Let me restate what you stated:Originally Posted by BPC
Which has NO basis in fact. Terrorist acts in the US happen with such a sporadic timeline it is impossible to say that more or less terrorism has been created in the US.The question we were discussing, however, is something entirely different -- namely, whether the Iraq War has created more terrorism of the type seen on 9/11. At least in the United States, the answer has been a resounding no
Add that to the fact that many have been arersted in suspicion of terrorist acts and even some with plans (albeit not well formed) is an indication of the opposite.
So are you saying now that a decrease in terrorism does not mean we are safer?
I am saying that there is no proven decrease in it, and therefore we are not safer from it, and in my book that means we are not safer.
If you did not mean to imply we are safer by saying terrorist attacks have not gone up (with an already known increase in domestic security) then you may need to rephrase your statement.
The two were not connected. But saying that all muslims act as a whole is ludicrous. Acts of American Imperialism will have a definite effect on the reactions of the radical muslim sects.My point was there is no correlation whatsoever between acts of Al Qaeda-based domestic terrorism and whether our foreign policy is nominally pro or anti-muslim. Clinton launched military to save muslims, and 9/11 followed.
Analogy: No matter how much fresh water you add to a sewer line, you will still not be able to drink it. And only one drop of bad water can ruin hundreds of gallons of fresh water. So any acts that the US is seen doing as impreialistic will do more damage than 100 times the beneficial acts will do to help our relationship.
Bottom line: The small effect of good intended acts does not corrolate with the large reaction from bad ones.
Stop correlating directly. How long was it between 9-11 and the original bombing? How many roadside bombs and other attacks have gone off attacking our American troops overseas? Saying that there has not been a Tornado in Kansas in 5 years does not mean there will not be another one. (not saying we can control the weather, that is where the analogy ends). Saying that there has not been a 9-11, although there have been some plans for other events that were not able to be carried through, since Bush invaded does not remove them from the realm of possibilities or prove that Muslims are not effected by it. The tow are two faer apart to be associated directly.Bush has occupied 2 muslim countries, and to date no 9/11 like event has followed.
Yes it does! Geez man, I am not playing "who's right who's wrong" here, but you seem to be getting all up in that.That does not mean it won't; only that, whether it will or won't doesn't have a damn thing to do with our foreign policy.
HAVING A FOREIGN MILITARY FORCE CLOSE TO YOU IN YOUR HOMELAND THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR OWN STANCE IS A DEFINITE RECRUITMENT INFLUENCE FOR RESISTING FORCES!
Now you are generalizing and lumping everyone in the same boat. Putting quotes around a group that opposes different actions in order to lend less creedence to their statements by implied incompetency in these issues.The "blame America" crowd would like to argue that, but the facts are just the opposite.
I may not agree with a lot of the most vocal in the group, but when someone says "bullets kill" it is hard to argue with them just because they do not like guns in general.
It is not a question of growing, but how fast and where would it be directed.Islamic fundamentalism exists and will continue to exist and grow regardless of our foreign policy. That is not to say there aren't good reasons for why the Iraq War was a mistake -- there are a lot of them. Stopping domestic terrorism just isn't one of them.
And since when did anyone say that the CAUSE of domestic terrorism was the invasion of Iraq? You are twisting the issue.
Again:
The military action in Iraq has proven to be an incentive for recruitment for foreign radical Islamic elements.
What? The war, in the long run, will discourage terrorism?It won't cause the enemy to give up, but it may, in the long run, discourage them, even just a little, which is better than nothing at all.
Oh come ON! By your own comment about the occupation in Cyprus being ongoing and therefore it is not historical and the anger evidenced by former Cyprusians over 25 years after the event, you invalidate your own statement saying that this will discourage them "in the long run".
It just does not work that way. When people do not have anything, they are less willing to settle with something they are not happy with. These people have little to lose besides their idealogy, and their leaders know this. They use it as the fuel, that we are a threat to the only thing that they really have in their life that is valuable.
Once you do that, it is very difficult to put logical solutions on the table. You have to deal with emotional. Until we start looking at it that way, we will never be safer, they will never be happy, and we will never get what we want.
This discussion has gotten specifically off-topic that I won't continue it any more, except to say that I never said -- and do not believe -- that "all mulsims act as a whole." The threat we are facing is from a militant fascist movement born from one sect of Islamic society, just as Nazism was born of one sect of Christian society, and neither society as whole deserves to be tarred from the brush of its worst element.
There is a big difference. The French might not be so forgiving of the sins committed by the Germans in the 1940s if they still occupied Paris.
Philistines and Jews have been hating each other for over 3000 years. Now they're called Palestinians and Israelis.
.
Last edited by ablarc; July 13th, 2006 at 12:25 PM.
To bring this discussion back to center:
The focus seems to be the memorial family groups, and if their actions are enabled by our fears of terrorism; or is it just a manifestation of the present attitudes toward victim entitlement and memorial building?
Roadside teddy bears.
I think the original discussion got kicked off over a disagreement as to whether Al Qaeda's goal was to "permanently destroy the financial district" and whether the slow and contentious pace of rebuilding has "handed Al Qaeda a victory".
Now, there is a quote I cannot argue with.
New York Post
July 18, 2006
MISTY MOURNING
By Richard Johnson
The 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero - the two square pools in the footprints of the Twin Towers - will produce a rising mist when conditions are right, especially cool mornings, memorial architect Michael Arad said at a Whitney Museum reception the other night. The party was hosted by Leonard Lauder and Howard Rubenstein to show off the new exhibition, "Full House: Views of the Whitney Collection At 75." Arad told The Post's Lois Weiss that his design is still evolving.
Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.
'when conditions are right' is so ambiguous, this thing better look like a fog hog damn near 365 days out of the year, especially considering the amount of $$$ that's being invested...
A cool morning might be a rarity, if Al Gore's right
[/quote]Oh come ON! By your own comment about the occupation in Cyprus being ongoing and therefore it is not historical and the anger evidenced by former Cyprusians over 25 years after the event, you invalidate your own statement saying that this will discourage them "in the long run".[/quote] by Ninjahedge
I don't really want to go on with the conversation either, but the idea that no action can work to deter terrorism because terrorism is ongoing is a gross overstatement. By that logic nothing stops terrorism or wars except for the complete dessimation of the enemy, the destruction of every man woman and child of the enemy. That, we have seen in the past, can bring a war to a halt. Almost nothing else does. Have we won the war with Russia yet? We declared it a victory, but I'm not sure where their President is taking them. I think Jews and Arabs are still fighing, going back 1000's of years. Hindu's and Muslims. Japanese and Chinese, is that conflict over?
The mere existence of conflicts does not prove that various actions don't contribute to the effort and deter war. Intelligence, deterence, counterattacks, rebuilding city walls, all can help deter enemies. A society at war should focus on doing a range of things to protect themselves. It's silly to say that because the struggle continues, nothing has been effective. Perhaps the actions taken have reduced the level of hostilities. There is just no way to prove it.
A society at war acts on all fronts as if it is at war. It spends its resources carefully to strategies that have the greatest affect. It acts in ways that strengthen the domestic resolve and reduce fear. We as a nation, haven't taken that approach to our current problems. We are manipulated by fear. We are building this memorial as if the war is distant past. We justify outrageously expensive actions on purely emotional basis without sound reasoning. We are making mistakes all over the place. Could we have stopped the current stuggle? No. Could we have been just as effective spending far less? Probably. Could we be doing a better job at addressing the core problems fueling the hostility? Almost certainly.
We are SO off topic, but I'll throw my two cents in a say I reject the notion that we are even at "war" with terrorism orthat it is even a posssibility. Terrorisim is a crime and it should be treated as such. Other countries have had far more serious interactions with terrorists (UK, Spain, Italy) and they have never gone out and declared a "war" on terrorism. They work to uncover plots and stop them and stay one step ahead, but this notion of a "War on Terror" is just terminology designed to make anyone critical of the fallacy seem unpatriotic and timid. We are witnessing a war on our Constitution - that is terrorism. We are witnessing a war on our privacy - that is terrorism. We are witnessing a class war by the ruich and privileged against the middle class and poor - that is terrorism.
I reject the whole terminology being thrust upon us.
deter, more like mitigate
I think instead of saying 'deter', we, as a country, should start looking for was to mitigate hostilities in the future, whether it be domestic terrorism, or even Middle-Eastern conflict.
As someone has already stated terrorism is here, and always will be (with varying degrees of intensity) and other countries (i.e. Spain and Italy) have had more serious encounters.
Again, focus on mitigation, elimination is wishful thinking...
I beg to differ that either Spain or Italy has had more serious terrorist attacks than 9/11.
The terminology is even more prevalent elsewhere:
Selections from an older article, still relevant…
World War III: Four Years and Counting
By Steven Stalinsky
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 9, 2005
The war against the West which was brought to the U.S. on September 11, 2001 has continued throughout the world in places such as Spain and London – which has been referred to by leading Arab writers as "a chapter in World War III". The attacks have included slitting throats, beheadings, blowing up planes, trains, and buses and are purposely brutal to instill terror. One notable example includes the suicide car bombing of a crowd of children receiving candy from U.S. soldiers in Iraq, killing 24 of them on July 14, 2005.
It is also important not to forget 9/11 took a long time to plan and implement as Al-Qaeda has promised more attacks are on the way. As a reminder, last month we heard from Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri twice including August 4th on Al-Jazzera: "Oh Americans, what you have seen in New York and Washington… are nothing but the casualties of the initial clashes…"
Other Al-Qaeda leaders have warned of future attacks. Islamists websites in June 2002 quoted the group’s spokesman at the time, Suleiman Abu Gheith, promising Al-Qaeda will be "continuing our blows against the U.S." and that "America must prepare itself… Allah willing the blow will come from where they least expect it." He warned: "We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands …"
Islamist websites also carried an interview with Abu Salma Al-Hijazi, a close associate of bin Laden in November 2003 promising a "huge and very courageous strike" by Al-Qaeda. He predicted the number of "infidels" killed will exceed 100,000 warning: "We are patient," and that "our patience will only end with the collapse of America and its agents.”
Mahfouz Walad Al-Walid, otherwise known as Abu Hafs "the Mauritanian" was interviewed on November 30, 2001 on Al-Jazeera explaining Al-Qaeda's philosophy: "One of the acts of grace of this generation was to kill the Americans, to incite to this killing, to fight in the Jihad against them with full force. I and my brothers in the Al-Qaeda organization… swore an oath to carry out the mission…" Abu Hafs made an ominous warning that the U.S. will be destroyed: "In our opinion, America has entered the phase of the beginning of the end."
Al-Qaeda's stance on the destruction of the U.S. is shared by many prominent Islamic scholars who frequently appear in the Arab media. One example is Saudi professor Nasser Bin Suleiman Al-Omar, speaking on the Saudi owned Al-Majd TV on June 13, 2004: "Today, America is defeated. I have no doubt, not even for a minute that America is on its way to destruction. But as Ibn Khaldoun said, just as it takes decades for nations to rise, it takes them decades to collapse. They don't collapse overnight… It will be destroyed gradually. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."
The amount of talk on Arab TV calling for the destruction of the U.S. as well as ongoing celebrations of 9/11 cannot be understated. One such example is Sheikh Mahmoud Al-Masri who appeared on Al-Majd TV on March 2, 2005. He explained what it was like being in New York on 9/11 to an Arab audience who laughed with him when he described "how beautiful" it was as the World Trade Center fell and the reaction of the “wretched” American people who quickly embraced Islam.
.
I agree with that, but BR brings up a good point about classifying this terrorist crime as a war. Doing so attaches conditions that are present in a war, specifically fighting on the homefront, that have lead to statements made in this thread and others about memorial building, and not allowing the terrorists to win by going about our normal lives.
A parallel can be drawn to the "war" on crime in New York City. I was in the middle of that war in the 70s. As is done today, we were advised to go about our normal lives, to ride the subways to work every day; but we were also advised not to display jewelry or check our wallets. So what defeated the criminals? Were they deterred by me standing defiantly on the F train, or was it good police work and me not flashing a Rolex while hanging on to the pole?
And is the war on crime over? Of course not, because it was never really a war. There will always be criminals, and there will always be terrorists. You defeat them in the same manner.
Sending a message to the enemy was a characteristic of the people of London in 1940 and Berlin in 1944. Lower Manhattan today is more like me riding the F train in 1979. Memorial building would not have been substantially different had 09/11 been a horrible accident instead of a crime.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks