the age of terror

[rini]

The bombings in Istanbul yesterday had a twin tactical purpose, which in turn is part of a concerted, ruthlessly prosecuted anti-Western strategy. First, they hit a country regarded by us as a model for secular Islam. Second, they coincided with the state visit to Britain of George W Bush, who, in a speech the day before, had propounded a "forward strategy of freedom" against terrorism. By targeting the British diplomatic mission in the city, and killing the consul-general, Roger Short, and 13 of his staff, the bombers served notice on America's closest ally that its participation in the invasion of Iraq has not been forgotten; in choosing the London-based HSBC, they were reinforcing that message, and at the same time striking a blow against Western capitalism and what they regard as its sinful practice of usury. These atrocities, which killed at least 27 people and wounded 440, bear the mark of al-Qa'eda and its affiliates, as did the attacks last Saturday on two synagogues in Istanbul. Between them they provide a graphic snapshot of the battlefront in the Age of Terror.

<there are disturbing indications that Al Queda and the PA are now working together>




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/11/21/dl2101.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/21/ixnewstop.html

[Resistance]

1. interesting

how attacks on the U.S. and Israeli targets are "terror" yet U.S. and Israeli attacks on Arab targets are not "terror", but are seen as this justifiable war.

Guess that's right-wing ideology for ya huh.

[rini]

54. No, a desire not to commit suicide

is a liberal and progressive reaction against a right-wing murderous ideology.

[bluesoul]

2. Oh please

Were the Palestinians behind this? Indications? I would like to see proof. As far as I know they were Turkish citizens not Palestinians behind this so blaming Palestinians is just BS... This has nothing to do with I/P anyway...

[edzontar]

3. I accept the notion that the "message" of these bombings...

Was directed at both Israel and the Iraq occupiers.

The conflation of these two conflicts has been much promoted by both al-Qadea and the Neo-con, pro-war, pro-Sharon, pro-Bush right.

But so far as i have read or seen, there is no evidence of PA involvment here.

[rini]

4. The point is

that Al Quida is infiltrating and gaining control of even secular movements; radicalizing them and using them for their own purposes. The attack in Elat is believed to have been orchestrated by Al quida.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Could you please eleaborate on your assertions, ma'am?

So far, Ms. Rini, you've made two alarming statements.

From the root post:

there are disturbing indications that Al Queda and the PA are now working together

From post number 4:

The point is that Al Quida is infiltrating and gaining control of even secular movements; radicalizing them and using them for their own purposes.

Could you plaese cite specific passages in the article that support either of these conlusions?

Thank you.

[Paschall]

37. There are none

The PA and Arafat are not even mentioned in the article.

But I, too, would like some documented support from rini for her assertions.

I do appreciate the specific reference to the European Enlightenment in the article. Unfortunately, this is not the tradition Shrub has espoused with his crusade "war on terra."

[edzontar]

9. But the PA is the Palestinian Authority--and there is no evidence

At all of their involvement in these incidents.

At least, not that I have seen, or that you have made available.

I'd say the threat is bad enough in its own right, and that the fight against these sorts of activities does not benefit from what can only be read as opportunistic "spinning" of the sort that we have come to expect from Bush and his cronies re-Iraq.

[JohnLocke]

55. Al-Aqsa Martys Brigate

Look it up.

[Darranar]

56. If there is a connection then that is where it would be....

I do not think that PA support of terrorism goes very far, though that is for more pragmatic reasons then any belief in their morality.

But none of that changes the fact that Arafat and the PA are bad for the Palestinian people and the Israeli people as well.

[JohnLocke]

58. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Linked to Palestinian Gov't

“One of those killed was a local leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a militant group linked to Arafat's Fatah movement, a Brigade spokesman said, vowing revenge attacks in Israeli cities.”
Reuters, “Boy and three militants killed in Gaza,” {http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=400274§ion=news}

“The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, announced that it had recruited Sabih for martyrdom.”
New York Post, “Bomber-Boy Dad’s Rage,” {http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/9930.htm}

“The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a militant group loosely linked to the Fatah faction of the Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat, said it recruited the teenager. The boy’s father criticised the militants for sending someone so young to his death.”
The Scotsman, “16-year-old bomber marks new low in war of attrition,” {http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=1214442003}

[Jack Rabbit]

59. Still irrelevant

You have presented nothing to show that the PA and al Qaida are acting in concert or coopertating in any way. That was the assertion made in the editorial aside in the root post. Is there any foundation for it? I certainly didn't find any in the article linked in the root post.

[Lithos]

61. I doubt there is any connection

It doesn't make sense. Think about it, there are too many other groups closer in ideology for Al-Qaeda to ally themselves with. Both Hamas and Hezbollah come to mind, both of which have little to do with the PA.

L-

[edzontar]

63. Agreed--the PA and the Brigade have not been implicated,,,,

In this case.

And as we have seen the case develop over the weekend, this argument seems even less valid.

[Jack Rabbit]

64. This so-called implication

This so-called implication smacks of being nothing better than guilt by association. Al Qaida is a terrorist organization; al Aqsa is a terrorist organization; therefore, where al Qaida acts, al Aqsa acts.

The idea of them acting in concert is not totally absurd. However, it has not been demonstrated. Moreover, al Aqsa and the other terrorist organizations operating in Israel and the Palestinian Territories have so far shown little interest in attacking any country other than Israel or anywhere but in the immediate region of Israel and the Territories.

[edzontar]

65. You are correct on all counts---

I think we should try to devide and conquer these various threats--I'm not sure how, of course--but it seems to me that lumping them together when they are apparently not working in concert is contrary to our long-term intersts in this matter--which would be to weaken and isolate the various terror movments, not push them together.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Except . . .

. . . that there is nothing in the article to support the claim.

The quesion is whether there is anything to show that al Qaida and the PA are working together, as claimed by Ms. Rini in her editorial remark in the root post. I don't that there is, and there is nothing presented in the article linked to support the claim.

[bemildred]

5. This is propaganda.

The medium is the message, and the message is
that Mr. Bush has no clue whatsoever as to what
to do about al Qaeda and similar organizations.

If FatBoy and the IDF cannot suppress terror in the
territories, what reason is there to think Bush can
in the much larger and less controlled venue in which
he claims to operate?

We are 2+ years out from 9/11 and we have more,
lots more, terrorism than before Mr. Bush started
"fixing" the problem.

I will give you even money that a lot of the arms
used in these attacks come from Mr. Hussein's arms
dumps. Expect lots more of this.

[BlackFrancis]

6. You don't need even money..

It's a fact. Before the invasion the former Iraqi government dispersed an ungodly amount of explosives, small arms and RPG's to the population to support the resistance after the inevitable defeat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Cause and Effect

Your comment is much like blaming FDR for lots more war after Pearl Harbor. * has done a crappy job of it, but he didn't start the war. Make no mistake, we are in a world war against terror and radical Islam. No matter whether we acknowledge it or not, our enemies sure do.

[bluesoul]

10. What does Iraq

have to do with terrorism, Sept/11 or anything else that's supposed to be threatening the USA? Did they start an illegal war against the USA? Or was it the other way round?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Iraq didn't

Have anything to do with terror except as an example of what happens to a nation that doesn't help the U.S.

Actually, the U.S. had numerous LEGAL reasons to go to war against Iraq. It was just stupid to do so.

[Paschall]

38. My god, Muddle!

What ever do you mean by "not helping" the US?

And what were the "numerous legal reasons" for going to war with Iraq?

[The Magistrate]

40. Arguments For Legality In This Venture, Sir

Center on existing Security Council directives originating in the events of '91. It can be readily argued Hussein had long been in violation of some, and that their enforcement had already been mandated. By this line, the entire Security Council debate last year was beside the point of necessary endorsement, and nothing passed prohibited enforcement of earlier directives, or set these aside for new ones.

[BlackFrancis]

44. Maybe if they had found anything that would have worked

All they found so far says that Saddam was holding up all his obligations for years and that sanctions should have ended long ago.

[Paschall]

46. My understanding was that martial force required new authorization

Though I realize that point is in contention.

However, we violated several stipulatons of international law in prosecuting the war as we did, I think you'll agree.

[The Magistrate]

48. My Purpose Was Not To Uphold the Argument, Sir

Merely to present fairly what some believe the case.

My own view is that a current and explicit Security Council resolution ought to have been obtained.

Illegality, however, is no strong portion of my opposition to the Iraqi venture. Aside from the technical question of its inauguration, there is not much sensible charge of illegality about its conduct. Mere one-sidednesss in battle is not a crime of war. There was every effort, most of them effective, taken to reduce civilian casualties in the bombing campaign, and again, mere instances of civilian death despite this do not prove crimes of war were committed, or even make any particular reason to suggest crimes of war were committed. Allowing the breakdown of civil order into looting was certainly a violation of an occupying power's defined duties, and there have certainly been instances during the occupation where U.S. soldiers have killed civilians out of hand in a manner that is clearly criminal. Several instances of firing automatic weapons into crowds, and some rather hair-trigger sentries at checkpoints, come to mind readily.

[Paschall]

51. Thank you for correcting my reading

We concur on the resolution for marital force.

[sushi]

53. To protect its interests

the US acted as an arrogant bully unilaterally invading a weak, sovereign country. It has only made terrorism worse.

What on earth does "....an example of what happens to a nation that doesn't help the U.S." mean? Help the U.S. do what?

[edzontar]

11. Depends WHICH enemies you are referring to....

I worry that the totalizing, "clash of civilizations" rhetoric employed Bush, Sharon, and yourself might actually play right into the hands of the most dangerous elements in the terror universe.

I note, in particular, that this rhetoric is exacly matched by the pronouncements of Mr Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda.

THEY want the conflict to be framed in this way too--and you might stop and asl yourself WHY this is so.

It may well be that we stand to lose more than we would gain in such a rhetorical situation.

I prefer the old tactic of divide and conquer.

And one way to help DEFUSE the terror situation MIGHT be to work hard for a resolution of the I/P conflict, thus removing, at least in long run, one of the most poerful and readily-exploited issues that inspire terrorism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. All civilizations clash

Doesn't mean it has to be violent.

We are at war with terror not Islam, not Arabs.

As for solving the I/P conflict, I am not Solomon. I see no current way out of it.

[edzontar]

66. No they don't...that's just silly....

First, of course, you would have to define these terms: "clash" and "civilization" for starters.

My point was and is that the "Clash of civilizations" rhetoric is being employed by extremeists on both ends of the spectrum--that is, by Bin Laden and the Neocon warmongers.

When Sharon and his gang use the same terms, they do so primarily to cynically exploit the present situation to bolster their arguments with US audiences.

[bemildred]

12. You are confused Sir.

I did not blame him for starting the war,
I said he has no clue what to do about it;
the issue was not that he is evil,
but that he is incompetent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Not confused

No matter who was president, we'd have more terror right now because the terrorists are prosecuting a war against us.

[bemildred]

16. So you feel they have the initiative?

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. They are attacking us

You can interpret that as you wish.

[bemildred]

18. You seemed to be saying in #15 that

who is president makes no difference in
how much terror there is, that his competence
is not an issue in preventing or dealing with
terror.

That is what I was trying to interpret.

[bemildred]

23. Muddle?

That seemed to indicate (to me anyway) that you think the
terrorists have the initiative, since it matters little who
is President or how competent he is?

I was trying to suggest, in my original two posts, that it does
matter, and that Mr. Bush has made the situation much worse by his
actions.

[The Magistrate]

24. Guerrilla Bodies, Sir

Always have the tactical initiative: that is rather in the nature of the beast.

The Iraqi venture, of course, is a mere sideshow in the fight against radical Islam. Destruction of Hussein's government harmed them not at all. Occupation of the place does give them a plentitude of targets, and it could be justified on the usual lines of operation against guerrillas, which chiefly constitute enticing them into concentration in circumstances which permit use of annihilating firepower against them. It is not a promising venue for the technique, because the whole country can hardly be rendered a beaten zone, and concentration in Iraq, relative to the rest of the world, hardly matches concentration around a particular hill-top, where the aircradt and artillery can strike. Nothing done in Iraq will materially harm the movement of radical Islamicist fundamentalism, and it may well excite and enlarge it, on a world scale.

Strategic initiative is in reach of governmental forces in contest with guerrilla bodies. It is best applied by political and economic measures. Turning Afghanistan into a prosperous show-place, which could have been done for a fraction of the funds currently squandered in Iraq, would have been a shrewd blow against the Islamicist radicals. A sensible leader would have done that. Forcing a solution of the conflict between Arab Palestine and Israel would be a similarly effective blow against the hostile religious movement, and could be done by a sensible and ruthless leader, willing to use all available leverage against both sides.

The combination of drying up a principal source of recruitment, and demonstrating that those who reject the radicals will prosper, is fatal to such insurrectionist movements.

[bluesoul]

26. Mr Magistrate

Radical Islam in Iraq? Hmm as far as I know Iraq was pretty much secular and far from radical Islam..

[The Magistrate]

The Machine Hiccoughed

[bluesoul]

32. But that's my point

They weren't there before the war! Only lately have their been groups from outside of Iraq and within radicalized because of the occupation. Iraq did not know suicide bombings, terrorist attacks (I don't ever remember of a terrorist being an Iraqi citizen) etc. This is new to Iraq. And Bush and his policy have much to do with it..

[The Magistrate]

30. There Are Jihadists There Now, Sir

The place is, for them, rather the equivalent of what a hot new jazz club opened downtown would be for beats and hipsters. It is where the targets are, and where they can align themselves with a genuinely popular struggle. There would certainly be serious resistance to U.S. occupation of Iraq without them.

Prior to the invasion, they were largely absent from the place, save for the Ansr al Islam group, which seems to have enjoyed some small relation to Hussein's security services, as a thorn in the Kurdish zone. Special tools for special use is the way of the world, after all.

[Paschall]

41. Not forgetting that many of the Shia are avowed theocrats

And they can draw on numerous radical models from their brothers in Iran.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Well said, sir

Of course, I am one of those who suspects some method in the madness of our unsensible Fearless Leader. As far as he is concerned, the war on terror is just a pretext for colonial invasions that have nothing to do with fighting terrorists.

In light of that, I must disagree with Mr. Muddle's posts on this thread. It would make a big diffrenece if we changed leadership now and installed someone who might be serious about doing what is necessary to make Americans safer rather his transnational cronies richer.

[The Magistrate]

28. Indeed, My Friend

The Iraqi venture makes use of the real struggle as a pretext for other aims. It is directly detrimental to national security, just as any effort in a campaign, directed toward some other end than gaining the object of the drive, impairs the chances of success through the wastage of the effort.

It would make a great deal of difference if a competent leader were directing our nation; someone with a sound understanding of strategy and the various means of power available to a great imperium to influence outcomes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Long term I wildly agree

My point was that short term this war has been brought to us, and a host of other nations, and we will be on the receiving end no matter what. Long term, a I agree with Mr. Magistrate's plan.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Even there, I have to disagree

True, we're going to be on the receiving end of Osama's acts for a while. However, a competent leader would be doing something worthwhile in Afghanistan. More importantly to your point, a competent leader wouldn't have wasted time and resources invading Iraq. We now have half of army's combat forces on occupation duty on a mission that has more to do with protecting Halliburton's profits than protecting you and me from Osama. While our army is so occupied in Iraq, it isn't closing down terrorist training camps.

[The Magistrate]

33. That Is True, Mr. Rabbit

The long haul must be begun in present time, after all. A whole year has been wasted....

[bemildred]

34. You know that we agree on this.

:-)

WRT the other issue, the fact that OBL and his minions are
pursuing their agenda, which they are, has little to do with
the question as to whether we are effectively pursuing our own
strategic interests in thwarting him. It is my opinion that
the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made our strategic and
tactical situations both much worse than they were beforehand,
and they continue to do so, and this strategic blunder falls
squarely in the laps of Mr. Bush and his minions.

[The Magistrate]

36. We Are In Agreement There Too, Sir

What has been done is a serious blunder. These faux "hard men" in charge have done almost exactly what the enemy would most desire.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. In the short term

A change in leadership would have a limited impact on a worldwide terror effort. That's what we're facing right now. Radical Islamic terror across the globe. That doesn't get shut down over night.

[bemildred]

35. Thank you.

I think we have nailed it down.

I disagree, I think the right sort of leader could
make a large difference, and he/she could begin to have
an effect almost immediately, but lets not argue about it.

[Paschall]

43. Here, too, I disagree

We invaded only eight months ago, and British interests have been hit hard--very hard--in Istanbul already. Had the leadership adopted another option vis-à-vis Saddam, such as continued UN weapons inspections, I believe those Britons and Turks in Istanbul might still be alive today.

[bluesoul]

19. Actually,

Bush is the one waging illegal wars against Muslim countries not the other way around. Osama was not a representative of a government of a particular country nor was he ever elected to be such a representative.

[BlackFrancis]

20. It's cold war hangover

People have been trained to think in terms of nation-states as bad or good depending on how respectful they are to the US and how open they are to US industry. It doesn't matter that they aren't connected in any way to what is termed "War on Terrorism". When all you know is carving the world into "allies" and "enemies" based on specious, selective, self-serving criteria you don't know how to fight terrorism.

It's a very dangerous delusion that I'm afraid may take decades to disabuse people of.

[bluesoul]

21. But that even some here on DU

fall for it? Dissapointing...

[Paschall]

39. Funny

France was hit by repeated waves of Islamic violence in the 80s and 90s. But our terror alert level here was just lowered to pre-9/11 levels.

Why would that be? Isn't France part of the despised West, too? Its targetting by radical Islamists over the years would lead one to think so.

[The Magistrate]

42. Those Attacks In France, Sir

Stemmed from Algerian groups, which consider France, their old colonial overlord, to be materially assisting the military government in Algeria these groups principally war against. Those particular networks have been largely broken up: the French police are very good at that sort of work.

[Paschall]

45. Those groups continue to kill regularly and with impunity in Algeria

If they had wished to target France, they could have done so, regardless of the efficiency of French counter-terrorism. At the least, our terror alert level would not have been lowered if such a threat did indeed exist. Algeria is only a two-hour flight from Paris, language is no barrier, and theoretically French recruits of North African extraction could be easily employed.

Or to state it differently, if France is not being targetted today, it may be that these groups clearly see that France is not serving the American "colonial overlord" in its more global designs.

This speaks, of course, to the notion of the globality of radical Islamic terror. While the risks may be global, they are not universally of the same magnitude, even among the equally infidel Western nations.

[The Magistrate]

49. Operating On Your Home Ground, Sir

Is rather easier than doing so abroad. These groups might well seek to target France; success in doing so is another question.

It is certainly possible that some effort is made to avoid strikes in locales not wholly aligned with the United States in this question. That is elementary strategy for striking a broadly hostile coalition, that might be more easily defeated in detail. Whatever can be done to aid dissension among its components is clearly to the good.

[Paschall]

52. Success may well indeed be another question

But having witnessed, over the past two decades, one such bombing from the safety of my living room, and had at least another half dozen bombs explode within an eight block radius of my home, I feel confident that if the elements bent on destruction exist in sufficient number (and the appear to in Algeria), some portion of them will always succeed.

I read their relative silence today as indication that this so-called Islamic war against the West is not in fact a religious jihad against western values and institutions, but a political struggle embracing many causes, not least among which is the re-establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, with the overthrow of corrupt ME monarchies, the liberation of the Palestinians, and--now--the expulsion of the Western occupiers in Iraq.

[Lithos]

60. The Battle of Algiers

Speaking of which, have you ever seen Pontecorvo's film?

While a quasi-documentary, I understand it's the seminal classic on how to fight a guerilla war from both sides and has been studied by both the military as well as various terrorist groups around the world.

L-

[The Magistrate]

62. It Is Seriously Worth Seeing, Sir

A ghastly business all around.

[tinnypriv]

22. Seems the Telegraph stole this headline from the Israeli press

Funny that, given the ownership :shrug:

('age of terror', Ma'ariv)

If I want the Israeli perspective, I'll read the Israeli press, thanks. I'd prefer British publications to at least pretend they're concerned about Britain, not simply signing up wholesale to the Israeli line on 'terror'. :eyes:

[Paschall]

47. The headline is of rini's making

The Telegraph headlined this story "Waking Up in the Age of Terror."

[Lithos]

50. Yes, we are making a one time exception

To keep it open.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground