[Changleen]

Friday, September 3, 2004

PARIS France peacefully implemented a law banning Islamic head scarves and other religious symbols from public schools on Thursday, transforming the first day of school into a nationwide show of defiance against militants holding two French hostages in Iraq.

For the most part, Muslim schoolgirls arrived bareheaded at the country's 70,000 elementary and high schools, and most of those who had swathed their heads in varying pieces of fabric removed them upon request.

Instead of dividing the country, as perhaps the kidnappers had hoped, the French elite - intellectuals, journalists, religious leaders - and the entire French Muslim community joined forces with the center-right government to tell the captors of journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot to stay out of France's affairs.

Linky: http://www.iht.com/articles/537082.htm

Cool - Go France. This is very interesting as it provides a great counterpoint to the US way of doing things under GW, and as a pose to GW's increasing use of Religion in state affairs, (see number of mentions of 'Gawd' at RNC for example and most of GWs 'speeches' to troops) this has actually worked. I see that the hostages in Iraq have even now been released. Frances 5 million muslims understand that France is not at war with them, or trying to supress them in some way. This is because France has treated them like intelligent people rather than criminals, or 'terrorists in their midst'.

Once again, given half a chance, Muslims prove that they are just like every other normal person, that they can see both sides of an argument, they will bow to common sense and their their leaders are not all crazy fundamentalists.

If only right-wing America would wake up to the same truths. The way the US is currently dealing with foreign policy is to treat the 'enemy' as less than itself, grouping everyone together as terrorists. When was the last time the US media SERIOUSLY attempted to delve into the background of any of the multiple situations currently percieved as 'threats' around the world? Instead we are treated to nothing but a steady diet of 'They hate freedom' - 'They are jealous of our country' - It's all BS. The current US agenda is as follows:

1) We need more access to Oil on our own terms from friendly suppliers
2) Currently, Countries that control the Oil are mostly anti-US
3) Paint these Countries as enemies of the US - Turn them into a threat in people's minds, and lump them together as a unified force of evil
4) With the publics support, take what ever steps are necassary to take down these Governments and install US friendly versions.

It is plainly obvious that nearly every action taken by this administration is in some way trying to further these goals. Even the recent 'humanitarian' interventions in Sudan are only happening because Sudan is sitting on a **** load of Oil, and the current supply is now under threat. Funny how the US never made such noises in the Congo. France did - they even sent troops.

The truth is that the republicans don't want peace. They want you to be scared, they want a constant state of 'war' - it allows them to further their own ends, it allows them to spread US control across the world, right or wrong be damned. They want you to think Muslims are crazy religious zealots who hate and kill all things western. The scary thing is that a huge percentage of the American populace is eating this up. America needs to look beyond what it is being spoon fed by it's Media, look at what is really happening on a day to day basis in these places full of 'Terrorists' they hate so much. Only then may they start to realise the sh1t they are being fed and maybe realise the evil that is being done in their name. Getting rid of GW would be a huge step in this direction, if only in terms of international perception.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Viva la France!

Time to cut the cheese!

 

[Changleen]

So glad you agree with sense for once.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Of course, you know, Muslim folk here in the US can wear their choice of headgear.

Can the US get credit for being such a progressive nation now?

Thank you!

 

[Changleen]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheading.backlash.ap/
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa082801.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/26/MN224441.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml

No.

 

[Toshi]

good job, france!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Oui!

 

[MikeD]

Once again, given half a chance, Muslims prove that they are just like every other normal person, that they can see both sides of an argument, they will bow to common sense and their their leaders are not all crazy fundamentalists.

But the relatively secular Euro-muslims living comfortably in France don't really reflect the views of mainstream middle eastern and Asian Islam, either...

MD

 

[Changleen]

But the relatively secular Euro-muslims living comfortably in France don't really reflect the views of mainstream middle eastern and Asian Islam, either...

MD

That's probably true to a certain extent, but they are still practicing Muslims. The point I was trying to make is that dealing with people as humans will get better results than demonising them. I think you were going for basically the same point in your book review.

 

[MikeD]

Well, the 'book review' was a synopsis of the book, not my personal feelings (although I found the book did reflect a lot of my feelings and reasoning.)

I agree that demonization is bad, in that it causes you to lose perspective and lose respect for the enemy, which puts you at a disadvantage. But to jump to the conclusion that the majority of Muslims would support a ban on Muslim attire in public schools (or any other separation of church and state) because of what happened in France is likewise a dangerous, and frankly ignorant, assumption.

MD

 

[Changleen]

That's not at all what I was assuming or suggesting... I was using it as an example of rational behaviour brought about by dialogue rather than hatred and demonization.

 

[MikeD]

OK, gotcha...but as rational as it was to us, it was still incredibly offensive and probably incomprehensible to the majority of Muslims, who will see it as a furthering of their perceived 'universal Western/Christian/Jewish assault' on Islam worldwide.

Not that we should necessarily care, as such, but we should be aware of this and its consequences.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Yah - you are right to a certain extent, but France are doing everything they can about it:

Still, much of the Muslim world remains convinced that the new law is an unfortunate affront to Islam. Arguments by French officials and ambassadors since its passage last March to explain it as a desirable mechanism to preserve the republican values of the French state have not been understood.

Even Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, who was Foreign Minister when the bill was passed, argued against it, predicting that it would be seen, as it has been, as a law that was anti-veil and not pro-secularism.

"The Muslim world simply doesn't understand the law," said Abderrahim Lamchichi, of the University of Picardie in Amiens. "It is deplorable that even liberal Muslims think that the law is against Islam. It's absurd."

So the strategy of the French government in dealing with the hostage crisis has been two-fold: to focus on the criminality of hostage-taking under Islam and to explain why the law should not be seen as anti-Islam. Those weighing in range from high-profile personalities including King Abdullah of Jordan, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, some of the world's most senior Muslim clerics, even the Pope; to groups of journalists from countries like Syria and Greece, Muslim associations from countries like Mali and Bosnia, Congo's highest-ranking media authority and the opposition Iranian Mujahedeen organization which the French government considers a terrorist cult. France's diplomatic blitz has not won the freedom of the hostages, but it may have staved off a decision on their fate.

As you know, the hostages have now been turned over...

 

[MikeD]

Sorry, I've been reading so much both on-and-offline that I didn't even connect entirely back to the original article by the time the thread-creep got us here.

The diplomatic solution to radical Islamism, however, is simply to give them what they want, all of it. Otherwise, it's going to be a fight to the death-they won't accept compromise or partial victory- and no UN or multinational mediation is going to end the conflict; they'll only use it to weaken the West and buy time for themselves.

Personally, I don't want the war if we can avoid it...I'd love to see us lose dependence on oil, disengage from the region, and let the Islamists kill the regimes they hate, like the Saudis, and rot in the desert when we don't buy their oil anymore. Of course, Israel probably wouldn't be a big fan of that course of action...and there's the danger of Islamist expansionism once they start to feel either comfortable and victorious, or slighted by, the West. Hmmm, where does that leave us...? It's scary.

MD

 

[Changleen]

The diplomatic solution to radical Islamism, however, is simply to give them what they want, all of it. Otherwise, it's going to be a fight to the death-they won't accept compromise or partial victory- and no UN or multinational mediation is going to end the conflict; they'll only use it to weaken the West and buy time for themselves.

Hmm, That is ONE diplomatic solution, which I'd say can be achieved partially - The major thing obviously being US disengagement from Israel, which I would love to see happen - that would be a huge step in the right direction for Islamic people and for us.
To me however it needs to go futher than that - granted there is going to be an element of giving people what they want, but not all their wants are going to be aceptable to the west, no matter how 'liberal' we're feeling.

The first thing I think you think (correct me if i'm wrong) is that these people are going to extremists until their deaths no matter what - no matter how far the west bends to accomodate them they will push further and harder, always wanting more.
I pretty much disagree with that. Throughout history, it has been shown that rebels/terrorists/insurgents generally have a fairly limited goal. Hitler, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan and the Romans may be exceptions to that, but whatever.

Al Qu'aida has a rough set of stated goals as we have discussed, namely US support out of Israel, US troops out of Islamic countries, and US economic oppression to cease. It's not like they actually want to take over and invade America, threatening Pastor Richards with execution unless he converts to Islam. As I said earlier, Osama is a pretty smart guy, and more than that, any organisation like his can only really operate with a certain level of political support in the countries he 'represents'.

My 'way to win the war on terror' is a bit of exactly what they want - US out of Israel (please!), and much more emphasis on social issues. Islamic countries do not need the west telling them how to behave, and we have no right to after a certain extent (eg stoning women to death etc is always going to be wrong, but then again few Islamic countries actually do it.) However, I'm sure they'd love a bit more trade with the west on terms that arn't so offensive/ridiculously biased to the west. Basically as I said, I think we (the west) are pulling some fvcked up sh1t right now, which we need to stop doing and apologise for - get the fvck out of Israel for one. Then we need to accept that the world is big enough for all of us and treat these people as out international neighbours. Friendship and goodwill goes so much further than an army ever can. Pretty soon, terrorism will be looked down upon in the society it is intended to represent, and it will stop.

I'll say this right now - You will never win this bullsh1t 'war' with force or armies. By killing people, you are simply ensuring more people are killed. The (current)rebublican desire/need/personality defect that requires them to 'never back down' - 'never be wrong' - 'have the biggest penis' is ridiculous. The only possible outcome of persuing this ideology is that one side has to be totally wiped off the face of the earth for the other to be happy. Great. Actually I'm pretty sure this is what some of the more aggresive hawk idiots would love - an excuse to nuke Islam of the face of the planet. But sensible humans understand this is not only hugely morally wrong, but fvcking stupid.

Therefore we should stop this course of action as soon as possible, and find newer, more practical and realistic ways to deal with the problem. Republicans are sure to see this as 'backing down' - 'giving in' - 'going floppy', but that's because they're stupid. Compromise is and allways has been the way to get things done in the world. In your personal life, in business, in law making, in government, in every sphere of human experience we compromise every day to get allong and progress. For some reason, compromise is not a word that republicans can understand when applied to Islam. It really is pretty pathetic that we can't just get along.

Personally, I don't want the war if we can avoid it...I'd love to see us lose dependence on oil, disengage from the region,

Agreed! Why the **** do we still burn stuff to make our cars go? What century is this?

and let the Islamists kill the regimes they hate, like the Saudis, and rot in the desert when we don't buy their oil anymore. Of course, Israel probably wouldn't be a big fan of that course of action...and there's the danger of Islamist expansionism once they start to feel either comfortable and victorious, or slighted by, the West. Hmmm, where does that leave us...? It's scary.

Why do we have to withdraw into a shell? It shouldn't be like that - we don't 'not talk' to the Russians after the cold war. Infact we trade like **** with them, and are pretty good buddies. Likewise Japan and China. These countries don't have wild, empire building ideals, in fact I think the US is the only place that has those right now. I think you'd find after a bit of trade, a bit of fairness shown to these countries from the west and we'd be looking at an utterly different kettle of fish.

MD[/QUOTE]

 

[fluff]

The US cannot completely withdraw from Israel, it would facilitate genocide (of Israelis). Which is a bad thing, OK?

What the US should do is to use its influence on Israel to find a solution for peace. Of course that relies on a US administration pursuing a similar agenda themselves so we won't see that if Duyba is re-elected.

They can't simply pull out from Israel. Just as they need to remain in Iraq to bring stability there. You must deal with reality.

 

[Changleen]

The US cannot completely withdraw from Israel, it would facilitate genocide (of Israelis). Which is a bad thing, OK?

Would it? I can't see why - you are assuming that without US support israel is not viable - this is not true. It still has a large economy and evn without US support would be one of the more powerful armed nations in the world. It's not like if the US support was withdrawn all their military might would disapeer.

What the US should do is to use its influence on Israel to find a solution for peace. Of course that relies on a US administration pursuing a similar agenda themselves so we won't see that if Duyba is re-elected.

Agreed.

They can't simply pull out from Israel. Just as they need to remain in Iraq to bring stability there. You must deal with reality.

Israel is quite different from Iraq. Surely you see the difference?

Withdrawing support from Israel is quite different to pulling out of Iraq. US troops are not in Iraq to find a solution for peace. At best they are there to rebuild the country and at worst they are there to ensure cheap gas for US consumers. Support for Israel is simply a political convenience for whoever is in power in the US. Explain to me otherwise.

 

[fluff]

The Israeli economic/military comples has a large reliance on US assistance. For sure it would not degenerate overnight but in time it would and without a negotiated settlement as a precursor Israel woudl be come vulnerable. Once Israel became vulnerable its enemies would become more ambitious and seek to destroy Israel utterly, rather than compromise with it. Currently Israel has an opportunity to find a political peace (but not the will), if the US withdraw support it would probably not take much more than ten years for that opportunity to disappear and Israel is too small and isolated to hold out forever.

Yes Israel and Iraq and different, but the reality of the situation is that the US has to see the job through in both areas if it wishes to bring stability to the region.

Israel would not exist today without US support, hence it cannot simply be withdrawn suddenly (see above). 1973 showed that the Israelis and not invincible even with superior equipment and they are hugely outnumbered by their enemies. Their only option for survival would be the nuclear threat and detonating nuclear weapons on your doorstep is not gonna help you much.

Likewise, Iraq would not be unstable had the US/UK not deposed Saddam Hussein, hence they need to support the interim government until it achieves a degree of stability. Kerry will do this if he is elected, albeit perhaps differently to Bush. I disagreed with the invasion but that is now history and to simply pull out and leave a power vacuum would be foolish in the extreme.

My comments about dealing with reality reflect that the situation is fubared already and given the US (and UK) part in creating the situation we have a responsibility not to make it worse by simply pulling out.

 

[fluff]

US troops are not in Iraq to find a solution for peace. At best they are there to rebuild the country and at worst they are there to ensure cheap gas for US consumers.

Regardless of their motives the problem is an unstable state. It must be stabilised before withdrawal, unless you enjoy watching civil wars.

Support for Israel is simply a political convenience for whoever is in power in the US. Explain to me otherwise.

There are around 4.5 million Jews living in Israel, regardless of the motives for US support do you not feel they have a right to live?

Clearer?

 

[Andyman_1970]

My 'way to win the war on terror' is a bit of exactly what they want -

You realize that even you, who want's to give the terrorist what they want and you're not a frothing at the mouth right wing Christian, they would kill in a heartbeat if given a chance just as fast as they would kill say me?

 

[Toshi]

You realize that even you, who want's to give the terrorist what they want and you're not a frothing at the mouth right wing Christian, they would kill in a heartbeat if given a chance just as fast as they would kill say me?

why? because they hate us 'cause we're free? i'll admit that the chances of dying in a 9/11 are the same for, say, Changleen and Andyman_1970 (disregarding whether one of you lives in a big city like NYC vs. in the sticks, etc.), but they're also vanishingly small...

 

[MikeD]

The first thing I think you think (correct me if i'm wrong) is that these people are going to extremists until their deaths no matter what - no matter how far the west bends to accomodate them they will push further and harder, always wanting more.

No, we're sort of on the same page here. They have a specific agenda, but unless it's entirely accomodated, they won't rest.

The question, for me, is whether acheiving their agenda would be a final rest for them, or if they'd come around again sometime later wanting to push to an offensive jihad of conversion.

Would we be merely appeasing, like Chamberlain at the beginning of WWII? Hitler's full agenda wasn't yet on the table...but you could have seen it, just under the surface of his words.

Discuss!

MD

 

[Westy]

No, we're sort of on the same page here. They have a specific agenda, but unless it's entirely accomodated, they won't rest.

The question, for me, is whether acheiving their agenda would be a final rest for them, or if they'd come around again sometime later wanting to push to an offensive jihad of conversion.

Would we be merely appeasing, like Chamberlain at the beginning of WWII? Hitler's full agenda wasn't yet on the table...but you could have seen it, just under the surface of his words.

Discuss!

MD

I am sure some would be happy and appeased but others would not. Some people are extremists because they truly believe in something, others just like being extremists.

 

[MikeD]

True, but you're also dealing with a group that follows the dictates of its religious heirarchy; there's far more complexity than that under the surface, but in general, if the mainstream religious leaders are against something (say, extremist attacks abroad), it's not going to occur on a significant level.

 

[jmvar]

Changleen, your post uses to much reason and is too logical for it to ever be implemented by the US Gov.

My 'way to win the war on terror' is a bit of exactly what they want - US out of Israel (please!),

I think the US is not in Isreal to "protect" the Isrealis but to have a unquestionable ally in the Middle East that is completely dependent upon the US militarily. The US feeds the fvcked up situation in order to ensure that the need will always be there, hence the strong hold in the Middle East. Why? $$$ and petrol. Too many big lobbying companies have a stake in oil in the US for elected officials to give it up. Why do we still drive cars that burn stuff to go? Because auto manufacturers in the US have too large of a stake in the oil industry to have us driving around in hydrogen cell powered cars.

So in essence the US gov. sacrifices Isreali, Palestinian, Iraqui lives in order to keep global conglomerates happy. Right now there should be peace in the MIddle East, we should not have to burn stuff to get around, we should not have watched 2 747s fly into the WTC. THe US Gov. knows how to end terrorism, but they keep investing in it. They keep breeding it. But I have a feeling you knew all this already.

I will now put on my tinfoil hat.

 

[MikeD]

Well, there's also the [current] fact that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the cells actually put out...

 

[fluff]

No, we're sort of on the same page here. They have a specific agenda, but unless it's entirely accomodated, they won't rest.

The question, for me, is whether acheiving their agenda would be a final rest for them, or if they'd come around again sometime later wanting to push to an offensive jihad of conversion.

Would we be merely appeasing, like Chamberlain at the beginning of WWII? Hitler's full agenda wasn't yet on the table...but you could have seen it, just under the surface of his words.

Discuss!

MD

D'oh, whaddy hafta go an' mention Hitler for?

The differences are that Hitler was militarily stronger than the UK, France et al, and had a state to base himself in, and German law working for him. Confrontation would have led to defeat, appeasement could have bought time but alongside it the UK and French governments buried their heads in the sand, believing no sane man could want another war after 1914-18.

The terrorist on the other hand has no military advantage, or even anything close. He also needs to draw support for his cause from the disenfranchised, the poor, the displaced. He also needs a rallying cry, a cause. Remove enough of the cause or his pool of fellow travellers and he lacks appeal and teeth.

So it's not really appeasement so much as an effort to remove his strategic base.

Prior to WWII the US was seen as a good and fair nation by the Arab world (where they took any notice at all), and it is only their subsequent support for Israel (which the Arabs see as one-sided and anti-Arab), their exploitation of oil and thier manipulation of governments which have caused the current anti-American feeling. It is not irreversible but the current confrontation(s) simply reinforce their view, and assist the terrorist in his recruitment.

 

[MikeD]

Good points; I wasn't trying to compare Bin Laden and Hitler per se, just pointing out that appeasement has sometimes led to encouraging the opposition, and that agendas don't stay static and sometimes cloak larger objectives within.

And we were talking about appeasing their agenda, not necessarily trying to alter the socioeconomic conditions in which extremism and violent agendas proliferate.
MD

 

[fluff]

And we were talking about appeasing their agenda, not necessarily trying to alter the socioeconomic conditions in which extremism and violent agendas proliferate.
MD

Are you talking about a strategy of doing enough of what they want to get them to stop the terrorist activity, or actually (for example) removing all US troops form the Arabian peninsula?

I was not trying to espouse dramatic alteration of the socioeconomic conditions, but removing unfair trade and foreign interference. Then if the population remain poor and underdeveloped it's the fault of their elite, not ours. Plus it gives them self-determination etc.

 

[MikeD]

Are you talking about a strategy of doing enough of what they want to get them to stop the terrorist activity, or actually (for example) removing all US troops form the Arabian peninsula?

I think that they're not going to stop at anything short of full realization of their agenda...God wouldn't have it any other way, you see. That would include US troops out, end of support for Israel, etc.

Question (again, sorry) is...would attaining those goals actually stop their attacks (or, in their minds, their defense of Islam against our attacks)?

MD

PS The "god wouldn't have it any other way" bit I would have meant cynically before reading Imperial Hubris...I always took the religion element of the extremism for a cover of a political agenda. The book's author, however, takes the religion at its face value. I find this disconcerting, but it's something I'm actually reconsidering now. Need to read more.

 

[Andyman_1970]

why? because they hate us 'cause we're free? i'll admit that the chances of dying in a 9/11 are the same for, say, Changleen and Andyman_1970 (disregarding whether one of you lives in a big city like NYC vs. in the sticks, etc.), but they're also vanishingly small...

I agree the chances are small, but from an ideological standpoint, they would want us dead whether or not we are a Rep or a Dem or Atheist or Christian (note the Nepelese they killed). It seems the only condition to be on their "list" is to be different...............

 

[Toshi]

I agree the chances are small, but from an ideological standpoint, they would want us dead whether or not we are a Rep or a Dem or Atheist or Christian (note the Nepelese they killed). It seems the only condition to be on their "list" is to be different...............

why are they targeting the u.s. and its allies then? why not, say, asia? or south america? those areas have plenty of people who are "different" yet they are not targeted...

 

[MikeD]

It seems the only condition to be on their "list" is to be different...............

That's been a centerpiece of the discussion in this entire forum as of late. In fact, it might be wrong to characterize the attacks against the west as attacks against those who are simply different. Bin Laden himself continually publishes his agenda to the world, and it's not aimed at killing Westerners just because they're different or non-Islamic. It's aimed at killing Westerners because they feel the US and its allies and associates have attacked Islam in certain ways, and he wants the attacks to stop.

The other question, though, is whether or not acheiving this agenda would stop terrorism...or would it simply move it on to another phase, directed at an offensive jihad to convert the world's infidels? It's easy to say 'yes,' based on emotion, but I'm not willing to draw the conclusion yet. And Toshi's making some good points.

MD

 

[Toshi]

(note the Nepelese they killed)

"they" in this case were iraqi militants. not al qaeda. that's a huge difference when you're (you in particular, not generic "you") trying to argue that al qaeda's "wants us dead", where "us" is all-inclusive of non-muslims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3616354.stm

 

[Changleen]

Regardless of their motives the problem is an unstable state. It must be stabilised before withdrawal, unless you enjoy watching civil wars.

I agree. You can't just pull out - you need to stay and stabilise things, but that's gonna be pretty much impossible now for the US, and even if the UN got involved it would still be hard. It needs to happen, but thanks to unilateraism it's gonna be a bitch to achieve.

There are around 4.5 million Jews living in Israel, regardless of the motives for US support do you not feel they have a right to live?

Sometimes. :devil: No seriously, yes for sure everyone has the right to live and more than that - a set of rights which are not being afforded to the palestinians right now. Eiher way, Withdrawal of US support for Israel needs to happen if there's going to be any sort of realistic hope for peace. I really disagree that it would result in the end of Israel. In reality under any set of future US leaders I can envisage, withdrawal would be a phased process, and I think would also need to be helped along by the UN. Whatever, and even if it costs lives, it has to happen.

 

[Changleen]

I agree the chances are small, but from an ideological standpoint, they would want us dead whether or not we are a Rep or a Dem or Atheist or Christian (note the Nepelese they killed). It seems the only condition to be on their "list" is to be different...............

Andyman, I think you're wrong about this. As people have said above, the targeting is just of the US and aligned Europeans for the most part - and those who facilitate this in their own countries. Osama does have stated goals - they have been discussed before here and are easily googleable on the internet. You should check them out.

 

[Changleen]

So it's not really appeasement so much as an effort to remove his strategic base.

Prior to WWII the US was seen as a good and fair nation by the Arab world (where they took any notice at all), and it is only their subsequent support for Israel (which the Arabs see as one-sided and anti-Arab), their exploitation of oil and thier manipulation of governments which have caused the current anti-American feeling. It is not irreversible but the current confrontation(s) simply reinforce their view, and assist the terrorist in his recruitment.

Exactly what I am saying. And GW is the worst of the worst times ten to the power 46. He is just such a retard at sorting out the middle east you have to conclude he really doesn't want there to be peace. Divide and conquor. Keep em scared, etc...

 

[Changleen]

The other question, though, is whether or not acheiving this agenda would stop terrorism...or would it simply move it on to another phase, directed at an offensive jihad to convert the world's infidels? It's easy to say 'yes,' based on emotion, but I'm not willing to draw the conclusion yet. And Toshi's making some good points.

MD

Mike you are right, this is the question that needs asking, and our policy dealing with the terrorists will obviosly be shapped by the answer we choose.

So this really leads back to what I said earlier:

1) We assume he is bent on world domination and will never stop. The effective result is perpetual war until one side or the other is destroyed.

2) We listen to what he is actually saying, concede that his demands arn't that ridiculous, get the fvck out of Israel, start treating Arabs like humans and at least give peace a chance.

I know which one I'm gonna choose. Hey, even if #2 goes tits up at least we tried, right? Isn't it far worse to 'assume' bad intentions and throw yourself into a never ending war that could only be realisticly won with the worst genocide the world has ever seen?

 

[Changleen]

Regardless of their motives the problem is an unstable state. It must be stabilised before withdrawal, unless you enjoy watching civil wars.

Gnar, more bad...
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/4/2004&Cat=4&Num=004

 

[MikeD]

I know which one I'm gonna choose. Hey, even if #2 goes tits up at least we tried, right? Isn't it far worse to 'assume' bad intentions and throw yourself into a never ending war that could only be realisticly won with the worst genocide the world has ever seen?

Well, I'm thinking a little more cynically, I suppose, and right now I think #2 might just lead to more attacks...in which case, I do think 'bring it on' is appropriate. If the American people woke up, understood what Bin Laden was saying, and gave him all he asked for, and he continued to attack, they'd suddenly be willing to do what it takes to destroy him and all that supports him. (Then again, he'd probably get cagey and find some ways to use proxies to wage war, in an attempt to keep America from committing fully to the distasteful task of destroying the middle east.) Then again, if #2 worked, we'd be OK all around, I guess...perhaps some short-term problems as we disengage, but maybe we'd actually have normalized relations.

In the end, going with #1 might be the safer choice. It gives us a known quantity and doesn't force us to wait on his reaction. It does, however, require a greater degree of commitment than we've shown ourselves capable of...and an end to the draining occupation of foreign lands in favor of swift and total military action followed by immediate withdrawl. It would also really, really piss off the international community who'd like to see this all just go away.

I don't know if we can ever expect peace. No one's ever had peace in human history, so we should probably accept a state of eternal conflict, and just focus on our next objective.

MD