- This topic has 79 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
no, I don’t see the problem GH and the point about turkeys voting for christmas is fair enough for me. as for the enough bullets, "but look at iraq, etc" i did say if they are used properly and there are still plenty left, i doubt we’ll run out we just need to try harder. as for the who decides i am happy to do this and have offered to do this on more than one occasion, to be the sole arbiter on any such matters until the rest of society can agree as one. trust me, it’d work fine, much better than it is now – the numbers of dissenters would eventually fall until we all did agree
that’s a terribly loutish american expression GH, us English would just prefer to say ‘solve the problem’, much more positive expression, imo
Kevin,
An interesting and detailed post, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with most of it. Hezbollah, Hamas, Eta, the Chechen rebels have no interest in attacking us because their aims are local and regional. Al Quaeda are a different matter because their aims are international. You fall into the Bush/Blair trap of simply lumping all terrorist groups together and saying they are all out to get us.
As for the argument about money, I think you’ve slightly missed the point. Of course some of these groups were started by foreign governments or funds raised abroad. The point is that however they were created, they have successfully attached themselves to certain communities, communities that are prepared to support them in terms of volunteers and vote in elections for their political wings. It would be possible to pick off the leaders of Al Quaeda and groups such as the Red Brigade, because they are a bunch of fanatics with no local support. But for every member of Hezbollah or Hamas you kill, there are dozens more taking their place. It is this local support that makes them difficult to fight. And the local support comes because people feel they are the only groups defending them and standing up for their legitimate aspirations.
My wider point is not that you should talk with the terrorists but the communities that are supporting them. At the same time, fund the legitimate armed forces of those states so they can actually claim to be defending their people. Israel actually needs strong and well-equipped Lebanese and Palestinian armies and police forces who can then tackle the extremists.
Hezbollah may have been set up and funded by Iran, but ultimately, it is the volunteers from the local community who bring the manpower. Bush and Blair should be addressing the question of why young people from moderate families in Lebanon and Palestine join Hezbollah and Hamas. I would suggest that they feel they are under attack and that no-one is standing up for them. Whether they are right or wrong is a different matter. But surely you can see that in those circumstances, when Israel attacks power stations, bridges and water treatment plants and kills hundreds of Lebanese civilians, it is only going to push the young people of that country into the arms of groups such as Hezbollah. It is a human reaction to want to defend yourself and your family and since the Lebanese army is non-existent, Hezbollah are filling the void. It is in Israel’s interests to fund and support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and well-equipped police and military.
I suppose my biggest problem with your post is the way you use the word, ‘terrorist’ indiscriminately. The aims and origins of the IRA, ETA, the Columbian groups, the Chechen rebels and Hezbollah are all different. They are not trying to destroy our way of life. I think their methods are abhorrent and deplorable. But my thinking that and condemning them doesn’t change a thing.
And your suggestion that the real motivation behind terrorism is to make a lot of money seems to me to be a little far-fetched. I am sure they do conduct criminal operations if they can’t raise funds elsewhere, but there are surely easier ways to make a living than setting up a terrorist group.
I do agree that Israel had the right to defend itself in the short term. But in the long term, they have to take an active part in solving the problems in that part of the world, starting with abiding by UN resolutions regarding the occupied territories.
Apologies for this long and rambling post and for possibly repeating myself. And Kevin, there is nothing wrong with posting on this subject on a racing forum – I think its great that people with such differing views can come together and argue in a civilised manner. I respect your views and the rational way you set them out.
Aranalde,
The fact that we can agree to disagree and while respecting each others point of view can rationally discuss these issues is a luxury we all take for granted. I firmly believe that there are people who are so irrationally entrenched in their views that they would not believe Bush or Blair on anything. Even to the extent of justifying and apologising for terrorist atrocities. As I have said before I do not think that any other British PM would have acted any differently that Blair did.
I believe Bush & Blair are right that there is an international conspiracy to fund terrorism worldwide. Al Quaeda constantly make videos commenting on Chechen and all sort of other ongoing conflicts. There is evidence to suggest that the Spanish bombing were Al Queda co-ordinated and financed. The Columbian organisations are a front for Drug cartels while the Taliban are similar in Afghanistan.
Terrorism is an expensive business. Hezbollah have been well armed and supplied by Iran/Syria. Iran & Al Queda are spending millions on the Iraqi insurgency. I think it all boils down to money and some thugs are becoming very rich cynically feeding of monies stimulating all sorts of terrorist causes.
The problem with middle eastern democracies is that they do not have a democratic choice of parties with anything other than one issue anti-western or religious policies. You do not have an educated voting population. They are not voting for tax issues, education or anything that we look for in a manifesto.
The average Arab’s loyalties tend to be Islamic first, tribal second and way down the list is national identity. The people in power use the Anti-western policies to focus away from the massive internal problems and blame all on the west. A tactic well used over the years to take attention away from internal corruption and incompetence.
Israel attacked the Lebanese infrastructure as part of a broad strategy to isolate Hezbollah and punish Lebanon for harbouring and nurturing this group. Hezbollah exists only to destroy Israel and indiscriminately attacked its civilians. Six years previously the Israelis left Lebanon under a UN Resolution where Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed. Instead they were re armed and strengthened. If you are a community supporting terrorism then you reap what you sow. Hezbollah attacked Israel and had been terrorising Israelis for the previous six years with suicide bombers and rocket attacks.
In the long term I hope that the Israeli policy bears fruit in that the Lebanese realise that if they harbour Hezbollah then they will be constantly at war with Israel every few years. If they choose to live peacefully then Israel will leave them alone. I agree that Israel needs and wants a civilised Lebanon. I disagree that appeasing Hezbollah is the way to do this.<br>
All this talk of democracy. The ‘west’, at one time, acted, and went to war, in defence of their own democratic society. Now ‘western’ policy appears to have shifted whereby it is not only enough to defend their own society’s values but also seems necessary to impose those values on those who don’t currently share them.
It is the view of the West that ‘democratic’ societies (assuming that we include those whose democratic decision making processes are, shall we say, able to be massaged) are the societies best suited to human welfare and long term prosperity. We are fast reaching the point (in fact we’ve past it) where the Americans are ready to go to war to try to impose the rule of democracy (Iraq) on a country. It appears likely they will do so again (Iran?).
Is democracy the answer, should we be imposing that doctrine on those countries who don’t operate that system currently and, if so, who says so?
Also, does democracy inherently arrive hand in hand with capitalism? If it doesn’t will the Americans make sure it does?
Answers on a postcard please to….
Kevin,
I suspect we are going round in circles here, so I won’t repeat what I’ve already said. If you seriously think that I am advocating ‘appeasing’ any terrorist group, then you’re completely wrong. I’m talking about addressing the legitimate aspirations of the communities that support those groups and provide them with volunteers. A different thing entirely. And you don’t isolate a terrorist group from the community that supports it by attacking that community. Surely that’s obvious. Surely history bears that out. Are the Lebanese people abandoning Hezbollah?
Yes Al Quaeda have mentioned the Chechens. They will mention any cause if they think it will help them get more recruits. That is why they are a different sort of organisation to the Chechens, Hezbollah, the IRA etc, in that they have no one local cause to which they have attached themselves. Surely what motivates the Chechens is the fact that the Russians invaded and flattened their country, killing thousands of their fellow citizens.
And I’m afraid your contention that terrorism is all about money just doesn’t stand up. Yes these organisations need funds to continue, but are you seriously suggesting that the only reason people volunteer to join these groups is to make money?
The fact that various groups receive funding from other countries does not demonstrate that terrorism is ‘all about the money’.
But we’ve already gone over this so I see little point in retracing these arguments.
Fundamentally, you, like Bush and Blair, see all terrorists groups as linked and basically the same. I disagree. There are dozens of terrorist groups around the world. The Tamil Tigers are not after the same things as Hezbollah who in turn have no links with ETA. You think that a military solution is effective against all terrorist organisations in all circumstances. I disagree. I think a military solution can work against some groups, such as Al Quaeda, because they really are just a group of fanatics.
Another point to mention is that Hezbollah and Hamas have done a lot of work in their communities, they have made a real effort to ingratiate themselves with the people of Lebanon and Palestine, a deliberate and cynical ploy that has won them a lot of support. What has the West to offer these people? Bombs and bullets? Is it any wonder they turn to Hamas for protection.
And your point about democracy is wide of the mark. No democracy is perfect and it is inevitable that in the early stages, democracy in these countries will not run as smoothly as many would like. But it has to be allowed to run its course. You can’t preach democracy and then when it turns up leaders you don’t like, say that it was a different sort of democracy you had in mind.
When the Palestinians elected Hamas, Israel’s response was to arrest dozens of MPs and cabinet ministers. How is that helping democracy take root? When Islamist parties won the elections in Algeria, the military government, egged on by France and the USA cancelled the elections. What does that say to the people of Algeria?
Anyway, as I say, we are going in circles. I can’t see that we will be agreeing on this.
(Edited by Aranalde at 5:10 pm on Aug. 16, 2006)
We used to have communist cells a few years ago who were determined to use terror to achieve their ends. They wanted to bring about dictatorial government so that people suffer and hopefully for them join their ranks. They were in any case living in the underground and for them the difference between democracy and dictatorship did not exist. <br>The Soviet Union while supporting them behind the scenes, spent a lot of time to keep them quiet, because they did not want to provoke a war and they were also playing their own diplomatic games.
The islamist terror is different in magnitude because they are suicidal as well as criminal. They are doing these things since the sixties, although the early generations of Arab terrorists were more respectful to human life.<br>There is no way to stop them as they have murdered many of their own who had been educated in the west and were considered moderates.<br>The islamists believe the world is made up of right and wrong and the "wrong" must be punished. The concept of choice (democracy) and the concept of tolerence are unknown to them and impossible to understand.
Somehow they have to be removed from mainstream society (which admittedly is what the terrorist leaders also want).<br>Unavoidably this will make human rights and civil liberties suffer and there will be many injustices carried out in the process.<br>We are already witnessing this with the cameras in the streets, put there to prevent crime but the police also use them to spot some innocent but illegal poor street vendors and chase them away …
but civilised society has to try to stop them doesn’t it, both from the carnage they are trying to cause and they’re open mission to impose their sharia beliefs on the entire population of the world. neither of these actions can be acceptable so civilised society has to try to stop this and as the saying goes, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs – btw, how can you be an innocent illegal street vendor – illegal is illegal so if cameras intended to help the fight against terrorism also rid the streets of other illegals, ain’t that a bonus ?
Yes, I think we are going around in circles here.
I suppose all the terrorists with their parochial causes got together and had a whip round. Maybe they ran some quiz nights or something. That will pay for a few explosives.
Terrorism costs money and all I am saying is someone is paying for it. That is the communality between them. It may not be the same person or same Islamic group but it crosses international borders. The conspiracy is international not one international conspiracy.
So drug cartels fund South American terrorist groups and Taliban do very nicely out of Afghanistan’s drug trade thank you very much. Iran pays for Hezbollah rockets. Al Qaeda looks to fund any group that will attack the west i.e. the attack on Spain because they had troops in Iraq. Spain capitulated to the terrorists and gave them a victory which encouraged them.
In Iraq British soldiers had $20,000 bounties on their heads. Very tempting if you have an AK47 and no money or prospects.<br>
That some terrorist groups receive funds from outside the area they operate in does not demonstrate that terrorism is ‘all about the money’. We need to ask why so many people volunteer for these groups. I would suggest that for the young people of Lebanon and Palestine, the deaths of members of their families, the destruction of their homes and the continued occupation of their land by another country would be the main motivation.
It should also be borne in mind that none of us are experts in this area and whilst our views are interesting, and in some cases relatively well-informed, we are only expressing opinions based on probably limited information, a caveat that applies to myself.
The thread was really about terrorism. I think there is more than one approach to defeating terrorism and that it depends on the particular nature of the group you are dealing with. Others disagree.
past wrongs or perceived wrongs don’t make a right though and clearly identified terrorists should be met with the bullet – prison is pointless, it only encourages their friends to commit more atrocities to try to get them released, I’ve not seen ’em hijack a plane and ask for someone to be brought back to life yet. kill ’em, keep killing ’em and when you’ve killed ’em all, problem solved – now although this is an unrealistic ‘ideal’ solution, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try our damned best just to save some innocent lives. still happy for the liberalists to keep debating the past and other issues while we try though. i’d happily sign the bits of paper and make arbitrary decisions where needed, i’d be confident and conscious free about the results too
no mate, not you – don’t worry – even if i did label someone a pinko that’s different from a terrorist and a bit of ‘re-training’ would be the first option for ‘pinko’s’ in Simon’s world. start with the most active and most dangerous and most visible groups though and there would be no good friday agreement in Simon’s world, either – there are groups who are internationally identified as terrorist or banned organisations and where doubt exists, Simon and his rubber stamp would clarify the issue quickly and our armed police have proved they can hit the target and if any re-training is required, there is a camp full of fresh targets in the south-east corner of cuba. sometimes the easiest answers are so hard to see because they are so clear…
Simon Berry says
but civilised society has to try to stop them doesn’t it, both from the carnage they are trying to cause and they’re open mission to impose their sharia beliefs on the entire population of the world. neither of these actions can be acceptable so civilised society has to try to stop this and as the saying goes, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs – btw, how can you be an innocent illegal street vendor – illegal is illegal so if cameras intended to help the fight against terrorism also rid the streets of other illegals, ain’t that a bonus ?
There is a call for religious / racial profiling.<br>In the interests of national defense may be it has to be applied.<br>National defense cnannot come second to any other social considerations.<br>With regard to the "street vendors" and the like who do not have a license, the lawmakers have quite rightly categorized those things as civil disputes to be settled by the judges. So if the government starts using an antiterrorist strike force to deal with such things they are violating the constitution and civil liberties.<br>I believe there is a move to prevent people from making bets through the internet and some governments push for antiterrorist gadgets to be employed in the process.<br>That’s importing Taliban government methods to me.<br>The method is to hire one or two hysterical journalists and then you step forward and claim you have popular support to limit personal freedoms and privacy, but for reasons quite unrelated with the real enemy in question.<br>
With respect Aranalde I am suggesting that the young people of Lebanon and Palestine are having their cause hijacked by outside parties who are funding an armed struggle rather than a political solution. The last thing Iran, Syria or Hezbollah want is Lebanon to continue on the road it was taking where its people had just kicked out Syria and tried to stand on their own. The outside funding and supply of arms ensures that a political solution or dialogue is not something that Hezbollah are interested in. Hezbollah are just an armed militia with no interest in a peaceful Lebanon.
Talk about double standards. Did anyone say that it was OK for the US to fund terrorism anywhere? How does that justify Iran funding Hezbollah?
It does not matter if you perceive yourself as a freedom fighter or with just cause. If you randomly target innocent civilians through mass executions, random bombings, suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks then you are a terrorist in my book. I do not understand how any sane being will consider that unreasonable.
Simon & Kevin are spot on imo.
To return to the thorny question of how you define a terrorist being down to which side of the fence you sit.<br>Exchange "terrorist" for the term "freedom-fighter" and then ask yourselves do Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda fight for "freedom" ?
i) Do they support universal suffrage ?<br>ii) Do they support a free press ?<br>iii) Do they support the right to be judged in court by a jury of your peers ? <br>iv) Do they support freedom of speech and the right to criticise authority?<br>If the answer to any of the above questions is "NO" then they can hardly be termed "freedom fighters".
Of course that doesn’t give states that may have those freedoms the right to invade countries which do not; UNLESS by doing so they stop such countries or organisations which operate from within those countries threatening them. <br>This means that the USA and GB were wrong to invade Iraq on the grounds that it was fighting terrorism.<br>(Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had nowt to do with 9/11 and had nothing to gain in the furtherance of Al-Qaeda, although they’d have been chuffed if Israel were destroyed by Bin-Laden’s gang). Had WMD have been found however that may have vindicated Blair but I think he lied to Parliament and the people and knew Iraq had no WMD threat.<br>It does however vindicate Israeli attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.