Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it simplistic to think of the London attack as a Tet moment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:56 PM
Original message
Is it simplistic to think of the London attack as a Tet moment
I keep coming back to that thought. But the notion only works if you start with "We fight them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them on our own soil."

Tet represented the realization that the war was NOT almost over.

The London attack might represent the realization that we've spent almost 3 years fighting the wind, to little avail.

What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bush's war in Iraq was never about terror. It was and is all part
and parcel of the NeoCon PNAC plan for world domination. Earth to aWoL empire doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think so.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:01 PM by lvx35
If the "secret organization of al queda in europe" is actually from strait from Iraq, as in insurgents I would be suprised.

I personally think this is different from tet. it would be tet if it were in Iraq and very successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not at all.
Reasonable people can look back at The Nam and look forward and see that a "Tet Moment" looms on the horizon. That doesn't mean it will manifest itself. But it is a distinct possibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. As far as the "war on terror" is concerned
I would definitely agree. I think this should lead to the realization that terrorism cannot be fought by dropping bombs on innocent goat-farmers and invading faraway countries.

The direct causes of the emergence of Islamist terrorism were the constant meddling in Arab affairs by the United States and other Western countries for some 70 years and the predominance in the region of dysfunctional dictatorships that are dependent on Western military backing for their survival. Remember that most Islamist terrorist attacks happen in Muslim countries, only very rarely in Western countries (today was the fourth that I can think of since 1993, if indeed it was carried out by jihadists, excluding attacks in Russia blamed on Chechens and attacks in Israel which really is a separate conflict with its own dynamics).

Both of these things need to change for there to be any hope of defeating terrorism. Of course the perpetrators need to be brought to justice (in real, ordinary courts), but you will keep on treating the symptom forever if you don't address the root causes.

Ending military aid to and support for despotic or semi-despotic regimes like the current ones in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt is not going to happen, because it would mean a geopolitic withdrawal from the entire region and potentially threaten oil supplies and the interests of the Anglo-American oil cartel.

Second best: Make all military aid or even sales contingent upon the gradual establishment of true democratic institutions, without imposing a particular economic model or demanding privatization of state companies and public services World Bank-style. And withdraw completely from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyBoots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Wolfowitz is head of the World Bank, good luck there buddy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think Fallujah was that Tet moment
The reports of the insurgency in Iraq are all bad. The minute that US forces 'secure' a city and move on, the insurgents move back in and recapture it. We have 136,000 troops over there, nowhere near enough to truly 'secure' the country. This war is doomed.

I believe that we need to pull back US troops as soon as possible. We are attracting the militants and are the best advertisement for militants to come to Iraq to train to defeat the invaders. We have to come up with a different strategy. (US to patrol the border areas, turning over Iraq to Iraqi troops. People will die under this scenario. Truth to tell, people will die under all scenarios.)

Europe has a significant Muslim population, much more so than the US does. It also has had difficulty melding the Muslim population into the economic fabric of the various countries. Poverty breeds discontent, in Europe no less than anywhere else on earth. There is a large population from which to draw people who are disaffected enough to fall into radical and violent beliefs. This was true before 9/11 and it is true now. Europe has always had a sort of gun pointed at it's head. Ocassionally, that gun is going to go off, as it did today. (There are several radical mosques in London where wehemently anti-US, anti-western clerics have preached violence against western civ. This is a breeding ground for terrorism.)

Note the overt allusions to poverty, racism and having a large population of young males without jobs in this. This is a formula for trouble anywhere on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Metaphorical perhaps
That's rather what I meant. Not literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. from their view, they carried it to the belly of the beast yet ...
not the biggest beast. From thier p.o.v., of course. But the more interesting question is why?

Iraq has done little more than help the people who are doing these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC