What countries are fighting our fight on Terrorism?

[Redz]

Terrorism is bigger than 11 September. The Fight against Terrorism goes beyond 'payback' for 11 September.

thats quite dangerious as the definition of terrorist is really up to administration, they can use it as they wish the notion of going beyond payback for 9/11 is what countries in europe have a problem with, hence their unquestioning and proper support in afganistan, whereas in iraq where the evidence is less conclusive,and you don't have their support.
in terms of truly fighting terrorism, its clear to me that saudi arabia, eygpt and pakistan are more legitimate and pressing targets in the war on the terrorists responsible for 9/11. sure iraq had terror links, but these were not the only reson for war there, and i don't mean oil

 

[Redz]

Is it not clear YET that, WE the people of the USA, could give a shit less what the people in Europe think?

that is not really a point that contributes much. you have to wonder why europe was so willing to support in afganistan, and not in iraq, whats the big difference?

 

[dmp]

thats quite dangerious as the definition of terrorist is really up to administration, they can use it as they wish the notion of going beyond payback for 9/11 is what countries in europe have a problem with, hence their unquestioning and proper support in afganistan, whereas in iraq where the evidence is less conclusive,and you don't have their support.
in terms of truly fighting terrorism, its clear to me that saudi arabia, eygpt and pakistan are more legitimate and pressing targets in the war on the terrorists responsible for 9/11. sure iraq had terror links, but these were not the only reson for war there, and i don't mean oil

Again - why is it so hard for you to get?

There are thousands of terrorists who want to kill us which had NOTHING to do w/ 11 Sept. A LOT Of those were based in/tolerated in Iraq.

 

[Redz]

We have had many, many threads and discussions on this board about the definition of terror. I suspect that, no matter how it is defined, those that agree with a particular cause will view that particular entity as "freedom fighters" or "insurgents" etc. and everything else as terrorism. Personally, I beleive any group or organization that purposely attacks civilian targets for the purpose of gaining notice and creating fear among a population are indeed terrorists. The ends DO NOT justify the means, in my opinion, when it comes to terrorism.

good post, constructive. yep it all about your point of view when it comes to the definition of terrorism. i agree with you on the point about targeting civilians as a proper starting point for a real definition. i'd like to add a distinction between state terror like in iraq, and terror groups like al-queda, hamas etc..this distinction entails the notion of a soverign nation state, even if that state is barbaric like iraq. its this distinction that plays a large role in european opposition to iraq

 

[Mr. P]

that is not really a point that contributes much. you have to wonder why europe was so willing to support in afganistan, and not in iraq, whats the big difference?

I really don't care why Europe thinks it's different..we don't.

But since you wonder...ask Germany France and Russia how much money
was owed to them by Iraq and I suspect you'll have your answer.

 

[Redz]

Again - why is it so hard for you to get?

There are thousands of terrorists who want to kill us which had NOTHING to do w/ 11 Sept. A LOT Of those were based in/tolerated in Iraq.

true that you think that, but the evidence is a lacking. who are these other terrorists?, where are they from?, who supports them?, do they hate you because of your freedom and democracy?
sure bin ladens gang are out there, but other muslim fundamentalists are primarily nationalist and are mainly concerned with working against their own governments in eygpt, algeria, morrocco, saudi etc..

 

[CSM]

good post, constructive. yep it all about your point of view when it comes to the definition of terrorism. i agree with you on the point about targeting civilians as a proper starting point for a real definition. i'd like to add a distinction between state terror like in iraq, and terror groups like al-queda, hamas etc..this distinction entails the notion of a soverign nation state, even if that state is barbaric like iraq. its this distinction that plays a large role in european opposition to iraq

Part of the problem is that most terrorist organizations cannot exist without some state sponsored support. That support comes in many forms including money, arms, explosives, and especially tacit consent. If the entire international community did their best to curb terrorism within their own borders, terrorism would be far far less effective as a means to an end. However, as long as any nation provides overt and/or clandestine support to terrorist organizations, terrorists and terrorism will be a large part of the global political, economic, and military concerns.

All the organizations which you list receive various forms of aid from nation states. In my opinion, that is the one aspect that many European nations either cannot or will not recognize. Soveriegn nation states no matter how civilized (or barbaric) must be held responsible and accountable for their actions. That does not mean that EVERY state must be dominated militarily, though that is certainly an option. In Iraq for example, it is very clear that economic sanctions and diplomacy was not working. Other nations may be more vulnerable to trade restrictions or international pressure, thus making military action less necessary. In my opinion, the more "advanced a particular nation is (technolocically, politically, economically, etc.) the more likely they are to be cognizant of non-military pressures.

 

[Redz]

I really don't care why Europe thinks it's different..we don't.

But since you wonder...ask Germany France and Russia how much money
was owed to them by Iraq and I suspect you'll have your answer.

thats true, but as point would explain ger, france and russias governments opposition to the war, not the general populations. perhaps its european propaganda, but if that is the case i would be very susprised if the europeans were the only ones using propaganda

 

[CSM]

true that you think that, but the evidence is a lacking. who are these other terrorists?, where are they from?, who supports them?, do they hate you because of your freedom and democracy?
sure bin ladens gang are out there, but other muslim fundamentalists are primarily nationalist and are mainly concerned with working against their own governments in eygpt, algeria, morrocco, saudi etc..

That last statement is not entirely true. Most (if not all) Islamic terrorists organizations have publicly declared war on the United States, some have declared war on Israel, and some have declared war on non Muslim religions. Nationalism has little to do with it. Again, in Iraq for example, many of the terrorists are from Syria, Iran and other countries. As the issue becomes more and more open, it is becoming apparent that the Islamic fundamentalists terroists are more interested in global religious war than one based on nationalism. They need national/international support as a base from which to launch their programmes, but places such as their domination of Afghanistan were more about securing a sanctuary than securing Afghanistan for the Afghans.

 

[Mr. P]

thats true, but as point would explain ger, france and russias governments opposition to the war, not the general populations. perhaps its european propaganda, but if that is the case i would be very susprised if the europeans were the only ones using propaganda

Of course their not the only ones using propaganda. Propaganda is used everyday worldwide.
That doesn't change a thing.

The fact is, Europe had a monetary reason for opposing the Iraq war. I don't know what
Germany, France or Russia told their population. The fact is for them opposition was all about $$$$$.
The USA had a security reason for pursuing it and have said so.

 

[Redz]

Part of the problem is that most terrorist organizations cannot exist without some state sponsored support. That support comes in many forms including money, arms, explosives, and especially tacit consent.
Soveriegn nation states no matter how civilized (or barbaric) must be held responsible and accountable for their actions. That does not mean that EVERY state must be dominated militarily.Other nations may be more vulnerable to trade restrictions or international pressure, thus making military action less necessary. In my opinion, the more "advanced a particular nation is (technolocically, politically, economically, etc.) the more likely they are to be cognizant of non-military pressures.

very good points. infinitly better than the we don't give a shit point of view. in terms of states supporting terrorism there are grey areas, for example that almost all the funds support muslim terrorism come from saudi arabia, while this is beyond governmet control in many ways, i do think it would make saudi arabia a legitimate target as the goverment have been lax in allowing it to occur. i think in the saudi case there is far more evidence of support for terror, than in the iraq case, same goes for pakistan who activly support the taliban for years and may still hide bin laden within their borders. in both these cases direct government support is hard to prove, but in my mind at least they should really be in the frontline on the war on terror, not iraq. personally i think the reason for the iraq war are more complex than simply support for terror or the numerious other reason given for the war. anyways thanx for your thoughtful response

 

[jimnyc]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

 

[Redz]

That last statement is not entirely true. Most (if not all) Islamic terrorists organizations have publicly declared war on the United States, some have declared war on Israel, and some have declared war on non Muslim religions. Nationalism has little to do with it. Again, in Iraq for example, many of the terrorists are from Syria, Iran and other countries. As the issue becomes more and more open, it is becoming apparent that the Islamic fundamentalists terroists are more interested in global religious war than one based on nationalism. They need national/international support as a base from which to launch their programmes, but places such as their domination of Afghanistan were more about securing a sanctuary than securing Afghanistan for the Afghans.

another good point, its harder to argue with you and your intelligence. i believe that nationalism has played significant role in muslim fundamentalism in saudi, morroco, algeria, eygpt etc..history of algerian terror has intersting lesson i think. in iraq NOW many of the terrorists are from other countries, dunno about before. the concentration of religious fighters from other nation in afganistan. many middle east nations relased religious extremeist from their own jails and sent them to afganistan to fight the russians, this was a good move to release political pressure at the time, and of course some say the americans had a role in bringing these fighters to afganistan in the 80's. once again tho good points, i will have to do more research to fully respond

 

[Redz]

Of course their not the only ones using propaganda. Propaganda is used everyday worldwide.
That doesn't change a thing.

The fact is, Europe had a monetary reason for opposing the Iraq war. I don't know what
Germany, France or Russia told their population. The fact is for them opposition was all about $$$$$.
The USA had a security reason for pursuing it and have said so.

true their goverment opposition may indeed have been about money, but the public opposition is different. in addition i think its fair to say europe has a better quality media, eg; UK
the security reasons for afganistan were clear, iraq was less so, and relied more on evidence of possible threats, that have since been found to have been overstated

 

[Redz]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

cheers for the link will check it out in a bit
btw cheers for forum

 

[CSM]

very good points. infinitly better than the we don't give a shit point of view. in terms of states supporting terrorism there are grey areas, for example that almost all the funds support muslim terrorism come from saudi arabia, while this is beyond governmet control in many ways, i do think it would make saudi arabia a legitimate target as the goverment have been lax in allowing it to occur. i think in the saudi case there is far more evidence of support for terror, than in the iraq case, same goes for pakistan who activly support the taliban for years and may still hide bin laden within their borders. in both these cases direct government support is hard to prove, but in my mind at least they should really be in the frontline on the war on terror, not iraq. personally i think the reason for the iraq war are more complex than simply support for terror or the numerious other reason given for the war. anyways thanx for your thoughtful response

It is difficult to reach a conclusion about any of this unless you look at the picture with as broad a view as possible. While it is true that Saudi Arabia as a country does covertly support terrorism through financial means; much of it is really from differing factions within the House of Saud (the ruling regime currently). Other countries also provide finanacial support to varying degrees by allowing "charitable contributions" to known terrorist front organizations,etc.

The fact is that in order for any war to be successful, there has to be as many attacks made simulataneously as can resourced. The military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are just one attack on a broad front. Political pressure on countries like Pakistan (effectively has the Pakistani military actively pursuing terrorists on their side of the border), the US/UK effort to find and close financial pipelines, global tracking of shipments of arms, and even diplomatic discourse are all beginning to have an effect on terrorist activity. It is not easy nor are there any short term solutions. As our President stated in the beginning, this will not be easy, nor will it happen over night. Hopefully, the American citizen will have the required resolve to see this through. It is something the United States simply MUST do, either with European help or without.

 

[CSM]

true their goverment opposition may indeed have been about money, but the public opposition is different. in addition i think its fair to say europe has a better quality media, eg; UK
the security reasons for afganistan were clear, iraq was less so, and relied more on evidence of possible threats, that have since been found to have been overstated

I do not fault Europeans for their opposition to US actions; after all, there is a natural tendency to believe your own leaders before believing some other nation's leaders (it is the same in the US). I suspect the Europeans would have a different view had some of their cities been attacked on the same scale that New York was attacked, and additionally, been promised more and bigger attacks by the terrorists on a regular basis.

At the risk of sending this thread off on a tangent; i do not agree that it is fair to say that Europe has better quality media. I do think it is probably adequate, but your statement indicates the underlying arrogance that many Americans find distasteful in many European citizens. It is ironic that many Europeans are quick to point out American arrogance without recognizing their own.

 

[Redz]

It is difficult to reach a conclusion about any of this unless you look at the picture with as broad a view as possible.
The fact is that in order for any war to be successful, there has to be as many attacks made simulataneously as can resourced. The military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are just one attack on a broad front. Political pressure on countries like Pakistan (effectively has the Pakistani military actively pursuing terrorists on their side of the border), the US/UK effort to find and close financial pipelines, global tracking of shipments of arms, and even diplomatic discourse are all beginning to have an effect on terrorist activity. It is not easy nor are there any short term solutions. As our President stated in the beginning, this will not be easy, nor will it happen over night. Hopefully, the American citizen will have the required resolve to see this through. It is something the United States simply MUST do, either with European help or without.

the broader the view the view the more simplistic the viewpoint somtimes.
i think my point is valid that Sauid arabia is a more legitimate target than iraq as real conclusive evidence exists for their support for terrorism.
i am clearly more sceptical in terms of iraqs role, certainly there were good reasons for removing hussain, i just don't think terrorism was the valid.
i worry that those in power are using americas legitamate fear and hurt following 9/11 to further their own ends, iraq being an example of this.
europeans have shown themselves to be able allies in afganistan, where french and german troops fight side by side with your forces. the war on terror can only be successful if it has the support of as many nations as possible. the efforts in iraq while worthwhile in many ways have detracted from the overall war on terror. its my view that military intervention in the middle east will not help the rising tensions between the muslim world and the west, as military occupation and inevitable civilian casualitites will be used by fundamentalists as evidence of the wests imperial ambitions, regardless of the occurance of free elections in iraq in jan, a coalition military presence will remain for many years.
i think the current direction and american and british policy will only sideline the moderate muslim groups that are essential if we are to avoid the clash of civilisations. military action in my view has the same effect as the israeli military response to palestine terrorism, in that it will create more extremists and more terrorists.
btw what is your view of the neo conservative influence in the bush administration?
and what do you think the straussian myth they may be using is?

 

[Mr. P]

true their goverment opposition may indeed have been about money, but the public opposition is different. in addition i think its fair to say europe has a better quality media, eg; UK
the security reasons for afganistan were clear, iraq was less so, and relied more on evidence of possible threats, that have since been found to have been overstated

:rotflmao:
Yeah...Okay. I guess you still don't understand....WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC THINKS.
And that's my nice way of saying it.

 

[wolvie20m]

Damnit I missed this whole debate...