OT: Big Daddy Amin Dead at 80

[TerranC]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Not a world war? There are Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria, the Sudan, Somalia, amongst others). There is a decades-old Muslim insurgency in the Philippines. The troubles in Indonesia are well-known. Arab terrorist Groups use South America (especially Trinidad and the tri-border region around Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay) as a fund-raising and laundering base - perhaps other things too. Muslim terrorists have established themselves and struck in both Europe and North America. Muslim-Hindu conflicts are one of the defining features of the tension between India and Pakistan.

And you say it isn't a global conflict?

It's a global conflict. It's not a global war. You say as if all those events are the works of one organization (In your case, the militant islam culture), while it isn't.

All those events you mentioned are the works of different Groups, all with different agendas.

And in order to have a war, you need to have 2 unified sides. In order to have a global war, you need to have 2 worldwide unified sides. Militant Islam culture isn't at all unified. Arabs and Kurds kill each other at a moments notice. Before the war in afghanistan, It was the arabs of the Taliban against the Arabs of the Northern alliance. Even now, the 3 main organizations that are causing all the hubbub in Israel aren't even on friendly terms with each other!

This is no Global war, comprising the "coaltion of the willing" and militant islam. What we are in right now is a flurry of militant activities, that have a common theme; violent action against the governments that "oppress" them and it's supporters, where the biggest supporter of those governments just happens to be the United States.

Edit:

Second, the U.S. should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly (including an assassination attempt against the first President Bush) and developed weapons of mass destruction. Again, American allies will flinch, and the military may shake its head at the prospect of revisiting the aborted Gulf War victory, but the costs of failing to do so, and the opportunities for success, make it good sense.

That is the stupidest statement I've ever heard; That criteria includes Israel, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, among others; Israel, being america's ally, can't be touched, Attacking North Korea is suicide without China's approval, Attacking Libya will only anger arabs more, and attacking Saudi Arabia will do nothing more than push the world into WW3.

[ August 18, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by TerranC:
It's a global conflict. It's not a global war. You say as if all those events are the works of one organization (In your case, the militant islam culture), while it isn't. All those events you mentioned are the works of different Groups, all with different agendas.

1)I won't quibble over the 'conflict' vs 'war' wording. If by 'war' you mean the formal declarations and patterns that hold when two nations go to war, I may grant your point. But the jihadists did, after a fashion, 'declare war' on us, in a summit in 1998. And 9/11 proves you can get thousands killed in a "conflict" nowadays, just as easily as you could in an old-fashioned "war".

2)I never said they were one organization. But bear in mind that they share a common ideology (strict Islam), overlapping goals (overthrow of non-Muslim govts and establishment of sharia law), and in many cases the same bankrollers (the Saudi Wahabbis). And in the article I referenced, it was pointed out that the jihadists are just as hostile to 'moderate' Muslims as they are to us.

This is no Global war, comprising the "coaltion of the willing" and militant islam. What we are in right now is a flurry of militant activities, that have a common theme; violent action against the governments that "oppress" them and it's supporters, where the biggest supporter of those governments just happens to be the United States.

Unless you factor in the global and terrorist dimension of this conflict, you're going to miss the whole point. Or are you so anti-american that you are blind to this dimension?

That is the stupidest statement I've ever heard; That criteria includes Israel, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, among others; Israel, being america's ally, can't be touched, Attacking North Korea is suicide without China's approval, Attacking Libya will only anger arabs more, and attacking Saudi Arabia will do nothing more than push the world into WW3.

As for Israel, you don't see them sending their young men and women disguised as Arabs into Arab towns to blow themselves up. I am amazed at the restraint the Israelis show. I'd have gone over to the offensive long long ago.

Secondly, yes, all those other nations qualify. They are hostile to Western interests and have developed, tried to develop, or are developing WMD. This is the fruits of America's A) being focused on Russia for too long, and B) being so complacent in the 1990's about worldwide developments. Outright military attack is a Last resort, but in a "conflict/war", it does occasionally have to happen. The current administration here is not going to stand by and let these nations prepare for a WMD-style 9-11. If it was Ottowa that had been hit, not NYC, how pacifist would *you* be right now?

[primitive]

Joke:
It’s a “World War”, if using the same definition as in “World Series”.

Seriously:
To call the war on terrorism a “World War”, is a grave insult to the millions of people who fought and died in the real world wars. Compared to the atrocities of those wars, even 9/11 is only a minor incident.

[General Woundwort]

Again, I don't want to get hung up on terminology. OK, so we're not talking about massed national armies in the sense of World Wars I and II. But when you look at the scope of the conflict, and the numbers of casualties actually generated, it is more than just a blip on the radar. How many Afghanis have died due to the war between the Taliban and the other tribes? How many non-Muslim Sudanese have been killed and enslaved by the Muslim-dominated government? What happens if Nigeria goes into a religious civil war? What about the Pakistani-Indian wars? What happens if (or when) that conflict goes nuclear? Or if Iran gets the bomb and decides to use it on Israel (as some of their clerics have stated on the record is an intended use)? And all it would take is one well-placed terrorist nuke/chemical/bio bomb to generate WWII-level damage and casualties.

We're in a very dangerous world. The old paradigms for war no longer apply.

[Erax]

How many soldiers do you plan to hold up, occupying all those countries ? How do you expect to pay the price of keeping them there ?

[General Woundwort]

I don't know the answer to that question - who does? However few or many, whether all at once or one at a time, the ultimate question in my mind is, "Is this what is necessary to defend against WMD terrorism?" For that is the ultimate issue, and the problem won't be wished away or ignored any longer. And the US is not the only country that is at risk. Anybody who is perceived as the enemy by these people is a legitimate target for them. It's either conVersion to Islam (as they interpret it), or jihad to the death. There have been movements like this in the past (the Assassins of the 13th century, the Anarchists/Nihilists of the late 19th century), but all they had was knives and poison, dynamite and pistols. Nowadays the stakes are exponentially higher.

[tesco samoa]

what there is a war on terrorism

All I have seen so far is an invasion of Afghan and Iraq

The Afghan Taliban were going to be removed before sept 11th.

And Iraq has no proven ties to 'terrorist' Groups.

oh and syria is next because they have 'hidden Iraq's WMD'. Why? because they have their own stock piles and really need Iraq's outdated stocks and really want the coalition of the willing to invade. for Syria its all win/win situation. Or is it Iran?

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The Afghan Taliban were going to be removed before sept 11th.

By who? They controlled 80% of the country.

And Iraq has no proven ties to 'terrorist' Groups.

They bankrolled suicide bombers in Palestine to the tune of $20,000 per bomber (paid to the relatives of course). That is an undisputed fact. Abu Nidal lived in comfortable "retirement" in Baghdad, along with other terrorists wanted by international authorities. I'd mention the alleged contacts with Al Qaeda operatives, but I don't think that would go too far here...

oh and syria is next because they have 'hidden Iraq's WMD'. Why? because they have their own stock piles and really need Iraq's outdated stocks and really want the coalition of the willing to invade. for Syria its all win/win situation. Or is it Iran?

Syria has given asylum to fleeing Baathists from Iraq, and allowed "mujahhadin" passage to Iraq. Syria sponsors terrorist/"milita" Groups in southern Lebanon - in fact it holds the Bekaah Valley as an undeclared colony. Whether they offered Iraqi weapons a "hiding place" remains to be seen. But the beligerency of the Syrian Baathist regime is clear.

As for Iran... their lead cleric has advocated the use of nuclear weapons on Israel (link here). They have a nuclear infrastructure program in progress. Is it asking too much to insist that these two facts be taken into consideration in determining if Iran is a "rogue state" or not?

[ August 20, 2003, 18:50: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The Afghan Taliban were going to be removed before sept 11th.

This is a totally unfounded statement. The best chance of that happening any time soon died on Sept 9th with the assisnation of Massoud. THe ramaining Groups were too fractured to have a hope of overcoming the entrenched Taliban bankrolled by Bin Ladens money.

[Erax]

Going back to GW's 'World War IV' link, I'd call it Ideology War II (the Cold War was IW I).