Discovery Channel - Al Queda

[buster]

I caught the last 10 mins of Disc. Channel's program on Al Queda. Some interesting points were made and really contradict the policies we are pursuing now.

A former CIA operative said, along with others on the show, that what we are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan is exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. The essence of the show was that military power and an invasion of Iraq is not only humiliating to all Arabs, but it will create more Al Queda cells and fuel the fire.

I'm not a saying I agree with this, but it does deserve some attention. One guy was saying that we need to have a campaign that really shows what the US is about and really over power their media somehow. With Al Jezeer, it's no wonder they all hate us.

From my limited knowledge of the subject it seems like Totalitarianism +Poverty + Religion + Fanaticism = Terrorism. A very simplistic view point but I do think these are some of the causes of the problem. We are currently going after Regimes, which in the long run could open up for increased wealth in those societies and mute some of the other factors I mention that maybe aid in this problem.

I have a hard time accepting Poverty as a root cause. How many poor european immigrants came to the US and made something of their lives? Or is it they don't have this opportunity?

[ April 21, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I have a hard time accepting Poverty as a root cause. How many poor european immigrants came to the US and made something of their lives?

---

If horrible dictatorships and poverty cause terrorism, we should be run over by about 1,000,000,000 Chinese terrorists. Some of these social theories are laughably inept.

Keith.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

The essence of the show was that military power and an invasion of Iraq is not only humiliating to all Arabs, but it will create more Al Queda cells and fuel the fire.

I'm not a saying I agree with this, but it does deserve some attention. One guy was saying that we need to have a campaign that really shows what the US is about and really over power their media somehow. With Al Jezeer, it's no wonder they all hate us.

---

They will always going to be a faction who hate us no matter what we do, because those who don't have, are insanely jealous of those who do. Same with our left-extremist enemies within.

What we have to show these ingrates is their tactics aren't going to dissuade us, and squash the terrorist cells before they spreads much farther. We have to fight terrorists and extremists first, so those who are somewhat logical will see we're really trying to restore peace and law.

I would agree with the propaganda aspect. We were very succesful during the cold war with the Voice of America, and maybe we we should install transmitters and cable systems/satellite systems all over the mideast to bring the real message to the Arabs. I know all of the intelligence services and information services are attempting to enlist Arab language experts to help with this duty. I know that we already have high power Long-wave and shortwave transmitters in the mideast, but it's the visual media that garner the public's attention.

Eventually, I think we will get through to these people, but it will take time and public will.

[ April 21, 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:

What we have to show these ingrates is their tactics aren't going to dissuade us, and squash the terrorist cells before they spreads much farther.

---

We let the cancer spread and now have to perform major surgeries to save the patient. Eventually we will be able to back off, but obviously now is not the time. There are daily Al Qaeda bombings, much work still to be done.

I hate to see any bombings, but when Al Qaeda are killing children in Iraq and bombing Saudi Arabia, I am optimistic that our resolve will be matched by the vast majority of decent folk in those nations. There will not be a long term solution without cooperation from those and other nations in the region, and of course, billionaire Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat must be eliminated and peace made in the Israeli conflict.

Keith.

 

[buster]

Good points guys. I agree. Love him or hate him, I give Bush a lot of credit for staying the course. At this point, we can't look back.

 

[Mystic]

Pretty goofy theories on the part of the CIA, the wonderful people who delivered bad intelligence to the president. The attack on the World Trade Center was an act of war. The United States does not have the right to attack al Qaeda bases in Afganistan after the USA has been attacked just because it may be considered an affront to the Moslems? And I suppose that we should have allowed Saddam Hussein to conquer Kuwuit, Saudi Arabia, and whatever other countries he wanted to conquer in the Middle East because we don't want to hurt the feelings of the Moslems?

 

[sciroccoGTX16V]

We allowed Saddam to invade Kuwait as a pretext to get rid of him . he was of no use to us anymore like Noriega ( to launder the Iran Contra money), Pinochet of Chille, Shewarnadze of georgia ( can't help the Chechens anymore in the name of terrorism), Dinjic of Serbia ( bribed him to get rid of milosevic and refused to sent him the $$ we promised, got him a bullet in the head)
It's no wonder we lost credibility with the world. everybody sees thru the BS of US foreign policy. now with Iraq, nobody believes we are serious about fighting terrorism but we only interested in aquiring cheap oil. It truly a sad thing to see the flowers placed in front of US embassies after 9/11 replaced with anti-american protests

[ April 21, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: sciroccoGTX16V ]

 

[ryansride2017]

"now with Iraq, nobody believes we are serious about fighting terrorism but we only interested in aquiring cheap oil."

I wish people would put this myth out to pasture. If oil was the reason for the war, we would have gas prices around a buck right now. IMO, the days of seeing gas prices at 1.00-1.20 are over (barring another 9-11 attack which stiffles the air industry).

 

[TooManyWheels]

If we were truly interested in fighting terrorism we wouldn't leave all of the nuclear materials in Iraq UNGUARDED, then sit passively while they disappear.

Every day it is better documented that Bush both had war intentions for Iraq, and knew of the possibility for terrorism well before 911. It doesn't take much imagination anymore to think he might have let the terrorism happen to give him the political cover for the invasion. This especially true when you read the 1997 PNAC document saying that "another Pearl Harbor" would give this cover.

[ April 21, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]

 

[Mystic]

Wait until the scandal at the United Nations gets out into the open. We will find out who was getting money under the table and cheap oil-Russia, France, Germany, and all the others on the take. Several hearings are planned in Congress and the UN itself is investigating the case. It was the 'Oil for Food' program involving Iraq. Saddam and his evil sons raked in billions, and there were immense brides to leaders in the UN and various nations.

And Kerry says that we should have the support of the UN and support of our European allies? I have news for you. The UN and the French, Russian, and German leaderships are corrupt!

 

[TooManyWheels]

Mystic - I finally going to just go ahead and call you on your beliefs. Since you are the consummate Christian that everyone is wrongfully discriminating against, how are you justified in calling people evil?

[ April 21, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]

 

[Mystic]

I am not the consummate Christian. In fact, I like the ideas of both Jesus and Buddha and I kind of lean Buddhist in many ways. You do not know me. I am also very liberal-I was raised a Catholic and I am certainly more liberal then the Pope. I support priests being married, women priests, etc.

God will judge everybody. No human being, including Osama bin Laden, can speak for God. There are too many people in this world who think they can speak for God. Terrorists like Osama bin Laden are telling suicide bombers that they will go to heaven and will have certain things in heaven, etc. No man, no woman, can tell anybody what will happen to them after they die. God rules the spiritual world. Who was wiser; the politician who got up on the stage and addressed the troops, saying 'We will win because God is on our side,' or the old retired prize fighter who addressed the troops and said, 'We will win because we are on God's side?' Do you understand the difference?

I am just a human being and I am not God. But I consider Saddam Hussein evil. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings in his own country. He ordered people killed and tortured. He started wars that resulted in the deaths of over one million human beings. I consider him evil.

You don't consider him evil? Fine. We have a difference of opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion. I am entitled to mine. Saddam Hussein will have his meeting with God.

It is going to be interesting to see the results of the investigations into the 'Oil for Food' program.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Mystic - I have been pretty hard on you, and as a quasi Buddhist have violated my own personal standards, not to mention the spirit of civility of the forum. So I will try to do better.

As a starting point for discussion, one of the concepts that is most helpful to me, is the supposition that everyone acts sensibly within their own frame of reference. You will find this reflected in Buddhism as the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Determining right and wrong implies that those who determine, are somehow qualified to judge. None of us are qualified to judge.

But eliminating judgement does not throw society into chaos. It gives us entry into the non-emotional state of determining what we need and what works, versus what does not. At that point you have a rational platform upon which to build understanding and action, instead of the emotional "he did this", "but you did that first", etc cycle.

I certainly understand trying to be on God's side. But I believe God expects us to use respect for all his people as a starting point in what we do. This is where the "Love your enemies" comes in. I can't even pretend to understand a Saddam, or a Hitler. But neither can I understand GW calling himself a Christian and being callous to the carnage he has personally inflicted on the world. But I have to believe there are reasons for the actions of all three people, and knowing those reasons help us cope in the manners which lead to appropriate solutions, while causing fewest unintended consequences.

[ April 22, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]

 

[Mystic]

I do not remember the part about there not being right and wrong.

I remember Buddha being born to an upper caste family. He did not see the world as it was for a while and knew only luxury. And then when he saw the real world and saw poverty he mediated trying to understand why there was so much suffering in the world. He came to the conclusion that the goal of any person was to achieve Nirvana, the end of the cycle of rebirths and perfect oneness with the world, the sky, the Universe, the Everything, perfect tranquility. In fact, some people who have had near death experiences talk about somewhat similar things. That the spirits of people volunteer to come to this world to learn various lessons, and once those lessons are learned and the physical body dies, the spirit is free to return to the God Force, the Everything.

I reject completely the idea that everything is relative. Because if everything is relative I can make things great for myself and bad for everybody else. If everything is relative, it is okay for me to cheat on a test, but not anybody else. It is okay for me to commit murder, but not okay for anybody else. Do you see where that leads us?

It is okay for the Palestinians to murder innocent people in buses, cafes, and restaurants, but not okay for the Israelis to kill Hamas leaders. It is okay for terrorists in Iraq to murder and mutilate American soldiers, but the Americans have to follow the rules of war. Is this not total nonsense?

And then there are those who say, we must excuse the behavior of the Palestinians because they are an opposed people, they have no way but terrorism to get the world's attention, etc. Most of the Palestinians are Moslem. What does it say in the Quran, which is the holy book they are supposed to be following? Did not the Clinton Administration help develop a peace plan and did not Arafat turn it down? What do we say when people do not follow what is in their own religion, much less what is in Western religious belief?

It is also perhaps time (past time) for people in the Middle East to look past the Israeli-Palestinian thing and do a little thinking. Do they really want for people like Osama bin Laden to rule the Middle East? What were conditions like in Afganistan under the Taliban and al Qaeda?

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

You will find this reflected in Buddhism as the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Determining right and wrong implies that those who determine, are somehow qualified to judge. None of us are qualified to judge.

But eliminating judgement does not throw society into chaos. It gives us entry into the non-emotional state of determining what we need and what works, versus what does not. At that point you have a rational platform upon which to build understanding and action, instead of the emotional "he did this", "but you did that first", etc cycle.

---

I have studied Eastern Philosophy and have a big problem with Budhism.

First off, I have to reject your second premise because everyone has emotion(s) and there is no such thing "no-emotion." This is a non-attainable notion for real people.

As to your first premise, it is flawed because one HAS to make judgements about many things in everyday life, and yes, we all are qualified to judge. Your premise would indeed open society up to chaos if one did NOT have the right or capacity to judge. Each person has choices of doing right or wrong. Suppose I make a decision to run a red light during rush hour traffic. According to your philosophy, this is neither good or bad and implies neither the courts nor law should make a judgement as to my action(s). Further, this notion leads inevitably to zero accountability.

Now, and lastly, why should you be able to make the judgement that I cannnot judge? You're violating your own premise.

 

[MolaKule]

BTW,

An excellent book on the very topic of relativism is:

The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and The Corruption of Popular Culture

by
Knight, Robert H.

 

[Primus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystic:
Wait until the scandal at the United Nations gets out into the open. We will find out who was getting money under the table and cheap oil-Russia, France, Germany, and all the others on the take. Several hearings are planned in Congress and the UN itself is investigating the case. It was the 'Oil for Food' program involving Iraq. Saddam and his evil sons raked in billions, and there were immense brides to leaders in the UN and various nations.

And Kerry says that we should have the support of the UN and support of our European allies? I have news for you. The UN and the French, Russian, and German leaderships are corrupt!

---

Another "brains wash". If this is a revived regret for the missed UN support, where does it come from and why the wish to shift the blame for actual Iraq situation on somebody else. The only explanation is the presidential elections and the necessity to attract somehow public attention.

As for the accusation in getting bribes. It is not a revelation for us that the corruption exists and flourishes in Russia and functionaries live on bribes, but it has nothing to do with Iraq.

If somebody was given oil contracts or money, it does not mean its receiver is corrupt: 1) Over certain beliefs each country has its own economic or political interests; 2). In order to understand only whether or not some contracts or money could influence somebody's vote in the UN, it's necessary to make public when they were given: just on the eve of the vote or during last 3-5 years. But I don't know how to apply this to Russia, if it would vote in the same way in any case; 3). Considering number of years of co-operation and assistance to Iraq, think it would be quite natural that Russia and France get some contracts in the first turn. Or was somebody so naive to expect that Iraq would have to give them to the US or the UK companies ? Even LUKOIL had a number of problems to receive a won contract for an oil exploration. 4). Why not to consider the financing of candidates to the President by different companies as a bribe ? This is some kind of a bribe too. May be it is not considered as a bribe because this notion is not yet applied to such political events ? But it is not applied to international life too !

Corruption exists everywere, just everything depends on the importance of the issue and offered amount - the cost of its relative solution.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primus:
Corruption exists everywere...

---

It is the proportionality of reaction that amuses me. An accusation that Halliburton shaved a few million dollars by inflating oil prices (found to be untrue) gets the liberals into a frenzy, but accusations that the UN lost $10B, much of it to friends of mass murderer Saddam, barely register.

Now you tell me where the most attention should be directed.

Keith.

 

[Mystic]

That is an excellent post keith! The UN scandal is still being investigated, but it is highly likely that at least 10 billion dollars were ripped off by Saddam Hussein and his evil sons, and huge brides were paid to people in France, Germany, Russia, etc. There was even a French priest who was receiving brides!

But if there is even a hint of scandal on the part of the United States, watch out! Liberal shark alert!

I get so sick and tired of people here justifying anything that Palestinians do, anything al Queda does, anything Saddam Hussein did, on the basis of this silly everything is relative nonsense. But the moment the United States does one thing wrong, suddenly there is a strict moral code. A person cannot have it both ways. Either there is so such thing as right and wrong, or we follow a moral code. And if there is so such thing as right and wrong, then why are liberals complaining about what President Bush and the USA do in Iraq? If there is no right and wrong, why should they even care?

By the standards of some of these people (if you can call it standards) the Palestinians could murder Israelis all day and all night long in buses, cafes, and restaurants, and it is all cool and wonderful. But the moment the Israelis take out one of the Hamas leaders who are encouraging suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Israel, suddenly it is a different story! Suddenly it is a major moral violation!

 

[DJ]

All the talk Bush knew terrorists wanted to hit us, does anyone else remember the FIRST time binny tried to take down the towers under a different President? Does anyone honestly think after that he said "well I gave it a shot" and was going to leave us alone? Everyone screwed up in one way or another, at least now they are trying to fix things, and hopefully that hinders any more large scale attacks, that is the best we can hope for.