P
purple
Guest
Does anyone else find the whole idea of a "War on terror" with it's ill defined objectives, faceless enemies and open ended time frame has disturbing parallels with Orwell’s 1984?
P
Paul
Guest
I would worry much more about Bin Laden and his followers - and their vision of how they want to make the world - than Orwells book. Did you ever live in a Muslim country ? Then imagine a world like this.
P
piggy
Guest
I find the whole thing disturbing Purple and have done since the start of it. So many people thought that after 911 the US would finally sit up and pay attention to their foreign policy. The so called War on Terror could have been over in a year with intelligent policies.
Unfortunately, there's a bunch of idiots running Washington, hell bent on destroying themselves and the rest of us. The War on Terror is spin spun out of control. The sad thing is that some people actually believe in it. I find it depressing that people look at terrorism without looking at the reasons behind it and for it.
This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!
Unfortunately, there's a bunch of idiots running Washington, hell bent on destroying themselves and the rest of us. The War on Terror is spin spun out of control. The sad thing is that some people actually believe in it. I find it depressing that people look at terrorism without looking at the reasons behind it and for it.
This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!
P
purple
Guest
Re.Paul
Yes I do worry more about Bin Laden and the whole fundamentalist Islamic movement but why should it be one or the other?
When people talk about the Middle East many of then put things in terms of America good, Islam bad or Islam good, America bad. Nothing is black and white. No one is all wrong or all right. Islam spreads half way around the world; it's not just some local cult. America does much good in the world (George W has done more than anyone else in the world to fight AIDS). Until we put things in context and see them as the complex issues that they are we will continue to miss the long term implications of what happens in the here and now.
Yes I do worry more about Bin Laden and the whole fundamentalist Islamic movement but why should it be one or the other?
When people talk about the Middle East many of then put things in terms of America good, Islam bad or Islam good, America bad. Nothing is black and white. No one is all wrong or all right. Islam spreads half way around the world; it's not just some local cult. America does much good in the world (George W has done more than anyone else in the world to fight AIDS). Until we put things in context and see them as the complex issues that they are we will continue to miss the long term implications of what happens in the here and now.
D
daltonr
Guest
I wouldn't agree with that. I presume you're suggesting that If America had been less isolationist, and if they'd been more even handed in the Middle East conflict that it would have removed the causes of terrorism.
That's only partly true, and even if it was true, America was never going to radically change it's pro-Israel stance in response to 9/11, nor were they going to pull troops out of the Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the region.
The other reason America couldn't have diffused terrorism is that at least some of it is being carried out by complete nutters with no particular reason for hating America, other than the fact that it symbolises everything they are not.
Of course that's also the very reason why a war on Terror can't be won. Just like the war on Drugs can't be won.
I will say this though. While they may not have been in a position to end terrorism by shifting policy in the direction you would have liked, they were under no obligation to fuel terrorism by shifting policy in the other direction.
That has been the real failure of the Bush Administration. They've thrown gasolene on the fire of terrorism and pretended to the American people that it was water.
30 years after Bloody Sunday we are still wrapped up in investigations and accusations. At least some of the Terrorists in the North got involved directly because of that event.
There have been dozens of Bloody Sunday's in Iraq. Numerous civilians including women and children shot while protesting. In one case troops opened fire on a crowd who were protesting after (possibly untrue) rumours spread about troops using night vision goggles to spy on women.
It was a peaceful protest outside a school.
Forget high minded idealogical arguments about defeating terrorists. Terrorists are created and defeated on the ground in the way that the powerful interact with the powerless. It has always been this way.
-Rd
P
piggy
Guest
"I wouldn't agree with that. I presume you're suggesting that If America had been less isolationist, and if they'd been more even handed in the Middle East conflict that it would have removed the causes of terrorism.
That's only partly true, and even if it was true, America was never going to radically change it's pro-Israel stance in response to 9/11, nor were they going to pull troops out of the Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the regi[/b]
Unfortunately yes. America was unlikely to do what it should have. But it's still the reason for most of this terrorism. They could have adopted a more balanced approach and calmed the situation. Osama and his cronies didn't fly two planes into the Twin Towers just because America represents everything they're not.
"The other reason America couldn't have diffused terrorism is that at least some of it is being carried out by complete nutters with no particular reason for hating America, other than the fact that it symbolises everything they are not."
Although I agree...they are nutters, they could have been defeated. Terrorism needs support. Without support it has no cause. In some ways this is a pointless conversation, because what should have happened could never, ever have happened.
"That has been the real failure of the Bush Administration. They've thrown gasolene on the fire of terrorism and pretended to the American people that it was water."
Couldn't agree with you more.
"Forget high minded idealogical arguments about defeating terrorists. Terrorists are created and defeated on the ground in the way that the powerful interact with the powerless. It has always been this way."
Just as there are reasons behind Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Remember what the IRA used to say...remember all the slogans, 'BRITS OUT'. It was never likely to happen was it. Were they extremists? Yes. Yet we have relative peace today, catholic living beside prodestant. It's not ideal, but it's better than what we had.
That's only partly true, and even if it was true, America was never going to radically change it's pro-Israel stance in response to 9/11, nor were they going to pull troops out of the Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the regi[/b]
Unfortunately yes. America was unlikely to do what it should have. But it's still the reason for most of this terrorism. They could have adopted a more balanced approach and calmed the situation. Osama and his cronies didn't fly two planes into the Twin Towers just because America represents everything they're not.
"The other reason America couldn't have diffused terrorism is that at least some of it is being carried out by complete nutters with no particular reason for hating America, other than the fact that it symbolises everything they are not."
Although I agree...they are nutters, they could have been defeated. Terrorism needs support. Without support it has no cause. In some ways this is a pointless conversation, because what should have happened could never, ever have happened.
"That has been the real failure of the Bush Administration. They've thrown gasolene on the fire of terrorism and pretended to the American people that it was water."
Couldn't agree with you more.
"Forget high minded idealogical arguments about defeating terrorists. Terrorists are created and defeated on the ground in the way that the powerful interact with the powerless. It has always been this way."
Just as there are reasons behind Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Remember what the IRA used to say...remember all the slogans, 'BRITS OUT'. It was never likely to happen was it. Were they extremists? Yes. Yet we have relative peace today, catholic living beside prodestant. It's not ideal, but it's better than what we had.
Y
YD
Guest
WMD being deployed in Iraq
Okay, it took a while but we now hear that WMD have not only been discovered in Iraq but have been deployed. Two US soldiers had to be treated for coughing after an attack by Sarin nerve gas. Makes it all seem worthwile.
Okay, it took a while but we now hear that WMD have not only been discovered in Iraq but have been deployed. Two US soldiers had to be treated for coughing after an attack by Sarin nerve gas. Makes it all seem worthwile.
D
daltonr
Guest
Re: WMD being deployed in Iraq
The sad thing about the 9/11 attacks is that the bad guys won. They got exactly what they wanted.
* World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda?
* Civil rights greatly restricted in the "Free" US of A.
* World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens.
* Greater fear, distrust and hatred between the West and
East, Christian and Muslim etc.
* Greater instability in the Middle East
* American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause"
* The secular Saddam removed from Iraq
* The invading
powers made to look stupid, or corrupt or both.
If Al-Queda had written a mission statement before 9/11 it would have read something like that. And then they'd have laughed. "There's no way we can achieve all that in 2 to 3 years."
-Rd
The sad thing about the 9/11 attacks is that the bad guys won. They got exactly what they wanted.
* World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda?
* Civil rights greatly restricted in the "Free" US of A.
* World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens.
* Greater fear, distrust and hatred between the West and
East, Christian and Muslim etc.
* Greater instability in the Middle East
* American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause"
* The secular Saddam removed from Iraq
* The invading
powers made to look stupid, or corrupt or both.
If Al-Queda had written a mission statement before 9/11 it would have read something like that. And then they'd have laughed. "There's no way we can achieve all that in 2 to 3 years."
-Rd
P
purple
Guest
Re.Daltonr
I agree completely.
I agree completely.
W
wavejumper
Guest
YD
"Makes it all seem worthwile. "
otherwise it would have not been worthwhile? I thought the good fight was for liberating iraq, freeing the world of the muslim menace and safeguarding the freedom of the American allies. Isn't that what it was all about? butchering tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq just to show them what happens when a group of Saudis decide to slam 4 commercial airplanes on US soil.
Oh and btw, it was 1 round which is apparently part of the 1991 cache of weapon. the lot which was sold to iraq by the US and the UK.
why don't you join your friend Berg in Iraq if you're so keen on making it worthwhile buddy?
"Makes it all seem worthwile. "
otherwise it would have not been worthwhile? I thought the good fight was for liberating iraq, freeing the world of the muslim menace and safeguarding the freedom of the American allies. Isn't that what it was all about? butchering tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq just to show them what happens when a group of Saudis decide to slam 4 commercial airplanes on US soil.
Oh and btw, it was 1 round which is apparently part of the 1991 cache of weapon. the lot which was sold to iraq by the US and the UK.
why don't you join your friend Berg in Iraq if you're so keen on making it worthwhile buddy?
P
piggy
Guest
Re: YD
"Makes it all seem worthwile."
I could be wrong but I think his comment was sarcastic.
"Makes it all seem worthwile."
I could be wrong but I think his comment was sarcastic.
W
wavejumper
Guest
perhaps
yea well maybe. i think its moer like trolling in order to get the likes of me to get banned. I'll shut up.
yea well maybe. i think its moer like trolling in order to get the likes of me to get banned. I'll shut up.
C
chilidog
Guest
McDonalds
Dalton R scribed..............
* World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda? – And this really helps their cause how? We now know more about these dogs and their behaviour and thus we are more vigilant.
* Civil rights greatly restricted in the "Free" US of A. – Ok more control on movement but that is more to do with point one and the risk management side.
* World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens. – This is pants, no one more that the US, GB and the UN peace and stability its just that it cannot happen like a video game, there will be losses.
* Greater fear, distrust and hatred between the West and
East, Christian and Muslim etc. – My friend this has been the case since ancient times and no matter what we or our forefathers do will cease the suspicions. I am sorry but we aint all going to McDonalds on a fun lovin trip, Cath v Prots , Arabs v West, Japs v Chin , the Balkan mish mash , Turks and Cypriots there aint no magic fix here.
* Greater instability in the Middle East – Has it ever been stable really can you tell me when we a stable middle east without having to child mind the regimes, please check your history book.
* American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause". Ok and Iraq has never committed these or Bin Laden, a few bad apples in a prison running riot hardly equals the formers record.
* The secular Saddam removed from Iraq – How is this bad for the war on Terror, a friend or Bin Laden , Gaddaffi and basically anyone who is in that line of work.
* The invading
powers made to look stupid, or corrupt or both. – The invaders where actually the liberators and they are contributing a damn sight more than anyone else on this site with their hypothetical BS.
Dalton R scribed..............
* World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda? – And this really helps their cause how? We now know more about these dogs and their behaviour and thus we are more vigilant.
* Civil rights greatly restricted in the "Free" US of A. – Ok more control on movement but that is more to do with point one and the risk management side.
* World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens. – This is pants, no one more that the US, GB and the UN peace and stability its just that it cannot happen like a video game, there will be losses.
* Greater fear, distrust and hatred between the West and
East, Christian and Muslim etc. – My friend this has been the case since ancient times and no matter what we or our forefathers do will cease the suspicions. I am sorry but we aint all going to McDonalds on a fun lovin trip, Cath v Prots , Arabs v West, Japs v Chin , the Balkan mish mash , Turks and Cypriots there aint no magic fix here.
* Greater instability in the Middle East – Has it ever been stable really can you tell me when we a stable middle east without having to child mind the regimes, please check your history book.
* American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause". Ok and Iraq has never committed these or Bin Laden, a few bad apples in a prison running riot hardly equals the formers record.
* The secular Saddam removed from Iraq – How is this bad for the war on Terror, a friend or Bin Laden , Gaddaffi and basically anyone who is in that line of work.
* The invading
powers made to look stupid, or corrupt or both. – The invaders where actually the liberators and they are contributing a damn sight more than anyone else on this site with their hypothetical BS.
P
piggy
Guest
Re: McDonalds
"World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda? – And this really helps their cause how?"
It's called exposure...something that all terrorist groups look for.
"World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens"
If you believe the polls (and I'm not sure I do) the war had a very slight majority amongst the populations of both America and Britain before the war.
Right now, the majority of people (according to polls) are against it.
"My friend this has been the case since ancient times and no matter what we or our forefathers do will cease the suspicions"
Fortunately not everyone thinks this way. No one ever said that Catholics and Muslims were living side by side harmoniously (although they are in many countries). However, whatever suspicions and fears did exist have now been multiplied 100 fold. If you can't see the danger of this then I'm wasting my breath.
"Has it ever been stable really can you tell me when we a stable middle east without having to child mind the regimes, please check your history book."
That's no reason to de-stabilise it even more. Again, if you can't see the inherent danger in destabilsing an already unstable region then you should watch the news more.
"American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause". Ok and Iraq has never committed these or Bin Laden, a few bad apples in a prison running riot hardly equals the formers record."
Oh dear :\ The old Saddam was worse than the US are argument. I guess then if the US soldiers just murder a few Iraqi's and only torture them a little that's okay, because it doesn't compare to what Saddam did right? Thanks for clearing that one up.
Incidentally, we don't know yet if it was only a few bad apples, or if it's rampant and the order for this behaviour came from higher up. My money's on it coming from their superiors personally. We all know what's been going on in Guantanemo don't we?
"The secular Saddam removed from Iraq – How is this bad for the war on Terror, a friend or Bin Laden"
Now you're just showing us all how little you know about all this. Saddam and Bin Laden were not friends and this is well documented and has been discussed in some depth in the media over the past year and a half.. In fact, they were probably enemies if anything. Saddam had no links to Al Queda.
"The invaders where actually the liberators and they are contributing a damn sight more than anyone else on this site with their hypothetical BS."
There's nothing hypothetical about any of it chillidog. All daltonr was contributing was similar to what many experts around the world have been saying for a long time now.
Your liberation is another man's occupation.
"World Wide Fame - Who hasn't heard of Al Queda? – And this really helps their cause how?"
It's called exposure...something that all terrorist groups look for.
"World leaders in the "Democratic" west ignoring the wishes
of the vast majority of their citizens"
If you believe the polls (and I'm not sure I do) the war had a very slight majority amongst the populations of both America and Britain before the war.
Right now, the majority of people (according to polls) are against it.
"My friend this has been the case since ancient times and no matter what we or our forefathers do will cease the suspicions"
Fortunately not everyone thinks this way. No one ever said that Catholics and Muslims were living side by side harmoniously (although they are in many countries). However, whatever suspicions and fears did exist have now been multiplied 100 fold. If you can't see the danger of this then I'm wasting my breath.
"Has it ever been stable really can you tell me when we a stable middle east without having to child mind the regimes, please check your history book."
That's no reason to de-stabilise it even more. Again, if you can't see the inherent danger in destabilsing an already unstable region then you should watch the news more.
"American invasions and attrocities which can be used to
rally support for the "Anti-American Cause". Ok and Iraq has never committed these or Bin Laden, a few bad apples in a prison running riot hardly equals the formers record."
Oh dear :\ The old Saddam was worse than the US are argument. I guess then if the US soldiers just murder a few Iraqi's and only torture them a little that's okay, because it doesn't compare to what Saddam did right? Thanks for clearing that one up.
Incidentally, we don't know yet if it was only a few bad apples, or if it's rampant and the order for this behaviour came from higher up. My money's on it coming from their superiors personally. We all know what's been going on in Guantanemo don't we?
"The secular Saddam removed from Iraq – How is this bad for the war on Terror, a friend or Bin Laden"
Now you're just showing us all how little you know about all this. Saddam and Bin Laden were not friends and this is well documented and has been discussed in some depth in the media over the past year and a half.. In fact, they were probably enemies if anything. Saddam had no links to Al Queda.
"The invaders where actually the liberators and they are contributing a damn sight more than anyone else on this site with their hypothetical BS."
There's nothing hypothetical about any of it chillidog. All daltonr was contributing was similar to what many experts around the world have been saying for a long time now.
Your liberation is another man's occupation.
Z
Zeus
Guest
Understanding Muslim nations
Piggy sayeth:
"This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!"
Q: What precisely do you not understand about many of these Muslim nations? Surely you read the papers and scour the net so you must be aware that in some of these countries they practice honour killings, outlaw free press, sponsor terrorism, harass, imprison or murder non-Muslims, repress women and generally breed maniacal hatred of the West. Not one of them is a functioning democracy because Islam, according to the Saudi ambassador to Britain, is incompatible with democracy. How hard is that to understand? What you take for granted, like ranting on this list, would probably have you imprisoned or worse in one of these countries you claim some don't understand. But of course, many of these nations forbid the use of the internet in the first place so you' be at a great disadavantage, Piggy.
By the way, what's your take on the state sponsored butchery going on in The Sudan at the moment? It's a Muslim nation, as you no doubt already know.
Piggy sayeth:
"This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!"
Q: What precisely do you not understand about many of these Muslim nations? Surely you read the papers and scour the net so you must be aware that in some of these countries they practice honour killings, outlaw free press, sponsor terrorism, harass, imprison or murder non-Muslims, repress women and generally breed maniacal hatred of the West. Not one of them is a functioning democracy because Islam, according to the Saudi ambassador to Britain, is incompatible with democracy. How hard is that to understand? What you take for granted, like ranting on this list, would probably have you imprisoned or worse in one of these countries you claim some don't understand. But of course, many of these nations forbid the use of the internet in the first place so you' be at a great disadavantage, Piggy.
By the way, what's your take on the state sponsored butchery going on in The Sudan at the moment? It's a Muslim nation, as you no doubt already know.
P
piggy
Guest
Re: Understanding Muslim nations
"This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!"
I'm not going to get into a debate on what some Muslim nations do or do not do. I aware of a lot of the things that go on and are still going on in places like Afghanistan today, despite the invasion!
My point above was that it's wrong to think we can invade countries with a view to democracising them.
Incidentally, your view of things seems to be very one sided. The propoganda seems to have worked well on you. No doubt all Muslim's are evil and want to kill you and eat your children.
This thread has been about the war on terror, which (if you believe it) is about ridding the world of terrorists who attack the West. It's not about whether you live in Ireland or Saudi Arabia.
Of course, many people refuse to believe that the 'war' has anything to do with protecting democracy in the first place.
"This idea that Muslim countries are bad places is even more depressing. Let's democracise everything we don't understand eh? Very, very depressing stuff!"
I'm not going to get into a debate on what some Muslim nations do or do not do. I aware of a lot of the things that go on and are still going on in places like Afghanistan today, despite the invasion!
My point above was that it's wrong to think we can invade countries with a view to democracising them.
Incidentally, your view of things seems to be very one sided. The propoganda seems to have worked well on you. No doubt all Muslim's are evil and want to kill you and eat your children.
This thread has been about the war on terror, which (if you believe it) is about ridding the world of terrorists who attack the West. It's not about whether you live in Ireland or Saudi Arabia.
Of course, many people refuse to believe that the 'war' has anything to do with protecting democracy in the first place.
Y
YD
Guest
Convert
Zeus, chillidog et al. I used to be like you and think piggy was a high school leftie ranting on naively against everything we believe in and a succour for every madcap conspiracy theorist.
But surely the events of the last few weeks have been some vindication for piggy's stance.
Zeus, chillidog et al. I used to be like you and think piggy was a high school leftie ranting on naively against everything we believe in and a succour for every madcap conspiracy theorist.
But surely the events of the last few weeks have been some vindication for piggy's stance.
P
piggy
Guest
Re: Convert
Hmmm...I don't know whether to be offended by that or take it as a compliment
Everyone who has ever stood up against the war on terror has always been branded a 'leftie'.
It's true to say there are plenty of them out there. That however doesn't make them/us all lefties.
Bush et all is about as far to the right as you're ever going to find. They're so far right in fact they fell off the page a few books back.
Middle ground is about looking at this whole situation with some intelligence. Who says you need to believe everything that politicians tell us for god's sake. Has living under FF for this long taught us nothing!!!!!
Hmmm...I don't know whether to be offended by that or take it as a compliment
Everyone who has ever stood up against the war on terror has always been branded a 'leftie'.
It's true to say there are plenty of them out there. That however doesn't make them/us all lefties.
Bush et all is about as far to the right as you're ever going to find. They're so far right in fact they fell off the page a few books back.
Middle ground is about looking at this whole situation with some intelligence. Who says you need to believe everything that politicians tell us for god's sake. Has living under FF for this long taught us nothing!!!!!
I
i
Guest
muslim
Zeus is correct about Muslim countries. Piggy has not a clue about what she talks about. She is a muslim terrorist sympathiser.
Zeus is correct about Muslim countries. Piggy has not a clue about what she talks about. She is a muslim terrorist sympathiser.
P
purple
Guest
Re..
chilidog;
The reason I started this thread was to point out that the real denger is that we paint everything in black and white.
I don't like George W Bush or the people who pull his strings and the premis that this war was fought on seems to have been untrue but is cannot be said that the people of Iraq are worse off under a US imposed government.
It also cannot be said that the US went in only to "free" the people of Iraq but nether can it be said that they were only after the oil as sadam would have been happy to sell it to them at the market rate. Like most things in life this war was started for many complex reasons that cannot be explaned put of their historical context or in a Sky News sound bite.
The notion of "imposing" democracy is absurd. By definition it is the government of the majority of the people. If you restrict their options it is not democratic. Yes democracy is not possable in a fundamentalist islamic state, just as it is impossable in a fundamentalist Christian state. We should also bare in mind that western democracy emerged after the age of enlightenment in Europe and out of dozens of wars over about 400 years from the 15th to the 20th century.
It is also worth noteing that for hundreds of years Jews and Christian sects fled oppression in Europe to the relative freedom of the Islamic world.
chilidog;
Have you ever haerd of the Ottoman empire? or the Islamic empire that it grew out of? The Middle East was stable for hundreds of years, right up to the late 17th century. Read your history books.
The reason I started this thread was to point out that the real denger is that we paint everything in black and white.
I don't like George W Bush or the people who pull his strings and the premis that this war was fought on seems to have been untrue but is cannot be said that the people of Iraq are worse off under a US imposed government.
It also cannot be said that the US went in only to "free" the people of Iraq but nether can it be said that they were only after the oil as sadam would have been happy to sell it to them at the market rate. Like most things in life this war was started for many complex reasons that cannot be explaned put of their historical context or in a Sky News sound bite.
The notion of "imposing" democracy is absurd. By definition it is the government of the majority of the people. If you restrict their options it is not democratic. Yes democracy is not possable in a fundamentalist islamic state, just as it is impossable in a fundamentalist Christian state. We should also bare in mind that western democracy emerged after the age of enlightenment in Europe and out of dozens of wars over about 400 years from the 15th to the 20th century.
It is also worth noteing that for hundreds of years Jews and Christian sects fled oppression in Europe to the relative freedom of the Islamic world.