Call me ignorant, but what are these things that the Guerillas are scared of? Are they tactics that the geneva convention (or our government) forbids our soldiers to use?
Simply inquisitive on this one.
At the risk of starting a flame war, the notion of using MAD is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
Nuke 25 cities for every one they nuke? That works great if someone is stupid enough to shoot a missile at us, but if a suitcase bomb goes off, we would be reduced to nuking cities at random. Fuck it, pick names out of a hat and kill off 50 or 60 million people.
Kill a dozen people for every one of ours the terrorists kill? I suppose we could start offing prisoners, but at a 12:1 ratio, they won?t last too long. What then? Oh, I know, we could just round up people off the street. Shit, we could even set up death camps with gas chambers and ovens to be really efficient! Maybe you?re on to something there.
Sarcasm aside, even if we did do all of this, it still wouldn?t work. These people are already suicide bombing us. They are killing themselves; do you think they will care if we start killing other people? In Islam, if you die in a holy war, it?s a free ticket to heaven. In the minds of the terrorists, we would be doing them a favor.
Ok look, I don?t claim to be an expert on the middle east, but I did live there for a few years when I was younger, so I can speak from experience somewhat. The majority of Arabs ARE decent folks, and ARE moderates. The thing is, a moderate Arab isn?t anywhere close to a moderate westerner. The Middle East is a relatively isolated, homogenous place, full of poverty and ignorance. Add in the absolute power of religion, and you have a mixture much like Europe of the middle/dark ages. (Think: the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts, et cetera) Of course, terrorism is directed more outward (currently, I suspect this may change soon), but I would still rather be blown up than die on the rack or be burned alive.
The Arab world is on a cusp. Their pride insists that they keep up with the rest of the world economically and technologically, but their religion, and more specifically their implementation of religion as the law of the land, is holding them back. I think these terrorists see the coming wave of secularization and are trying to hold back the tide. That is why they have so much popular support to one degree or another: there is a huge element of Arabic society that sees these bastards as heroic for attempting to hold off the ?moral degradation? of the Arab world. I think that they are not fighting us as much as they are fighting to keep their way of life. Man does no greater evil than when he truly believes that right is on his side. I also think that is why the moderates have such a difficult time speaking up, not only are they afraid of becoming targets, but they are unable to reconcile their desire for progress and their desire for the status quo as far as religion is concerned.
So I guess that is my suggestion as to what needs to happen in order for terrorism to end: the mass secularization of the Middle Eastern world. I?m not saying they need to abandon Islam, just adopt a much less harsh version of it, and get rid of Islamic law. How can the west help? While we may have screwed the pooch with this whole Iraq deal, I would suggest a three pronged approach:
Fund moderate opposition groups
Iran would be a good place to start. It has been on the verge of imploding for a while. It was once one of the more moderate Arab nations, and the only reason a revolution went down is that the Shah was a real douche bag. (My folks taught at an American school in Tehran, and barely made it out when the whole thing went down.)
Invest and encourage investment in moderate nations
Jordan, Dubai, and Kuwait would be good places to start. If everyone is making a ton of money, it?s hard to be pissed off. When the Arab world sees that it is possible to get along with the west and still be good Muslims, they will begin to come around.
Switch to a hydrogen based economy
This is by far the most important, IMO. Let?s face it, if we didn?t need oil, we could afford to ignore the Middle East as much as we ignore Africa. Sure it would cost billions of dollars, but what?s the latest tally for the war(s)? This would remove the leverage that Saudi has over us, as well as removing the main source of money for the region. They would be forced to industrialize or go back to herding camels full time. To be competitive would require technology which would require education, which would require secularization. (The science classes of religious schools aren?t so good.) I suspect that women would need to enter the workforce, and that that would have much the same liberating effect as it did on American women.
Ok, done finally. Damn, didn?t realize I had so much to say on the subject.
western civilization vs islamic civilization = quagmire
there’s no easy answer to any of this fucking mess…and neither side seems to be willing to back down…both have convinced themselves that they are in the right.
but…if things don’t start to cool off there’s a good chance that millions will wind up dying on both sides…
You wouldn’t be angry if you were invaded and brutalized for no reason? Somebody tell me the justification in going to war with Iraq, and I’ll back down.
In reference to the fact that there are some Islamist moderates and academics out there that are beginning to finally speak out against extremism, there’s an interesting new debate arising regarding the so-far ‘sacrosanct’ interpretations of the Koran (or Quran). Until recently, scholars dared not to question (at least publicly) anything the Imams said for fear of reprisals, but the level of extremism and the violence being carried out now has some bringing the results of their studies public.
The key concern these academics have over the historical interpretation of the Koran centers on the words used in relation to descriptions of Heaven for the martyr. Apparently, there is no explicit statement that the martyr will get his 70 virgins in Heaven (this was expressed by a key religious figure a long time ago - he extrapolated on the terminology used and built this concept, including the notion that a “normal, earth-bound” male would pass out instantly from the pleasures these virgins can provide…can’t enjoy it until you’re dead!) - and when you are raised in a shithole with jihadist propaganda and sexual repression pounded down your throat daily in one of the “schools” then this sounds very enticing (also part of the reason for so few arab female suicide bombers - not the same incentive to get to heaven).
Instead of virgins, the words used in the Koran are more accurately interpreted as “white grape wine” - that’s right, blow your ass up for Allah and you can enjoy some fucking wine in Heaven! Obviously not the same incentive as the virgins…
Getting the various Arab governments to promeote this type of healthy debate is what is needed to help address extremist issues at the ‘grassroots’ level. Unfortunately, with so much of the education coming from the powerful religious schools and these governments’ hesitation in confronting the religious leaders, I don’t see much hope in things changing for the better any time soon.
Yanbu - no flames from me. Debate is what is needed. That’s just my tow cents. I have worked over there and a lot of other third world hell holes.
My opinion is that the only thing that will stop terrorism is the a fate to horrible to imagine in response.
I fear for my families safety now! I want the terrorists to feel the same way. Maybe that gives them time to think rationally.
Reprisals are one of the only truly effective ways to stop and irregular enemy. It turns the populace that harbors them against them. Brutal yes. Effective yes.
Alright. To those that think that in my post, I said that we should go in and brutalize everyone in the country, you could not have been further off my point. What I’m saying is if they (terrorists, Islamic extremists, etc) are confronted with something so horrible and unspeakable, they will have no motivation to fight anymore…EVERYONE has a limit. For example…Back in the Phillipines, there was a little muslim problem that had to be dealt with and Gen. MacArthur had a very good idea on how to handle it. He used their religion against them. This was not applied to EVERY muslim in the country, but just the few asshole that were causing the problems. What he did was have 5 Islamic extremists captured. He then had four of them executed leaving one of them alive to witness what was about to happen. He then had the four executed muslims buried with pig guts, shit, and bodyparts (in case you didn’t know; pigs are a no-no in that religion.) He had the lone survivor sent back to whereever the fuck it was that he was from to tell all his buddies what the Americans did…and whaddya know? The problem stopped. The moral of this story is this: maybe they aren’t afraid of dying, but they sure as fuck are afraid of an eternity in hell, and we used this against them. Those four executed men buried with pig guts and shit are now roasting in the deepest pit of hell because their final resting place is with that of the dirtiest, nastiest, most demeaning animal in their culture. That’s what they’re afraid of.
Because of their religion, the islamic extremists and terrorists have a weakness; just like we have a weakness because we are so damn nice. We have to make it so it’s like this; “If you fuck with us, we’ll make damn sure you not only die, but you go to hell too. All you gotta do is leave us alone.” I say we round up all the bodies of those motherfuckers we kill in say, Afghanistan, and bury them in mass graves with pig shit. That’ll put the dagger of fear into the hearts of those that wish us harm. Extreme enemies require hellish tactics. RLTW
rangertab75
There are some real problems in the teachings of Islam. The problem is that mohammed was blood thirsty and greedy for power and glory. The problem the moderates face against the extremists is that the Koran is on the side of the extremists. I have known some nice people who were Muslim, but they didn’t get that way from their religion. The Islamic world has to face up to these issues and deal with them or they are going to have to perish.
I don’t know about a full scale MAD approach, but I do think we need to go after them hard, and pursue the doctrine Bush announced after 9/11, which is namely to take out any regimes that support terrorism. I like what the article I linked proposed, in terms of basing a strikeforce to take out regimes, as opposed to an occupying force. This would require more coordination with native insurgents so as not to leave a complete power vaccuum, but it would focus the force on those who deserve it while minimizing our casualties and minimizing the use of our military as a national police force.
Wall Street Journal Editorial
Know Thy Enemy
September 23, 2004; Page A14
Americans horrified at the latest hostage beheadings in Iraq might be interested to know that there’s at least a debate among their captors about how to kill infidels. Some within the Islamofascist community believe that bullets, rather than knives, are Allah’s preferred method. About the propriety of killing innocents, there is no debate.
Or so says an Islamist fighter who recently met with archterrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Fallujah, as interviewed in the Arabic language London daily Al Hayat and translated by the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute (www.memri.org). He added that “there is no dispute regarding anyone who collaborates with the occupation – he is a traitor and must be killed.”
The interview deserves the attention of anyone who thinks the violence we’re facing has something to do with an awakening of genuine Iraqi patriotism. On the one hand, we have Baathists making a crass attempt to recapture the privileges they enjoyed under the former regime. Working hand in glove are foreign terrorists who conceive of themselves as fighting not just to liberate Iraq from the Americans, but as part of a regional war aimed at “other places, such as Jerusalem” as well: “[Zarqawi] has a strategy and an aspiration to expand the fighting to the entire region.”
The source also reveals Zarqawi’s view that Iraq’s majority Shiites practice an “infidel ideology.” While he says Zarqawi, who is Sunni, would prefer having them “atone to Allah” rather than have to kill them, he has no qualms about doing so as long as they continue in heretical error and work for an “apostate regime.”
It’s worth remembering that Zarqawi had fewer qualms about the secular Saddam, with whom he worked visibly enough to be cited in Colin Powell’s February 2003 U.N. presentation. He had already been linked to the murder of an American diplomat in Amman and a ricin plot in London, and he has since been tied to an attempted poison gas attack on U.S. and other targets in the Jordanian capital. Of course, opponents of deposing Saddam keep telling us the old regime had no connections to terrorism. But we certainly feel safer knowing that one half of the Saddam-Zarqawi alliance now resides in an Iraqi jail.
I don’t know if anyone is paying any attention to this, but the US govt is currently playing into the hands of the the people it claims to be fighting. Previous US regimes have helped arm Saddam, Osama and Omar, and now the US is helping Pak’s ruler Musharraf to build a nuclear arsenal. Any protest by India meets the standard response (usually by the Ministry of External Affairs, India)the Bush regime asking us to have patience.
I don’t see how you can fight what you guys call the jehadist ideology when American troops defend the most illiberal regime in the world, the Saudis, who have banned churches and considers Christians as infidels. The Saudis don’t even mind that one of their sheikhs have actually degraded non-muslims while making a statement which supposedly denounced terrorism.
I’m refering to prominent cleric, Sheik Saleh bin Abdullah al-Humaid, who explained that “killing a soul without justification is one of the gravest sins under Islam; it is as bad as polytheism.”
All the so-called jehadists are people encouraged by regimes which have been supported by the US. It’s no use denying that the Ayatollahs are in command in Iran, because the US sabotaged democracy in Iran. And now, it has placed a pro-Iranian govt in Kabul.
Some years later, the US will be fighting the Pakistan army and then you chaps will be discussing once again, “Why do they hate us?”
I highly recommend that all of you who are really interested in this subject and its effect on the current situation read this book: Anonymous, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”. This was mentioned in a thread a while back, but it died. This book will scare the crap out of you.
Porkchop
Ranger, thanks for the clarification. If action can be safely targeted to armed militants without the danger of affecting persons only suspected of being involved, then my concerns mostly evaporate.
I’m not convinced it will solve the bigger problems. I’d still expect that other things will have to happen, with or without prompting by the west via direct or indirect means, before things will settle down.
Anyone else appreciate Rangertab’s hard-ass approach?
Keep it up.
JeffR
hedo
Ok, man its sounds like we are pretty much on the same page. In your previous post it sounded alot like you were advocating brutalizing the populace at large.
I think that rangertab my have the best idea i’ve heard yet with the buried in pig shit deal. We could just send the oil tankers back full of pig crap. lol. If nothing else we’d fertilize a whole bunch of desert.
This seems to indicate a serious propaganda program could work in Iran:
Exile call prompts Iran protests
By Sadeq Saba
BBC regional analyst
A call from a US-based Iranian TV personality has prompted thousands of Iranians to protest for more freedoms.
People took to the streets of the capital, Tehran, and other cities on Sunday after Ahura Pirouz Khaleghi Yazdi urged protests across Iran.
The exile has predicted Iran’s Islamic government will fall on 1 October.
Nobody had heard of Mr Yazdi until a few months ago when he set up a satellite channel in California to try to overthrow the Iranian government.
Since then he has become a hot topic of conversation both among disaffected Iranians and exiled opposition groups.
For several weeks he has been declaring that he intends to return to Iran on 1 October to end the rule of Islamic clerics.
He has called on the Iranian diaspora to accompany him in his so-called liberation flight and has urged his supporters inside the country to stage protests.
He is advocating peaceful means and civil disobedience.
TV power
Mr Yazdi, who seems to be about 50, apparently left Iran when he was a child - and his command of the Persian language is poor.
The pro-government press in Tehran has described him as insane.
His simplistic views about overthrowing the Islamic government singlehandedly have also angered serious exile opposition leaders who have labelled him a demagogue.
But analysts say the fact that thousands of people heeded his call and took to the streets on Sunday evening proves that Iranians are desperate for change.
The Yazdi phenomenon also shows how US-based opposition satellite TV stations are becoming an important means of putting pressure on the Iranian government.
I just read this – it illustrates the mindset of those on the other side of the War on Terror. This is a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) – I don’t read Arabic, so I can’t check. FYI, bluey has implied in the past that MEMRI is not reliable because of connections to Israel.
MEMRI TV Project: Secretary-General of the Egyptian Labor Party: ‘Those Who Bomb Fallujah Cannot Prevent Me from Bombing Los Angeles’
Magdi Ahmad Hussein, the Secretary-General of the Egyptian Labor (Islamist) Party, recently appeared on Al-Jazeera TV, declaring that attacks against U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq are legitimate, and that hostage taking is permitted by Islam. He also called for clerics and fighters to go to fight in Iraq, defended the bombings in Taba, andargued that the American attack on Fallujah legitimizes a future terror attack in Los Angeles. To view the MEMRI TV clip of Hussein’s statements, visit MEMRI TV | MEMRI . The following are excerpts from the program: [1]
‘Legitimate Violence’ in Iraq and the Taba Attacks
"The violence is currently directed at the occupation. This is legitimate violence. This is Jihad against occupiers. 99% of the violent operations target the foreign occupation of the Arab and Islamic nation. Therefore, they are not included in the conflict with the [Arab] rulers.
"From the strategic perspective, the vast majority of operations are proper. As for Taba, as I’ve said, the entire Egyptian nation demands that tourists be banned from entering Egypt. It is inconceivable that Egypt has become a resort for the Israeli army.
“The Israeli army kills in Palestine in the morning and then comes to relax and gamble in Taba. Abominations that are forbidden in Israel, such as gambling, are allowed in Egypt. But the main issue is that Egypt has become a resort for the Zionist army.”
‘The Prisoners in Iraq - 99% of the Cases are Proper, According to Islamic Law’
"As for the hostages you spoke of, they are not hostages, sir, but prisoners. According to Islamic law, hostages can be redeemed, set free, or killed. When you are weak - you kill. The prisoners in Iraq, sir ? 99% of the cases are proper, according to Islamic law. All those who were killed were agents and partners of the occupation. 75% of the hostages were released in exchange for political gains.
"So how come some voices in the Islamic movement and official clerics tell us that killing prisoners is un-Islamic? No, both the Koran and the Prophet’s biography permit the killing of prisoners. This exists in our Islamic law and in the laws of all nations.
"Second, the war effort is not restricted to those who actually carry weapons. The war effort includes transporting supplies. Aren’t supply lines part of military activity? The Halliburton company and its efforts to steal the Iraqi oil ? aren’t they part of the war effort, whose goal is to steal Iraq’s resources? The war effort isn’t simply carrying weapons. An Iraqi interpreter working for an American soldier ? isn’t this part of the war effort? Undoubtedly, all those killed, as far as we know, were non-civilians.
"We are witnessing a stroke of genius. Because they are weak and cannot defeat the occupation right away, they have used this weapon of prisoners - not ‘hostages.’ The Italian women were released and we demand the release of the French journalists. No one demands they be killed. But as for those who work for American companies and those who came to exploit Iraqi resources, they are part of the American plan and aren’t innocent civilians.
“50 years ago, even before the American army arrived in Iraq, Sheik Shaltout said, ‘Anyone working in the enemies’ military camps and factories is one of them. He’s an enemy and he may be killed.’ This is what Sheik Shaltout, the great imam and Sheik of Al-Azhar in the mid-20th century, said. Whoever allies himself with the infidels and polytheists becomes one of them.”
‘The Mujahid Should be There [in Iraq], and the Cleric Should be There’
"The American casualties reach 47,000 dead and wounded, according to the American Veterans Association. 20% of the American forces were hurt, but the media only reports the Iraqi and Arab casualties.
"I’ve seen a film of the so-called ‘Monotheism and the Jihad,’ which is believed to be the organization of Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi. In the film, I saw that they neutralized a bomb because an Iraqi woman passed by the tank. Out of concern for one Iraqi woman’s life they neutralized a bomb and this appears in a film on the Internet and anyone can watch it. I’m not claiming that there are no mistakes. There are different opinions among the Iraqi resistance. But if you want to have an opinion, you should be with them, not us, sitting in air-conditioned rooms and telling them to do this that.
“The mujahid should be there, and the cleric should be there, like Ibn Taymiyya, who set out with the mujahideen to the front lines. But we want to issue fatwas telling them not to do this or that, not to attack so and so. It’s like us telling Hamas: ‘don’t attack buses lest an Israeli child be killed.’ Do you have another means? When the Americans bomb [in Iraq] they say they are looking for Abu Mus’ab and the casualties were killed by accident. The Americans have the right to kill civilians accidentally, while the Qassam rockets and the [suicide] martyrs should target only adults, men and women working in the Israeli army, and should tell the children to get off the bus!?”
‘If We had Missiles We should have Bombed Los Angeles’
"We are the weak ones. They make demands on us that don’t exist in international law. There must be reciprocity. If your city is being bombed? Those who bomb Fallujah cannot prevent me from bombing Los Angeles. Why Fallujah? Why do we always feel inferior to them? What is the meaning of this inferiority complex? If we had missiles we should have bombed Los Angeles or any other city until they stopped bombing Fallujah, Samarra, and Ramadi.
"Sir, why do the government clerics ignore the killing of the prisoners during the time of the Prophet? 600-700 prisoners were killed in the raid on the Qurayza tribe.
"Why do they conceal this? Why do they hide the fact that the Prophet gave the order to assassinate some poets ? to assassinate! Not in military operations, but rather by individual assassination.
“Why did he order the assassination of K’ab Ibn Ashraf, the Jew, leader of Khaybar ? And then he ordered the assassination of the leader who successive him. As a result, the Jews became fearful and terrified.”