schools had become breeding grounds for "intolerance and hatred". It is not a war that has to be fought with planes and guns, but with intelligence and diplomacy and eventually, by disposing of some "living cancers" that are the basis of the "fundamentalist" terrorists. Of course, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong. Curious98 Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/09/05 10:04 pm: Bush is not conducting a 'Christian jihad'. He goes out of his way to say that this is NOT a war against Islam . I do agreewith him that this will last forever if there is not a change in the culture of Islam . As you point out;the West's struggle against Islam has been continuous since before the "crusades" (The West's answer to Islamic agressive expansion ). It is rediculous to say ;why not Pakistan ;Iran ;N.Korea et al ? Our war in WWII was against Germany ;but we invaded Morraco. I do not recall anyone saying "if we are at war with Germany ;why didn't we attack Germany?".Jihadistan does not recognize borders. We tried intelligence ;law enforcement and strategic military strikes for 20 years since the fall of the Shah and jihadistan just got bolder in their attacks on us. Kerry advocated the approach you suggest ;a " nuanced " approach ;and the voters of the US correctly rejected him.

Summary of Answers Received	Answered On	Answered By	Average Rating
1. I have many disagreements with your statements about America...	07/05/05	tomder55
2. Hello Curious: I too, would argue with some of the history...	07/05/05	excon

Your Options
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

vq/Te © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Make Us Your Homepage. Bookmark Answerway.