View Full Version : Baghdad Falls
russ_watters
Apr9-03, 01:35 PM
Baghdad Falls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-09-war-main_x.htm) ...and Iraqis rejoice.
Its not over yet though. There are still some pockets of resistance in Baghdad and a few other places. Tikrit is also still not taken. Beyond that though, from now on its just janatorial work (mopping up).
Al Jazeera was showing the celebrations, and stating that they were genuine, that the citizens of Baghdad are glad to see the American soldiers. The Al Jazeera reporters seemed to feel the need to apologize to the Arab world for the joy of the local people, but on the whole, I think what they are reporting is promising.
I think when you consider that Al Jazeera is still in its infancy, was founded by a King, and is staffed by people born, raised and educated in autocratic countries, it does a very good job.
Njorl
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Baghdad Falls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-09-war-main_x.htm) ...and Iraqis rejoice.
From that site;
Not everyone rejoiced.
"This is the destruction of Islam," said Qassim al-Shamari, 50, a laborer wearing an Arab robe. "After all, Iraq is our country. And what about all the women and children who died in the bombing?"
Originally posted by BoulderHead
From that site;
Not everyone rejoiced.
"This is the destruction of Islam," said Qassim al-Shamari, 50, a laborer wearing an Arab robe. "After all, Iraq is our country. And what about all the women and children who died in the bombing?" [/B]
This guy is obviously one of those "glass is half empty" kind of people. He'll probably never be a happy person. And what is this business about "the destruction of Islam" ? This guy is either poorly informed or poorly equipped, or both.
Like many of us liberals have been saying.... Winning the war was always the easy part. Winning the peace will be the hard part. Here's an Arab perspective - http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAHZG9OBED.html excerpts:"Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" said Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."
Feeling betrayed and misled, some turned off their sets in disgust when jubilant crowds in Baghdad celebrated the arrival of U.S. troops.
Mohammed al-Shahhal, a 49-year-old teacher in Tripoli, Lebanon, said the scenes reminded him of the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Those who applauded the collapse of Lenin's statue for some Pepsi and hamburgers felt the hunger later on and regretted what they did," al-Shahhal said.
However, Tannous Basil, a 47-year-old cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon, said Saddam's regime was a "dictatorship and had to go."
"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," he said. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."
"We Arabs are clever only at talking," Haitham Baghdadi, 45, said bitterly in Damascus, Syria. "Where are the Iraqi weapons? Where are the Iraqi soldiers?"
Three men having tea and smoking in a coffee shop in Riyadh were unsettled as they watched the TV - even though they said they were against Saddam and felt sorry for the long-suffering Iraqis.
"I can't say that I'm happy about what's going on because these are non-Muslim forces that have gone in and I hope they will not stay," said Mohammed al-Sakkaf, a 58-year-old businessman.
Many said they were disturbed by images of U.S. troops lounging in Saddam's palaces or draping the U.S. flag around the head of a Saddam statue.
"Liberation is nobler than that," said Walid Abdul-Rahman, one of the three Saudis. "They should not be so provocative."
In Jordan, hotel receptionist Wissam Fakhoury, 28, said he was disappointed in the Baghdad crowds.
"I spit on them," he said. "Do those crowds who are saluting the Americans believe that the United States will let them live better?" Fakhoury said. Americans "will loot their oil and control their resources, leaving them nothing."
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Alias
This guy is obviously one of those "glass is half empty" kind of people. He'll probably never be a happy person. And what is this business about "the destruction of Islam" ? This guy is either poorly informed or poorly equipped, or both. Alias, my point was to show that Russ only focused on the rejoicing, when even within the link he provided there were clearly those who did not rejoice. I don't seek to negate the loss and emotional torment/agony of people by writing them off as being poorly informed. Clearly there is a lot of sorrow involved here despite my personal opinion that collectively Iraqis will be better off without Saddam.
russ_watters
Apr9-03, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by BoulderHead
"This is the destruction of Islam," Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone.
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.
russ_watters
Apr9-03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now. Tough to say. He lost another playpen.
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Isn't that ironic. A muslim supporting a dictator who persecutse muslims. Clearly you can't please everyone. I wasn't paying attention to that part of his statement, thinking it ridiculous. I was listening to this part of his statement;
"And what about all the women and children who died in the bombing?"
While I too am saddened at the lost lives of innocents, I wonder why many find it so acceptable to kill and die in the name of terrorism, but find it so distasteful to kill or die in name of freedom.
Originally posted by FZ+
I'd say Osama Bin Laden's pretty pleased right now.
I'd say he certainly isn't. This was a clear demonstration of what the US can do. No nation will allow him to operate openly ever again. If the US stays in Iraq, and breaks all of its pre-war promises, that will make him happy.
It is ironic. Terrorists will attempt to keep the US in Iraq, and goad the US into oppressing the Iraqis.
Njorl
well he did make a lot of nasty comments about Saddam and also his family is probably getting more construction and oil contracts out of this; so i doubt he is really complaining any.
A pair of good NYTimes articles:
In Iraq Towns, Allegiances Shift Quickly to Winning Side
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/i...09CND-TOWN.html
Emotional Torrent Greets G.I. Arrival in Central Baghdad
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/i...CND-STREET.html Times are hard. The value of the Iraqi dinar has fallen 150 percent since the beginning of the war. Power is out all along the countryside. The Iraqis thank the Americans for their freedom, they desire their help, but they are beginning to ask how long the Americans will stay.
"I think 770 days will be enough," said Ali Shahar, an elementary school principal. "Two years. Rumsfeld promised two years."
This evening, a man's daughter was shot in the back of the head by misdirected American fire. The father wanted an assurance. "Promise me this will not be an occupation by the Americans." One reporter, lulled into a false sense of security by a day of Iraqis vilifying Mr. Hussein, approached a group of youths at an intersection to ask how they felt about the American military advances.
"Bush good?" the reporter asked, using the English phrase that had become the mantra of the city's eastern districts to overcome the temporary absence of an interpreter. The youths, quickly joined by older, more threatening-looking men with Kalashnikov rifles and shoulder-holstered rockets, responded with a hostility that could have been found almost anywhere in the city until the popular eruptions at dawn today.
"Bush down shoes!" the youths answered, one of them spitting on the ground, meaning that President Bush was good only for being trampled on. "America down shoes!"
The question is, what happens tomorrow?" Ra'ad, a clothing salesman, said in faltering English. "To this moment, I cannot believe we got rid of Saddam Hussein. Where is he? Is he died? We don't know it. Is he going to come back and kill us all Iraqis, to use chemical weapons? We do not know it."
Anybody who paused to talk with cooler-headed people in the crowds quickly picked up reservations about how long the American troops would stay, how quickly and how meaningfully Iraqis would be allowed to begin governing themselves again, even about the risk that the Bush administration might take the American military triumph here as a signal to try to reconfigure power throughout the Middle East in ways that would benefit Israel.
BoulderHead
Apr9-03, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Alias
While I too am saddened at the lost lives of innocents, I wonder why many find it so acceptable to kill and die in the name of terrorism, but find it so distasteful to kill or die in name of freedom. I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway?
Bush is hero now and he will reap oil from iraq.[:D]
russ_watters
Apr10-03, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I find killing distasteful. Who would those people be anyway? Islamic extremists.
The same people who knew of Saddam's ongoing brutality while at the same time said, "Give inspections more time."
BoulderHead
Apr10-03, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Islamic extremists. Oh, ok I get it now. I'm used to Alias blasting away at 'the libs', haha and mistook this for another blast at them. Something to consider after reading his quote again...
...I wonder why many find it so acceptable to kill and die in the name of terrorism, but find it so distasteful to kill or die in name of freedom. ...is that perhaps those terrorists consider their acts to be performed for their own brand of freedom, not someone elses? I mean how many would willingly commit suicide to promote something they thought was awful?
I agree. The problem is that the terrorists tactics don't work directly, and they are too destructive.
However, now that I think about it, I guess their tactics do work rather well as long as there is strong, moral, and intelligent leadership on the other side. You see, because the correct solution to stopping terrorism also solves the terrorists problems, which is oppression by his government or whatever. So yes, terrorism is useful and instrumental in solving problems.
Shall I issue a fahtwah, or declare a jihad?
none of the attackers were from Iraq Alias, so your argument meaningless.
Originally posted by Alias
The same people who knew of Saddam's ongoing brutality while at the same time said, "Give inspections more time."
you mean the people that supported the slaughter of more Iraqi than Saddam has been involved with in nearly a decade and quite likely more than the man would have been responsible for from now until he died of natural causes? don't give me any of that "Saddam sympathizer" crap either; my sympathy is for all the dead and injured people in Iraq that did not want this war to happen.
russ_watters
Apr10-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by kyleb
you mean the people that supported the slaughter of more Iraqi than Saddam has been involved with in nearly a decade and quite likely more than the man would have been responsible for from now until he died of natural causes? don't give me any of that "Saddam sympathizer" crap either; my sympathy is for all the dead and injured people in Iraq that did not want this war to happen. Kyleb exactly how many iraqi civilians do you think the coalition killed in the past 3 weeks? And how many do you think Saddam killed in the past 3 weeks and the past 10 years? Your conclusions seem to be based on numbers that are wrong by several orders of magnitude.
The worst case estimate for civilian deaths (if we were to believe everything Iraqi state tv told us) is under 5,000.
Compare that with the estimated 2 million who have died in the past 10 years. Now do a little math: 2,000,000 / 10 / 365 is roughly 550 PER DAY. Over a 21 day war, thats 11,500 people. So even DURING THE WAR, there were less Iraqis dying than normal during Saddam's regime. We limited his ability to murder his own people.
Originally posted by kyleb
none of the attackers were from Iraq Alias, so your argument meaningless.
You don't have to be from any particular country to be a terrorist.
The fact that none of the 911 hijackers were Iraqis does not change the fact that Sadams regime terrorized his people.
Did you know that virtually none of the Fayahdeen Saddam are from Iraq? That's actually a good thing though, because this will give us a chance to kill terrorists without leaving Iraq.
It's not about Iraq in particular. It is about the causes of terrorism in the Arab world. When you get that, things will make more sense.
your the one being incoherent here Alias, claiming terrorism is useful and instrumental in solving problems as if the terrorists attack was intended to get us invade iraq.
You know the American people kyleb, we put things off until the problem slaps us in the face(9/11). Then we do something about it.
It was the slap in the face by the Saudi & Egytptian terrorists that was instrumental in the liberation of Iraq. And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future. We are motiviated by the terrorists to provide solutions. You can not deny that.
The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future.
Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?
The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions. Shame they don't involve people getting killed.
I'd say he certainly isn't. This was a clear demonstration of what the US can do. No nation will allow him to operate openly ever again. If the US stays in Iraq, and breaks all of its pre-war promises, that will make him happy.
Did Saddam allow Bin Laden to operate openly? Did the war on Iraq at all hinder his terrorist operations based across Europe? No, that justification was never really validated for the war. All it shows is that Bush Jr is very happy to bark up the wrong tree. He needn't worry at all. Breaking the pre-war promises will make him happier, but are not very neccessary.
Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?
None. But look at all of the non-Iraqi suicide bombers in Iraq. More terrorists fighting for a lost cause. Not to worry. The coalition military will deal with them.
Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions.
Well, let's hear them.
BoulderHead
Apr10-03, 06:06 PM
I guess I've just never understood whether or not it's ok for the end to justify the means. I thought that generally this isn't acceptable thinking but then other times it becomes very acceptable.
That's it, I'm starting a topic over in general.
[edit]
Crumb, I don't know how to make a poll.[:(] [:((]
Originally posted by Alias
The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
from where i sit it looks like you are the one who has troubleshooting issues if you cannot see that taking Saddam out of power had nothing to do with the goals of the terrorists either way. might as well take up astrology and numerology seeing as how the neo-conservative/neo-christian freaks you idolize are into that crap.
kyleb, when are you going to get it?[s(]
Saddam Hussein IS a terrorist.
What part of that fact do you not understand?
Are you unclear what the definition of 'is' is. I know of another guy with that problem.[:D]
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, by the same definition that Bush is a terrorist. He uses violence and intimidation for political gain, like all successful politicians.
According to you, all succesful politicians are terrorists?
Would you care to define terrorist in any other way?
BoulderHead
Apr10-03, 08:45 PM
Haha,
Love that avatar Alias. Between that and the sig. quote you've got a hell of 'thang' going on.
russ_watters
Apr11-03, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, by the same definition that Bush is a terrorist. He uses violence and intimidation for political gain, like all successful politicians. FZ, you are missing a few key components of terrorism: The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians. Only one side of this conflict targeted civilians. The US was certainly NOT trying to intimidate the Iraqi people. Quite the contrary, we caused massive celebrations.
Your definition is so loose as to be able to include whoever you wish(which is no doubt why you choose to use it). You use a flawed definition. Get a better one. Better yet, get a REAL one.
Look in the dictionary people...
terrorism
noun [U]
(threats of) violent action for political purposes
(oxford english dictionary)
terrorism [trrzm]
n.
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
2. the act of terrorizing.
3. the state of being terrorized.
(colins english dictionary)
Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'
(Merriam Webster's dictionary)
Terrorism: n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
(dictionary.com)
Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method.
Merriam-Webster said it best, and that definition is the one Russ used. His point still stands.
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.
The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.
russ_watters
Apr11-03, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks. FZ+, it doesn't appear there because it is kinda understood that when you attack troops you aren't trying to scare them you are trying to KILL them. Yes, it is possible to use terrorism against troops, but it is pretty rare and generally categorized in the more accurate term "psychological warfare." The US did not try to INTIMIDATE Saddam during the war, we tried (and I believe succeeded) to KILL him.
In fact, our actions toward even the Iraqi soldiers were pretty much the OPPOSITE of terrorism. We practically CAJOLED them into surrendering. The leaflets we dropped didn't threaten to kill them they promised to FEED them.
Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method. It must be, but try as you might, you won't get this one changed to be "anyone FZ+ doesn't like"
Nope, mine says everyone uses terrorism to some degree.
The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.
But he limited it to "attacks on civilians". By the definition you support (actually dictionary.com due to stupid labelling on my part), attacks on people and property, regardless of whether military or civilian is terrorism. Hence Russ's declaration that "The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians" is not supported by ANY definition I can find. If he can find a good dictionary with that in it, then I congratulate him. But to me that point seems pulled out of thin air.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons
The US threatened the use of force against Saddam Hussien did it not? Is Saddam a person? Was not the goal of the initial ultimatum to coerce him to leave Iraq. Yes. Then the US used terrorism against Saddam Hussein. Whether this act is right or not is not relevant as far as the definition is concerned. And whether you consider the target deserving or not is similarly irrelevant. Who said anything about during the war?
Understand?
So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?
Gimme a break!
On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!!!!
Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.
Originally posted by Alias
So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?
Gimme a break!
On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!!!!
By the definition YOU chose. Do you wish to change for a "better" one? Or maybe create one that means "anyone Alias doesn't like"? [:D]
Originally posted by kat
like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.
Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?
Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.
Originally posted by Zero
Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?
You seem to be confused. I'm responding to this statement:
I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
It's quite obviously not followed by a question mark.
Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate. You were both equally dillusional?[g)]
I'll say this: any 'celebration' could easily be staged for propaganda purposes, and I wouldn't put it past the media or the government to bribe some locals into putting on a show.
Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?
Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?
I admit to being cynical, but I know that there are many reasons for the Iraqis to put on a show, that have nothing to do with being happy having Americans occupying their country.
Dissident Dan
Apr13-03, 09:45 PM
I'm sure that there are Iraqis are happy that US and British troops have gotten rid of sadam's oppressive government. I'm sure that there are Iraqis who are not, like the deputy director of that museum that was ransacked, people without water or electricity, and people who have to deal with the chaos in the cities.
About the toppling of the sadam statue in Baghdad, I have come across this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
(I don't know anything about the credibility of informationclearinghouse.info, but I know that they have an anti-war slant.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396043
russ_watters
Apr14-03, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Zero
I'll say this: any 'celebration' could easily be staged for propaganda purposes, and I wouldn't put it past the media or the government to bribe some locals into putting on a show. Its not so easy for the US to stage a celebration when the celebrations are so disorganized and spontaneous and the US clearly does not have a tight grip on the populous.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Its not so easy for the US to stage a celebration when the celebrations are so disorganized and spontaneous and the US clearly does not have a tight grip on the populous.
Two words: ice water.
russ_watters
Apr15-03, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Zero
Two words: ice water. So ice water is bribery? Intersting. Do you think they would actually be GRATEFUL for that hypothtical glass of ice water? Cajolery is not coersion. Even if you could prove (you can't) that they were cajoled into celebrating, thats not even in the same league with *KILLING* people who don't participate in a celebration.
I keep hearing reports that the 'celebrations' were spun by the media to appear larger than they really were, and the common Iraqi wants American soldiers to go home.
What the 'common Iraqi' wants is not nearly important as what the common Iraqi needs. What they need is a government. And tough toenails, we're not leaving until we get their new government well underway.
Or, maybe we should give them what they want and just leave them to their own devices. That's not very smart or humane.
Originally posted by Alias
What the 'common Iraqi' wants is not nearly important as what the common Iraqi needs. What they need is a government. And tough toenails, we're not leaving until we get their new government well underway.
Or, maybe we should give them what they want and just leave them to their own devices. That's not very smart or humane.
Yeah, but America doesn't do policing or nation-building, remember? Look at Afghanistan...or don't, because it is an ugly sight.
We can't raise Afganistan up out of the stone-age they have been in for thousands of years. Things are as good there as they have ever been. Proove that is not the case.
As far as Iraq goes, we are helping them to police themselves, and we will help them to build their nation to a point they can take over.
Sure Bush said he wasn't in to nation building. Then 9/11 happened. Now his administration realizes that the only effective course of action is to act as gentlemanly as a gentleman nation should act, kill as many known terrorists as we can, attack whatever dangerous regimes we can (with minimal casualties, yes, on the US side), and scare the holy crap out of anyone thinking of terrorizing the US or it's allies.
He has done a fine job. Look at Syria crapping their pants.
Oh, so you are saying that Bush's plan is to fight terrorism with terror? Good call. Afghanistan is pretty much worse off than it was 4 years ago...different warlords, same problems, with a severely disrupted infrastructure. That's an improvement, simply because it has the Shrub seal of approval? Do you not think about the spin you are fed, and just swallow it whole?
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, so you are saying that Bush's plan is to fight terrorism with terror? Good call.
Yes. That's part of the plan. There are certain types of people that only respond to fear. Moamar Kadhafi is a perfect example. The US stopped his terrorist activities by killing some of his close family members, thus scaring the crap out of him. Haven't heard a peep from him since.
Afghanistan is pretty much worse off than it was 4 years ago...different warlords, same problems, with a severely disrupted infrastructure.
I might believe you if you could back that statement up with some facts.
That's an improvement, simply because it has the Shrub seal of approval?
It's a vast improvement. Al Qaeda has been rendered nutless and scattered to the four corners of the Earth.
Do you not think about the spin you are fed, and just swallow it whole?
I think you're the expert in that regard.
Taliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan
...There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away. At a time when the United States is promising a reconstructed democratic postwar Iraq, many Afghans are remembering hearing similar promises not long ago. Instead, what they see is thieving warlords, murder on the roads, and a resurgence of Taliban vigilantism.
`It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem,'' said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president and his representative in southern Kandahar. ``What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. Everyone is back in business.''
``There have been no significant changes for people,'' he said. ``People are tired of seeing small, small projects. I don't know what to say to people anymore.''
When the Taliban ruled they forcibly conscripted young men. ``Today I can say 'we don't take your sons away by force to fight at the front line,''' Karzai remarked. ``But that's about all I can say.''
Today most Afghans say their National Army seems a distant dream while the U.S.-led coalition continues to feed and finance warlords for their help in hunting for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Reviving-Taliban.html
Still Paying for Past Support of Taliban, Pashtuns Flee South Toward Safety
Families fleeing harassment, beatings and extortion in northern Afghanistan arrive almost weekly at an impromptu refugee camp here, seeking shelter in patched tents on a dusty lot beside the city's animal market.
...
Despite a series of efforts by government commissions, and promises from the leaders of the north to stop the violence, the harassment continues, deepening the ethnic divisions in the region and adding to the quarter of a million displaced people already in southern Afghanistan.
...
Wali Jan's plight illuminates the enormous problem Afghanistan still has with half a million internally displaced people, the bulk of them - more than 300,000 - living in the south. About 25,000 of those have fled political repression, according to Peter Deck, the officer in charge of displaced people for the United Nations assistance mission in Kandahar. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/international/asia/12REFU.html
While assessing the status of al Qaeda is obviously difficult, they ain't been 'rendered nutless.' Some recent analyses I've seen: Al Qaeda: one year on
Although it is true that the ousting of the Taliban has certainly ended the training of Al-Qaeda's foot-soldiers in Afghanistan – and this is no small achievement – what has not been stopped is the group's ability to raise funds or operate its international network of sleeper cells and safe houses. In fact, in the view of many within the Western intelligence community, Al-Qaeda is probably stronger now than it was before 11 September.
The reasons for this are complex, but key factors include the enormous growth in grassroots support for the group throughout much of the Islamic world.
...
Another key political mistake has been to focus on secondary distractions, such as the ‘axis of evil’, while soft-peddling on the principal sponsors of Al-Qaeda: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The unpalatable truth is that these two ‘allies’ of the West have played an undeniable role in the growth of Bin Laden's group into an international terrorist network. Jane's Intelligence, http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid020905_1_n.shtml
When talking about terrorists, you have to throw away your normal perceptions. Being driven underground makes a terrorist group MORE effective, not less. Killing terrorist leaders makes terrorists MORE dangerous, not less.
Originally posted by Zero
When talking about terrorists, you have to throw away your normal perceptions. Being driven underground makes a terrorist group MORE effective, not less. Killing terrorist leaders makes terrorists MORE dangerous, not less.
You don't seriously believe that? Your last two statements are exactly the opposite of the truth. What makes a terrorist dangerous is cash, and influential leadership. Take away his cash, his leadership, and force him to hide and he becomes impotent. Whether or not he is pissed off is irrelevant to his ability to terrorize at that point.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Obey the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
Originally posted by Alias
You don't seriously believe that? Your last two statements are exactly the opposite of the truth. What makes a terrorist dangerous is cash, and influential leadership. Take away his cash, his leadership, and force him to hide and he becomes impotent. Whether or not he is pissed off is irrelevant to his ability to terrorize at that point.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Obey the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
Which just goes to show that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. The points of terrorism are A)cheap, improvised attack, B) small, independent cells that can act without instruction from centralized leadership, and C)ability to act under the radar of law enforcement and military.
Okay, you're right in theory. But terrorists without money can't purchase suicide bomber vests. They also can't buy plane tickets or get fake passports. The low profile idea is only effective if it is funded. Even when it is funded, most of these idiots can't pour piss out of a boot on their own. They just don't have the skills... unless they can afford to buy those too.
Originally posted by Alias
Okay, you're right in theory. But terrorists without money can't purchase suicide bomber vests. They also can't buy plane tickets or get fake passports. The low profile idea is only effective if it is funded. Even when it is funded, most of these idiots can't pour piss out of a boot on their own. They just don't have the skills... unless they can afford to buy those too.
You still don't understand terrorism, although you seem receptive to understanding. As far as funding; a box cutter costs $1, a speeding truck full of fertilizer bomb costs abut 2-3 grand. Molotov cocktails in a crouded theater are nearly free. Any 'idiot' can do those, and spread terror.
A box cutter costs about a dollar, but flight training, plane tickets, forged documents and logistical control cost quite a bit.
A truck packed with fertilizer is not so expensive, but it has only happened once in this country and for some reason the boiling masses of terrorists that the Bush administration has created with it's hegemonistic(sp?) actions, don't seem to be interested in that method. Surely they could have scraped up the funds by now.
So where are all the molotov cocktails in movie theaters? What do you think is the reason why we don't see this all over the place?
Originally posted by Alias
A box cutter costs about a dollar, but flight training, plane tickets, forged documents and logistical control cost quite a bit.
A truck packed with fertilizer is not so expensive, but it has only happened once in this country and for some reason the boiling masses of terrorists that the Bush administration has created with it's hegemonistic(sp?) actions, don't seem to be interested in that method. Surely they could have scraped up the funds by now.
So where are all the molotov cocktails in movie theaters? What do you think is the reason why we don't see this all over the place?
Well, it certainly doesn't seem like any panic is justified, now does it? So why is the administration acting like terrorism is a constant threat? There is NOTHING you can do to stop terrorism, after all...
Originally posted by Zero
Well, it certainly doesn't seem like any panic is justified, now does it? So why is the administration acting like terrorism is a constant threat? There is NOTHING you can do to stop terrorism, after all... Forgive me if this post wanders a bit.
I do not think that panic is the correct response. Also, I wouldn't say that 'panic' is an accurate characterization of the administrations response.
Most importantly, your statement about there being nothing you can do to stop terrorism is patently FALSE.
The correct response to any problem is to first accurately define the problem. Based on that information, you troubleshoot. Once the problem and it's causes are understood, you can implement 'the solution', or pick from a 'range of solutions'.
Terrorists are the result of oppressive governments. Oppressive governments are the cause, terrorists are the result. When governments stop treating people like sh|t, people will stop acting like sh|t.
So the solution is to rehabilitate, imprison, or kill terrorists and terrorist governments, and then to prevent terrorist governments from forming. There need be no limiting rules in this solution.(edit)Although sometimes some limiting rules are desireable.(/edit)
Terrorism, at least Islamist terrorism, is a constant threat, and will continue to be as long as there are Islamic countries with oppressive(or idiotic - see Palestine) governments.
It just happens to be that in the past, we believed the threat level to be rather low and acted accordingly. 911 taught us that the threat level is actually much higher, and the risk associated with not acting proactively are too great.
So we strike out at terrorists and terrorist countries preemptively. Although preemptive is probably the wrong word. It's like being in a boxing match and being the first one to throw a punch. They don't call it a preemptive punch. And it doesn't matter if the terrorist in the boxing ring with us is guilty of crimes against us or not. If he is a terrorist against anyone, he deserves to have his *** kicked, and we're the best ones to do the job.
Also, we should use every dirty trick in the book, and invent some new ones, when dealing with terrorists and oppressive governments.
Yes, yes, I know. The US was an accomplice to many of the crimes that oppressive governments have committed in the past. But it's never too late to change. Just because you taught someone to steal doesn't mean you can't some day change your ways, join the police force and arrest that same person.
You start out ok:
The correct response to any problem is to first accurately define the problem. Based on that information, you troubleshoot. Once the problem and it's causes are understood, you can implement 'the solution', or pick from a 'range of solutions'.
Then you proceed to incorrectly define both the problem and the solution. Close, but no cigar. There are no such things as 'terrorist governments'.
Just because you taught someone to steal doesn't mean you can't some day change your ways, join the police force and arrest that same person.
Too bad America's choice for the past 30 years has been to hire another thug to deal with the problems created by the last one.
Originally posted by Zero
You start out ok:
Then you proceed to incorrectly define both the problem and the solution. Close, but no cigar. There are no such things as 'terrorist governments'.
So you don't like my definition. What do you call Saddam Hussein's regime if not a "terrorist government".
Originally posted by Zero
Too bad America's choice for the past 30 years has been to hire another thug to deal with the problems created by the last one.
I agree, it is a pretty stupid thing to do. But people, and governments can change. I'm optimistic.
russ_watters
Apr18-03, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Alias
So you don't like my definition. What do you call Saddam Hussein's regime if not a "terrorist government". Not to mention the Taliban. A government of the terrorists, by the terrorists, and for the terrorists. Others would include Lybia (they may be changing), Syria, and Iran.
I would define a "terrorist government" as one who sponsors terrorism as the primary (or just a major) part of their foreign policy.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.