posted
Unfortunately, it's not like the Iraq War had much to do with this. The sheer hatred of al-Qeada and the like for western civilisation made it pretty much inevitable that there was going to be an attack here.
What really would have helped is a PM who was able to resist the urge to be economical with the truth and come up with a convincing case for war with Saddam. Which would not exactly have been difficult.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I would like to visit this magic wonderland of yours in which "the average person's" viewpoint on "anything" is actually informed and doesn't originate with Fox News in any way.
Plus, the US'd likely be the first to ignore that resolution, so...
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
My parents were in London. Their first reaction to the news after the requisite "Gawd, that's a tube stop we were going to take today--WE COULD HAVE BEEN ON THAT TRAIN!" was "aww crap, this is more or less our (the USA's) fault." After some initial terror for my parent's safety, I too felt that in some way that the provocative policies toward terror that the regime of my nation has been pursuing must be at least partly responsible. It's an awful feeling.
Part of me wants to believe that Al Queda would have eventually gotten around to something like this, that the attitude and actions of our President and armed forces have only advanced the timetable. But part of me knows that's bollocks.
I'll be meeting them in Paris next week. Maybe I'll just pretend to be Canadian again.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
While I doubt that U.S. policies in Iraq have helped anyone anywhere, Britain wasn't exactly smoothly sailing through the straits of Islamic extremism prior to 2002.
quote:Although Britain has passed a series of antiterrorist and immigration laws and made nearly 800 arrests since Sept. 11, 2001, critics have charged that its deep tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists have made the country a haven for terrorists.
Clearly the solution is to turn the West into a series of totalitarian nightmares so that not even terrorists will want to immigrate there.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Granted, yes, there supposedly existed a "covenant of security" (Google the term to read more) which meant that so long as Jihadists didn't operate in the UK, they weren't arrested by the security services. I'm assuming that all the activity was monitored as best they could and anything relevant passed on, but what else could we do? To use an all-too-common phrase, we're not the world's policeman. And the IRA carried out organisational and fundraising activities in the US for a lot longer, and in fact still do, with impunity.
posted
Wasn't Bin laden trained by the US to fight the USSR? And who sold all those weapons to Saddam to fight Iran? The US is not the worlds policemen, but the worlds arms dealers. Not that the UK is much better, our arms industry is supported by purchasers getting loans of the UK government, and not paying it back.... Anyway my understanding is after 9/11, Bush was all for using that to justify going after Saddam, but Blair pushed him to go after the Taliban first, and in return get the UK's support for future actions.
Anyway the police belive that UK citizens are the bombers, most probably IT students, recruted at university. Bit like EDS employees....
-------------------- Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon...
posted
Yeah, the point is valid about bin Laden and Saddam once being supported by the US. It's an example of Realpolitik though; at the time, the USSR and Iran were seen as far greater threats to the West and the US than Islamic extremism. Of course once it was realised that Saddam was somewhat less than stable and intent on expanding Iraq's borders that went out the window in 1991.
In the case of Islamic extremists, they too were focussed on matters other than the west. Until it's collapse, the USSR was seen as a far greater threat, particularly given it's attitude to religion. It also directly affected far more Muslims far more directly, in Central Asia, than any of the Western powers, particularly after the 1960s.
And, of course, you have to remember this is nothing new. Islamic fundamentalist attacks against those they see as 'threats to Islam' have been going on for ages. Look at the Mahdi in the Sudan, Wahabbis in the Arabian Peninsula, and a whole bunch of others (often centred on millenarian figures and doctine, although also frequently at least partly the result of factors interacting with fundamentalism).
Ultimately, it must be remembered that the central aim of the leadership of al-Qaeda, is the ultimate destruction of non-Islamic society. Things would probably go worse for us if we gave in to demands to pull out of Iraq now and they would certainly go worse for Iraqis. Part of the problem is this expectation of instant success that many people seem to have. Iraq is going to need decades to become a stable, democratic society. You can't do it over night.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, pull out of Iraq now and we'd be looking at civil war, which will kill far more than anything that's going on more. And thats not what al-Qaeda want. They want us to give up our culture and way of life, or die, including all the muslims who disagree, the christians, jews, buddists, sataninists, etc, etc. How do we deal with such a group? (save locking them in a room with me and a baseball bat..)
-------------------- Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon...
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Or "how do we deal with the relics of four decades of fucking over countries and supporting extremist factions around the world in the name of realpolitik now that our realbombs don't work anymore", hmm?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, we really have little hope of defeating them by direct military means; you can kill the people involved in these organisations but not the ideas and hate behind them.
Ultimately we simply have to trust in the power of democratic society to marginalise these people and reduce their levels of support. Democratic institutions, impartial civil administrations, apolitical militaries and economic development must be instituted to help to minimise terrorism and reduce the support for terrorist. Hopefully, in most cases this can be done through internal reform, supported by the (for want of a better term) Great Powers. However, this will be a long process, taking decades. I am worried about the lack of long term commitment, particularly from American governments who like to wrap everything up in four years.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose the question then becomes, is the Al-Qaeda movement merely an extension or distillation of anti-US sentiment that has coalesced over the past couple of decades? Or, is it an extremist movement that has been able to flourish and grow to prominence, with that same specific anti-US feeling as a growth medium?
Note I'm not saying "anti-US" because I hold the US to blame; rather that the rhetoric (and that's all it usually was) of the time was often exclusively anti-American, rather than anti-Western-nations in general. This seems to have stemmed from US support for Israel, US support for the Shah of Iran (and opposition to the Iranian Revolution), the presence of US Marines in Beirut (and maybe even Somalia). . . and a thousand other slights real or imagined: many of which other Western nations could be blamed for, but usually weren't. Britain, for example, seems to have escaped the backlash from centuries of Imperial oppression by becoming a welcoming place for Islamic immigrants.
But all this has changed. Now we're being told by these nutters that it's us or them. It's a strange feeling, akin to having war declared against us by members of MENSA, or vegetarians - in other words, any one segment of our multicultural society, that we previously didn't have a problem with.
posted
Yeah, that is a difficult question. Most religions have at least a small group of total nutcases with 'puify the religion' and 'down with the infidel' ideologies. In the case of Islam, in particular, this has become politicised and bound up with elements of anti-western sentiment to the extent that it's hard to distinguish the two.
Anti-western sentiment allows al-Quaeda and associated fundamentalists to gather support within Muslim countries and at the very least make it difficult for Muslims to act against them without seeming 'unIslamic'. By picking an outside group to primarily blame for the alledged threat to Islam, they are following a long and well established pattern (the Jews, the Bourgeosie, etc.).
Oh, and 'Imperial oppression' is very controversial. Current historiography moving to a more balenced view of both the good and bad things about the Empire. Muslims were generally loyal to the Empire, despite a few instances, mostly towards the end. In fact, I think the first Indian baronet was a Muslim, back in the 1840s.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Probably too strong a term, I didn't think it fit when I wrote it but I was in a hurry. I don't mean to imply there was a coordinated policy of oppression on the behalf of the British Empire; however there were occasions when Britain butted heads with Islamic cultures - the Kurds early 20th century; Turkey during World War I; centuries of ongoing strife on the North-Western Frontier. I guess the shifting nature of Islamic culture has generally led to shorter memories than you'd expect!
posted
Yeah! Sorry about that; the curse of being a history student! I keep thinking what my supervisor would say...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
