Terrorist Attacks

[AngryAnt]

Was the outcome ideal? No. Is the world less safe as a result? You can't answer definitively.

Only in the sense that we are then playing counterfactual history games, but you can look at the outcomes of the invasion and subsequent mismanagement of the Iraqi state and say yes, both the Middle East in particular and the world more generally are much less safe.

Of course, when you say the "world" you mean the western world - given ISIS has been much more successful at marketing itself in the West than Al Qaeda we can pretty much say the western world is worse of as well.

 

[tigersnake]

typical leftie deconstructed almond milk latte sipper.

I just googled it, they make milk out of almonds. What will they think of next?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Only in the sense that we are then playing counterfactual history games, but you can look at the outcomes of the invasion and subsequent mismanagement of the Iraqi state and say yes, both the Middle East in particular and the world more generally are much less safe.

Of course, when you say the "world" you mean the western world - given ISIS has been much more successful at marketing itself in the West than Al Qaeda we can pretty much say the western world is worse of as well.

You can't state that with any confidence. You have no way of knowing what could've happened in the 13 years hence.

The policy was not to obliterate, but to win Iraqi "hearts and minds" while providing political and economic reform as well as military security. Paint it however you want, but you won't convince me the path taken by the US was the easy one.

Was discussing this at lunch with a Muslim yesterday who I've know for years. A "moderate" in every sense - follows footy, motorbike enthusiast, AC/DC fan etc. He admitted to first being attracted to ISIS and the establishment of the Caliphate, and it was only after careful research that he rejected them. A friend later voiced support for ISIS; they had a falling out, and it was months before the other guy rang to apologise and admit he was wrong.

That ISIS can appeal to such moderate adherents who e.g. do not pray every day - at least initially - says far more about Islam that it does about the Iraq war.

Someone on this forum labelled my views "dangerous". I suggest the vast majority of people are ignorant as to the threat Islam poses.

 

[AngryAnt]

You can't state that with any confidence. You have no way of knowing what could've happened in the 13 years hence.

Hence it's a historical counterfactual. But we can easily trace the genesis and development of ISIS to the invasion and in particular American blunders dealing with civil society, the insurgency and fragmentation of Iraqi society. This is called the study of history, and it allows us to relate events causally.

The policy was not to obliterate, but to win Iraqi "hearts and minds" while providing political and economic reform as well as military security. Paint it however you want, but you won't convince me the path taken by the US was the easy one.

Who said it was easy? It was just a *smile*-up.

And there was no policy - the neo-cons had no plan after invasion. Idiots like Bremmer stuffed it up from go-to-whoa. They disregarded the advice of the CIA and their own State Department in terms of building a new Iraqi state.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Hence it's a historical counterfactual. But we can easily trace the genesis and development of ISIS to the invasion and in particular American blunders dealing with civil society, the insurgency and fragmentation of Iraqi society. This is called the study of history, and it allows us to relate events causally.

*smile*. It's just Al-Qaeda and a dozen other groups, reconstituted.

 

[1eyedtiger]

While you are all arguing, has anyone considered what to do about it in the long term?

Here's my take on it. NOTHING can be done. Humans will always argue and there will always be some who resort to violence to either get their point across or to make others conform to an ideology. At some point in the Earth's history, humans did not exist and for a long time, there was only a small number of us as we evolved. You can wipe out 99.99999999% of the human race. It would NOT matter as within a couple of thousand years, numbers would grow, different ideas would emerge, more violent bastards would somehow emerge from the gene poo(l) and we'll be right back where we are now.

Human nature folks. The ONLY way to solve this is for the complete extinction of the human race.

There's the facts. I don't care if you agree or not. It's the way it is. Deal with it.

 

[AngryAnt]

While you are all arguing, has anyone considered what to do about it in the long term?

Here's my take on it. NOTHING can be done. Humans will always argue and there will always be some who resort to violence to either get their point across or to make others conform to an ideology. At some point in the Earth's history, humans did not exist and for a long time, there was only a small number of us as we evolved. You can wipe out 99.99999999% of the human race. It would NOT matter as within a couple of thousand years, numbers would grow, different ideas would emerge, more violent bastards would somehow emerge from the gene poo(l) and we'll be right back where we are now.

Human nature folks. The ONLY way to solve this is for the complete extinction of the human race.

There's the facts. I don't care if you agree or not. It's the way it is. Deal with it.

This philosophy is called Nihilism.

The first part of what you write is true - we have a propensity for violence and conflict. This won't change.

The second part - that because we have a propensity for violence therefore nothing we do is effective - is not true. We can minimise conflicts and violence through various strategies. For example, the rule of law is very effective in reducing violence between individuals. If we didn't have rule of law, we'd live in very violent times indeed. Democratic states and societies with strong democratic are generally much less violent than those that aren't.

In terms of conflicts between nation states and cultures these are generally the exception rather than the norm. And these conflicts are usually resolved one way or another - military defeat, or negotiation/diplomacy, or a combination of these. Some conflicts bubble on for a long time granted - but usually don't affect the functioning of the societies involved beyond the level of annoyance.

History is full of examples.

 

[AngryAnt]

*smile*. It's just Al-Qaeda and a dozen other groups, reconstituted.

That's kind of true - ISIS was allied to Al Qaeda and split off around 2006 when they realised they could capitalise on the disorganisation of the new Iraqi state during the periods of insurgency, corruption and maladministration of the US occupation. They then mounted successful military campaigns to capture the major cities in the areas that the weak Iraqi military could not defend.

It's a safe bet to say that with no regime change in Iraq, ISIS as we know it would not exist. It is precisely because we had chaos in Iraq and the Middle East due to the misadventurism of Bush, Blair and Howard that ISIS was able to function as an alternative military force and capture territory in Western Iraq - and form Caliphates which became incredibly powerful ideological tools that allowed fanatical Islamists to actually rally in geographical areas and then mount propaganda campaigns into Southeast Asia, the rest of the Middle East and even into the West.

Al Qaeda never had a significant geographical territory nor the sophistication of propaganda/PR that ISIS has.

You can call this *smile* if you want, but all you are demonstrating is that you have no understanding of recent history, and just saying "it's *smile*" doesn't cut it.

 

[Harry]

Good post Ant. We don't have to worry anymore as Trump’s gonna fix the problem and we can sip our lattes in peace.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That's kind of true - ISIS was allied to Al Qaeda and split off around 2006 when they realised they could capitalise on the disorganisation of the new Iraqi state during the periods of insurgency, corruption and maladministration of the US occupation. They then mounted successful military campaigns to capture the major cities in the areas that the weak Iraqi military could not defend.

It's a safe bet to say that with no regime change in Iraq, ISIS as we know it would not exist. It is precisely because we had chaos in Iraq and the Middle East due to the misadventurism of Bush, Blair and Howard that ISIS was able to function as an alternative military force and capture territory in Western Iraq - and form Caliphates which became incredibly powerful ideological tools that allowed fanatical Islamists to actually rally in geographical areas and then mount propaganda campaigns into Southeast Asia, the rest of the Middle East and even into the West.

Al Qaeda never had a significant geographical territory nor the sophistication of propaganda/PR that ISIS has.

You can call this *smile* if you want, but all you are demonstrating is that you have no understanding of recent history, and just saying "it's *smile*" doesn't cut it.

Bali was also prior to the Iraq invasion. One of the terrorists summed it up succinctly: "You love life, we love death."

You're veering very close to apologist territory, once again.

 

[AngryAnt]

Bali was also prior to the Iraq invasion. One of the terrorists summed it up succinctly: "You love life, we love death."

So you are wrong on the genesis of ISIS, better change the subject.

You're veering very close to apologist territory, once again.

God love you Lee - only you could read a neutral historical discussion of how ISIS formed and developed into a terrorist force as some sort of justification for terrorism. Bizarre.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

So you are wrong on the genesis of ISIS, better change the subject.

God love you Lee - only you could read a neutral historical discussion of how ISIS formed and developed into a terrorist force as some sort of justification for terrorism. Bizarre.

I don't give a flying *smile* where they came from or what motivates them. We are at war with Islamism... do you understand? This isn't a joke or a game.

Like I said two years ago, choose a side. If you're not with us, you're against us.

 

[Harry]

I thought we were at war with the Russians. What do we do with them now?

 

[tigersnake]

I don't give a flying *smile* where they came from or what motivates them. We are at war with Islamism... do you understand?

But its patently not true. If we were muslim citizens across the western world would be being detained, Mosques would be being shut down etc. It might be what some people want, but it isn't what is happening.

At war with Islamic extremists terrorists sure. But not with Islamism. Just like the UK was at war with catholic terrorists but not Catholicism.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

But its patently not true. If we were muslim citizens across the western world would be being detained, Mosques would be being shut down etc. It might be what some people want, but it isn't what is happening.

At war with Islamic extremists terrorists sure. But not with Islamism. Just like the UK was at war with catholic terrorists but not Catholicism.

'Islamism' used interchangeably with 'Islam' is an antiquated definition. These days it most commonly refers to movements seeking to establish Sharia rule across the world. Or more simply, Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't give a flying *smile* where they came from or what motivates them. We are at war with Islamism... do you understand? This isn't a joke or a game.

Weak stuff Lee. You want to discuss the politics of Iraq post-invasion and as soon as the going gets too hard you throw one of your little tantrums.

Like I said two years ago, choose a side. If you're not with us, you're against us.

Join One Nation, plenty of people agree with you in that organisation. If they are too soft, there are a range of even further Right organisations for you, but I'll pass thanks.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Weak stuff Lee. You want to discuss the politics of Iraq post-invasion and as soon as the going gets too hard you throw one of your little tantrums.

Antman there are dozens of groups that operate under the ISIS umbrella that existed even before September 11. I disagree with your assertion that the invasion created the monster; it just served to give it focus. It has hastened the inevitable - "flushed it out" as I stated earlier.

Join One Nation, plenty of people agree with you in that organisation. If they are too soft, there are a range of even further Right organisations for you, but I'll pass thanks.

Don't worry, whilst I live in a Labor stronghold and One Nation wouldn't know how to run the country, they did at least speak to my concerns and therefore received my preferences. I'll abandon the Libs if they shift another step to the Left.

Media demonisation of the likes of Hanson & Trump does not mean they don't have valid perspectives, only that some people are uncomfortable with those perspectives.

 

[Rosy]

I thought we were at war with the Russians. What do we do with them now?

'Don't mention the war! I did once, but I think I got away with it.'

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

'Islamism' used interchangeably with 'Islam' is an antiquated definition. These days it most commonly refers to movements seeking to establish Sharia rule across the world. Or more simply, Islamic fundamentalism.

Lee, you should read Churchill's The River War, about his time in Sudan. You'll love it.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Media demonisation of the likes of Hanson & Trump does not mean they don't have valid perspectives, only that some people are uncomfortable with those perspectives.

Media demonisation doesn't mean they don't have valid perspective, the fact that they are xenophobic, fearmongering morons does.

I don't give a flying *smile* where they came from or what motivates them. We are at war with Islamism... do you understand? This isn't a joke or a game.

"I don't give a *smile* about what they want, who they are, or even who I'm fighting, I just want to fight. Especially if they believe different things to me." Usually the way wars start. And the reason they continue for much longer than they should.