So what. We got plenty of our own suck-ass contingents right here in the good 'ol USA, just replace Usama with Jesse, Rev Al or Rev Pat. It ain't exactly like most Pakistanis in that area are concerned with global geopolitical matters or US national defense. Their primary concern revolve around their own day to day existence and religion, and anyone willing to provide them with handouts or fan radical fervor is naturally going to get their sympathies. HOWEVER, they are not totally ignorant of the US (and Pakistani) government war efforts and have been warned repeatedly they may attacked if they help or harbor the guys we are gunning for. Let them chant, perhaps folks from the neighboring villiage will hear them and think twice before hosting the next planning session dinner.
Unfortunately we don't know who we killed b/c the bodies disappeared...all that were left were the innocent victims...but they are not innocent if they were around the house where the party was being held...
Personally, I think we probably already have a very accurate body count and 100% confirmed identification. I also think that same button would be pushed again, even if they knew the big cheese target was absent but some civilians were likely to be killed.
Personally, I think we probably already have a very accurate body count and 100% confirmed identification. I also think that same button would be pushed again, even if they knew the big cheese target was absent but some civilians were likely to be killed.
Civies.......maybe. If they are harboring terrorist, they lose the right to be civies and are to be bunched in with the rest of the scum bags.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
Civies.......maybe. If they are harboring terrorist, they lose the right to be civies and are to be bunched in with the rest of the scum bags.
I didn't mean to make it sound like our higher-ups would knowingly send a present with no legit target identified, ie., take out civilians only. Under every circumstance, I think our military is very cognizent of civilian collateral damage and makes effort to prevent it. That said, if there is clear and concise intel that several high-ranking AlQuada have met in one place at the same time, well, it's probably not in your best interest to take the catering job...
I didn't mean to make it sound like our higher-ups would knowingly send a present with no legit target identified, ie., take out civilians only. Under every circumstance, I think our military is very cognizent of civilian collateral damage and makes effort to prevent it. That said, if there is clear and concise intel that several high-ranking AlQuada have met in one place at the same time, well, it's probably not in your best interest to take the catering job...
I don't think we would do it for one guy...but when there are several around, you are no longer a civilian...more like a moving obsticle...
I don't think we would do it for one guy...but when there are several around, you are no longer a civilian...more like a moving obsticle...
I do, and would not recommend being seen in BinLaden's company whether it be in the mountains or the mall. If there is absolutely, positively, no question whatsoever as to his identity, assuming we are in a position to respond immediately, I suspect the guy is flash toast along with everything else around him.
here's the thing though folks, in the world of geo-realism, fact means basically nothing. We can rant on all we want aoub whether we killed innocents or not, and if it was justified or not, but that does absolutely fuck all for us in the goals we have set out. terrorist cells largely view themselves as freedom fighters or revolutionaries- as such, it is the grass roots support that makes them successful or not. There are nutters all over the world, but the ones that actually are relevant have large public support.
soo...when dealing with public support, fact means nothing, perception is everything. It doesn't matter how right we are, if we can't convince the average person of that. Recognising that moral rightousness is meaningless unless you convince your average joe of it is something that America has in turn excelled and sucked at. In this case, it appears to be the latter. Thats where well educated, internationally experienced people on the ground make the difference. The average middle easterner, much like the average american, cares about sustinance, shelter, belief (and ability to pursue/exist in a group that reinforces it). Average people do not offer thier sons as sacrifices or support turmoil if they feel there is another way. We need to convince people there is another way. That is all about perception. We need to get off the moral arguements entirely- unless we can frame them to mean something to the audience, blathering to ourselves is pointless....
So frustrating as someone with that diplomatic/foreign experience....people just don't get this basic fact..
irishworld - I couldn't agree with you more, which is why youl'll never see me make the moralistic equivelent of a 'our shit don't stink' argument. That said, I also think we are in an ideological war against a radical enemy who does. The ideology of jihad was formulated by Muslim theologians from the eighth century onward. It separates humanity into two hostile blocks — the community of Muslims, and the infidels. According to this ideology, Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the whole world in order to apply Koranic laws. Hence, they have to wage a perpetual war against the infidels who refuse to submit. Its principle is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels. The first is a superior group, whose mission it is to rule the world. The second must submit. How you can expect to effectively reverse centuries of deep-rooted religious hatred, frankly, is beyond me. I feel your argument ends when the "average middle easterner" fails to recognize or rise to the occasion.
irishworld - I couldn't agree with you more, which is why youl'll never see me make the moralistic equivelent of a 'our shit don't stink' argument. That said, I also think we are in an ideological war against a radical enemy who does. The ideology of jihad was formulated by Muslim theologians from the eighth century onward. It separates humanity into two hostile blocks — the community of Muslims, and the infidels. According to this ideology, Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the whole world in order to apply Koranic laws. Hence, they have to wage a perpetual war against the infidels who refuse to submit. Its principle is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels. The first is a superior group, whose mission it is to rule the world. The second must submit. How you can expect to effectively reverse centuries of deep-rooted religious hatred, frankly, is beyond me. I feel your argument ends when the "average middle easterner" fails to recognize or rise to the occasion.
What a cop out. Islam, like Christianity, if a product of intrepretation far more than theology.... The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, and there is bascially no popular jihadist movement there (Bali and the Mariott were widely condemed by the average person). In fact, ID is the most religiously diverse and one of the most tolerant societies on earth. Your understanding of modern Islam seems to be confined to what is a extremely narrow intrepretation followed by only a small sector. When it comes down to it, people don't fight wars for ideas- they fight them for resources or to preserve what they percieve to be a threatened existance. In this case it is the latter.
Again though, you say that because they fail to recognise or rise, they are wrong. Even if this were true, SO THE FUCK WHAT. How does the fact that they are wrong help us achieve our goals? Its not about religion, or justice, its about realism- how can we achieve our goals, alleviate the threat. It is most certainly not by blindly doing what we will. Perception means more than fact- whether we hate them because they are Muslim or not, it is percieved that way. If we want to acheive anything, that perception needs to be changed. That is the problem. And it hasn't always been that way. We were the saviors to large rebel muslim populations in Kosovo, and could have been to the Kurds. Moderate Gulf states hold no such 'clash of civilizations' nonsense as popular believe (by the way, it seems alot of your agrument is from that Huntington clash of civ book, which is academically irrelllevant, and disregarded by most serious mid-east academics and analysts for poor quality of research... if you want something that supports you better, try reading Edwaed Said, who I disagree with, but is least reputable).
Islam, like Christianity, if a product of intrepretation far more than theology.... The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, and there is bascially no popular jihadist movement there (Bali and the Mariott were widely condemed by the average person). In fact, ID is the most religiously diverse and one of the most tolerant societies on earth. Your understanding of modern Islam seems to be confined to what is a extremely narrow intrepretation followed by only a small sector. When it comes down to it, people don't fight wars for ideas- they fight them for resources or to preserve what they percieve to be a threatened existance. In this case it is the latter.
Okay, I’ve been out of the world news for a while………but I thought the Indonesia area was far from an area of religious tolerance. I thought that there were some serious issues with terrorist activities in the region and that there wasn’t much help from the governments of the region to help curb those activities.
I must also respectfully disagree that persons do not fight wars for ideas/ideals, but only for resources or their threatened existence. There are definitely examples of zealots fighting and killing for their ideals.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
Cop out... why? Most radical Muslims believe that Islam has been marginalised and oppressed, and that potent domestic and international forces are determined to deny Islam its rightful place at the centre of national life. I am careful to make the distinction between that small contingent of radicals that have voiced their intent to kill me, vs. all Muslims. I am not painting with a broad brush, thank you, but I do feel we are asking the same question: if a radical ideology is so deeply ingrained in a people who threaten your existence, how do you supplant that harmful ideology in an effort to protect yourself?
My only point was... is it even possible? What can possibly be accepted as it's replacement from an absolutist's point of view? As you note, there are nutter's all over the globe who have no interest in our [your] point of view. Is any diplomatic negotiation worthwhile under such a circumstance? It seems history has taught us that two adversaries attempting to negotiate between themselves is rarely productive. Agreements and understandings more often are the result of third party intermediaries. So where are they? Are both parties so reviled, no other nation will come to the aid? Or are they simply afraid to get involved? Perhaps they see a futility that preculdes getting involved.
From what I read violent radical Islamism in Indonesia as not a recent phenomenon. Jemaah Islamiyah is the largest and most sophisticated terrorist network in Southeast Asia and certainly sees itself as major part of a broader global jihadist movement. Its rhetoric is strongly jihadist and its ideology is absolutist. Since the '70s, increasing numbers of Southeast Asian Muslims have received their education in the Middle East. They have been exposed to more puritanical and radical expressions of the faith, such as Salafi and Wahabi thinking from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen which play right into continued JI recruitment. JI is estimated at several tens of thousands strong.
I think most Indonesians were ambivalent to the threat. Before the Bali bombing, they were either doubtful of the nature of the terrorist threat or reluctant to act against it for fear of a backlash from the Muslim community. Apathy exists until it hits home. After one bomb in their own backyard, funny how the government policies on terrorism changed so markedly. As a result, the radical revival there seems to have stalled in the past few years. There has been a shift in community attitudes to resist being drawn into renewed Muslim-Christian violence, and many Indonesians are now more inclined to see militant rhetoric as irresponsible and inflammatory. Mainstream Islamic leaders, especially those of more moderate persuasion, have helped to bring about this change by reasserting what they see as the essentially tolerant and pluralist teachings of their faith. Good for them for recognizing the need to change or police from within, it's key IMO.
You said "Again though, you say that because they fail to recognise or rise, they are wrong. Even if this were true, SO THE FUCK WHAT. How does the fact that they are wrong help us achieve our goals? Its not about religion, or justice, its about realism- how can we achieve our goals, alleviate the threat."
Well, I think we are in agreement. Apathy by the Muslim majority doesn't help us reach our goals. Again, IMO, lasting change needs to come from within one's own culture initiated by the majority. Outside influence alone has little hope of making lasting change or peace. Islamic radicalism has been part of several Countries' political and religious life since independence, and it's likely to remain so. The more important question is to what extent violence becomes a feature of radical behavior. In the past, political repression, socioeconomic deprivation and cultural alienation, as well as pressure and encouragement from elsewhere in the Islamic world, have all contributed to radical Islamic violence. The answer to peaceful coexistance is in there somewhere, and I suspect we need a whole lot more help from the non-radical Muslims to rein in their radical brethren.
Okay, I’ve been out of the world news for a while………but I thought the Indonesia area was far from an area of religious tolerance. I thought that there were some serious issues with terrorist activities in the region and that there wasn’t much help from the governments of the region to help curb those activities.
I must also respectfully disagree that persons do not fight wars for ideas/ideals, but only for resources or their threatened existence. There are definitely examples of zealots fighting and killing for their ideals.
A few zealots fighting for thier ideas hardly constitutes a war. The only time it turns into something massive (like a war) is when you can convince the average person to risk safetly and security for that- and the only reason the average person will do that, is material survival/gain. Call me a cold realist, but I can't think of a single war that was fundamentally facilitated by anything but (even though religion and ideals make a good cover story).
Indonesia- A few zealots, but the population as a whole are secular muslims. Although Muslims are the majority, they have universally rejected radical islam in any form, and over 25% of the population is Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Daoist, in that order. Not to mention some of the tribal religions in Irian Jawa. Point is, it is a TOTALLY different place than Iran. As a westerner there you are totally welcome, and comfortable. Most don't even go to Mosque regularily. Its about as radically Muslim as Ireland is Catholic- there are nutters that blow up shit every so often, but as long as people are not hungry or opressed, the normal population not only doesnt support it, but openly condemns terrorism.
Cop out... why? Most radical Muslims believe that Islam has been marginalised and oppressed, and that potent domestic and international forces are determined to deny Islam its rightful place at the centre of national life. I am careful to make the distinction between that small contingent of radicals that have voiced their intent to kill me, vs. all Muslims. I am not painting with a broad brush, thank you, but I do feel we are asking the same question: if a radical ideology is so deeply ingrained in a people who threaten your existence, how do you supplant that harmful ideology in an effort to protect yourself?
My only point was... is it even possible? What can possibly be accepted as it's replacement from an absolutist's point of view? As you note, there are nutter's all over the globe who have no interest in our [your] point of view. Is any diplomatic negotiation worthwhile under such a circumstance? It seems history has taught us that two adversaries attempting to negotiate between themselves is rarely productive. Agreements and understandings more often are the result of third party intermediaries. So where are they? Are both parties so reviled, no other nation will come to the aid? Or, are they simply afraid to get involved?
From what I read violent radical Islamism in Indonesia as not a recent phenomenon. Jemaah Islamiyah is the largest and most sophisticated terrorist network in Southeast Asia and certainly sees itself as major part of a broader global jihadist movement. Its rhetoric is strongly jihadist and its ideology is absolutist. Since the '70s, increasing numbers of Southeast Asian Muslims have received their education in the Middle East. They have been exposed to more puritanical and radical expressions of the faith, such as Salafi and Wahabi thinking from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen which play right into continued JI recruitment. JI is estimated at several tens of thousands strong.
I think most Indonesians were ambivalent to the threat. Before the Bali bombing, they were either doubtful of the nature of the terrorist threat or reluctant to act against it for fear of a backlash from the Muslim community. Apathy exists until it hits home. After one bomb in their own backyard, funny how the government policies on terrorism changed so markedly. As a result, the radical revival there seems to have stalled in the past few years. There has been a shift in community attitudes to resist being drawn into renewed Muslim-Christian violence, and many Indonesians are now more inclined to see militant rhetoric as irresponsible and inflammatory. Mainstream Islamic leaders, especially those of more moderate persuasion, have helped to bring about this change by reasserting what they see as the essentially tolerant and pluralist teachings of their faith. Good for them for recognizing the need to change or police from within, it's key IMO.
You said "Again though, you say that because they fail to recognise or rise, they are wrong. Even if this were true, SO THE FUCK WHAT. How does the fact that they are wrong help us achieve our goals? Its not about religion, or justice, its about realism- how can we achieve our goals, alleviate the threat." Well, I think we are in agreement. Again, IMO, lasting change needs to come from within one's own culture initiated by the majority. Outside influence alone has little hope of making lasting change or peace.
Islamic radicalism has been part of several Countries' political and religious life since independence, and it's likely to remain so. The more important question is to what extent violence becomes a feature of radical behavior. In the past, political repression, socioeconomic deprivation and cultural alienation, as well as pressure and encouragement from elsewhere in the Islamic world, have all contributed to radical Islamic violence. The answer to peaceful coexistance is in there somewhere, and I suspect we need a whole lot more help from the non-radical Muslims to rein in their radical brethren.
This tempers what you said before significantly and I agree with you on most of it. What I would say then is that if you can isolate the radicals, they become a nusicance, but not a legitimate long-term threat. There is no need to negotiate with a fringe movement if it is indeed fring- it can be contained and managed my indigenious forces. Think IRA in Ireland. Once you take away the motivation for local populace to support terrorist organizations (that is, you stop disenfranchising them totally), they will no longer support or tolerate such actions.
Indonesia is a particular spot of interest for me- I lived and traveled there for some time, speak the language, and run an Intel analysis flight that provides most of the US threat assessments for the country. See my below thread for more, but bascially, the threat is WAY overrated. JI originated and operated in Indonesia, but, hell, Al Queda has a huge basis in the UK, this does not mean that the UK public is a radical islamic society. Again, I think we agree on this. JI exists outlside of the public sphere in ID.
As for international help, again, you strike a good chord here- Malaysia has alreayd gone to significant lengths to address more active terrorist concerns in the Southern Philippines and in Southern Thailand, in recognition of the fact that JI adoption of the terrorist movement in these places would indeed be very bad. Unlike in ID, in TH and PH the radical movements have widespread local public support, or at least apathy... this is directly traceable to political opression and economic disenfranchisement. Radical groups prey on this- remember one of the most active charity organizations in Palestine was the PLO for years.
Anyway, you make your arguement much clearer this time- I think we agree on most stuff here.....
Interesting resume, I'd love to pick your brain for a year or two!
Of course your solution seems so simple, but how to implement in a timely enough manner? With the weaponry available today I doubt we either have the luxury of time to wait it out like the IRA, let alone the ability to effectively contain all isolated or radical threats. It only takes one determined extremist to do the unspeakable and we have so many security holes to plug at home, let alone attempting ideolgy change overseas. If I were a betting man, I dunno...
And, isn't a large part of the perception problem here in the US is a lack of positive news such as this? For whatever reason, I am convinced the media has it in them to present only bad news when it comes to international affairs, and bury the good. More good news would surely help bolster optimism and help generate a more cooperative attitude. Many still view this issue as the US vs. the entire World because many nations won't publically support even those US actions they do believe are correct. At least their own actions are somewhat telling.
