Terrorism is aided by Iraq war : U.S. is losing

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are

"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings





Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Hierophant]

i cant say i agree at all with the author's premise ... or rather the premise that was high-lighted. Before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no real 'front' on the war on terror. Afghanistan became one front, Iraq became another. Having physical fronts is a markedly better position to be in, when fighting typically asymetrical forces.

What would have "played into the enemy's hands" is if the US would have just called it a day after ousting the taliban. Or, removing saddam and then washing their hands of Iraq.

I understand the argument that these battles have drawn ppl to the islamists cause, but i consider the alternative to be much worse. If the US would have backed off in the way that the anti-war crowd wanted, these terrorist groups would have simply waited, and planned for the next big attack. And guarenteed they would have felt empowered by getting away with the last, and motivated to implement even grander attacks. Of course, with this, the anonymous author agrees.

Now, saying all that, I'd be interested in reading the author's recommendations. He obviously recognizes the problem, ie. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency - not criminality or terrorism - " So, what are his suggestions?

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Hierophant
i cant say i agree at all with the author's premise ... or rather the premise that was high-lighted. Before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no real 'front' on the war on terror. Afghanistan became one front, Iraq became another. Having physical fronts is a markedly better position to be in, when fighting typically asymetrical forces. You have no front, you try to occupy iraq that's not a front. The ennemy is around you, in friendly or innocent surroundings.




Originally posted by Hierophant
What would have "played into the enemy's hands" is if the US would have just called it a day after ousting the taliban. Or, removing saddam and then washing their hands of Iraq. wait and see. It's not a handwashing problem, it's that the iraqis hate to be occupied and they'll get teh US out ... probably only to kill one another (and the US might help the Kurds kill the others like in good ol' days of iran-iraq war).




Originally posted by Hierophant
I understand the argument that these battles have drawn ppl to the islamists cause, but i consider the alternative to be much worse. If the US would have backed off in the way that the anti-war crowd wanted, these terrorist groups would have simply waited, and planned for the next big attack. works for afghanistan, clearly not iraq.
And even in this case you can't call Afghanistan a win: most noticeably BL escaped, Omar escaped. Afghanistan is world's biggest producer of opium now. There is a good degree of success in cities though: kabul is getting through a wonderful development.

[KSO]

works for afghanistan, clearly not iraq.
And even in this case you can't call Afghanistan a win: most noticeably BL escaped, Omar escaped. Afghanistan is world's biggest producer of opium now. There is a good degree of success in cities though: kabul is getting through a wonderful development. [/B][/QUOTE]

We don't know what happens in Afghanistan as the US army created a complete media vacuum there, A father of my friend who is a diplomat just returned from Afghanistan and he told me some amazing things, not much progress is happening there, Kabul is still a ruin and according to him the US just repeats the soviet scenario, the problem is that unlike Iraq we don't know much.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by KSO
We don't know what happens in Afghanistan as the US army created a complete media vacuum there, A father of my friend who is a diplomat just returned from Afghanistan and he told me some amazing things, not much progress is happening there, Kabul is still a ruin and according to him the US just repeats the soviet scenario, the problem is that unlike Iraq we don't know much. the info I have is more optimistic for kabul by pessimistic about the rest of the country. (I guess you cannot understand french, if it's the cas I got sources)

[Mediocrates]

Then you can't compare it to anything either, can you? Kabul is a 'ruin', compared to what? Miami Beach? I seem to remember that Kabul experienced a Soviet invasion and civil war since 1979 and that when the Taleban finally controlled Kabul they closed most of the schools and hospitals and schools, threw out most of the foreigners, refused foreign aid or development and were content to unwind the clock about 600 years.


At any rate the simple fact is that best case, Afghanistan will remain a loose confederacy of tribal groups all more or less connected to one another through the central government in Kabul which serves to funnel outside contacts, contracts, media and aid. This is really the history of Afghanistan so results will be slow. Buuut rest assured that if there were progress you'd be screaming about undue American influence anyway.

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by Olivier
You have no front, you try to occupy iraq that's not a front. The ennemy is around you, in friendly or innocent surroundings.
in terms of WWII type fighting you are right. in terms of what is normally asymetrical, you are incorrect. What you do have in iraq ... and afghanistan ... are places in which the enemy can be engaged. if you would rather engage them with your local police, you've already lost.

I just want to be clear that my original post was not a political one, but one of strategy. I want to know where the enemies are. I want them to congegrate in places where superior technology can be used in killing or capturing them. ideally the cry for jihad would go out and all of em would meet up in some isolated part of the desert where they could be vaporized or better yet captured and beheaded by their own ppl.

Which brings us back to the point that is being made here. The battle for iraq cannot be won until the iraqi ppl take over the arresting, trial and prosecution of the insurgents. I'm hoping that in the next cpl of months that is done. I'm also looking forward to actually seeing ppl being able to go out and vote in iraq without the fear of some suicide assassin blowing himself up in the que.

so, all criticism aside, i'd love to hear some possible alternatives that would actually help iraq move forward, positively. anything?

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Hierophant
I just want to be clear that my original post was not a political one, but one of strategy. I want to know where the enemies are. I want them to congegrate in places where superior technology can be used in killing or capturing them. ideally the cry for jihad would go out and all of em would meet up in some isolated part of the desert where they could be vaporized or better yet captured and beheaded by their own ppl. Your thinking is very much american, I already heard this reasonning and but I do think it's a huge error .

you tell me "the more I occupy iraq, the more bad guys come to me, and aha I vaporize them"
I answer " I vaporize some, but the more you occupy iraq, the more terrorism you create. not only you create more now, but you create infinitely more for the future".


Let's exagerate a bit, let's say fighting Terrorism is a fight of universal values the core of which is human rights, against barbaric values.


Fighting terrorism is not killing people, it's not occupying countries (unless you absolutely cannot do otherwise, aka afghanistan). Fighting terrorism is producing positive values, making societies evolve, become more transparent, fair with women ect..
Fighting terrorism is about winning hearts and minds.
Fighting terrorism this way takes time, vision, intelligence.

The big fight is there: don't let yourself be distracted by a bombing. The big fight is a fight of values. It's a long term fight.

The short-term fight for security now is important, so I support security measures and a very active fight. But never loose the sight of the big picture.

And I can tell you while the US were imprisonning thousands of iraqis without reasons, while they were "abusing" them, they might have stopped some terrorists. But they lost the big fight.

Abu graihb is not about abuse, it's a stain on civilization (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/flash/photo/world/2004-05-20_photos/index_frames.htm?startat=1&indexFile=world_2004-05-20_photos)(btw I find an almost christic character in n°4, and guess where the evil guy comes from...).
In today mdeia culture these hundred of pictures and videos create an historical event which will be remembered.

And after we'll be dead you can be sure people will commit bombings, behead hostages in the name of what the US did there.






Originally posted by Hierophant
Which brings us back to the point that is being made here. The battle for iraq cannot be won until the iraqi ppl take over the arresting, trial and prosecution of the insurgents. I'm hoping that in the next cpl of months that is done. I'm also looking forward to actually seeing ppl being able to go out and vote in iraq without the fear of some suicide assassin blowing himself up in the que.

so, all criticism aside, i'd love to hear some possible alternatives that would actually help iraq move forward, positively. anything? I agree with you.

Well, I started a thread called Real politics starting inside iraq? (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5966). Not with much success, Mediocrates started one a bit like that today.

Arguably the key question today is the one you ask. in the case of iraq, I'm quite pessimistic. Maybe democracy will work wonders, but I doubt.

[Mediocrates]

You have neer been able to define or put some shape around what you think democracy could or should look like there. There are tons of variations in the world and seemingly the Eurowest things that waving a wand in the air much the same as they did to form Iraq 80 years ago is sufficient.

And, let's imagine a time when there is some kind of clanky democratic process that low and behold isn't of the same old Arab strongman one vote one time go home model and still - because life is cheap - there are regular bombings and the one thing that no one will admit is that internal tribal/ethnic/criminal frictions low intensity civil war is really the steady state destiny of any arab country - then is that bad or good, better or worse.

That is, is the Eurocrying for 'democracy' really just a cover for a demand for quiet no matter how repressive or oiligarchic. I think it is. I think the Euro position is one of not really caring all that much what kind of government or rule exists there as long as the Yanks are gone and WOGS aren't shooting at the white people.

We all have our historic models and symbols to rely on. Yours are pure colonialist - ours are more globalist in nature.

[Olivier]

your answer is for another thread, mediocrates.

You are excessive and gloomy as usual, but I agree with the general direction: I'm skeptical for democracy in iraq.

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by Olivier
Your thinking is typically american, I already heard this reasonning and I do think it's false.

cool ... i guess ... does this give me honorary citizenship? i'll pass, thanks. I think you should not be so quick to generalize. Even tho you are making reasonable points you loose credibility with these arrogant remarks. Typically french? lol just kidding. To be clear, i was only speaking in terms of strategic warfare. if that is typical of anything, let it be typical of speaking in terms of strategic warfare.



you tell me "the more I occupy iraq, the more bad guys come to me, and aha I vaporize them"
I answer "the more you occupy iraq, the more terrorism you create. You create more now, but you create even more for the future".

At first glance, your point certainly seems logical, but it misses a few important details. First you assume that education can solve this problem. I do agree, that education is probably the most important weapon. any effective education is actually going to take generations. But you do have to take into account, that any attempt to 'educate' is immediately seen as part of the 'war on islam' One really needs to understand this mindset to see the futility of what you suggest, because it too, will certainly create more terrorism. It would be much like if the english speaking world decided to educate the french that the french language is no longer needed.

One could assert that by giving into the demands of the islamists, that the 'war on terrorism' could be done with. But then we'd eventually have to turn the western countries into dar ul islam and swear the shahada along with everyone else. No amount of education is gonna make it so that i accept that nor would i accept dhimmitude. So, the war continues......

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
. Buuut rest assured that if there were progress you'd be screaming about undue American influence anyway.

Unfortunetaly no, just like you I hope that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan will positive results to the people who live there, And I'll be very happy to be proven wrong, but meanwhile I don't see it happening.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
but meanwhile I don't see it happening.
Such talk always reminds me of this thread (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5925).

[varian]

First of all let me state that the Middle East will occupy the center of most of the world's political attention for many years to come. The reasons are numerous, and are not the intention of this reply. The United States is not the only "superpower" in the world, yet some in the US government want the US to assume that role. The liberal part of the US government seems to be the spearhead for a "one world" foreign ruling body, and although both major parties seem to be leaning in a similar direction, the main differences are about who will be the main power brokers. The main flaw with these scenarios, as well as current US policy in the ME, is that some major players may have been overlooked in the grand design. India will be looking to support its emerging middle class of 250 million plus, and will need a robust economy to do so. China's population is starting to get a feel for what "having a little more" means, and will resist very vehemently a return to a "Mao" type of economy. The Chinese are gaining choke points around the world, which will give them both political and military advantage should the occasion arise. Their standing army is at 200 million plus, and because of China's history of gender selection, there will be an excess of pent up testoterone in that army. That means that the world may see a "keep what you conquer" policy enacted when China does choose to mobilize its forces.
(No mail order brides for uncle Hu's best) Why would they mobilize their forces?? To keep peace and tranquility at home, and to keep their emerging giant economy chugging along. Will they develop a new energy source?? Possibly; but for the near and immediate future they will probably just take what is already in place. Where?? ME oil from whatever country, but Iran and Iraq are the nearest to their borders (Persian Gulf region). Can the US stop this from happening?? Perhaps, but not with anything that it calls leadership today. The US will only do the unthinkable in a doomsday or last resort scenario. If the former Soviet Union did not think that China was a threat, then it would not have put so many divisions on its Southern border with China for all those years. Maybe KSO can offer more light on this subject. The Islamic problem will continue to occupy the main attention of the US. If and When it weakens the conventional forces of the US (& key allies), look for China to offer "solutions" and then intervention. The important aspect is for Israel to remain strong in its resistance towards terrorism. Don't be lulled into dangerous treaties and false peace accords. Use all your resources and find the others that are already there.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Hierophant
Even tho you are making reasonable points you loose credibility with these arrogant remarks. well arrogant yourself.
i said that because it's only from US source that I heard this reasonning. I'm afraid I have to repeat terrorism does not work like that. Wether I say it respectfully or not, it's the same conclusion.

No, invading iraq is not the panacea to "vaporize" all existing terrorists who will all come running at US troops in Iraq like lemmings.

Even Rumsfled ended up realizing that "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?". No you are not.

And one of the best way is just to stop torturing and humiliating iraqis. It just drives them mad and it's inevitable they seek vengeance.


The very best way to go at terrorism is to FIRST establish a just peace between israel and palestine, because the main root cause in there (OK you have two now with iraq).
Precisely the opposite of what the Bush administration did.





Originally posted by Hierophant
At first glance, your point certainly seems logical, but it misses a few important details.Aah "important details"?



Originally posted by Hierophant
First you assume that education can solve this problem. I do agree, that education is probably the most important weapon.I'm not too sure I talked about education. Why not?


Originally posted by Hierophant
any effective education is actually going to take generations. But you do have to take into account, that any attempt to 'educate' is immediately seen as part of the 'war on islam' mm I don't really think you can 'educate' like that.

I'd simply say you can create conditions where you do not consistently provocate arabs and muslems. The opposite of invading iraq, as a matter of fact.
I support the invasion of afghanistan, though for reasons I explained before. But invading iraq is not a solution. The solution is providing the conditions for freedom and development in the arab world.
(And that's why Europe contributes much more to rebuilding afghanistan than the US... as for iraq, like Powell said "you break it, you own it").




Originally posted by Hierophant
It would be much like if the english speaking world decided to educate the french that the french language is no longer needed. just don't try that.

We've already been subjected by Bush to the threat that "we should support the invasion of iraq or be with the terrorists". Now I don't think we want to be "educated" the way you said either ;)

btw I hope you remember Condy said her intentions are to "punish France". For me I keep that in mind when thinking how the US plan to 'educate' me.

I repeat: france and europe did not oppose the invasion of iraq just for the sake of it, but mostly because it was the worst thing to do (well it depend which side you look on, for ben laden it was the *best* thing bush could do).






Originally posted by Hierophant
One could assert that by giving into the demands of the islamists, that the 'war on terrorism' could be done with. no way.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
The very best way to go at terrorism is to FIRST establish a just peace between israel and palestine, because the main root cause in there (OK you have two now with iraq).
Precisely the opposite of what the Bush administration did.
The usual mantra of the left.

"Give us Israel on a platter or we'll destroy the world".

That's why Bin Laden has targetted Saudi Arabia. That's why extremist Moslems are thriving in Europe, N. America, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chechnya and the Philipines. All because of Israel, of course.

This has nothing to do with Moslems and Islam, irregardless of Israel. Of course not.

All this coming from a poster in that shi**y little European country called France. Surprise!

Try reading what Bin Laden Says and what he does. The 9/11 plot was hatched by bin Laden in 1996. The US was not in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. Israel, under Rabin had unilatreally implemented the Oslo accords, using your dimwitted philosophy called "Land For Peace", only to get more terror than there ever was before.

Unlike Czekeslovalia before WWII, we won't let you Euorpean twats feed us to the Islamic alligator of appeasement. Bin Laden can nuke Paris, for all we care, after Eurabia cries that it can't deliver the goods to the terrorist mafiosos you're so keen on appeasing.

The role of the Middle Eastern Robin Hood, unlike his Western prototype, is not to rob the rich and give to the poor, though some such expectation may lurk in the background; it is rather to defy the strong and to protect--and ultimately avenge--the weak. For Osama bin Laden and his merry men, the Sheriff of Nottingham is their local potentate, whichever that may be. The ultimate enemy, King John, lives far away, as he has always done--in Constantinople and Vienna, London and Paris, and now in Washington and New York.

This vision, comforting though it may be to those who hold it, is flawed at both ends. King John was not a democrat, and Robin Hood was not a terrorist. We live in a different world, and at a different level of reality. Those who cherish such delusions will sooner or later suffer a painful but salutary awakening.
- Bernard Lewis, Deconstructing Osama (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002168)

[Donna]

"Nobody moves, or the Jews get it...again. What we really mean is nobody moves or the Jews will get it again, and we'll kill anybody else we want."

[Mira~]

Originally posted by varian
FiThe Chinese are gaining choke points around the world, which will give them both political and military advantage should the occasion arise. Their standing army is at 200 million plus, and because of China's history of gender selection, there will be an excess of pent up testoterone in that army. That means that the world may see a "keep what you conquer" policy enacted when China does choose to mobilize its forces.
(No mail order brides for uncle Hu's best) Why would they mobilize their forces?? To keep peace and tranquility at home, and to keep their emerging giant economy chugging along. Will they develop a new energy source?? Possibly; but for the near and immediate future they will probably just take what is already in place. Where?? ME oil from whatever country, but Iran and Iraq are the nearest to their borders (Persian Gulf region). Can the US stop this from happening?? Perhaps, but not with anything that it calls leadership today. The US will only do the unthinkable in a doomsday or last resort scenario. If the former Soviet Union did not think that China was a threat, then it would not have put so many divisions on its Southern border with China for all those years. Maybe KSO can offer more light on this subject. The Islamic problem will continue to occupy the main attention of the US. If and When it weakens the conventional forces of the US (& key allies), look for China to offer "solutions" and then intervention. The important aspect is for Israel to remain strong in its resistance towards terrorism. Don't be lulled into dangerous treaties and false peace accords. Use all your resources and find the others that are already there.

China will become increasingly important in world affairs, I agree with that, but I don't see them offering much of anything in terms of solutions to the ME. Keep your eyes and ears open for Turkey. Turkey will become one of the most strategically important countries in the world because of its unique culture, history, and geographic position. Turkey has always been the place where East meets West, it is a model for a secular, democratic, Islamic State, it's one of the strongest NATO members...and so on. The very sad part is to see that as soon as Turkey started to assume its role in world affairs, Turkish leaders for the first time ever began to use the same sort of bellicose speech as the Europeans and Arabs. Maybe it is in part for show and to win credibility in the Arab world, I don't know, but some of the comments that have been made are shocking for Turkey of all countries, which reminds me...in this scenario, everybody does ok except for the Kurds.

[Mediocrates]

This is for another day but China is rapidly approaching a point in their development where they may fail disasterously. For a number of reasons, among them:

The law of large numbers - very high GCR marginal growth rates (8-9%) are sustainable when the raw numbers are quite small. But at the economy grows, those marginal rates become unsustainable in terms of the actual dollars required to do them.

The dichotomy between capitalism and communism. Chinese control of the economy albeit regionalized is fairly complete and far reaching. While economic free trade and development zones work for those regions, the aggregate demands of growth will require the the Communist party relinquish control in ways they have never accepted. Moreover the Communist system begets corruption and a tendency not to invest capital.

The false banking and capital system. Foreign banks have been happy to buy up bad Chinese debt in the hope of acquiring market share. But the Chinese banking system seems to have few regulatory controls. This would cause capital to flow out of the system and eventually bankrupt it.

Exports equals growth. With little internal consumer market sectors essentially all of Chinas productive growth must go into fueling exports that must be absorbed by an increasingly cash poor and competitive world. Eventually China will be unable to increase its export economy and the whole economy will begin to crash.

China does not have a standing army of anything like 200 million. Possibly 5 million probably less. In fact China has demobbed over 2 million solidiers in the last decade. China understands that there are few threats that China's huge land based army needs to or is a position to defend itself from.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.rand.org/publications/OP/OP127/

Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq
Bruce Hoffman

Recommended Reading. An excellent analysis of what went wrong in Iraq and how it can be addressed or, how similar events can be addressed in the future. It goes into detail on availabel background information and experiences from other conflicts that can serve as a good framework for successful counterinsurgencies.

About 24 pages

[Hierophant]

Theres so much to go into in trying to understand the 'enemy' and how to combat against them. But once this info is understood, I believe it is impossible to come to the conclusion that by "just leaving em be, so that we dont create more terrorists" will never work.

If we go back to the afghanistan jihad against the russians, we see that these ppl were strongly encouraged to go fight, and that what they were doing was pious in nature. But, when the fighting was basically over and they wanted to go home, nobody wanted them. It was like as if America refused to let the vietnam vets return home. We are all aware (or shold be) of the psychological repurcussions that war has on men. They've been conditioned to kill ruthlessly. Which makes it very hard to integrate them back into regular society. Especially a society that is seen to be somewhat kuffar compared to what they were able to start in afghanistan. So did the jihad end when the russians withdrew? of course it didnt. being ppl unwanted in their own countries did little to help.

These ppl never recieved the psychological help they so desperately needed. So the indoctrination that was used to make them want to fight was still deeply ingrained in their psyches, and became an integral part of their 'new society.' Generations were born into this.

One needs to understand that as part of this indoctrination, jihad is not a battle that is to be won or lost. It is something that is meant to go on and on until the end of days.... until islam's prophecies are fulfilled. Even if the entire world were to convert to islam, jihad would have to continue. afterall, all the 71 'devient' sects need also to be destroyed.

These ppl that consider jihad a pillar of islam know, that without jihad, their lives are meaningless. Which means they will have to create meaning for their lives .... and that would come in the form of another jihad.

SO the jihad against the kuffar will always be a threat. appeasing them in one arena, emboldens them in another. They strike out when they are strong, and hide in caves and behind women when they are weak. fight them now where you designate, or fight them later where they decide. Personally i prefer the proactive approach.

Fight them now in a place of our choosing. and while that fight rages on, tackle the hashashin and ibn taymiyya (sp?) indoctrination that has diseased the islamic world so much. The 'root cause,' is the bidah introduced by these doctrines. These are the two 'fronts' in which this war is to be fought.

[Mediocrates]

We make far too much out of weepily trying to understand our enemy. It is not important the reason they are bronze age murderous zealots. It doesn't matter that the few are mentally ill or martyrs or imagine a virgin-soaked afterlife. It doesn't matter they are poor or they have 12 siblings or their mother works on her back and their papa beats them. It doesn't matter the Wall or the town well down the unpaved street is 347th most holy site in Islam. It doesn't matter if they do it for the voices in their heads, money, glory or poontang.

What matters is they are crushed utterly and that everyone who actively supports them is crushed likewise even if that means taking terrorism back to them on their own terms.