A new low in Terrorism

[Andrew Green]

So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?

Things are never quite so black and white.

Consider this, there was far less civilian deaths and the people where much better off when a tyrant was running Iraq then now, after being "liberated."

Is this going to help at all in the long run? That is the intention, but I can't help but think it's going to end up souring them on the idea of western style democracy due to very bad experiences with it.

There may be things that we, as first world countries can do to try and protect human rights in developing countries. But implementing a new system by force is not going to achieve anything, any more then a Communist invasion and overthrow of the US government to "liberate" you and save the workers would in the US.

 

[Ninjamom]

Iraq vows to "crush terrorists" after 99 killed
By Michael Holden Sat Feb 2, 1:09 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's prime minister vowed on Saturday that attacks by two female bombers which killed 99 people in Baghdad would not derail improved security, but angry residents demanded the government do more to protect them.

Nuri al-Maliki said Friday's nearly simultaneous bombings at two crowded pet markets, the deadliest attacks in the city since April, would not herald a return to the savage violence that took Iraq to the brink of sectarian civil war.

The U.S. military said there were indications the women were mentally handicapped, and probably unaware they were being used as human bombs. It blamed Sunni Islamist al Qaeda for the attacks.

Complete Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080202/ts_nm/iraq_dc

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree that it is a dispicable indictment of the morality of those who would orchestrate such an act.

However, is it really worse than inflicting 'modern' area effect munitions on civil centres during a 'war' (the single quotes are because to call the invasion of Irag a war is to devalue the term, the mismatch was that great)? It's lower tech and more visceral in the emotive reactions but is it really any different in intent?

I'm not being deliberately confrontational or diminishing my own personal horror at such actions, just attempting not to operate a dual-standard.

At the same time I do not want to be painted an 'apologist' for the minds behind attacks that seek to obtain a political objective by snuffing out the lives of those who have nothing to do with the decision-making process.

We've had similar discussions here at MT before and I still maintain that terrorism is a non-viable form of warfare when it is the only form of warfare available to those seeking to force a change.

As a close to home example, even with American funding the IRA did not succeed in achieving their aims via terrorism. All their attacks did was to direct vitriol and hatred against themselves - never for a moment did the majority of the British voting public think that "This is my governments fault, we must change something".

The same applies with the shameful incidences of terrorist attacks in Iraq. The perpetrators cannot achieve their aims because they are not striking effectively at those with the power to make the decsions.

Humans lives, with all their infinite potential for love, art and creativity ripped apart yet again in the name of a political or religious ideal.

As Billy Connolly would say so accurately (and I paraphrase dramatically), "Bollocks to the lot of you! You've had thousands of years to sort yourselves out and you've ****ed it all up. Take your 'Holy Books' and shove them ..." etc etc.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems to me that one should be skeptical of statements such as this.

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/print-headline-then-let-fact-catch-up.html

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't think the Iraqi government wanted the US there, at least not the one the US overthrew. The one they propped up in its place maybe, but does that represent the wishes of the people or is the current government only in place because the US propped it up and is their keeping it in place by force?

Not too long ago the USSR did a similar thing, they put governments in place in countries that supported the USSR, and kept them in place by threat of and use of force. Now they believed they where their to help, and bring a better way of life. Didn't work for them though.

Before that the French, British, Japanese and others where doing it. Called it colonialism then, didn't work for them either. In fact I believe the US got itself into a war with the British over something to do with that

History has shown time and time again that when you try to force a new way of life on a group of people, prop up a government and maintain order with your military, it fails. Miserably. The US should have learnt this in Vietnam, this is a war that cannot be won for the same reasons.

This is such an important point that I wanted to re-quote it wholesale for emphasis.

I wont muddy the waters with non-relavant debate on what the War of Independance was about and who actually fought it, that's an interesting topic for elsewhere .

Any time that a government is imposed from outside or is too draconian internally then that government falls. Sometimes it's a slow process that does not occur for generations and sometimes it's very rapid. However, like death and taxes, the collapse of unwanted government is one of those certainties of existence.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, as I understand it... the "preservation of the old ways" is just a facade. It's a nice idea and even a romantic idea. Much in the same way that the Native Americans had their (many) reasons for fighting back because their way of life was threatened.
With these Muslims not wanting to join the 21st century isn't the problem. Here in the states and elsewhere you see that there are a few thousand who have done so quite successfully.

I agree. That many of the Islam faith are members of the 21st century. They get along with those of the country they were born and or have chosen to live.

I do not think I implied that all people of the Islam faith were terrorists.

 

[tellner]

Don, a couple things here.

First, it's not our job to go around to every country whose government we don't like, throw it out, kill its leaders, occupy the nation and force it to be what we want.

Second, even if it were, we can't.

Third, we have been the leading installer and supporter of dictators around the world from the House of Saud, Thieu, Chang Kai Shek and Pinochet to Somoza, Duvalier and Saddam Hussein.

 

[tellner]

Apropos the discussion, here's an AP story about just that...

In its ideological struggle against Al-Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.


That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.


"The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, (and) not towards understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.


"This is a monumental failing not only because decapitation strategies have rarely worked in countering mass-mobilisation terrorist or insurgent campaigns, but also because Al-Qaeda's ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources.


"Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks," Hoffman added.

 

[Ninjamom]

It seems to me that one should be skeptical of bloggers with axes to grind.

From AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205362
<
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions, but gave no further details on how authorities pieced together the evidence. He also said the bombs were detonated by remote control.
<
Police said the woman wearing the bomb sold cream in the mornings at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady."


From Agence France-Presse: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080203/twl-iraq-unrest-575b600.html
<
The women were mentally impaired and their features indicated they were suffering Down's Syndrome.
>
People suffering from Down's Syndrome are regarded in Islam as being without sin, and therefore when they die they will go straight to paradise.

Similar article in Reuters: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02199412.htm

 

[Tez3]

So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?

Go back and read your history of the Middle East, after the First World War the area was carved up by America, France and Britain into new countries, regardless of natural and clan borders. Royal families were made, new leaders were found to suit the winning side. We are the makers of this problem.
America is NOT the world's policeman. How long before you decide you don't like the British government, after all we are socialists and invade us? Another Grenada perhaps? Then why not invade the rest of Europe, lots of socialists there too?
On the subject of intel, for a long time America and to a certain the UK has been relying on electronic intel gathering when any old time intel officer will tell you there is nothing better than people on the ground. Satellites can tell you lots on interesting facts but not how a countries people are thinking or what the real intel is.

 

[Ninjamom]

FIRST, with apologies, I just found this topic has already ben posted, and a thread is dedicated to it in "The Study", HERE

SECONDLY, WRT your comment:

I agree that it is a dispicable indictment of the morality of those who would orchestrate such an act.

However, is it really worse than inflicting 'modern' area effect munitions on civil centres during a 'war' ?.....It's lower tech and more visceral in the emotive reactions but is it really any different in intent?

It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective. HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq. Coalition forces have taken higher casualties than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants. While large numbers of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the overwhelming majority have been from terrorist strikes such as the ones reported in the above links. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - terrorist are targeting civilian areas to amass casualties; coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.

 

[Tez3]

FIRST, with apologies, I just found this topic has already ben posted, and a thread is dedicated to it in "The Study", HERE

SECONDLY, WRT your comment:
It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective. HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq. Coalition forces have taken higher casualties than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants. While large numbers of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the overwhelming majority have been from terrorist strikes such as the ones reported in the above links. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - terrorist are targeting civilian areas to amass casualties; coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.

The problem is, sadly, that none of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems to me that one should be skeptical of bloggers with axes to grind.

From AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205362
<
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions, but gave no further details on how authorities pieced together the evidence. He also said the bombs were detonated by remote control.
<
Police said the woman wearing the bomb sold cream in the mornings at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady."


From Agence France-Presse: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080203/twl-iraq-unrest-575b600.html
<
The women were mentally impaired and their features indicated they were suffering Down's Syndrome.
>
People suffering from Down's Syndrome are regarded in Islam as being without sin, and therefore when they die they will go straight to paradise.

Similar article in Reuters: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02199412.htm

One can not help but wonder how that General made the diagnosis. Do you suppose the General, himself, performed the study to determine the extra chromosome?

I do not believe a person with Down's Syndrome, especially one who can complete commercial transactions in a market, is beyond understanding what an explosive vest is, and the ramifications of having such a vest being strapped to his or her body.

It seems to me the very premise is ridiculous. That the story is repeated, without testing or verification, is just sad. It seems to me that stories such as this are broad brush strokes to dehumanize an enemy.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So, its better to leave the tyrants and despots in control?

Actually I never said it was, I just said that this is going to be a very LONG and protracted war if the goal is to change them into a Western type Democracy.

If you look at the region historically by removing one you just make room for another you create a power vacuum and there are enough there to fill it. And as a note; they are not all tyrants and despots just because they rule in the Middle East.

Yes Saddam a very bad man, a mass murderer and he was in need of killing but in the long run, unless you are willing to have a MAJOR US presence in the region for the next 50 to 100 years or more, you are not going to change a thing by building the biggest US consulate in the world there, actually all you are making is a bigger target, and it is doubtful that is enough time to change an area that has been ruled, in general, by the strongest or meanest or toughest for a very very long time, since before the first Crusade. And in the past when the US or any Western power has gotten involved we generally end up making things worse if for no other reason than training our future enemy to fight better, if you are looking for a example you can start with Osama bin Laden.

But instead of arguing this further I would be interested in hearing your take on the area, the situation and how we can change it and how long it will take and how many US and Middle Eastern lives it will cost?

 

[Ninjamom]

The problem is, sadly, that none of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.

Tez, please understand that I truly respect you and the opinions you have shared on this forum, and I am not trying in any sense to 'pick a fight', but I don't want to fall into the trap of oversimplifying this into a 'moral equivalency' argument (i.e., we are just as bad as they are, so we shouldn't do anything about the terrorists).

Truth is, Iraq has been plagued with sectarian violence for decades, but now the situation is safe enough on the ground to allow reporters in to document what is currently happening. Iraq and Iran killed millions of each other in a largely sectarian (Shi'ite vs. Sunni) war that lasted 12 years. Sadaam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the middle, and practically obliterated an entire race of Marsh Arabs in the south.

We are fighting an adversary that ascribes to a radical view of global Islamo-fascism, representing a large sub-culture that believes, not just that the US should leave the Middle East, but that Spain should be ceded back to a revived Islamic Caliphate.

I agree with you that any deaths (even one) is one too many, but I cannot believe that if we suddenly laid down our arms and walked away that Al Qaeda would 'like' us. Whether anyone here agrees with the current Iraqi government, it was selected in a fair and free election, with a voter turn-out rate that would put either of our nations to shame. The terrorists are against this precicesly because it was popularly chosen - the radical elements represented by Al Qaeda et al. subscribe to a view that Democracy is inherently incompatible with Islam because (in their mind) it denies the sovereignty of God, allowing government to be chosen by people, instead. To allow a freely chosen government to succeed would be to admit that their version of god failed. The only hope anyone in Iraq has of being free is to support them in their internal efforts to stand against militants actively trying to live out that twisted view.

And Michael E. - Downes syndrome is usually visible by outward physical signs (easily recognizeable, if you have ever worked with handicapped children or adults) without any chromosomal testing. With the physical deformity reported, plus the fact that at least one of the ladies involved was well-known within her community to be mentally challenged, I think there is more objective evidence to support the reports as written than to doubt them.

 

[michaeledward]

And Michael E. - Downes syndrome is usually visible by outward physical signs (easily recognizeable, if you have ever worked with handicapped children or adults) without any chromosomal testing. With the physical deformity reported, plus the fact that at least one of the ladies involved was well-known within her community to be mentally challenged, I think there is more objective evidence to support the reports as written than to doubt them.

Gee ... can you talk down to me any more than that?

I would suggest there is very little evidence. What the articles are reporting is heresay. That the heresay fits into a currently acceptable view of the people living in the region makes it easier to accept as evidence.

Example: The stories make the ascertion that the reported Down Syndrome person was unwittingly used. What evidence is there to show this woman did not have foreknowlege?

 

[Big Don]

The problem is, sadly, that none of these deaths would have occurred if we hadn't been there.

Wrong!
They would have just blown up other muslims. You may have noticed the term "Sectarian Violence" in the media. That is because Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, don't like each other...

 

[Ninjamom]

Gee ... can you talk down to me any more than that?

Well, OK, if you'd like

Example: The stories make the ascertion that the reported Down Syndrome person was unwittingly used. What evidence is there to show this woman did not have foreknowlege?

Just her reputation in the community. That one part is probably the sketchiest of all the details given - it goes to the degree of her mental incapacitation, which isn't known exactly. However, the preponderance of evidence shows that she was mentally deficient, and probably suffering from Downes (my point being that it is far more likely you are being overly cynical to assume the report is grossly inaccurate than it is likely I am being naive to believe it is largely accurate as reported).

 

[Sukerkin]

SECONDLY, WRT your comment:
It is no worse than deliberately inflicting modern warfare on massive civilian areas, with no military objective. HOWEVER, that is not at all the case of what the US/UK/etc are doing in Iraq. Coalition forces have taken higher casualties than would have been necessary if such an approach had been taken, specifically because of the use of surgical strikes, precision munitions, additional on-the-ground intelligence, and the deliberate avoidance of non-combatants. While large numbers of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the overwhelming majority have been from terrorist strikes such as the ones reported in the above links. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid such 'collateral damage', which is precisely what makes the intent different - terrorist are targeting civilian areas to amass casualties; coalition troops are avoiding civilian deaths and even giving care and medical aid to our adversaries to minimize loss of life and suffering.

I don't want to de-rail this thread by latching on to a side-issue and running with it (shocks all round ) so I'll say that I broadly accept that there has not been deliberate targeting of civilian centres once the occupation started. Some reports suggest otherwise but those that I have seen come from sources with definite bias that makes them even harder to believe than the 'official' news channels.

A big problem we're ever going to have when trying to discuss 'Iraq' at anything more concrete than a theoretical level is that we don't really know what's going on. We have the illusion of information from the news media but that is a generally orchestrated picture to tell the story desired by the powers that be.

However, really what we're talking about here is our emotional and cultural reactions to another in a string of abominable attacks and on that I think we all more or less agree.

 

[michaeledward]

Sukerkin, I don't know that you need to hedge your bets quite so much.

The use of high power bombs dropped from aircraft in Iraq has increased more than fivefold in the past several months. In fact, in the past two or three weeks, more then 100,000 pounds of high explosives were dropped in a village south of Baghdad.

While the GPS nature of these weapons make them hit where they are aimed with a very high degree of accuracy; the fact that they are being aimed into villages and communities within city limits, and not at bunkered down military fortifications, quite probably means that civilians centers are getting hit deliberately.

Those who support the occupation would tell us this is a tragic side effect of war; as if to absolve themselves from the carnage.