Pixies Place Forums - The War on Terrorism?

jseal

09-11-2004, 02:21 PM

Gentlefolk,

Afghanistan was ruled by a regime which hosted al-Qaeda. Now it is scheduled for the first democracy in more than a decade – and some consider that a failure?

I was under the impression that the intent of regime change is to effect a change in official policy in the target state, not the extermination of vermin. If that is how we should consider American adversaries, is anyone suggesting we should be celebrating the Abu Ghraib prison activities rather than condemning them?

This transition was performed by Afghan fighters - and there are those who propose that US troops should have been used. The transition in Iraq was performed by US troops – and yet some criticize the demobilization of Saddam Hussein’s army. Fascinating contrast.

The Poles, Italians and Danes serving in Iraq – among others - will be disappointed to learn that they are not “real” Europeans. I trust the title “European” will be extended as a courtesy to the English soldiers.

Oh please; “loosing the flower of our youth”? If the reference was to the English casualties in, say, 1916 – 1917, then there would be some facts to support the claim. In the period during which you refer to the loss of 1,000+ Americans, the population of my home state of Maryland increased by more than 1,000 souls.

The War on Terrorism will NEVER end until people understand that it is not the same as conventional wars fought between national armies in the past. Al-Qaeda is an international organization without territorial boundaries, and is not bound by the Geneva Conventions, as are civilized nations.

I will agree that there is a danger in laying too much emphasis on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden alone. There is no doubt that the core of al-Qaeda has been disrupted. It has lost its sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan and is finding it harder to organize and fund its operations. As has been repeated too often, al-Qaeda veterans have been hit hard over the past three years.

But body counts are not necessarily the most useful way of judging progress because al-Qaeda is not a "normal" military entity and this war IS NOT a "normal" military struggle. For example, the group who carried out the Madrid bombing in March 2004 were not people who had been selected, trained or carrying out direct orders from Osama Bin Laden in the way the 9/11 hijackers had. None of them had been, I believe, to Afghanistan.

The more dispersed the foe is - the more it relies on local cells rather than people traveling into a country as happened in the US in 2001 - the harder it becomes to counter the threat because these independent actors may be harder to identify by national police forces. Scarecrow’s & Lilith’s posts pose real policy questions, as getting rid of one cell does not end the problem, nor kathy1, would capturing Bin Laden end the conflict, IMHO.

It seems to me that the conflict in Chechnya was a “war of liberation” (not unlike one waged in North America some 230-odd years ago) until President Putin found it convenient to cast the violence as being fostered by al-Qaeda.

PantyFanatic, in re truth in times of war: in 1918 Senator Hiram Johnson is supposed to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. I have, however, been unable to find where this is recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby wrote: "When war is declared, truth is the first casualty". (Falsehood in Wartime) Samuel Johnson seems to have again had the first word: “Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”

As for “war crimes” and “make the punishment fit the crime”, well that is more appropriate for Gilbert and Sullivan ditties than the real world.

Steph

09-12-2004, 04:05 AM

Gentleman/jseal,

Your ginormous words have not yet settled our debate as to how you have been permitted to override the Geneva Convention with this debate.

Your gentle nation somehow managed to override international concern and has continued to fight a "war on terror" based on weak evidence.

Your gentle nation continues to tell other countries why they are wrong, why the Geneva Convention is wrong . . .

The Purple Hearts were deserved.

Osama is not captured.

The economy is in the shitter.

Gentlefolk all.

Gentlefolk,

The War on Terrorism will NEVER end until people understand that it is not the same as conventional wars fought between national armies in the past. Al-Qaeda is an international organization without territorial boundaries, and is not bound by the Geneva Conventions, as are civilized nations.

jseal

09-12-2004, 06:06 AM

Steph,

My words seldom settle any debate, ask anyone in my family.

What parts of the Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) are you referring to? If you are referring to The Fourth Geneva Convention, dated August 12, 1949, which addresses the protection of civilians in time of war, in what ways has it been overridden? It is a lengthy document, in excess of 22,000 words. I’m unsure of the particulars of your concern.

Evidence – facts – can be difficult to agree upon. That being said, when you assert the evidence is weak, and by implication, insufficient to substantiate the War on Terrorism, I feel that the following list, incomplete though it may be, and even containing errors (although I think it is accurate) does provide a plausible basis for the War on Terrorism. It goes back a bit, so I ask you to be patient with me.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it killed 63 people. Six months later a truck carrying about 2,500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait. The following year, in September, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. In August of that year a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, and 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

Terrorists bombed TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the more well known bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

In February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1,000 are injured.

In November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. In June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

There were simultaneous attacks on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They kill 224.

In October 2000, a small craft pulled along side the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, exploded and killed 17 sailors. Attacking a US Navy vessel is an act of war.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001.

These are terrorist acts against American interests. If necessary, other lists could be compiled to include similar acts against other nations.

In re differences of government policy as to the most appropriate way of addressing this threat, while the US failed to persuade France and Germany to participate in the overthrow of the Hussein dictatorship, it is inaccurate to suggest that “other countries” are not participating in the War on Terrorism.

I suspect that most of the Purple Hearts awarded are deserved.

As I suggested in my previous post, the capture of Osama bin Laden should not be the primary focus of the War on Terrorism. The nature of this conflict is not one which will be resolved by the incarceration of a figurehead.

“The economy” is an expansive reference. Are you referring to that of your nation? Mine? That of England, France, or Germany? The world’s? “In the shitter”? As the world economy is larger now than it was when the War on Terrorism was pronounced, perhaps some details are in order.

PantyFanatic

09-12-2004, 09:21 AM

With only a little punctuation adjustment, I believe you may have hit on something, oh garrulous one.

….. “ The world’s in the shitter!” ….

BIBI

09-12-2004, 09:41 AM

Ok, Steph. Back to you!!! LMAO

I'll just sit here jiggling these to keep people entertained until your back :boobs:

dbs40

09-12-2004, 09:45 AM

Politicians are so full of shit.

Scarecrow

09-12-2004, 10:22 AM

Jseal, just one little add on to what you have stated above. France, Germany and Russia are helping with the war on terror in Afganistan, they just refused to fight against Iraq because of the econmical lost to them because of deals to trade guns for oil with Hussien.

Just my two cents

Kendall

09-12-2004, 10:44 AM

And as far as i'm concerned we need to stamp the lowlife fucking bastard terrorists out!!

Those "LLFBTs" have kicked our ass significantly (9/11). I believe you all underestimate their resolve and wit. What is scary to me is that our population can be so manipulated by newsbites that it can a) elect Bush and 2) and much worse probably reelect Bush.

He is a powermonger. Ask yourself if we are at war, why has he visited Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida over 100 times in the last year? Sounds like he is really working hard at hording his power and not leading a war.

My perspective on that really - it gives him less time to fuck more things up.

Have no doubt, BinLaden wants Bush as president. He plays Bush like a concert pianist.

maddy

09-12-2004, 10:48 AM

Interestingly enough I was in the company of the 4th ID and their General Thurman (the gents responsible for capturing Sadam) last evening. The General eluded to the same things I have seen here - this is like no war we have ever been in before, and it won't be won anytime soon. It's a war the US Army is determined to win, but won't win overnight. It's about plotting and patience. Afterall those are the tactics used by the enemy. He reminded us all that their job is defend our Constitution and the freedoms it represents. Our freedoms were threatened three years ago and continue to be each day.

Steph

09-12-2004, 11:10 AM

I'm saying the US is being rather heavy handed and should concentrate on the economy.

When people say things like, "And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001" it makes me not want to even enter a debate with them. Rather condescending or patronizing by the looks of it.

OK, you read those 22,000 words and let me know why America gets special consideration.

Let's not forget the CIA trained Osama to fight the Russians. Should actions like this not be considered? The foreign policy of America is rather paternal and I think this should be addressed before anyone goes near the Geneva Convention.

BIBI

09-12-2004, 12:05 PM

jseal

09-12-2004, 02:13 PM

BIBI & Scarecrow,

You are quite correct. The internationalization (ugly word that) of the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan moved forward when NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force in August of last year. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate. Interestingly, this is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

ISAF currently numbers around 6,500 troops from 26 allies, nine partner nations and two non-NATO nations. Canada has contributed the second largest contingent, just behind that of Germany.

Personaly, I feel that this is insufficient for a country of Afghanistan's size, but it can be difficult to generate the needed political will among those who fail to see the benefits of a peaceful Afghanistan.

jseal

09-12-2004, 04:06 PM

PantyFanatic,

As I have tried, and failed, to do before, let me again suggest that there are issues that cannot be usefully reduced to a one-liner or newsbite. International terrorism is one of those issues. If treating it so tries your patience, so be it.

And no, the world is not in the shitter. It is better now than it has been in many ways. Reduction in illiteracy, availability of clean potable water, the improvement in status of both women and children throughout the world are only some of those many ways.

Sharni

09-12-2004, 06:55 PM

Those "LLFBTs" have kicked our ass significantly (9/11). I believe you all underestimate their resolve and wit.
I'm not likely to forget 9/11 anytime soon....Nor do i underestimate the scum sucking bastards..

I'm not American but i support Bush in his decision to get the mongrels....as i would support any country in stamping out terrorism.....Australia too is in the fight....

How dare they think that by killing our own that we are going to give in to them....fucken dickheads dont have a clue....all they are doing is putting more against them

They will not stop until they are all dead....and i have absolutely no qualms about being part of a country that is trying to help them on there way!!

If a country gives in....then it has already started its path to living in fear of terrorism...becoming none other than a 'slave' to them... I support the 'we do NOT negotiate with terrorists'

campingboy

09-12-2004, 10:12 PM

What has made these people so angry at us that they are willing to give up there lives to make a point. We in the developed countries are afraid to ask that question. Afraid because if the question is asked we might not like the answer.

I think that the act of terrorism is a cowardly method of dealing with a conflict. The act tends to draw attention away from the issue and onto the act. This is a conflict. I'm sure that if we are honest we would find that both sides are not as innocent as they make out.

Vigil

09-13-2004, 01:02 AM

"Blessed are the cheese makers."

There is no doubt that the immediate threat of those hardliners who have taken their struggle to unacceptable depths of inhumanity must be dealt with by all acceptable means.

But if this process is allowed to polarize the situation to the particular as opposed to the wider cause then a cycle of violence (the world's in the shitter) will no doubt continue.

Perhaps Mr. Bush is proud of his homespun black and white view of the world, and perhaps this persona will ring true enough with the American voters to give him a second term. But I'm not sure it will help the world to deal with some of its entrenched problems.

Palestine, exploitation of the Gulf, Chechnya, Iraq etc. provide those who would exploit opportunities to persuade that the infidel is at war with Islam. But for me the irony that Jew, Christian and Muslim are all supposed to be Sons of Abraham, brothers, is something that we all seem to forget. Perhaps if we started to remember it a bit more, we could start to clear up this mess.

jseal

09-13-2004, 02:33 AM

Steph,

I'm saying the US is being rather heavy handed and should concentrate on the economy.

You are not alone. Many, many people agree with you.

When people say things like, "And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001" it makes me not want to even enter a debate with them. Rather condescending or patronizing by the looks of it.

I disagree with you. On the contrary, it would have been condescending of me to recount to you events of which you are already aware, as if you were unaware of them. It was quite reasonable of me to assume that you and everyone else who read my post knew of the events of 9/11.

OK, you read those 22,000 words and let me know why America gets special consideration.

I have never suggested that America either does or should get special consideration.

Let's not forget the CIA trained Osama to fight the Russians. Should actions like this not be considered?

Of course they should be considered and criticized.

The foreign policy of America is rather paternal and I think this should be addressed before anyone goes near the Geneva Convention.

One of the primary purposes of American foreign policy is to maintain and advance American national interests. The same can be said of all sovereign nations. They differ in what they perceive those interest to be.

GingerV

09-13-2004, 03:34 AM

I never ever ever know how to make this point. And the only way I can think to do it now is possibly going to get me in enough hot water to boil the ocean between us. All I can say is this is no way about you, Sharni, I just need to borrow your words. You put it very well. It's just that I can't get past the idea that the bad guys are human.

I take nothing away from the fact that the various terrorist attacks were hideously wrong, and it is a normal human reaction to be both frightened and angry. Anyone who didn't react by thinking exactly what Sharni said:

How dare they think that by killing our own that we are going to give in to them....fucken dickheads dont have a clue....all they are doing is putting more against them.

either is more evolved than I am, or isn't being honest. I thought it. Until the shock and pain faded, and reason came back, I definately thought it.

But the people in Iraq (who didn't attack us....and who have no demonstrable connection to al Quaida...sorry, it demands repetition) are human too. We have chosen to kill to further our interests. And somewhere there's a woman seeing red in Iraq, who will never forget a bombed out marketplace, who may now agree with Sharni....but she's talking about us.

Violence begets violence. The British are STILL in Northern Ireland, and they didn't bomb it into submission first. The first signs of hope that horrific quagmire saw came with the incredibly controversial move to acknowledge and deal with the IRA. At least now they're making progress.

I'm not now, nor have I ever anywhere, suggested that terrorism should be ignored. But as long as we use the war on terror as an excuse to promulgate conventional warfare, we are breeding the next generation of terrorists. I know this, because should another country ever invade my home on some laudible pretext, I know how I'd react and I am NOT a violent person normally. So long as we think tanks and bombs are worth a tinkers damn in this war, we're going to lose. Oh, we'll win the invasion...but we won't win the war on terror. For that, we have to change the paradigm, or we're going to keep losing. More than that, though: until someone finds the damned high road in this conflict, it's going to escalate. And so long as we can justify killing civilians, or occupying countries, in persuit of the war on terror...we have no hope of finding the high road.

G

Belial

09-13-2004, 06:49 AM

"They blow themselves up in order to get at us, and we launch 3 million dollar missiles off of giant floating iron islands 2000 miles away -- Who are the real cowards?"

-- Bill Hicks

jseal

09-13-2004, 07:27 AM

...Who are the real cowards?

The people who intentionally kill children and other non-combatants.

Belial

09-13-2004, 07:43 AM

The people who intentionally kill children and other non-combatants.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coward

2. Destitute of courage; timid; cowardly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=courage

The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

A firey airborne death would represent a pretty dangerous and fearful situation, I would think. To hijack an aircraft and fly it into a building so as to cause one's own certain death requires courage.

That said, courage is not always virtuous. I'm not saying these guys weren't nutjobs, I'm saying that the reason they were so dangerous was because they were nutjobs and extremely courageous. If they were not, they would have balked at the very idea of themselves doing what they did.

jseal

09-13-2004, 07:51 AM

Belial,

I disagree with you. Killing children in order to get an adult to do something against her/his will is an act of cowardice, in my opinion. Just because the terrorist dies in the act does not make the act – or the actor – any less cowardly.

Belial

09-13-2004, 08:25 AM

What then, is your definition of courage?

BIBI

09-13-2004, 08:35 AM

"They blow themselves up in order to get at us, and we launch 3 million dollar missiles off of giant floating iron islands 2000 miles away -- Who are the real cowards?"

-- Bill Hicks

Blowing yourself up has absolutely nothing to do with courage. Those men and women are so misguided by their belief system that they cannot think for themselves. Remember, they think they are going to......"Paradise" It's the leaders of these misguided fools who hide behind their politics/religion who are the real cowards. I don't see any of the leaders of the terrorist faction blowing themselves up......they aren't that stupid. Cowards always send someone else to fight for them when they can.

Belial

09-13-2004, 08:44 AM

Getting caught and imprisoned, possibly executed, represents danger.
Getting killed by someone trying to stop you represents danger.
Flying a plane which you are aboard into a building represents danger.
Confronting these dangers with the confidence - however misguided - that you are not acting in vain represents - according to the dictionary - courage.

No, terrorist leaders are not blowing themselves up. They might be, indeed, cowards.

BIBI

09-13-2004, 08:59 AM

Belial,

It does not take courage to do what they did. It took a mindset and a belief system that promised them "Paradise" once dead. They are told they will be martyrs in the name of Allah and what better way to die if you are one of "the chosen". They truly believe that they go to a better place. They are cowards who do as they are told....a person with true courage would say NO.

jseal

09-13-2004, 09:08 AM

Belial,

The passengers aboard the aircraft which crashed in Pennsylvania faced their adversaries, the hijackers, bravely – and died in their attempt to gain control of the aircraft. The terrorist who intentionally kills a child kills someone who is not their adversary, for what has the child done? Is there any redeeming quality if then the terrorist kills him or her self? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are inappropriately associating suicide, where the actor has control of the time and place of death, with bravery, where the actor does not.

Belial

09-13-2004, 09:16 AM

Whether or not they believed they would be rewarded in paradise I doubt that that belief could be so deeply ingrained that they did not perceive at some level their deaths, particularly deaths of that violent nature, to be dangerous. Of course, I don't know that. I could be wrong. But no-one knows. As I said, I don't see courage as connected with virtue so to me any act in which the protagonist suppresses significant fear for themselves and presses on to their objective is courageous. I tend to see the "evil therefore cowardly" theory a lot and I don't agree with it, so I threw out my own theory. The only thing I ask of anyone is that they read and think carefully about what I say. Pixies is usually good in this regard, which is a big reason I still post here.

Hey look, I went off track. Go me :)

Belial

09-13-2004, 09:24 AM

Is there any redeeming quality if then the terrorist kills him or her self?

I am not calling courage a redeeming quality.

Belial,

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are inappropriately associating suicide, where the actor has control of the time and place of death, with bravery, where the actor does not.

Why does bravery require the actor to not have control of the time and place of their death?

jseal

09-13-2004, 09:32 AM

Belial,

As this no longer relates to the War on Terrorism, how about we take it off-line? I am happy to discuss these issues, but they seem at best tangential to the focus of this thread.

Belial

09-13-2004, 07:09 PM

Sure. PM me.

Daft

09-13-2004, 07:23 PM

This sucks, do we realy have to pick sides between terrorists and fascists?

jseal

09-13-2004, 07:31 PM

No sir, you don't. You never have had to do so.

Belial

09-13-2004, 08:48 PM

"War on Terror" is a ridiculously grandinose title for a narrowly-focussed war on certain nations who have been selected for their respective political significance and complete abscence of prospects for victory.

jseal

09-13-2004, 09:15 PM

Belial,

The War on Terror is a world war, fought by in England by the English, in Indonesia by the Indonesians, in France by the French, in the Philippines by Filipinos, in the United States by Americans, etc. On occasion, terrorists are interdicted outside the boarders of the target nations. Commonly, these are covert operations, but on occasion large scale offenses are employed.

No one should confuse the downfall of the Taliban as anything other than a particular theater of operation in a global conflict. The government of Afghanistan gave succor and sanctuary to a particular terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, and was overthrown by those who preferred a different government. The reason that they were overthrown was that THERE WAS NO PEACFUL MEANS to select an alternative. The fact that the Taliban did not stand a snowball’s chance in Hell against the might that their misbegotten foolishness brought down upon them in no way excuses their reprehensible policies which, among other savageries, included the destruction of the Binyamin Buddahs as well as a substantial faction of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage.

The War on Terror will take a long time, and success is not guarantied.

Belial

09-13-2004, 09:34 PM

This "War on Terror" you speak of in your first paragraph is merely the enforcement of the laws of these nations. It is not a holistic initiative to eliminate terror.

The downfall of the Taliban had nothing to do with their activities inside Afghanistan and everything to do with the ability to blame them for al-Qaeda. And did they give succour and sanctuary to al-Qaeda? Remember that this is hardly the same situation as al-Qaeda existing in their territory.

GingerV

09-14-2004, 01:35 AM

If the war on terror had anything to do with, as Belial put it, giving succour and sanctuary to al-Qaeda then the next target for invasion would have been Saudi Arabia. Hell, Saudi possibly should have been the first. But by that metric of justification, Iraq shouldn't have ever been on the radar. If the answer is to invade countries which contain people who support the terrorists, would you agree that England would've been justified to invade Ireland? If so, you must extend your support to an English invasion of the US itself, the IRA got loads of money from our fellow citizens.

I can't tell you how much I disliked the Taliban, and the destruction of the Buddahs had me downright appopleptic and screaming at the news program. But you can't use those as mitigating factors and pretend you're doing anything but sugar coating a pill. If invading another country is a pill that NEEDS sugar coating, it strikes me the case hasn't been made convincingly.

G

jseal

09-14-2004, 07:41 AM

Belial,

The War on Terrorism is, indeed, not a holistic initiative to eliminate terror. It is rather, a holistic initiative to reduce terrorism to an acceptable minimum. Any fanatic with access to explosives may become a terrorist. With a population in excess of 6 billion, it would be unreasonable to set 0 as the upper bound. Terror is an internal experience. Terrorism is the behavior which has been targeted.

The proximate tools are conventional police work to interdict terrorists within national borders, and the armed forces (both conventional and unconventional) to combat those outside national borders. These tools function first to incarcerate or kill terrorists. Their second function is to reduce the opportunities for terrorist funding, recruiting, training, and the practice of their trade.

Two other tools are long term: political liberation and economic advancement. Take a moment to look at the countries of origin of the world’s terrorists over the last 50 years. I believe that you will see a correlation between the ratio of terrorists by nationality and lack of political freedom/autocratic rulers etc. I think you will also see a correlation between the ratio of terrorists by nationality and their poverty/absence of wealth.

The ratio of Palestinian to Dutch suicide bombers is, I think, striking.

To illustrate the point, as the PRC has become increasingly integrated into the world’s economy, and as the per capita income of its population has grown, so too has it reduced its support for international terrorism. The same cannot be said of pariah nations which have few or no economic incentives to moderate their idealisms. Permit me to point to Afghanistan as an extreme example of this.

As for the Taliban giving sanctuary to al-Qaeda: Either the Taliban was or was not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. If it was, and it provided a safe haven to an organization, al-Qaeda, which was demonstrably a clear and present danger to the United States, then that support constituted the casus belli for action under international norms. If, on the other hand the Taliban was not, in fact, the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then any arguments in support of them by their apologists are irrelevant.

Belial

09-14-2004, 08:07 AM

jseal,

The "War on Terror" is not a holistic anything. If it was, it would encompass retribution, recompense and/or prosecution for atrocities carried out in countries that have no current political value. Remember Panama, Guatemala, Laos, Chile? US compliance with the World Court's decision on the Contra atrocities in Nicaragua would be a good start to a holistic "War on Terror".

What would you define as the provision of sanctuary, since there are al-Qaeda operatives and sympathetic fundraisers worldwide?

jseal

09-14-2004, 08:11 AM

What would you define as the provision of sanctuary, since there are al-Qaeda operatives and sympathetic fundraisers worldwide?

Training and operating bases come to mind.

Belial

09-14-2004, 08:19 AM

Training and operating bases come to mind.

Which brings the CIA to mind ;)

jseal

09-14-2004, 08:35 AM

Belial,

Keep the CIA in mind if you wish. Doing so does not change the relationship that the Taliban had with the terrrorist organization Al-Qaeda. It provided provided santuary.

Belial

09-14-2004, 08:52 AM

And the CIA provided training. Since the issue of training seems to be a relevant one to justification for bombing Afghanistan, can it be used to justify bombing the US?

jseal

09-14-2004, 09:12 AM

Belial

09-14-2004, 07:24 PM

Belial,

The Taliban can, in this way, serve as a good example of a bad example!

What do you mean? :confused:

Kendall

09-14-2004, 08:35 PM

me thinks u guys have been suckleing too much from King Bush's bosum

Booger

09-14-2004, 09:35 PM

Belial,

Why yes. Of course it can! A government which does so need only accept the consequences. The Taliban can, in this way, serve as a good example of a bad example! I never thought about it that way. Thank you.

Am I the only person this statemant gives a head ache.

I think the point Belial was trying to make was that the CIA trained Binladen and many of the other al-Qaeda leaders. Just because they called it gorilla warfare if you get down to it, it just a diferent side of the same coin.

Not only that the CIA has supported and they have been knowen to use terrrorist when they deem it's for their best intrest.

Lilith

09-15-2004, 05:05 AM

GingerV~ I read your post and once again you gave me an opportunity to look at something in a different way. Thanks!

skyler_m

09-15-2004, 07:08 AM

jseal

09-15-2004, 09:52 AM

Booger

It is general knowledge that the CIA provided training and funding for the Afghan resistance to the Soviet backed government during the Cold War.

I’m sure your not suggesting that it was therefore acceptable for the Afghan government to provide Al-Qaeda support for its assault on the United States, are you?

Lilith

09-15-2004, 01:02 PM

Keep it on topic and/or courteous or take it to PM.

Booger

09-15-2004, 09:29 PM

jseal

If you train a dog to be viscous and to bite then you kick it and it bites you do you blame the dog or the person who trained it?

The US *trained (this was part of the suport) Binladen and many of the other al-Qaeda leaders when they were fighting the Soviet backed government during the Cold War. So if we are going to start to lay the blame maybe we should look at some of the US policies that helped lead to the events on 9/11. Not only did the US train the people who masterminded this do to our policies they deemed us a big enough threat that they dared risk such a thing. If you truely beleave the attacked us over some holly war as we have been told. Then you seem to be looking at a very small part of the big picture and with this I can not help you.

* the training we gave them was to fight a much bigger and better armed force using what ever means possible.

Booger

09-15-2004, 09:34 PM

This thread makes my head hurt...

Like many other topics, war is not one that people who are on polar opposite sides of the argument will ever be able to convince the other that he/she is right. Rant on and prove that you are a better thinker/debater than the other, that you can recite all the doctrines that support your beliefs, that you can belittle someone with a differing point of view. My opinion of world politics will not change from this thread.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to look at the beautiful, naked women of Pixies...

skyler you don't debate someone to change their mind. Becasue if they have taken the opposite side of debat most likely you won't. The debate is for others who are watching who maybe haven't made up thier minds or to maybe give them a new way of looking at the same old thing.

Vigil

09-16-2004, 01:05 AM

I am enjoying Jseal's gold medal performance (I'm not sure I always understand him though).

The man you quote Booger, Mr. Bertrand Russell was also a master on the paradoxical subject of the ethics of war.

Sometimes you have to make decisions that you know are only 55% right and unfortunately the 45% wrong can hang around to kick you in the ass later. Sometimes you can be wrong in the first place, but I wouldn't question the overall position that the CIA acts in the US's best interests or that those interests may be unpalatable to many of your own citizens let alone others around the world.

jseal

09-16-2004, 09:57 AM

Booger,

I may be wrong, but I believe that the purpose of the War on Terrorism is not to lay the blame for the situation, but rather to curtail the activity.

GingerV

09-16-2004, 10:10 AM

And how's that working jseal? I'll admit, my interpretation is that we haven't seen a decrease in terror attacks recently. But I haven't yet seen a scholarly accounting of pre- and post- gulf war numbers. If you've got one, I'd like to see it.

I'm not going to repeat myself, you don't win a War on Terror by invading the wrong damned country. I'm not convinced you win it by invading any country.

jseal

09-16-2004, 11:41 AM

GingerV,

The statistics about terrorism, and by implication the results of the war upon it, are subjects of active debate. The link I have provided below provides three charts, and the supporting numbers, for three significant measurements: frequency (how many occurred during a year), and how many were killed and how many were injured. The red plot shows the statistics provided by the US State Department, the blue plot is that of numbers provided by the RAND organization, an organization independent of the US government. I hope that the source of the data will not be used to derail the discussion.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/intlterror.html

I call upon any Pixie who is adept in statistical analysis to assist here. My familiarity with the discipline is more than 20 years old.

While this data set is modest, I believe that a positive trend line may be plotted on all three charts from the start of the recording in the late 60s through the late 80s. This would indicate that terrorism as an institution was growing.

All three charts show a dip in the 1989 – 1990 period.

The Frequency and Fatality charts also show a negative trend line for the period from the late 80s through the late 90s, a period of global economic growth. This would indicate that terrorism as an institution was decreasing. The Injury chart differs sharply beginning in 1993. I’m unsure of the cause, perhaps a change in weaponry, or perhaps tactics.

Following the decline of global economic growth at the end of the 1990s, the frequency and magnitude of terrorism incidents increase. The 2001 Fatality plot is anomalous, skewed by the 9/11 incident.

Focusing on the period 1998 – 2003 (the last year for which both data sets are complete), the numbers show a decrease in both injuries as well as fatalities. The RAND & DOS numbers for terrorism incidents during 2003 are at variance. We’d need to find out if there was a change in reporting criteria for either organization.

These numbers fail to support the suggestion made by some that the War on Terrorism is a failure. I think that now it is your opportunity to provide data sets from other reputable organizations, with a similar analysis. Perhaps the EU provides statistics on this subject. That, coupled with a RAND-like apples-to-apples comparison from some other respectable European institution unaffiliated with the official line would help dispel, or at least mitigate any American spin on the numbers.

GingerV

09-16-2004, 12:34 PM

Actually, my statistical analysis is pretty good. Has to be, both to do what I do for a living, and to keep up in conversations with my physicist bf. And I'd be glad to help with that side of things...but the first thing (and I'm sure you know this) is that lines are meaningless if you don't know what into them. What constitutes a terrorist incident here? Are they source specific, or are they collapsing across various terrorist organizations? Something as simple as whether Sept 11 (to use one that we're all too familiar with) count as 1, 3 or 4 attacks makes a difference.

Also, line graphs like this aren't terribly meaningful in this sort of complex system. Verbal analysis of what is and isn't relevant would be a big help in interpreting what are, effectively, raw numbers. More than that, though...IF you put any faith in these for purposes of prediction (and I'm not sure if they're useful for that), there are a couple of things that throw up some problems for the assertion that the Gulf War Redux has had any impact on the war on terror.

The US Dos number seem more relevant (don't fold domestic terror in...although if Palestinian attacks on Israel are counted as domestic I may be 100% off about that), and according to them...while the number of fatalities dropped (although given the range even in non-spike years I'm not sure it's statistically significant), the number of attacks stays the same between 2002 and 2003 (the closest we can come to before and after measures, I disagree that the 1998-2003 bin is telling...both cause I don't see the dip you talk about around the spike...and the Bush pre-emptive defense doctrine wasn't applied until 2002). Arguably, that means we're not making anything better. Data from 2004 would be particularly interesting, but isn't available until the end of the year apparently. So if you come back with "this doesn't show a long range effective decrease" I can't argue on the numbers. But I would want at least a logical argument to show why it should be expected apriori that the effect would be long range. Most folks seemed to think the effect would be instantaneous. Then again, most folks think Iraq was responsible for 9/11....so there you go.

You might say that we aren't making anything worse, to defend the invasion. But I think that's problematic...as the positive effect on the War on Terror is used to justify the damage we've done. So we have on ballance made something worse, without making Terror better.

Anyway....could you throw me a rope on the folks who put these numbers together in the first place so I can get a better idea about where the numbers come from? Thanks.

G

jseal

09-16-2004, 01:58 PM

GingerV,

Bless you!

I was concerned that I was about to be castigated for another interminable dissertation. It has also been many moons since I was last tasked with statistical analysis. Your response has comforted me on both points.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, yes’m. I’m sure we can tend to this. I shall try to secure the measuring criteria used by each organization. I do believe that terrorist incidents are here recorded independently, thus 9/11 = 4. Let us not let the Palestinian attacks on Israel slip between the cracks of the debate. Terrorism is not an American problem, it is a World problem.

I’d like to review what may prove to be a point of contention between us

Reading your posts has left me with the impression that you believe the “Old Guard’s” (of which I would be assumed to be a member) position is that the justification for the overthrow of the Hussein regime was a natural consequence of the War on Terrorism.

That line goes, I believe, roughly that “there was some covert association between Hussein and bin Laden, and so by removing Hussein, bin Laden would be damaged, and anyway we should have taken Hussein out in 1991, so getting rid of the sonofabitch does the world a power of good anyway”. No?

Actually, my recollection of the events leading up to the Iraq regime change of March-April last year is that the armed conflict was justified by Iraq’s non-compliance with several UN resolutions. These related to the inability of UN verification of Iraq pledges to eliminate its programs to develop NBC munitions. Subsequent, very, very thorough searches failed to find any WMDs, and indeed it turned out that the programs which Mr. Hussein thought were in place, actually were being manipulated for the financial gain of various senior Iraqis. A bit embarrassing to Messrs Bush and Blair.

The argument for the invasion of Iraq was not based on the previously announced WOT by Bush, but on of the “clear and present danger” that Iraq presented to the world. I’m sure you recall the famous “15 minute” comment, and Secretary Powell’s satellite photographs? There was also a bit of a bother with allegations of HM government “sexing up” the Iraq dossier to “enhance” the case for war.

Where I am going with this line of argument is that there is no useful purpose served in arguing that “the invasion of Iraq did no good in the WOT”, as that was not the basis for the invasion. The reason that I have spent the time reviewing this is because I hope to avoid a debate about the invasion of Iraq last year defining or limiting the discussion of the WOT.

Vullkan

09-16-2004, 02:04 PM

Sorry to have been away these few days to have missed the post "war on Terror" posted by Vigil--a great thread in that this is an important topic.

Vullkan

09-16-2004, 02:18 PM

I see that Jseal had taken some issue with my posting to the previous thread--sorry you have and misunderstand my position. But as for Poland and Denmarks assistance in our involvement in Irqac amounts to next to nothing--barely enough troops contributed to guard a shopping mall and they are more dependant on US forces to keep them safe from terrorest--been there and seen it first hand.

Any person who is killed in war is one too many--loosing flower of our youth though shameless borrowed by me is a fact. It doesn't refer to just a body count--it also refers to the lost innocents, and bitter memories that will haunt the lives of many a serving soldier. Personally I would have perfered to exist ignorant of the ugly face of war and been happier for it. Sadly that is my lot and not the lot of others.

And yes the invasion of Afganistan was to end a terrorest safe havean--and as much as I hate to admit it--it was and should be to kill "verman". I would dearly wish with all my heart that these verman can be reasoned with to end the hate and violence. Yet they will not listen to reason and ignore the parts of their own beliefs that don't suit their views. Thus what else is there but to destroy them? Its reality as hard as it seems.

Vullkan

09-16-2004, 02:33 PM

Now that is the fact of our times--that many young men and women will die and many an act and threat of violence will be ours for an unforseen score of years.

Yet to win at least a truce is to first recognize the evil we the US have done on the area, and accept the responsibility as well as apologize for it. Lastly where possible even atone for our mistakes.

Correct that we armed and trained "freedom fighters" during the Soviet invasion. But after the Soviets left--what did the US do after that? Nothing! We left Afganistan a mess. We crushed pro-democracy movements in Iran in the 1950s-60s, supported tyrants; oh yes Saddam was an ally at one time when he was at war with Iran. Many a shorted sided policy of ours is to blame for todays problems. It is time to address those past mistakes openly and honestly.

Then we need to encourage and foster a change for the better the lives of the people. In Saudi, far too many people suffer poverty despite that country's wealth. We support still the ruling family and ignore the people there. When live has no joy in it and despairation is the norm, people reach for things to find some hope. Or is the lesson of the rise of the Nazis lost to this current generation. Perhaps had not the Germans not been so disperate the sick person of Hitler would never have come to power.

GingerV

09-16-2004, 03:14 PM

Oh Hon, I don't deserve blessing. I may desperately need it, but I surely don't deserve it. I'm just a college brat who became an academic, and have no fear of numbers. There are loads of different ways to have the discussion, I've just been trained from Babyhood how to cope with this one ;).

OK. You're right...step one is to sort out the tangle or we're gonna keep talking at cross purposes.

If I follow your breakdown, we've got three.

1) Is the WOT (yet another freaking TLA) working? You're chasing the numbers on this one...so I'm gonna leave it on your desk for the time being. Well, not entirely, I'm coming back here in a minute...put a pin in it. ;)

I love the Twain quote, by the way. The way my grand-mother always put it was that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Numbers are useful beasts, but they're only as good as the garbage that goes into them. Important to know what it was.

2) Did/does the invasion of Iraq have f-all to do with the WOT? You're right, I just presumed that folks tend to associate the War on Terror with the invasion of Iraq. I am surprised we agree that the invasion had nothing to do with the War on Terror, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I disagree strongly, however, that no-one ever tried to associate the two. I will go wading back through I don't know how many speeches for the relevant quotes from all sorts of folks, including the White House up to and including the President if you want. But I'll start here with the "are you kidding me?" defense. Of course they tried to tie the two together. The meme that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 started there! I agree with you that there is no connection, but I think it's naive to think that they're not trying to sell the two as a package deal.

2.5) I think there's a subquestion here regarding whether we were justified to invade Iraq absent the WOT argument. Living in England I can all but read you the dossier (and the 45 minute comment...God knows how much sooner we'd have invaded if it'd been a 15 minute comment ;) ). I also remember Blix's reinterpretation of Powell's satellite photographs ("they're likely to just be trucks" not likely to slip my mind), and his assertion that the inspections were getting it done...just not quickly enough to suit Bush's time line. But in the interests of keeping the playing ground clean, I understand leaving the argument about whether the danger was either clear or present or even real for another time and place.

3) Was a flat out invasion of Afghanistan an effective way to promulgate the WOT? I presume that all the discussion of 2.5 doesn't apply here. However, my initial assertion that it hasn't done a blind bit of good and, in fact, was a invasion of a country that didn't attack us hasn't really been dealt with. Totally cool, nobody can do everything at once. God knows I can't.

AND looping us back around to the first point (I did warn you it was coming), if invading small countries with tanks was a useful thing to do in this new age of pre-emptive defense (I figure the best way to embarrass the administration is to never let them forget that assinine phrase)...wouldn't we have expected the invasion of Afghanistan to have impacted the numbers?

I still have to think that we're doing it wrong. That, in fact, there's no evidence that we're accomplishing anything. And that by the arguments of the Right or the Old Guard or whatever they're called this week, failing to do this right is a very very bad thing.

G

Booger

09-16-2004, 08:07 PM

The man you quote Booger, Mr. Bertrand Russell was also a master on the paradoxical subject of the ethics of war.

Sometimes you have to make decisions that you know are only 55% right and unfortunately the 45% wrong can hang around to kick you in the ass later. Sometimes you can be wrong in the first place, but I wouldn't question the overall position that the CIA acts in the US's best interests or that those interests may be unpalatable to many of your own citizens let alone others around the world.

WOw I didn't even know I was quoting Mr. Bertrand Russell I thought I had came up with that on my own. Not to say I didn't hear it from him or someone who was quoting him I just did know it.

How far do you let this go do we say 50/50 or with it stacked the other way 45/55 or more is alright to just as long as it get done what we want done. As far a questioning the CIA you are damn right I want to question them it's one of those things that make this such a great country. With out the right and ability to question them and hold then accountable for what they do they become just a secert police force that can be used as wanted.

Vigil

09-17-2004, 01:12 AM

Hi Booger

The problem with the 50/50 methodology is who is to decide the weight given to the issues. I may appear to lose a view if its 90/10, but the 10 might be so improtant for whatever reason that I decide to override the 90.

We both have systems that allow people in a position of trust to make these decisions on our collective behalf and they run the risk of losing their positions if we find out that their overriding for the 10 is wrong.

I don't know how much access we have to MI6 and 5, but I can see why so much of what they do has to be covered by our "official secrets act" which becomes (mostly) a matter of public record after a suitable period of time.

Whilst as I say I agree to the need for this type of system, I do think that you get a feel for whther your government is displaying the required integrity. Generaly we throw out our politicians when they are seen to have lost this or to have screwed up the economy for the majority of voters.

Re Jseal and Ginger - I think it is too soon to judge the effects of the so called WOT. I see a general tactic of reducing their opportunities both financially and where they can safely operate whether in our own countries or theirs.

I imagine that there are a few rogueish states left but there appears to be a shift to their coming on board. All this takes time and I would expect a short term increase as the effectiveness of this policy bites.

Bad luck about the physicist Ginger - I'm with a linguist - much more use!!

GingerV

09-17-2004, 01:58 AM

*laughing* A wierdly high number of my friends in college and grad school were linguists, Vigil....I just don't know where I went wrong. Next time, I swear I'll look you up ;).

I think the whole 50/50 thing is too simple a way to measure the greyness of an area. I've never liked arguments where the ends are allowed to justify the means, and I get the sticky feeling this lends itself to exactly such usages. But mostly, I've never known anything to be grey in just one dimension. In this particular case, I see ways that we could've achieved the 50% good without earning the 50% bad, so I'm just kinda confused about the logic.

Vigil, I get that you see the logic of their tactics. But their money is Saudi, and we're not doing anything about that. They safely opperate without OUR country, they don't need a willing government. They had training bases in North Africa, we've done nothing about that. They've got cells (STILL) in London and one can only presume New York, we haven't solved that. I get the logic, but I don't see the effectiveness.

Will you also grant me the logic that by using conventional warfare and a willingness to acrue civilian injuries and casualties (I WILL hit the first person to use that rediculous euphamism, you know the one) with a soggy sponge), we also give individual angry young men more of a reason to joint the organisation, and older men to fund it? Grant me simply the logic of it, and I promise I'll leave Chompsky out of it ;).

I keep trying to pull other examples into the discussion of this War on Terror, because ours is hardly the first. I admit that any analogy is faulty. But if you don't like England/IRA troubles (and their use of precisely our tactics took decades and eventual recognition of and negotiation with to show results, arguably the last part is inevitable if you use this approach), how about Germany/France? I'm not calling Bush a nazi, but the harder the Germans squeezed, the more people joined the French resistance. They weren't overly impressed with the "French" government Gernmany gave them despite the nominal "independence" it offered. They wanted the Germans out. Period, end of story. Their mere presence was a recruiting tool. I'll say it again, you can't win a War on Terror with the 82nd airborn. I see no evidence that the current administration's approach is working, I think they've chosen only to accept part of the logical implications of their actions.

G

Belial

09-17-2004, 05:01 AM

Interesting you should mention linguists and Chomsky, as he is one.

jseal

09-17-2004, 05:23 AM

Booger,

You are, of course, quite right about the CIA. Of course you can criticize it. Of course you should criticize it. Doing so is what distinguishes what WE are from what THEY were. Freedom is being able to speak your mind, democracy is when the government listens. I forget where I heard that, but I like it.

Remember that the CIA does what the Congress and the Administration fund it to do. During the Cold War, the use of surrogates was a common technique, employed by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Quite effective, actually. Look at what the Soviet surrogate did to the US in Vietnam, and what the Afghan one did for the US to the Soviets.

While some may find this technique distasteful, it is a standard operating procedure in great power politics which goes back many, many years. The French employed it effectively against the British in North America a few years back.

jseal

09-17-2004, 06:23 PM

GingerV,

If you’re unwilling to fork over the $$, as I am, they don’t make it easy…

US Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

Select 2000, (A)Introduction, scroll to the bottom for Definitions, and in the note on non-combatant you’ll read that each terrorist attack is measured separately, each with the possibility of multiple casualties (ref two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing, and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador).

I’m still working on the RAND criteria.

Point 2 of post 82: let take as given that the Hussein/bin Laden story was a transparent fall back position once the WMD position became untenable. I’m confident that you’ll be able to trace its birthday back to the funeral pyre of the WMD. Bush and Blair felt confident that the WMDs would be found. They weren’t.

Point 2.5: Sorry about those 30 minutes, I can’t proofread either. The verification of Iraqi compliance with their commitments was the responsibility of the Iraqi government. Iraqi obstruction and duplicity is well documented, and occurred over an extended period. The Iraqi government could have ensured that they were completed promptly and did not do so. A straightforward miscalculation.

Point 3: The Taliban Afghan government was overthrown by the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. The United States and Great Britain provided crucial air power. Between The end of October and the end of November 2001 the Northern Alliance had captured 60% of the country. Kandahar, in the south of the country fell to the NA on December 6, 2001. The American bombing campaign then focused on the Al-Qaeda training camps and headquarters in the Tora Bora area in the east of Afghanistan. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.

Lilith

09-17-2004, 06:40 PM

Interesting you should mention linguists and Chomsky, as he is one.
Hey that is the only thing I know to be true!!!!! He is a naturist! I just had an exam on him :p Well not physically on top of him. My neo-skinnerian ass had a hard time :p

Pardon my interuption...play through :p

jseal

09-17-2004, 06:42 PM

...My neo-skinnerian ass had a hard time :p

MMmmmm...... :slurp:

Lilith

09-17-2004, 06:45 PM

Don't reinforce me ;)

BIGbad

09-17-2004, 09:20 PM

I can't believe that some of you don’t think TWAT is worth it!

I love TWAT and would fight for it any day!

(The War Against Terrorism)! LOL!

Grumble

09-18-2004, 12:17 AM

the saying "violence begets violence" springs to mind.

It is appalling that people get so desperate, unhinged, brainwashed, driven to duty, matryed or whatever description that you can put on it from whatever viewpoint you have, that kills children and creates intolerable suffering.

No matter what cause it is too high a price to pay.

When you look at how historically unsuccessful terrorism is in achieving the objective of the perpetrators, you wonder why it keeps happening.

violence begets violence

jseal

09-18-2004, 07:33 AM

GingerV,

The RAND-MIPT Terrorism Incident Database inclusion criteria were easier to get to. Should have started there. Each incident is separate. Aggregation is performed by the queries.

http://www.rand.org/psj/rand-mipt.html

The "Understanding the Terrorism Database" PDF http://www.mipt.org/pdf/miptbulletinq1-2002.pdf includes some graphs on page 5 which, to my eye, restate the political and economic patterns I suggested in an earlier post.

As to what the data may or may not support: In general, theories may be disproved by facts, not proved. To assert that the WOT has failed, or that its central concepts are in error, is to assert that there exists corroborating data to that effect. This is not at all the same as claiming that the data fails to support the WOT. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

jseal

09-19-2004, 08:31 PM

GingerV,

In re Post #82, point #2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664838.stm

GingerV

09-20-2004, 05:00 AM

GingerV,

In re Post #82, point #2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664838.stm

Hi! My DSL at home has had itself a little neurotic breakdown, and my live-in computer expert is off in the states and won't be back till later this week. And I don't log in from work (well, now, obviously...but not regularly ;) ). I'm not ignoring you (or the links, or any of it)....but I'm not gonna get to it immediately. Many appologies, I do appreciate you doing the footwork.

And Bel, Hon, I know Chomsky's a linguist...that's the only thing that made it funny. Guess I failed ;).

Lil, I can't imagine a room or discussion you wouldn't be welcomed in on any terms you cared to participate. If such a place exists, I'm not sure I'd want to be there ;). Hijack at your will, I for one am happy to play around you as well as through.

G

Vigil

09-21-2004, 03:49 AM

Oh the excitement of generative linguistics - I don't suppose anyone remembers the cunning liguist song?

I think that treating an issue in terms of the pros and cons does display an understanding of the greyness and the acceptance of the consequences seen and unseen.

From an outsider's perspective I see Mr. Kerry getting himself in a pickle because he is trying to deal with the difficult issues whilst good ole George Dubya is keeping it straight black and white.

Upon reflection I would like to know whether there was clear and imminent danger either from WMD (pretty much 100% proven not) and/or support for terrorism. I don't think that there was and so I am coming to the conclusion that we were a little impetuous to get in there and settle old scores, grab the oil etc etc.

Tactically and with 20/20 hindsight it may have been better to sort out other terrorist issues first. So now we have the lunatic fringe coming into Iraq from outside and beheading old civil engineers who are there solely to rebuild the place.

I am afraid that we will be looking at a Northern Ireland situation in that it may take a generation to resolve the issues. I think Jseal made a good point about the correlation between economics and terrorism and so I would be rebuilding the economic infrastructure and providing excellent schools and further education facilities - you want their young people to have something more to hope for in life than the martyrdom of a suicide bomb.

Booger

09-21-2004, 08:38 PM

While some may find this technique distasteful, it is a standard operating procedure in great power politics which goes back many, many years. The French employed it effectively against the British in North America a few years back.

With this line of reasoning terrousism must be all right then to becasue it has been used for many many year sffectively too.

Booger

09-21-2004, 08:41 PM

GingerV,

In re Post #82, point #2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664838.stm

Read that I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone back peddle so fast in my life "well he did't have any BUT HE WAS PLANNING ON GETTING SOME ya ya thats our story and we are sticking to it"

GingerV

09-22-2004, 01:28 PM

OK, I'm back. And while this thread has been quiet and I hate to restart a discussion folks have lost interest in, I did promise a reply. I'll give it...and not mourn if the thread stays dead. ;)

Jseal, if it's ok by you I'll keep things organized the way we had it before. Makes it simple.

1) Is Terror showing any signs of decreasing...thanks for digging up the info, but I'm starting to think they render the graphs we were talking about damned near useless. They're collapsing across all sorts of terrorist groups and incidents, and while the administration is horribly myopic about Terror (they usually mean terrorist acts of Muslim extremists) I'm not sure it's a good idea to look at overgeneralized data. Specifically, I think it's hurtful to your cause more than mine. You might lose a real decrease in the noise of all the different clashes, if you follow me. So I think we may well be back at square one. The graphs on page 5 of the Understanding Terrorism Database _are_ interesting, but they're just a snapshot from 6 months in 2001 (before the current WOT could be considered to have much of an impact). I think they may well bear on a discussion of why people become terrorists, but don't have much to do with this question. Still, it's finally resolved in my mind how such international/domestic distinctions are made in Israel.

2) let take as given that the Hussein/bin Laden story was a transparent fall back position once the WMD position became untenable. I’m confident that you’ll be able to trace its birthday back to the funeral pyre of the WMD. Bush and Blair felt confident that the WMDs would be found. They weren’t.

Respectfully, I think I can trace its birthday back to well before the WMDs weren't found...I can trace it back to before we invaded (unless you count Blix's work as failure to find WMD...the administration doesn't, I kind of do). And I really don't feel the presentation of this as a transparant fallback in any way dismisses Iraq from the discussion of the WOT. That very attitude (theirs I mean, not yours) IS part of the problem.

Because the Iraqi invasion was justified by the WOT, Bush's WOT is now contaminated in the eyes of the world. The sins we commit in Iraq not only make the WOT harder for us to win, or even progress in...they make it impossible for this president to be taken seriously when he stands in front of the UN and suggests we all work together. They can't be seperated, just not for the reasons that the administration would have had us believe.

In re Post #82, point #2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664838.stm
__________________

Yeah, I saw that. You know....if I hadn't been listening to experts jump up and down screaming that the administration was wrong before we invaded, I'd be a lot more impressed with their aw shucks routine now. I'm not surprised they found nothing, and after all their assertions and "we know stuff you don't know, so trust us to make the right decisions" nonsense...their attitude now just seems disingenuous. IF we went to war over WMDs, and were wrong, we owe a serious appology. IF we went to war over terrorist connections in Iraq, and we're wrong (and you and I agree we are, at least), then we owe a serious appology. IF those weren't the reasons we went to war...what the hell are we doing over there?

2.5 Sorry about those 30 minutes, I can’t proofread either. The verification of Iraqi compliance with their commitments was the responsibility of the Iraqi government. Iraqi obstruction and duplicity is well documented, and occurred over an extended period. The Iraqi government could have ensured that they were completed promptly and did not do so. A straightforward miscalculation.

Iraq screwed up. They hid the nonexistent so they didn't look like the weakest country in the region. It was a painfully stupid thing to do. But I don't think you answered the question. There WAS evidence that they were hiding a whole lot of nothing. Blix said that the inspections were progressing at the time the UN was forced to withdraw its inspectors to get them out of the way of American bombs. Were we justified in ignoring that evidence?

3. Afghanistan. The Taliban Afghan government was overthrown by the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. The United States and Great Britain provided crucial air power. Between The end of October and the end of November 2001 the Northern Alliance had captured 60% of the country. Kandahar, in the south of the country fell to the NA on December 6, 2001. The American bombing campaign then focused on the Al-Qaeda training camps and headquarters in the Tora Bora area in the east of Afghanistan. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.

OK, I'm puzzled. I know you're not suggesting that General Franks had nothing to do with organizing the attacks of the Northern Alliance. And I know you're not suggesting that our bombing campaign (which, by the way, dropped a hell of a lot of bad news on places other than the Tora Bora caves) was in no way responsible for the ousting of the Taliban. And I'm sure you're not suggesting that 1000 US ground troops were necessary for the final taking of Khandahar, or that we don't still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. But what I'm not sure of is what this had to do with my inital question. Were our actions in Afghanistan an effective way to promulgate the War on Terror? I don't think you're suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan, like that of Iraq, had nothing to do with the War on Terror...but if by some chance I'm wrong here...what on earth does count as part of the WOT?

Like I said above...I'm not trying to drag this back into the light of day if folks have had enough of it. But Jseal went to a hell of a lot of work on my behalf, and I wanted to make sure he knew I appreciated the effort and wasn't abandoning it. Feel free to ignore this entirely, or pm me if you want to keep it going away from prying eyes ;).

G

jseal

09-23-2004, 05:59 AM

Gentlefolk,

I am very busy at the moment.

Booger, I apologize for the misleading post #95. The reason I posted it was so that no one wasted effort about “may be, or perhaps”. The presumed WMDs were not found.

GingerV, I will respond to your points.

jseal

09-25-2004, 09:22 AM

GingerV,

Thank you for you patience.

In re the data sets. You have identified points where you remain unpersuaded by what I have presented as corroborating evidence. Fair enough. I will grant you that the incident count’s negative trend line in the “good times” (1989 – 1997) is qualified by the casualties’ (fatality & injury) positive one. I do consider the incident count to be a more useful measure of the institution that casualty count, but not everyone agrees with me. I will repeat that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That the data may fail to provide a compelling vindication of the WOT does in no way identify failure. Vigil hints at that by pointing out the brief interval involved. To substantiate your assertion that the WOT is a failure you would need to provide data of similar quality.

My point that terrorism as an institution was growing during the period 1969-1989 has gone unchallenged. Silence implies assent. If one agrees that terrorism as an institution was growing, then I suggest that acts of terrorism have a nature which calls for a “when will there be a response” rather than “if”. About the only people who would disagree with me would be terrorists and their supporters.

I have suggested before that political and economic liberalization are the preferred long term tools to use. They are not the only tools. As Vullkan has observed, when dealing with committed, dedicated terrorists, there may be no way of resolving the conflict other than by force of arms. While it is possible for reasonable people to disagree, it is dangerous to disagree with someone who can characterised as unreasonable. People who kill women and children as political statements are, in my estimation, unreasonable.

Conflicts which play out over extended periods have both near and long term goals. As the al-Qaeda organization is a committed foe of the US, and one which has a history of violence, then one near term goal would be to reduce its operational effectiveness. A long term goal would be to change the economic and political context from which it currently draws support. Destroying the facilities al-Qaeda uses to train its operatives seems like a reasonable near term thing to do. Replacing the intolerant, fanatical, inhumane, and misogynist government of the Taliban with a democratic one seems to be a reasonable medium term goal.

It seems that you and I will be unable to agree about the causus belli for the invasion of Iraq. The action in Afghanistan was justified by the WOT. That was, and remains a distinct conflict from the one in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was based upon the purported existence of Iraq’s existing WMDs and their development programs. This was certainly the case here in the States, and, as my home page has been http://news.bbc.co.uk/ for quite some time, I recall quite clearly that HM Government’s support for the action was also based upon the WMD theory, not the WOT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3864301.stm

The Right Honorable Straw’s “45 minute” comments were about WMDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3479801.stm

Lord Hutton’s review into the suicide of Dr. Kelly was, in part, due to the allegations that the Iraq dossier was “sexed up” to make the case of invasion more strongly. It turn’s out that the Beeb was wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

That there were, ultimately, no WMDs, does not change the record. The position that the invasion of Iraq was based on the WOT does not jibe with the record.

Given that the subjects under debate, WMDs, I find that Mr. Blix’s position, where the Iraqi government did, over a period of many years, repeatedly thwart the goals of agents sent to execute the terms of documents to which the Iraqi government was a signatory, indefensible. The Hussein regime had a documented history of using chemical munitions on both its own and foreign nationals. It subsequently thwarted the inspectors’ efforts to verify that it had indeed disposed itself of them. The earlier Israeli bombing of the Osiris nuclear reactor prevented that same regime from realizing its stated goal of developing nuclear weapons. The responsibility for the prompt resolution of the inspections always lay in the hands of the Iraqi government.

Circumstances change cases. Had the US and HM governments received reliable reports that WMD programs had been discovered in, say, Denmark, the myriad contradictory data points would justify a leisurely approach to addressing what would be difficult to believe. Shift your focus to Baghdad. With a murderous background documented repeatedly over many years, would you recommend according Saddam Hussein the same accommodations as you would Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen?

If you check, I believe that you will find that the majority of the bombs dropped by US & British aircraft in Afghanistan were dropped on the Taliban government armed forces. This was done to facilitate the success of the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. There was no “flat out invasion of Afghanistan”. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.

Yes. Buy replacing a government which overtly supported al-Qaeda with one which does not, the War on Terrorism was advanced.

rich123103

09-25-2004, 11:34 AM

Obviously I speak from a Marine point of view however for thise who question our invasion of Iraq, what happened to all those folks who said we will never let genocide happen again after world war II . He was a weapon of mass destruction he killed thousands of his own people and yes we should be in Sudan however since the almighty great United Nations chooses not to help guess those poor folks will have to wat a while. Freedom is precious fight for it

jseal

09-27-2004, 05:25 AM

The death of Amjad Farooqi in a gun battle with police yesterday is another defeat for terrorism. He is reported as having been not only Pakistan’s most wanted terror suspect, but also a significant al-Qaeda authority in that country.

Similarly, Israel’s killing of Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil, by a car bomb in Damascus, compromises the effectiveness of Hamas, another terrorist organization.

The deaths of these senior terrorist coordinators will not, of course, in and of themselves stop terrorism. Their deaths will, however, reduce the effectiveness of the respective terrorist organizations.

GingerV

09-27-2004, 06:47 AM

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the numbers between 1989 and 1997 aren't relevant. We didn't start this doctrine of pre-emptive defense until 2001. All previous numbers (ALL of them) serve only as a baseline. And they're only useful insofar as the situation surrounding them is stable. As I said initially, these raw numbers are just not terribly useful in complex analyses.

[quote] I do consider the incident count to be a more useful measure of the institution that casualty count, but not everyone agrees with me.

I think they're each differently informative, eww....don't lke my new phrase...but I'm gonna leave it.

I will repeat that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That the data may fail to provide a compelling vindication of the WOT does in no way identify failure. Vigil hints at that by pointing out the brief interval involved. To substantiate your assertion that the WOT is a failure you would need to provide data of similar quality.

Not technically. The null hypothesis (you're a stats man, right? I'm not trying to blind you with jargon) is that there is an effect. You can't prove a negative...I can never prove an absense of effect, you've given me an unreasonable standard. A statistician would demand that the test be to prove the null hypothesis, something you agree that the stats as we have them have failed to do. The conclusion then is that the WOT has not YET had a positive effect on terror. That it may have a long range effect is possible, but there are arguments both for and against it...you're failling to weigh both. Or if you are, you've made a conclusion behind the scenes. Cool, but I weigh the evidence differently. My interpretation is that it will get worse.

So what makes this different than a conflict about who's gonna win the world series? I DO have evidence of extrodinary costs, and we agree there is as yet no evidence of benefit. I do biomedical research, and we're very careful to remember that sometimes a short range cost/benefit analysis can be misleading (chemo)...but we also have the option to test the treatments before administering them to large populations. Here, we have to be more careful...we can't just "try this conventional warfare approach" in order to be seen to be doing something in case it works. We have to have the evidence of effect to justify the cost and counterbalance the contrasting expectations.

Silence implies assent. If one agrees that terrorism as an institution was growing, then I suggest that acts of terrorism have a nature which calls for a “when will there be a response” rather than “if”.

Find me someplace I said we shouldn't be dealing with it? I said that conventional warfare was counterproductive. It's the wrong paradigm.

About the only people who would disagree with me would be terrorists and their supporters.

I don't think you MEANT to call me a terrorist supporter, so I won't quite tell you to go screw yourself. That was very nearly over the line.

People who kill women and children as political statements are, in my estimation, unreasonable.

And when the political statement is "don't mess with the USA?"

It seems that you and I will be unable to agree about the causus belli for the invasion of Iraq.

Hell, Hon...you and the president don't seem able to agree about the cause of that particular invasion. But as much as you want to disown it, I think you're stuck with it. One of the costs of fighting this war on a tactic is that the war fervor will be misused.

The action in Afghanistan was justified by the WOT. Something else I'm not sure we agree on. the Taliban were awful, we agree on that. But one of the dangers in your approach is that you confuse promulgating democracy with erradicating terrorism. Did we do a good thing? Not clear yet. Has it fixed the terror problem? Not clear yet.

I know you want to believe it's working...but reading me the list of why it should work isn't the same as demonstrating that it has. Especially when you refuse to admit that the WOT is the best damned recruiting tool the terrorist camps have ever had. The US intelligence community says so. I can give you a stack of reports hip high that tell me why all sorts of my experiments should have worked. Right up to the point where they didn't.

The invasion of Iraq was based upon the purported existence of Iraq’s existing WMDs and their development programs.

OK, short of drowning you in old news stories, I'm obviously not going to convince you that the whitehouse has had a connection between Iraq and the WOT since long before they invaded. Go reread the pre-war state of the union, Cheney's speaches...or just look at the way that FOX is reporting it. If the word Iraq comes out of the talking head's mouth...WOT is on the screen. And yes, because the whitehouse isn't jumping up and down saying "no no no, they're not the same thing" I do hold them responsible for FOX.

But it's more than that, you're just plain wrong. That same day Powell stood up in front of the UN with the pictures of trucks passing warehouses and claimed it was intelligence, he had a flowchart showing how Hussein had indirect ties with Al Queda. I was NOT the only person playing "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon/Sadam Hussein" that week, did you miss it?

We were worried he had them. That they could reach England. AND THAT HE WOULD SELL THEM TO TERRORISTS. Go reread the transcripts when you're done with the state of the union. I remember the whole thing being clearly reported by the BBC, don't know how you missed it.

That there were, ultimately, no WMDs, does not change the record. The position that the invasion of Iraq was based on the WOT does not jibe with the record.

I read your references. They aren't ANY of them relevant. No, there are no WMD in Iraq. We know that. We agree on that. But reiterating it doesn't change the fact that there are issues those articles weren't addressing. You're going round the houses, and missing the point.

With a murderous background documented repeatedly over many years, would you recommend according Saddam Hussein the same accommodations as you would Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen?

With weapons inspectors on the ground, in the country, saying the job was getting done and that it would take them another 12 months? Yes. Yes I would have waited. For the record, rhetorical questions are only really effective in sermons.

If you check, I believe that you will find that the majority of the bombs dropped by US & British aircraft in Afghanistan were dropped on the Taliban government armed forces. This was done to facilitate the success of the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. There was no “flat out invasion of Afghanistan”. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.

Yes. We bombed them. But there WERE Americans on the ground for many of the final battles....there are still Americans there now. I don't know who you're quoting about "flat out" battles...it wasn't my phrase. We directed the war. We dropped bombs. We orchestrated a change in power. We're still there trying to stabalize the government. You want to tell the families of the troops who died there we weren't "really" involved?

Yes. Buy replacing a government which overtly supported al-Qaeda with one which does not, the War on Terrorism was advanced.

Along THAT dimension. But possibly not in the grand scheme, if you look at the bigger picture. By giving them the propaganda they so very much wanted, our victory was pyrhic at best.

Look...I get that you don't agree with me. But please don't think I'm failing to understand your points. I do understand them, and I think you're right about some of them, as far as they go. But I don't think you're letting the whole picture be part of the discussion. In my world, we'd say you were cherry picking your data to get the conclusions you wanted. Unless you're willing to admit the possibility that your theory is wrong after all....you're not really being fair to the subject.

I'm willing to admit that down the road this might work. But I have NO evidence to believe that outcome is likely. There is evidence that it isn't working the way we expected. And whether you admit that the war in Iraq is linked with the WOT, you HAVE to admit that the terrorists are using it to justify their actions...if we didn't link it, they sure as hell did. The long term benefits are NOT guranteed, and the short term costs are too big to justify continuing the methods we've chosen. If there was evidence that ON THE WHOLE the approach was working, well....I think you're still morally on shakey ground. But at least you'ld have pragmatic support. Now you've got neither.

In any case, I think we've reached the tail chasing part of our program. I'll relinquish the last word to you. PM me if you want to continue on anything specific.

G

jseal

09-27-2004, 10:10 AM

GingerV,

As you wish madam. Perhaps some day…

PalaceGuard

09-29-2004, 10:31 AM

jseal - That's it? Aren't you going to respond to ginger's claims and accusations? You know that asking her for data is not the same as asking her to prove the null hypothesis. You know that the Iraq invasion was because of the weapons of mass destruction and not the war on terror. You're just going to let it drop?

jseal

09-29-2004, 11:49 AM

PalaceGuard,

Yes, I shall drop it. Just like that. GingerV has indicated clearly that she no longer wishes to discuss the subject. Anyone can read the thread and see what each contributor wrote and follow their links. Any inconsistencies and self-contradictions are there for all to see. I think it is important to respect the wishes of others, even of those with whom I disagree on this or that topic. Only guys like Tarzan and Rambo can get away with beating their breasts and roaring. I most assuredly do not fall into that category.

You should join in next time. Don’t rely on me to say what you mean. I may disagree with you!

PalaceGuard

09-30-2004, 04:04 AM

jseal - Maybe I will join in next time. But I'm still right that you asking ginger to supply data is not the same as you asking her to prove the null hypothesis.

Lilith

09-30-2004, 05:43 AM

jseal - Maybe I will join in next time. But I'm still right ....

Well that and $2.85 will get you a Vanilla Latte at Starbucks;)

For those of us who are following along ~~~> Null Hypothesis (http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgnullhy.htm) it appears it's not something you prove...but something you reject, if I am understanding it correctly.Which it is entirely possible I am not. I'll see the Stats professor at school today and see if he can give me a private lesson. See pic link #24;):hump:

GingerV

09-30-2004, 09:58 AM

You're absolutely right, Lil. I think he's mixing up my suggestion that the null hypothesis raised by jseal's assertion has been rejected by the data supplied with my statement that I can't be asked to prove a negative. The word null might have mixed 'em up...it's why I appologised for using jargon for the non-stats folks. They're two different things. But hey, I was leaving already.

Lilith

09-30-2004, 12:23 PM

Ooooooooooooooooooooo I knew about 2 things Chomsky and Null shit!!!! I will have to sex up that teacher to celebrate!

<<< goes back to just observing :p

jseal

09-30-2004, 02:44 PM

GingerV,

I would seem that I was incorrect to expect you to not continue the thread.

You asked me to provide data to substantiate my position that the WOT was effective. I did. You remain unpersuaded. Fair enough. You are not alone.

You suggested that the WOT was ineffective. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…my initial assertion that it hasn't done a blind bit of good…”

Asking you to substantiate your position with data – as you asked of me - is not, it seems to me, unreasonable. It does not involve asking you to prove the null hypothesis. I merely ask of you what you have asked of me.

I provided data to show that international terrorism needed to be addressed, and as best as I can tell, you agreed with me. I suggested that economic and political liberalization were the appropriate long term tools to use. I believe that you have not disagreed with me. I suggested that there are situations where force may be required.

I disagree with your suggestion that Afghanistan was invaded. Permit me to reference post #82 in this thread, your point 3.

“…a flat out invasion of Afghanistan…”

That is not, I believe correct. I have pointed out the Taliban was defeated on the ground by the Northern Alliance, which was composed of Afghans.

We also disagree what the justification was for the invasion of Iraq. I have stated that it was the existence of Iraq’s WMDs. I have provided links to the quotes of the decision makers. I have also provided a link to the BBC’s article on the Lord Hutton’s report into the death of Dr. Kelly. I do ask you to take the time needed to read Lord Hutton’s report. Page numbers here refer to the PDF from the BBC link above. Permit me to quote from page 2 of that report, item 9. “The terms of reference”

“There has been a great deal of controversy and debate whether the intelligence in relation to weapons of mass destruction set out in the dossier published by the Government on 24 September 2002 was of sufficient strength and reliability to justify the Government in deciding that Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed such a threat to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom that military action should be taken against that country.”

Again, to quote from page 6 of that report:

“The threat posed to international peace and security, when WMD are in the hands of a brutal and aggressive regime like Saddam’s is real.”

Despite this data, your response was “They aren't ANY of them relevant”. I disagree with you. If quotes from the former UK Iraq envoy, the Foreign Secretary, and a copy of the dossier presented to the Prime Minister fail to persuade you, I suspect nothing will.