News The war on terror, self defeating or a neccesity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Self
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the significant increase in global terrorism linked to the Iraq invasion, with a study showing deaths from jihadist attacks rising from 729 before the invasion to 5,420 afterward. Critics argue that the war on terror has exacerbated violence rather than reduced it, questioning the effectiveness of aggressive military strategies. The debate includes concerns over the mismanagement of the Iraq war and the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that military interventions have fueled anti-American sentiments and terrorism. Participants express skepticism about the notion that democracy can be imposed through military force, advocating for a more nuanced approach to addressing the root causes of terrorism. Overall, the conversation reflects a consensus that the current strategies have not made the world safer and may have worsened the situation.

Is the war on terrorism simply not working?

  • Frankly no, the neocon strategy is inneffective.

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • Yes, stay the course, you'll see

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We need a new approach, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown this.

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • We must oppose terror by violent means, or there will be more terror!

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Terror must be fought by intelligence agencies not by overt force, if it is to succeed.

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • Other: please explain if you would.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • If you think I'm answering that question you've got another think coming:)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
  • #51
BillJx said:
I didn't answer the poll because I frankly have no answers. However:

1) Political / social causes tend to get grouped into camps, not always for sound reasons. Differing with Bush politically shouldn't automatically lead to a demand to pull out of the mid-East and leave it in chaos. Bush may have promoted the war for the wrong reasons, but now it's a difficult situation that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. The moral imperitive now is to fix what you broke.

2) Terrorism needs to be fought. Always. Never back away from evil because of fear or moral laziness. Terrorism also needs to be defined. A third world power in a fight with the U.S. can't go head to head on the battlefield, it needs to use some kind of guerilla tactics. That's no excuse for bombing restaurants, murdering tourists, sacrificing kids etc. Evil isn't hard to spot, independantly of the proclaimed cause that's used as an excuse. Root such people out at any expense.

3) Maybe underground organizations have a tendency to be taken over by psychopaths. War in general is good for psychopaths, how much better is an underground war? Once you're giving people accolades for murdering children and non-combantants, you've lost control of your organization. The cause becomes just an excuse for killing. If independance organizations want world support, they need to find a way to eliminate the psychopaths from their leadership and close the door to them.

4) I'm sorry, but a war can't be fought without deaths. The world isn't civilized enough yet for war to be ended, sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a solution. So young people will die. Unfortunately, that can't be the reason for a country to end a war. Enemy deaths are reason enough to avert war where it's possible. If it can't be averted, it needs to be seen through. The alternative is capitulation to governments that don't care how many people are killed, theirs or ours.

John Wayne, just when I thought you were MIA, we have posts like the above, ignoring the fact that Sadaam as a badboy pretty much handled civil unrest, and the good guys have actually managed to escalate the death rate, incinerate the infrastructure, setback womens rights and stop the inflow of $$ via exportation of oil.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
denverdoc said:
John Wayne, just when I thought you were MIA, we have posts like the above, ignoring the fact that Sadaam as a badboy pretty much handled civil unrest, and the good guys have actually managed to escalate the death rate, incinerate the infrastructure, setback womens rights and stop the inflow of $$ via exportation of oil.
I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.
Four UK soldiers killed in Iraq
The bomb targeted a UK patrol
Bomb aftermath
Four British soldiers have been killed by a roadside bomb near Basra, southern Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
A civilian translator was also killed in the bomb blast, which targeted a Warrior patrol.

A fifth soldier was also "very seriously injured" and is being treated in the military hospital in Basra.

This latest incident brings the total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq to 140.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Art said:
I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm

The only way to pick which side to support would have been for the US to forceably install a pro-Western Sunni leader. That might have some short term benefits and push problems a decade or two down the road, but it would have had a pretty high cost in relations with the rest of the world (yeah, the current situation hasn't done much for that either).

If the US is going to help establish a democratic government, lack of control is one of the inherent risks that has to be accepted. The US has no choice but to back the government the Iraqi people chose.

That's why the US should have relied on an accurate assessment of Iraqi politics and culture instead of fantasy when deciding whether or not interfering in Iraq was worth it. Once you've started things rolling, there's not many decisions left since you're not in control anymore - Iraqis are.

I'd also add that knowing Shi'ites would be the majority doesn't mean they would be pro-Iranian. The ethnic divides run on a couple different levels. Iranians are Persian, while most Iraqis are Arab. A Shi'ite government in Iraq would probably have better relations with Iran than Hussein did (that's not hard to do), but the only thing pushing Iraq towards a true alliance with Iran is the civil war. A more moderate Shi'ite government that didn't tread all over Sunnis would have had good relations with the rest of the Arab states. Forcing Sunni Arabs to decide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Arabs leaves Shi'ites only one ally left. There were a couple chances to keep this from being a disaster and the US isn't the only one that blew those chances.
 
  • #54
BobG said:
The only way to pick which side to support would have been for the US to forceably install a pro-Western Sunni leader. That might have some short term benefits and push problems a decade or two down the road, but it would have had a pretty high cost in relations with the rest of the world (yeah, the current situation hasn't done much for that either).

If the US is going to help establish a democratic government, lack of control is one of the inherent risks that has to be accepted. The US has no choice but to back the government the Iraqi people chose.

That's why the US should have relied on an accurate assessment of Iraqi politics and culture instead of fantasy when deciding whether or not interfering in Iraq was worth it. Once you've started things rolling, there's not many decisions left since you're not in control anymore - Iraqis are.

I'd also add that knowing Shi'ites would be the majority doesn't mean they would be pro-Iranian. The ethnic divides run on a couple different levels. Iranians are Persian, while most Iraqis are Arab. A Shi'ite government in Iraq would probably have better relations with Iran than Hussein did (that's not hard to do), but the only thing pushing Iraq towards a true alliance with Iran is the civil war. A more moderate Shi'ite government that didn't tread all over Sunnis would have had good relations with the rest of the Arab states. Forcing Sunni Arabs to decide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Arabs leaves Shi'ites only one ally left. There were a couple chances to keep this from being a disaster and the US isn't the only one that blew those chances.
But where does it all lead? Even if the MNF were to win a crushing victory over the Sunni insurgents all they would have achieved would be to consolidate the power of the Shi'ites who have shown no hesitation in attacking MNF forces themselves when allied forces interfere in their activities. As an example in the incident cited above Iraqi police officials said the patrol had earlier detained a lieutenant in the Interior Ministry's major crimes unit and was returning to its base when it was ambushed.

A quintessential example of Iraqi gov't factions using the MNF for their own purposes took place a few months back when a Shi'ite official military group claimed they were being attacked by terrorists and called in air support from the MNF which resulted in the deaths of over 300 people of what turned out to be apparently, simply a rival sect.

A long time ago I said I thought ultimately the only longterm solution would be partition and the more entrenched each side becomes the more likely this will be the eventual solution. At least with partition, assuming the occupation continues, the allied forces would be able to concentrate on fighting their enemies in each region rather than the current situation where in the myriad complexity of civil war it is very difficult to know who your enemies even are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
This is troubling -

Absences at Intel Center Raise Questions
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9434808

All Things Considered, April 6, 2007 · The command room of the National Counterterrorism Center is a dimly lit, two-story chamber. Typing away at several dozen work stations are officers from the FBI, the CIA and other agencies.

That is the whole point of the NCTC. Since its creation a little more than two years ago, the center has been working to foster cooperation among intelligence agencies.

Needless to say, having both the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) pull their representatives out of the operations center wasn't exactly part of the plan.

"U.S. NORTHCOM voluntarily withdrew its liaison at the same time DIA withdrew, due to a lack of information-sharing," said. Maj. April Cunningham, a spokesperson for NORTHCOM.

NORTHCOM is the military command responsible for homeland defense efforts. Cunningham and other officials confirm that three DIA officers and one NORTHCOM officer were withdrawn late last year.

"I think essentially, it boiled down to the amount of information-sharing that's needed to go forth in order to defend the homeland," Cunningham said. "So that was what was lacking."
 
  • #56
Art said:
I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm

Thinking about it some more, I think the old style solution definitely would have been a pro-Western Sunni government.

In a lot of ways, a purely pragmatic approach, worrying only about how Iraq would affect the US and Western allies, is the best approach. If the government is supposed to serve 300 million people, their security should trump concerns over the well-being of people living in foreign countries.

Still, a lot of the things the US did in the past were only justifiable in a cold war environment. I don't think a lot of those policies are appropriate when the US has no serious rival in the world.

The idea of giving democracy and human rights a higher priority in US foreign relations is a good idea. We just chose a very bad test case and, more importantly, we opted for it in a situation where regime change might not have even been necessary from a US security point of view.

There's so many wrong assumptions that have to be made, but, if Iraq really was the threat the administration said it was, then opting for the quickest means to short stability probably would have been the best option. I'm not sure where that leaves a pro-democracy policy, since most of the situations where the US might be justified in interfering aren't very conducive to democracy. I'd hate to think the only option would be for the US to pursue the same strategy it used during the cold war.
 
  • #57
Triple Cross - by Peter Lance

This book is disturbing because it implies that members of the US government have operated independently outside any accountability, and may have compromised the security of the US, and perhaps neglected to do what could have been done to prevent the WTC attack(s).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060886889/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Book Description cited on Amazon
"This is the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street."

—Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, 1997

In the years leading to the 9/11 attacks, no single agent of al Qaeda was more successful in compromising the U.S. intelligence community than Ali Mohamed. A former Egyptian army captain, Mohamed succeeded in infiltrating the CIA in Europe, the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, and the FBI in California—even as he helped to orchestrate the al Qaeda campaign of terror that culminated in 9/11. As investigative reporter Peter Lance demonstrates in this gripping narrative, senior U.S. law enforcement officials—including the now-celebrated U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who personally interviewed Mohamed long before he was brought to ground—were powerless to stop him. In the annals of espionage, few men have moved between the hunters and the hunted with as much audacity as Ali Mohamed. For almost two decades, the former Egyptian army commando succeeded in living a double life. Brazenly slipping past watch lists, he moved in and out of the U.S. with impunity, marrying an American woman, becoming a naturalized citizen, and posing as an FBI informant—all while acting as chief of security for Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Known to his fellow terrorists as Ali Amiriki, or "Ali the American," Mohamed gained access to the most sensitive intelligence in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal while brokering terror summits, planning bombing missions, and training jihadis in bomb building, assassination, the creation of sleeper cells, and other acts of espionage.Building on the investigation he first chronicled in his previous books, 1000 Years for Revenge and Cover Up, Lance uses Mohamed to trace the untold story of al Qaeda's rise in the 1980s and 1990s. Incredibly, Mohamed, who remains in custodial witness protection today, has never been sentenced for his crimes. He exists under a veil of secrecy—a living witness to how the U.S. intelligence community was outflanked for years by the terror network.

From his first appearance on the FBI's radar in 1989—training Islamic extremists on Long Island—to his presence in the database of Operation Able Danger eighteen months before 9/11, this devious triple agent was the one terrorist they had to sweep under the rug. Filled with news-making revelations, Triple Cross exposes the incompetence and duplicity of the FBI and Justice Department before 9/11 . . . and raises serious questions about how many more secrets the Feds may still be hiding.
If this is true, then what? Has US security been repeatedly compromised because of self-interested parties? Are we still vulnerable because of these compromises?

Or can this be written off as a just another conspiracy theory?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
I believe at this point in time the battleground of the 'war of/on/against/including terror' has gotten out of control. Bush is kind of like the kid who likes to play with fire, and who thinks he can make a controlled fire, then not appreciating the conditions the fire is set and quickly spreads out of control.

In Jihadist Haven, a Goal: To Kill and Die in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/world/middleeast/04bombers.html
Mohammad Kamal, a young Sunni resident of Zarqa, traveled to Iraq in 2005 with Jihad Jaradad and became a "martyr" the same year.

ZARQA, Jordan — Abu Ibrahim considers his dead friends the lucky ones.

Four died in Iraq in 2005. Three more died this year, one with an explosives vest and another at the wheel of a bomb-laden truck, according to relatives and community leaders.

Abu Ibrahim, a lanky 24-year-old, was on the same mission when he left this bleak city north of Amman for Iraq last October. But he made it only as far as the border before he was arrested, and is now back home in a world he thought he had left for good — biding his time, he said, for another chance to hurl himself into martyrdom.

“I am happy for them but I cry for myself because I couldn’t do it yet,” said Abu Ibrahim, who uses this name as a nom de guerre. “I want to spread the roots of God on this Earth and free the land of occupiers. I don’t love anything in this world. What I care about is fighting.”

Zarqa has been known as a cradle of Islamic militancy since the beginning of the war in Iraq. It was the home of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was killed last summer. Today it is a breeding ground for would-be jihadists like Abu Ibrahim and five of his friends who left about the same time last fall, bound for Iraq.

Interviews with Abu Ibrahim and relatives of the other men show that rather than having been individually recruited by an organization like Mr. Zarqawi’s, they gradually radicalized one another, the more strident leading the way. Local imams led them further toward Iraq, citing verses from the Koran to justify killing civilians. The men watched videos depicting tortured and slain Muslims that are copied from Internet sites.

“The sheik, he was a hero,” Abu Ibrahim said of Mr. Zarqawi. But, he added, “I decided to go when my friends went.” For the final step, getting the phone number of a smuggler and address of a safe house in Iraq, the men used facilitators who act more like travel agents than militant leaders.
Not only is it Iraq (now) and Afghanistan, but militants are being recruited throughout the world. The challenge then is how to change that trend.

Local imams led them further toward Iraq, citing verses from the Koran to justify killing civilians. - That is very disturbing.
 
  • #59
Yet another front in the War on Terror - this one initiated by the other side.

Now you'll have a website where you can "Ask a Terrorist".

Which of the four possibilities are more likely:

1) Al-Qaeda plants questions and only answers the planted questions.
2) Al-Qaeda answers all questions "whether it is coming from someone who agrees or disagrees."
3) Al-Qaeda tries to answer all questions, suddenly realizes they need a huge staff, and starts advertising job openings on Monster.com.
4) Their servers chronically crash, making it virtually impossible to ask a question.
 
  • #60
What a rip. I asked about problem 15 from chapter 1 of 'Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity' by Baez and Muniain, and they were worse than no help at all. George Jones can beat these guys with one hand tied behind his back.
 
  • #61
jimmysnyder said:
What a rip. I asked about problem 15 from chapter 1 of 'Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity' by Baez and Muniain, and they were worse than no help at all. George Jones can beat these guys with one hand tied behind his back.

:smile::smile::smile: You're killing me. :smile::smile::smile:
 
  • #62
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Yep. Should of gone for the real target not the Taliban, that's precisely what I'm suggesting, a lighting strike by special force units. I don't see what the problem is with the idea?

Well, for one your "lightning strike" idea exists only in movies like Air Force One. Your target is not simply one man, but one man backed by an organization of scantily understood scope and capability that is organically tied into the forces of the sovereign state protecting him.

Central Asia might look small on a globe, but it's still several million square kilometers of rough terrain with several dozen million people. Simply knowing that bin Laden and his associates are somewhere in that mess doesn't exactly narrow things down for you, so you'll need to deploy capability to react to intelligence as it comes in. Once you accept that, you've accepted that the timeframe for your operation is quite probably indefinite and, more importantly, you'll need to support your forward forces for the duration. That means forward operating bases in the AOR.

On top of that, you're not going to get much of a take in intel if you don't go out and meet the enemy. Add to that you're dealing with a landlocked, mountainous country that's been in civil war for 20 years, it would be impossible to gather any intelligence without a local constituency to feed it to you. You can rule out the Taliban--they're committed to backing al Qaeda and determined to take as many of the Pashto-speaking provinces with them. That leaves you with everybody else--and everybody else is the Northern Alliance. The price for their cooperation--surprise, surprise--is assistance taking the Taliban out of power and keeping them down.

So once again, how do you get bin Laden and friends without taking out the Taliban?
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

I've seen no evidence that global opinion of the US is noticeably sensitive to American humanitarianism, so I question whether or not the Marshall Plan set any standard. That said, assistance to Europe after World War II served a vital strategic purpose, it prevented a wave of Bolshevism from sweeping into the West. I'd argue that the only lesson Americans need take from that experience is the need to prevent enemies--old or new--from emerging to sweep aside the hard-fought gains of major combat operations.
 
  • #64
Frankly, the "War on Terror" is actually nothing more than a war on Islam.
 
  • #65
Moridin said:
Frankly, the "War on Terror" is actually nothing more than a war on Islam.

If it is, it's a half-hearted one that shies away from the juiciest targets and the most efficient means of prosecuting them.
 
  • #66
Pelt said:
If it is, it's a half-hearted one that shies away from the juiciest targets and the most efficient means of prosecuting them.

Who said it was an effective war? :rolleyes:
 
  • #67
Moridin said:
Who said it was an effective war? :rolleyes:

If this is a war on Islam, incompetence doesn't nearly explain why the Administration chooses objectives that blatantly contradict the obvious aims of such a struggle. For your hypothesis to fit with reality, the President must knowingly sabotage his own effort. Otherwise, the Administration would not have allied with Pakistan and the Gulf States, counseled Israeli restraint in their ongoing dispute with the Palestinians and Syria, and refrained from using American airpower to strike the Hashemites of Jordan, Mecca, Qom, Najaf, etc. On top of that, the President must've coopted the entire body in both a clandestine decision to attack Islam and an even more secret one to deliberately throw the war. It would be one of the few controversial strategic issues that fails inspire some discontent constituency in Washington to leak.

That is, of course, if your theory holds any water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Astronuc said:
Or can this be written off as a just another conspiracy theory?

All we know, so far, is that some planes flew into some buildings. How someone was able to finger a specific perpetrator 20 minutes into the attack I don't know.

The best defense when it comes to terror would be effective investigative techniques. Where's the evidence from the attacks and who's in charge of the lock-up?

A war on terror should be similar to the way you would dispel a child's terror of a dark closet. Get a flashlight. Shine some light on the subject. See it for what it really is. Act accordingly. You don't send 100s of thousands of troops to investigate. They'd be more useful at home shoveling snow etc, rebuilding and re-locating New Orleans, helping out in California and so on..
 
  • #69
baywax said:
All we know, so far, is that some planes flew into some buildings.

Well, we know significantly more than that. We have footage of the hijackers boarding their aircraft, evidence linking them to al Qaeda, bin Laden's own confession of responsibility for the attacks, two of the men behind the planning of the attacks, etc.

How someone was able to finger a specific perpetrator 20 minutes into the attack I don't know.

All that was known 20 minutes into the attack is that it was an attack. The details were filled in the following days and weeks. The US did not strike until nearly a month later.

The best defense when it comes to terror would be effective investigative techniques.

Even investigators frequently rely on uniforms to handle the arrests, and occasionally special tactics to rustle up the tough collars.

Where's the evidence from the attacks and who's in charge of the lock-up?

There's enough evidence in the public record--forensics and witness testimony--to choke horse. And quite frankly, the suspect the evidence points to professes his own guilt without remorse or compunction. If he's a patsy, he's one of the most willing and elusive ones ever to play the part--in short, perfect fodder for conspiracy theories.

A war on terror should be similar to the way you would dispel a child's terror of a dark closet. Get a flashlight. Shine some light on the subject. See it for what it really is. Act accordingly. You don't send 100s of thousands of troops to investigate. They'd be more useful at home shoveling snow etc, rebuilding and re-locating New Orleans, helping out in California and so on..

If your mystery "investigators" are so magical that they can take down the leadership of a well-armed terrorist organization integrated into the armed forces of a hostile nation, then why not scrap the regular services and turn them loose on snowstorms, wildfires and floods as well?
 
  • #70
I'd like to see some references supporting your claims.
 
  • #71
baywax said:
I'd like to see some references supporting your claims.

?

"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
mheslep said:
?

"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL][/QUOTE]

911 Report?

Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?

I'd like to see references from archived footage among other resources. (For example: I claimed that Bin Labin's name was mentioned during the first 20 to 120 minutes of this mass murder. For me to back up my claim I need to go to CBS or ABC, or NBC, or CNN or FOX and find the footage of the newscast I was watching during the first hour of this cowardly attack. I'm not too sure, but, my bet is that a lot of this kind of footage has been mysteriously recycled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
baywax said:
Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?

The government didn't issue the 9/11 Report.
 
  • #74
Pelt said:
The government didn't issue the 9/11 Report.

Actually, it was a bipartisan group of government appointed folk doing the "investigations".

This group had to be approved and signed for by the the President and his admin. Where is the New York City Police Dept. represented in this group? The majority of this mass murder took place in New York City.Philip Zelikow,
Executive Director

Christopher A. Kojm,
Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Marcus,
General Counsel

Joanne M.Accolla
Staff Assistant

Alexis Albion
Professional Staff Member

Scott H.Allan,Jr.
Counsel

John A.Azzarello
Counsel

Caroline Barnes
Professional Staff Member

Warren Bass
Professional Staff Member

Ann M. Bennett
Information Control Officer

Mark S. Bittinger
Professional Staff Member

Madeleine Blot
Counsel

Antwion M. Blount
Systems Engineer

Sam Brinkley
Professional Staff Member

Geoffrey Scott Brown
Research Assistant

Daniel Byman
Professional Staff Member

Dianna Campagna
Manager of Operations

Samuel M.W.Caspersen
Counsel

Melissa A. Coffey
Staff Assistant

Lance Cole
Consultant

Marquittia L. Coleman
Staff Assistant

Marco A. Cordero
Professional Staff Member

Rajesh De
Counsel

George W.Delgrosso
Investigator

Gerald L. Dillingham
Professional Staff Member

Thomas E. Dowling
Professional Staff Member

Steven M. Dunne
Deputy General Counsel

Thomas R. Eldridge
Counsel

Alice Falk
Editor

John J. Farmer, Jr.
Senior Counsel & Team Leader

Alvin S. Felzenberg
Deputy for Communications
 
  • #75
baywax said:
Actually, it was a bipartisan group of government appointed folk doing the "investigations".

And that's important why?

This group had to be approved and signed for by the the President and his admin. Where is the New York City Police Dept. represented in this group? The majority of this mass murder took place in New York City.

The commission's charter was to investigate the attacks. What purpose would having an NYPD representative serve?
 
  • #76
I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?
 
  • #77
denverdoc said:
I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?

How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.
 
  • #78
Pelt said:
And that's important why?

They're government appointees. They are not independent investigators. Or I should say "investigator" because there is only one investigator listed on the panel.



The commission's charter was to investigate the attacks. What purpose would having an NYPD representative serve?

Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.

Sorry to have brought this topic off topic. The original topic asks what the right approach is to end the cowardly sucker punches being pulled by some weak-minded, panty-waisted group of scum. My solution is to show them the right way to live as in "provide a good example". Best in the new year!
 
  • #79
Kurdt said:
No assumptions are needed since for example, the 7th of July bombings in London were commited by people who clearly stated that British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was their motivation. there have been numerous other warnings from terrorist groups to countries with troops in those two aforementioned countries.

Well the United States could have capture osama and executed him and his followers probably would've attack the US in response to let the United States know that they will carry on osama's legacy. Terrorists attacks are inevitable now, whether we invaded another country or not.
 
  • #80
baywax said:
They're government appointees. They are not independent investigators. Or I should say "investigator" because there is only one investigator listed on the panel.

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "independent," then. I tend to draw a bright line at political appointees that answer either to some executive of legislative leadership. Where do you draw the line?

Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.

NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Sorry to have brought this topic off topic. The original topic asks what the right approach is to end the cowardly sucker punches being pulled by some weak-minded, panty-waisted group of scum. My solution is to show them the right way to live as in "provide a good example". Best in the new year!

I don't think that's going to be terribly effective on Al Qaeda. The leadership's seen how the West lives and decided they want something else. They also speak to cultures where households and clan relationships mean a great deal more than in Western countries. If setting an example hasn't stopped various overseas crime cultures from setting up hundred million dollar shops in the US, I sincerely doubt it alone can solve the US's public relations problem.
 
  • #81
Pelt said:
Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "independent," then. I tend to draw a bright line at political appointees that answer either to some executive of legislative leadership. Where do you draw the line?

My idea of an independent inquiry is different from yours. Mine begins with people who have no connection with the middle east, oil company lobbyists, airlines, military or other governmentally influenced or influencing entities. For instance a civil union such as the NYPD or perhaps a democratically appointed panel brought into being through an open referendum or vote of some kind. This is not my area of expertise however, and I would look to someone such as Nome Chompsky or even a super computer that randomly makes its choices according to the specific criteria involved in such a complex case... a case so complex that I doubt that an "ex"-CIA operative like Bin Labeled could have devised it.



NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Your knowledge of these convenient federal laws and regulations is amply noted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
baywax said:
My idea of an independent inquiry is different from yours. Mine begins with people who have no connection with the middle east, oil company lobbyists, airlines, military or other governmentally influenced or influencing entities.

Wouldn't that rule out Noam Chomsky? He does, after all, have a wide range of activist contacts with people and organizations in the Middle East.

For instance a civil union such as the NYPD or perhaps a democratically appointed panel brought into being through an open referendum or vote of some kind.

Could you clarify what you mean by "civil union?" I'm not sure what criteria you're using to lump the NYPD together with "a democratically appointed panel." And I'm still not certain what purpose you envision the NYPD fulfilling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Baywax said:
Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.
Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.

Pelt said:
NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.
Pelt is correct.
 
  • #84
Evo said:
Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.
Specifically the FBI.
 
  • #85
I'll suggest that a change in terminology will help in the "war on terror". Quite literally the title, "war on terror", evokes emotional responses like hate, fear and hysteria in most audiences. These audiences are what comprise a society and a nation. I would propose that the phrase become the " war on cowardice". This change of terminology is intended to provide a two-fold benefit to the society. One, it will instill a national and international determination to eradicate acts of cowardice and two it will define the "terrorists" and their accomplices for what they are and how they act.
 
  • #86
baywax said:
I'll suggest that a change in terminology will help in the "war on terror". Quite literally the title, "war on terror", evokes emotional responses like hate, fear and hysteria in most audiences.

A cursory search of Google Scholar for cognitive research supporting this idea is particularly frustrating. Do you have some sort of support for this hypothesis or is it your own personal belief?

These audiences are what comprise a society and a nation. I would propose that the phrase become the " war on cowardice". This change of terminology is intended to provide a two-fold benefit to the society. One, it will instill a national and international determination to eradicate acts of cowardice and two it will define the "terrorists" and their accomplices for what they are and how they act.

I believe your idea boils down to to undermining some alleged atmosphere of hate, fear and by shaping people's perceptions of the terrorist threat downward. Setting aside the very tenuous basis for that strategy, how did you work out that changing the label to "war on cowardice" would in anyway impact public opinion?
 
  • #87
Pelt said:
A cursory search of Google Scholar for cognitive research supporting this idea is particularly frustrating. Do you have some sort of support for this hypothesis or is it your own personal belief?
I believe your idea boils down to to undermining some alleged atmosphere of hate, fear and by shaping people's perceptions of the terrorist threat downward. Setting aside the very tenuous basis for that strategy, how did you work out that changing the label to "war on cowardice" would in anyway impact public opinion?

Hi Pelt 0,

A power word is a word that illicits a powerful emotional response from the browser. It is a word so irresistible that it makes a user far more likely to first notice and then click on the Google pay-per-click ad.

from: How Emotional Words Play a Dead-Serious Role in Google Ads & Blog Post Titles

http://blog.mindvalleylabs.com/google-adwords-secret-power-words-boost-ctr-by-114/61/What works in advertising works in media hype.

Here's a PDF file of the book...

The Power of Words: Unveiling the Speaker and Writer's Hidden Craft By David S. Kaufer

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWDfqJRcKb8C&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=power+of+word+emotional+response&source=web&ots=eAXrLLNDhc&sig=gI3uCsWagmHo_mMCBl72KlFv-S8 Interesting methods and invention here measuring responses to emotion-inducing stimuli (this study has a practical application in advertising and is as equally useful in government/media campaigns). A lot of info there.

"Method and apparatus for analyzing neurological response to emotion-inducing stimuli"

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6292688-description.html

Some people on Wicipedia with an opinion

"Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_(policy_development)_archive

This article is related.Here's one...

"Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research By Jennings Bryant, Dolf Zillmann"

Fright Reactions To Mass Media

This research has a multitude of authors.http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Lv4z9QeIRFAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA287&dq=%22CANTOR%22+%22Fright+Reactions+to+Mass+Media%22+&ots=K1Y2f54oc3&sig=WKlDrx3bo-F93lgkyzNhrvN8a4M#PPA263,M1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
baywax said:
Hi Pelt 0,

Hey baywax. I think you misunderstood me. I'm looking for refereed scholarship. Your own would suffice. It's for my edification.
 
  • #89
Pelt said:
Hey baywax. I think you misunderstood me. I'm looking for refereed scholarship. Your own would suffice. It's for my edification.

I'm not sure that I can help you with that.

If you don't understand how a word can effect you physiologically and psychologically, whether written or spoken, then you need to pay attention to your own responses. Here's a little test... have a look at these two words and gauge your response.TERROR

and

COWARD

Some refereed science and scholarship has already been done with regard to the effects of aurally and visually presented words on the physiology of human neurons.

Just google "Evoked Potential". The research involves using words, images and other stimuli to map areas of response in the brain.

This sort of study has been on-going since the 60s and is a well developed tool of government agencies and advertising agencies alike.

Is this too off-side for you?!

edit:

Further to my proposal, the word "terror" implies and evokes feelings of chaos, impending doom and an inability to react in a timely fashion. This type of psychological response does not lend itself to restoring a civil society and a saner world. Whereas, labeling this "war" a "war on cowards" creates the intention and the evocation that the "war" will be easily won (since cowards are so predictable)... thus, helping to reduce fear and boost the confidence and effectiveness of a society's efforts in that direction.

Moreover, when we admit we are in "terror" and continue to say that we are being "terrorized" we play directly into the hands of the cowards. They see in our newspapers and our news programming that they have had a desired effect and are therefore boosted in confidence and gain a renewed interest in continuing to "terrorize" the admittedly terrorized target.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
baywax said:
I'm not sure that I can help you with that.

Too bad.

If you don't understand how a word can effect you physiologically and psychologically, whether written or spoken, then you need to pay attention to your own responses.

Once again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm asking specifically about your theories regarding the phrases "war on terror" and "war on cowardice." I'm not interested in your broader thoughts on rhetoric and social psychology. I'm also not interested in anything less than actual research on this issue. For example...

Here's a little test... have a look at these two words and gauge your response.


TERROR

and

COWARD

...I have no response to these words independent of the context of our discussion. Either your hypothesis is messed up or your test is less than satisfactory gauge.

Some refereed science and scholarship has already been done with regard to the effects of aurally and visually presented words on the physiology of human neurons.

Once again, I'm looking specifically for scholarship on a phrase that has been used widely and attracted a great deal of scholarly attention for six years now. Absent that, I'd love to see other research that at least allows me to reasonably the phrase's impact.

Is this too off-side for you?!

No, it's merely irrelevant to the question I asked.
 
  • #91
Pelt said:
Too bad.
Once again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm asking specifically about your theories regarding the phrases "war on terror" and "war on cowardice." I'm not interested in your broader thoughts on rhetoric and social psychology. I'm also not interested in anything less than actual research on this issue. For example...
...I have no response to these words independent of the context of our discussion. Either your hypothesis is messed up or your test is less than satisfactory gauge.
Once again, I'm looking specifically for scholarship on a phrase that has been used widely and attracted a great deal of scholarly attention for six years now. Absent that, I'd love to see other research that at least allows me to reasonably the phrase's impact.
No, it's merely irrelevant to the question I asked.

This may help you "reasonably the phrase's impact". Its a close shot anyway.

Linguistics professor George Lakoff dissects the "war on terror" and other conservative catchphrases

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" — why?

There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

Next, "war." How many terrorists are there — hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.

Although Mr.Lakoff doesn't touch on my own reasons for abolishing this phrase, his are just as valid and in the same vein. His reasoning is that the word "terror" is only an enemy within an individual, not a physical group or entity with which to be at "war". Whereas, cowardice is a physical behaviour exhibited by cowards. The kind that make a statement or gain control at any cost - sometimes destroying the lives of innocent, unarmed,unprepared and uninvolved people.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
baywax said:
Although Mr.Lakoff doesn't touch on my own reasons for abolishing this phrase, his are just as valid and in the same vein.

A preview of Moral Politics is here. "Valid" is not a description I'd use. Lit review with a grandiose set of hypotheses begging for research proposals" is probably more apt. Less a book-length justification for theorizing Lakoff engages in, you're hypothesis is on even ground with that of Moral Politics. This isn't a flippant distinction. Hypothesis formulation is an important first step in any field, and tends to be extremely verbose in the social sciences (although not nearly this much in linguistics or cogsci).

His reasoning is that the word "terror" is only an enemy within an individual, not a physical group or entity with which to be at "war". Whereas, cowardice is a physical behaviour exhibited by cowards. The kind that make a statement or gain control at any cost - sometimes destroying the lives of innocent, unarmed,unprepared and uninvolved people.

Don't sell yourself short. The man clearly agrees with you that the term terror heightens a sense of fear. Unfortunately, he's doing so on his own authority rather than as a product of actual research. But as best as I can tell, Moral Politics is silent on the word cowardice.
 
  • #93
Pelt said:
NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Just so I understand American justice better: if an Australian lands his private jet in New York then commits 6 murders in New York who is in charge of the investigation of the murders, NYPD, FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members or the Australian police?

If a gang from Miami drives its hummer through a Macy's window New York and unfortunately kills 27 innocent people does the American Automobile Association do the investigation, the Miami Police Department, Florida State Authorities, the NYPD, the FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members?



I don't think that's going to be terribly effective on Al Qaeda. The leadership's seen how the West lives and decided they want something else.

Can you cite research and witnesses to support this claim or is this a personal observation?

They (Al Qaeda) also speak to cultures where households and clan relationships mean a great deal more than in Western countries.

Can you point to any evidence of this or is this personal conjecture?

If setting an example hasn't stopped various overseas crime cultures from setting up hundred million dollar shops in the US, I sincerely doubt it alone can solve the US's public relations problem.

So far the examples offered by western countries have been contradictory at best. While the governments may offer the perception of altruism, and upholding individual freedoms, the corporate cultures are allowed to undermine this reputation through aggressive lobbying and poorly planned foreign development practices that hurt relations with these "other cultures".

Thank you Pelt... very interesting set of problems with all of this.
 
  • #94
baywax said:
Just so I understand American justice better: if an Australian lands his private jet in New York then commits 6 murders in New York who is in charge of the investigation of the murders, NYPD, FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members or the Australian police?

If a gang from Miami drives its hummer through a Macy's window New York and unfortunately kills 27 innocent people does the American Automobile Association do the investigation, the Miami Police Department, Florida State Authorities, the NYPD, the FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members?
Depends on the crime. If the Aussie robs a federally insured bank (and they ~all are) the FBI gets involved along with local authorities. If the Aussie kills somebody in NY on the street then only the local (city and/or state) get involved. If the Aussie uses an airplane to destroy buildings its federal again. If the Aussie happens to be a recognized diplomat then its much more complicated, US State Dept gets involved, etc.
 
  • #95
baywax said:
Just so I understand American justice better: if an Australian lands his private jet in New York then commits 6 murders in New York who is in charge of the investigation of the murders...

NYPD if the murders are committed within NYC. I'm assuming this isn't an act of terrorism or a crime on property in federal jurisdiction--that is a federal matter and federal agencies have first dibs on crimes that rise to their jurisdiction. Investigating terrorism, for example, is the province of the FBI. Mheslep has already pointed out federal jurisdiction over bank robberies. When he perp is a diplomat, State Department does not have investigative jurisdiction anywhere. In cases where diplomatic or consular immunity attaches, State's only role is to secure a waiver from the sending state. Failing that, State is required to secure the release of a suspect, declare him persona non grata and require he depart, and then forward on behalf of the prosecution and court with subject matter jurisdiction all applicable warrants to international authorities.

If a gang from Miami drives its hummer through a Macy's window New York and unfortunately kills 27 innocent people does the American Automobile Association do the investigation, the Miami Police Department, Florida State Authorities, the NYPD, the FBI, CIA or a federally appointed group of professional staff members?

Same as above.

Can you cite research and witnesses to support this claim or is this a personal observation?

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. Details Al Qaeda's relationship to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb.

Can you point to any evidence of this or is this personal conjecture?

"http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct07/eisenstadtengseptoct07.pdf ," Lt. Col. Michael Eisenstadt

So far the examples offered by western countries have been contradictory at best. While the governments may offer the perception of altruism, and upholding individual freedoms, the corporate cultures are allowed to undermine this reputation through aggressive lobbying and poorly planned foreign development practices that hurt relations with these "other cultures".

In other words, by your estimate the West is in no position to set an example. Any other recommendations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Pelt said:
Well, we know significantly more than that. We have footage of the hijackers boarding their aircraft, evidence linking them to al Qaeda, bin Laden's own confession of responsibility for the attacks, two of the men behind the planning of the attacks, etc.

In order for Bin's confession to be admissible it must pass the "LAW OF CONFESSION AND SELF-INCRIMINATION" and a series of tests. I'm sure this law and series of tests will frustrate Bin to the point of having him come in and confess in person, rather than on video...

In order for video evidence to be admissible as evidence there has to be proof it hasn't been tampered with in terms of time, date and editing. Further to that, it must be proven that the subjects are not actors or "patsies" as may be the case.



All that was known 20 minutes into the attack is that it was an attack.

Any references, links to stock footage? I'm still looking for the report that mentions Bin at least an hour or two into the attack.



There's enough evidence in the public record--forensics and witness testimony--to choke horse.

Please link to an inventory of this alleged evidence... or at least the horse.


If your mystery "investigators" are so magical that they can take down the leadership of a well-armed terrorist organization integrated into the armed forces of a hostile nation, then why not scrap the regular services and turn them loose on snowstorms, wildfires and floods as well?

I don't have mystery investigators. I pay my governments (civil etc...) to properly assign effective solutions to problems as they arise. I also pay them to act on the concerns of the nation's citizenry rather than have them act autocratically (or what could be termed tyrannically) .
 
  • #97
baywax said:
In order for Bin's confession to be admissible...

Admissible where?

Any references, links to stock footage? I'm still looking for the report that mentions Bin at least an hour or two into the attack.

You yourself can't find some video alleging Bin Laden's involvement by 10:30 AM.
Please link to an inventory of this alleged evidence... or at least the horse.

You've already been provided a link to the 9/11 report. What your asking for is access to the actual evidence chain of custody. You know very well you can't "link" to that (or a "horse" for that matter).

I don't have mystery investigators.

Sure you do. You refuse to name them.

I pay my governments (civil etc...) to properly assign effective solutions to problems as they arise.

And apparently magical ones as well.
 
  • #98
I am against preemptive military action in a foreign country. It simply does not work. There are still fundamentalists in the middle east, and there will always be fundamentalist in the middle east. The entire region has been in chaos for almost two thousand years. Our best option is to prevent them from entering our country.

[rant]

Since I'm on the subject I want to address one of the most annoying justifications that Bush's uses for the war on terror. That withdrawing, or backing down in anyway, emboldens the enemy. Bull****! They are already at the point of sacrificing their lives to murder innocent civilians and pledging to eradicate all traces of democracy and freedom from the world. How much more emboldened can you get? Is there any evidence that backing down emboldens terrorists? Has this ever been tried before? Shouldn't we listen to history, which tells us military action in the middle easts promotes terrorism, instead of some baseless speculation?

[/rant]
 
  • #99
I don't see war as necessary, but a change in policy is.

I've been reading Robert Fisk's book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. It is certainly a dense book with over a 1000 pages.

Publishers Weekly said:
Combining a novelist's talent for atmosphere with a scholar's grasp of historical sweep, foreign correspondent Fisk has written one of the most dense and compelling accounts of recent Middle Eastern history yet. The book opens with a deftly juxtaposed account of Fisk's two interviews with Osama bin Laden. In the first, held in Sudan in 1993, bin Laden declared himself "a construction engineer and an agriculturist." He had no time to train mujahideen, he said; he was busy constructing a highway. In the second, held four years later in Afghanistan, he declared war on the Saudi royal family and America. Fisk, who has lived in and reported on the Middle East since 1976, first for the (London) Times and now for the Independent, possesses deep knowledge of the broader history of the region, which allows him to discuss the Armenian genocide 90 years ago, the 2002 destruction of Jenin, and the battlefields of Iraq with equal aplomb. But it is his stunning capacity for visceral description—he has seen, or tracked down firsthand accounts of, all the major events of the past 25 years—that makes this volume unique. Some of the chapters contain detailed accounts of torture and murder, which more squeamish readers may be inclined to skip, but such scenes are not gratuitous. They are designed to drive home Fisk's belief that "war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death." Though Fisk's political stances may sometimes be controversial, no one can deny that this volume is a stunning achievement.

Washington Post said:
This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.

Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.

However Fisk regards himself, he is at bottom a war correspondent, and the fabric of his book is woven largely from his battlefield reporting. Fisk's writing on war is vivid, graphic, intense and very personal. Readers will encounter no "collateral damage" here, only homes destroyed and bodies torn to shreds. At times, as one horror is heaped upon another, it all seems too much to absorb or bear.

That intensity is both the book's great strength and one of its principal weaknesses. After reading it, no one can hide from the immense human costs of the decisions made by generals and politicians, Middle Eastern or otherwise. But Fisk portrays the Middle East as a place of such unrelieved violence that the reader can hardly imagine that anyone has enjoyed a single ordinary day there over the past quarter-century. That picture is a serious distortion. Life in the region is far from easy, but in spite of endemic anxiety and frustration, most Middle Easterners, most of the time, are able to get on tolerably well. Fisk says little about more abstract, less violent issues such as economic stagnation, the complexities of political Islam or the status of women. This gap is not a weakness in itself -- Fisk is writing about different themes -- but readers need to be aware that, despite its staggering length, this book is not The Complete Middle East.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/12/16/fisk/index.html

I don't agree with the comment in the Washington Post, "But Fisk portrays the Middle East as a place of such unrelieved violence that the reader can hardly imagine that anyone has enjoyed a single ordinary day there over the past quarter-century." I am amazed at the resiliency of those who find hope and some measure of happiness in an environment of unrelenting violence. Furthermore, I can appreciate the anger of those who have fallen into despair because the Middle East is still subject to the vagaries of Western political (imperial) forces.

A change in policy (one with less, or preferably no violence) is needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
I'm starting to understand the workings of the American Justice system. Thank you everyone.

Its heartening to note that someone can confess to a crime and still be considered innocent until proven guilty. Its like when someone claims they've "perfected cold fusion" or that they "invented the internet" without proof of their claims. The people want the proof. They don't want to invest 500 billion tax dollars+ and a large number of very brave lives in a claim that is not supported by conclusive proof. Do they?
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top