Senators warned of terrorist attack on US by July

[Words]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

Yes, in fact I do.

Read on......

http://bit.ly/czAUMW

Hardly a wave.

Anyways. There has indeed been an increase in the number of suicide attacks carried out by womyn. Perhaps the real question here though isn't how many but why.

Words

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Words

Hardly a wave.

Anyways. There has indeed been an increase in the number of suicide attacks carried out by womyn. Perhaps the real question here though isn't how many but why.

Words

The why is easy--we don't expect it. If you know your enemy expects you to come by land, drop in by air or come by sea. If you know your enemy expects you to come through the door, go in through a window. If you know your enemy is expecting a man, send a woman.

As my old commanding officer used to say "never assume that the other guy owes you the favor of being either stupid or insane". Having women carry out the attacks that men were carrying out is very good tactics on their part.
Always do that which your opponent isn't expecting you to do and which is within your capabilities to pull off.

Cheers
Aj

[Words]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The why is easy--we don't expect it. If you know your enemy expects you to come by land, drop in by air or come by sea. If you know your enemy expects you to come through the door, go in through a window. If you know your enemy is expecting a man, send a woman.

As my old commanding officer used to say "never assume that the other guy owes you the favor of being either stupid or insane". Having women carry out the attacks that men were carrying out is very good tactics on their part.
Always do that which your opponent isn't expecting you to do and which is within your capabilities to pull off.

Cheers
Aj

AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by Words

AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

Why does anyone agree to do it?

Why do our men and women sign up for the armed services?

Because they so firmly believe in something that they are willing to fight for it.

I was in a Violence and Terror class, once, and then a course on the Psychology of Terrorism. One of the most serious things I took away from that course was the following exchange.

We were asked to raise our hands if there was something we would kill for--a person, an idea, an object.

Then, we were asked if there was something we would die for, or to protect.

Then, we were asked if they were the same thing.

If what you are willing to kill for and what you are willing to die for are the same. . . You have the potential to be a suicide bomber.


It's all in how you look at things. . .

[Words]

Originally Posted by Selenay

Why does anyone agree to do it?

Why do our men and women sign up for the armed services?

Because they so firmly believe in something that they are willing to fight for it.

I was in a Violence and Terror class, once, and then a course on the Psychology of Terrorism. One of the most serious things I took away from that course was the following exchange.

We were asked to raise our hands if there was something we would kill for--a person, an idea, an object.

Then, we were asked if there was something we would die for, or to protect.

Then, we were asked if they were the same thing.

If what you are willing to kill for and what you are willing to die for are the same. . . You have the potential to be a suicide bomber.


It's all in how you look at things. . .

I agree. Add to the above the sheer desperation factor and you end up with stories like these...

http://www.aztlan.net/women_martyrs.htm

[apretty]

i think the only obvious answer is to start building bomb shelters.

[Queerasfck]

Originally Posted by apretty

i think the only obvious answer is to start building bomb shelters.

It's definitely ELEVATED here.

[Words]

Dress,

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do because as someone has already pointed out, right at the center - amongst other things - you find the situation in Israel. And so the attacks continue.

I don't approve of suicide attacks. Hell, I don't approve of violence in any form. But I do understand, having lived amongst people who literally have nothing to live for, why they happen.

Words

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Words

AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

Ahh, I thought you were asking the operational 'why' question and not the psychological 'why'. As you and a number of others have pointed out, the motivation appears to be identical to the motivation of male suicide bombers.

Cheers
Aj

[Bit]

Originally Posted by Bob

This isn't the basis of what Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist Muslims are angry about. The root cause is ultimately Israel and our inital and ongoing support of that state.

......... This, of course, is the Reason That We Dare Not Name.

..........Of course, this is all terribly oversimplified.

No dear; it's just plain wrong. That incident was not the cause, but only an effect of almost a hundred years of US political and military interference in the Arab countries themselves.

WE, for instance, destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953. US, the United States of America, WE destroyed it... to please an oil company.

Originally Posted by smithsonianmag.com

Few Americans remembered that Iran had descended into dictatorship after the United States overthrew the most democratic government it had ever known. "Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to restore the shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?" a reporter asked President Carter at a news conference during the hostage crisis. "That's ancient history," Carter replied.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people...#ixzz0egLX74Tu

Twenty-six years is hardly ancient in my personal history, but it exemplifies the US attitude toward the Middle East. Iran held elections and elected a democratic government; it governed; it chose to work in the interests of the Iranian people rather than the interests of the oil companies. WE destroyed it and put a hellacious dictator in charge of the country, one who supported foreign oil companies rather than his own people.

WE, the United States of America, proud upholder of freedom and democracy, WE "bombed Iran back to the stone age" in Ronald Reagan's words. WE have threatened to do so with other countries, notably Pakistan. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010...r-all-seasons/

WE, the United States of America, proud upholders of Truth and Justice, FABRICATED reports that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and invaded a country which had not attacked us. http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/inv...n-of-iraq.html

Nobody bombed us for Guantanamo Bay, where we routinely tortured people without allowing them a fair trial.

We are the heinous bully of the modern world, and our favored targets are South America and the Middle East. We, the bringers of the American Way, have brought death and destruction all over the Middle East for sixty years.

Our being an ally of Israel is not the root cause of Arab hatred for us; our being an out-and-out warmongering enemy of Arab countries IS. Being an ally of Israel is only a last straw, not a primary cause.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I agree in part. Our ignorance of the Muslim world is disconcerting.

I think our ignorance of our own world is disconcerting!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

[to AtLastHome]I think that will work for the people who aren't interested in attacking us. I think it might even dissuade some people from joining the camp of those who want to attack us. I don't think it will do *anything* for the people who already want to attack us.

Honesty and reparations might work. We don't know, since we're so arrogant we've never tried that approach... but then, bullies don't.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I would agree with you [AtLastHome] again although, honestly, I think that hatred of the West in the Muslim world has more to do with US foreign policy and with our rather libertine culture than with how individual Westerners treat individual Muslims in their midst.

I think it doesn't even have much to deal with our libertine culture... I think it has only to do with our complete untrustworthiness, our willingness to bring war to people who have not brought it to us. We are sooo quick to say "they started it!" like six year olds brawling over a bike, but the truth is WE started it, every time.

EVERY. Single. Damned. Time.

Originally Posted by Words

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do

We don't know this, Words. We honestly do NOT know with a guarantee that Western countries will forever continue their insane insistence on running the Middle East, and interfering with legitimate governments there.

There's always room for hope that some day those of us who speak up will be listened to.

There's always room for hope that some day US Foreign Policy will be determined by someone who does NOT need to fight bogus wars his father started.

There's always room for hope that some day the people of the US will pay attention to their own history.

I believe that when that happens, everything in the Middle East will change, including the pressures on Israel.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Bit

WE, the United States of America, proud upholder of freedom and democracy, WE "bombed Iran back to the stone age" in Ronald Reagan's words. WE have threatened to do so with other countries, notably Pakistan. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010...r-all-seasons/

Actually, we did not bomb Iran. Iraq and Iran went to war on their own. Now, as it turned out, both the United States and the Soviet Union had reasons of their own to provide material and 'technical assistance' (read satellite intelligence) to the belligerents but outside of an aborted attempt to rescue hostages held in our own embassy (which is, after all, considered part of your own nation) we did not, in the period we're discussing, attack Iran or bomb them back to the stone age.

Nobody bombed us for Guantanamo Bay, where we routinely tortured people without allowing them a fair trial.

I think this might need to be amended that no one, so far, has *succeeded* in doing so.

Our being an ally of Israel is not the root cause of Arab hatred for us; our being an out-and-out warmongering enemy of Arab countries IS. Being an ally of Israel is only a last straw, not a primary cause.

I would add that our being allied to any number of Arab dictatorships is a very important cause. What's interesting here is that this is an area of foreign policy we are utterly inept at. We prop up dictatorships in places like Egypt, talk about democracy in the region but help keep anti-democrats in power, and then are surprised when people call us hypocrites. What's worse is that these self-same dictatorships then use the existence of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians to inflame anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments as a means of distracting their populations from the fact that their *real* and most proximate problem isn't America or Israel but their own corrupt governments! I mean this is obvious stuff that the American foreign policy elite either doesn't understand or think we're too stupid to understand.

Honesty and reparations might work. We don't know, since we're so arrogant we've never tried that approach... but then, bullies don't.

Here I have to disagree. It would not change the mind of Al Qaeda nor would it change the mind of Hamas. In fact, it might actually *encourage* them. "Pay us or lose Kansas City". I'm not saying you don't negotiate with your opponents. If they are open to negotiation do so. But Al Qaeda has made it *abundantly* clear, in their own words, that they aren't interested in negotiation. Hamas has made it clear that they are not particularly interested in negotiations. (Well, at least the old Hamas did the new Hamas that has to actually *govern* seems a bit more pragmatic, funny that.)

But tell me, how many times do we pay reparations under threat of attack? At what point do we *stop* paying reparations? I'm not saying we shouldn't (although I think it sets a very bad precedent) but I'm saying that it's not quite as simple a solution as it sounds on paper. So we pay reparations to, say, Hamas. So then Al Qaeda threatens us so we pay *them* reparations. So then Hezbollah threatens us and we pay *them* reparations. At what point are we not paying reparations and are paying protection money?

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3][COLOR=Teal]I think it doesn't even have much to deal with our libertine culture... I think it has only to do with our complete untrustworthiness, our willingness to bring war to people who have not brought it to us. We are sooo quick to say "they started it!" like six year olds brawling over a bike, but the truth is WE started it, every time.

I think that if you read Sayeed Qutb or even Osama Bin Laden you'll find that our libertine culture DOES bother them. The threat is not that we have it here but that people in the Muslim world may want it *there* because we do make it look very, very nice (which in some ways it is) and seductive.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3][COLOR=Teal]We don't know this, Words. We honestly do NOT know with a guarantee that Western countries will forever continue their insane insistence on running the Middle East, and interfering with legitimate governments there.

Like the legitimate government of Egypt? (Which, before you blame the United States for that situation recall that Egypt was originally a Soviet client state and then they switched sides.) Like the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia? We also need to recognize that we DO have interests in the area. We actually have a very vested interest in Pakistan remaining stable and I'll explain why.

Pakistan has the Bomb and so does India. Pakistan and India have fought three different wars in the 50-odd years those two nations have existed after British rule collapsed. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of the Taliban, then India WILL nuke them. They would be insane *not* to do so. This is not like the United States having nukes and Canada having nukes or France having nukes and Britain having nukes. In the latter cases, these are nations that have not had recent hostilities and have no serious territorial disputes. India and Pakistan have *very recent* hostilities and an active territorial dispute that both sides take very, very seriously. So our choice is this: pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and then wait for the mushroom clouds to form over Islamabad OR stay on the ground and do what we can. As long as India has the Bomb Pakistan isn't giving theirs up and vice versa. Given the enmity between the two nations, one can hardly blame them.

So given the above what would you have the U.S. do? And if you were India, and a fanatical group took over the nation next door, that you've fought three wars with in 50 years, and that group had access to nuclear weapons what would your response be. Not you, Bit, the beautiful, kind and non-violent person but you the leader of a billion Indian national who are looking to you and your cabinet to take care of the national self-interest?

I know you don't like thinking like this. *I* don't like thinking like this! But to see the problem clearly we sometimes have to think like this.

Cheers
Aj

[Bit]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, we did not bomb Iran.

You're right; my mistake. That was Iraq. I remembered the threat being made to Iran, but I can't find documentation now, just commentary. We did, however, make the threat to Pakistan, however hard Bush might have tried to backpedal later.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I think this might need to be amended that no one, so far, has *succeeded* in doing so.

In my own self-interest, I sincerely hope they NEVER succeed *wry smile* but then, I hope that we never succeed again, too. Bombs do not belong on this earth. There are better ways.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I would add that our being allied to any number of Arab dictatorships is a very important cause. What's interesting here is that this is an area of foreign policy we are utterly inept at. We prop up dictatorships in places like Egypt, talk about democracy in the region but help keep anti-democrats in power, and then are surprised when people call us hypocrites.

Exactly! We--the US--we are hypocrites, and we--the citizens of the US--we are basically ignorant of our own history and policies, and what they actually mean to the rest of the world. It boggles my mind!

And aren't we just inept at this foreign policy business--I bolded that because it is so surprisingly true.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What's worse is that these self-same dictatorships then use the existence of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians to inflame anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments as a means of distracting their populations from the fact that their *real* and most proximate problem isn't America or Israel but their own corrupt governments! I mean this is obvious stuff that the American foreign policy elite either doesn't understand or think we're too stupid to understand.

I think a big part of it is willful blindness. Do you remember that old dictum, "What's good for GM is good for the country"? I believe it's the same attitude, only now it's "What's good for Big Oil is good for the country."

I believe that as blind as Clinton was to so many things--and don't get me wrong, I think he was a great President, it's just that no one is perfect--I believe his government would never have been so squarely in the pocket of Big Oil. It took someone whose family fortunes were tied up in the B.O. corporations to put Official Blindness Policies into place.

And then, yanno... just as some of the Arab dictatorships inflame their people against Israel to mask the fact that the dictatorships are the real problem, I believe our government inflames us against the Arab countries to mask the fact that it's in the pocket of the B.O. corporations.

I've never wanted solar power so much! I would give a LOT to no longer be part of this problem, to no longer be a captive direct customer of the B.O. corporations! But until a much higher percentage of our populations feels the same way, and is willing to invest in alternative energy, I think we'll all remain captives of the B.O.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Here I have to disagree. It would not change the mind of Al Qaeda nor would it change the mind of Hamas.

WHOA. Stop right there, pardner. I am talking about Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt--Arab countries.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

In fact, it might actually *encourage* them. "Pay us or lose Kansas City". I'm not saying you don't negotiate with your opponents. If they are open to negotiation do so. But Al Qaeda has made it *abundantly* clear, in their own words, that they aren't interested in negotiation. Hamas has made it clear that they are not particularly interested in negotiations. (Well, at least the old Hamas did the new Hamas that has to actually *govern* seems a bit more pragmatic, funny that.)

But tell me, how many times do we pay reparations under threat of attack? At what point do we *stop* paying reparations? I'm not saying we shouldn't (although I think it sets a very bad precedent) but I'm saying that it's not quite as simple a solution as it sounds on paper. So we pay reparations to, say, Hamas. So then Al Qaeda threatens us so we pay *them* reparations. So then Hezbollah threatens us and we pay *them* reparations. At what point are we not paying reparations and are paying protection money?

At the point where we pay anything at ALL to a terrorist organization.

Face it, for all the rhetoric we've heard and all the dramatic scenes on the news, we have not gone to war against "terror." We have invaded COUNTRIES. We have toppled the legal governments of sovereign nations--not just in the Middle East, although that's what we're discussing here--and we have promoted the instability of those nations; our own "intelligence" agencies have trained the very people we now call terrorists because we wished to keep the countries "under control." *so much for THAT bright idea*

I repeat: we do not owe reparations to terrorists; we owe them to the legitimate countries.

What we owe most of all is an apology. We have been wrong for sixty-plus YEARS. We have behaved in incomprehensibly damaging and unethical ways. We, as a country, are without honor.

The only way to regain our honor is to stand up before the world and say, "We were wrong."

And then we need to do what we should have done in 1979, honestly examine the root causes of the problem and make reparation.

It's what adults do.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I think that if you read Sayeed Qutb or even Osama Bin Laden you'll find that our libertine culture DOES bother them. The threat is not that we have it here but that people in the Muslim world may want it *there* because we do make it look very, very nice (which in some ways it is) and seductive.

I don't believe it's the primary cause of hatred, Aj; it's what they use to bolster pre-existing hatred. FIRST they see that we are--to put it bluntly--demons who rain down death and destruction on innocent people; THEN they say that being libertine is wrong, because it's associated with such horrible demons. First they see that we are monsters who withhold the means of making a decent living from innocent people (economic sanctions), THEN they say being libertine is wrong because it's associated with such monsters.

It's our mess; we made it. It won't end until we clean it up, and as far as I can see, the only way to clean it up is to stop acting like some monstrous demon of destruction and start acting like an adult country which takes responsibility for its own actions--including those actions of previous administrations.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Like the legitimate government of Egypt? (Which, before you blame the United States for that situation recall that Egypt was originally a Soviet client state and then they switched sides.) Like the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia?

Daddy used his CIA influence to buy his son the Presidency of the United States of America. It was not legitimate, but did any of the countries in the world take it upon themselves to refuse to treat with us because of that? Could they make it stick? Did they even have the right to try?

Did the illegitimacy of the leader invalidate the entire rest of the government? And once there was a new election--not bought--was the illegitimate ruler STILL illegitimate?

Who are we to refuse to deal with the governments which are in place, Aj? That's how we CREATED this problem to begin with!! If we are to gain ANY credibility as a country with honor, a trustworthy ally, we MUST begin by refusing to interfere with the governments of sovereign nations.

We have to start somewhere, and the best place to start is right where we are, with the governments that are already in place.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

We also need to recognize that we DO have interests in the area. We actually have a very vested interest in Pakistan remaining stable and I'll explain why.

Pakistan has the Bomb and so does India. Pakistan and India have fought three different wars in the 50-odd years those two nations have existed after British rule collapsed. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of the Taliban, then India WILL nuke them. They would be insane *not* to do so.

By whose definition? Why is it insanity to REFRAIN from destroying the earth?

There are OTHER options. If the Taliban were to take over Pakistan, there would still be other options--including UN peacekeepers.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This is not like the United States having nukes and Canada having nukes or France having nukes and Britain having nukes. In the latter cases, these are nations that have not had recent hostilities and have no serious territorial disputes. India and Pakistan have *very recent* hostilities and an active territorial dispute that both sides take very, very seriously. So our choice is this: pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and then wait for the mushroom clouds to form over Islamabad OR stay on the ground and do what we can. As long as India has the Bomb Pakistan isn't giving theirs up and vice versa. Given the enmity between the two nations, one can hardly blame them.

So given the above what would you have the U.S. do?

Bring all our economic and diplomatic influence to bear on the UN, and get a massive force of UN peacekeepers from at least twenty other countries on the ground now.

WE cannot solve this problem, Aj, until we withdraw.

You see, the problem is this: we still think we are running on Manifest Destiny. We--the US government-- still think that we have the God-given right to invade other countries, just as we invaded the US. We won here; we decimated the hundreds of nations which already owned this land, and we've never gotten over ourselves.

We. Were. Wrong.

We. Are. Still. Wrong.

We do NOT have the right to put armies inside foreign countries, and only our own deliberate blindness allows us to pretend we do... but trust me, those countries are not blind, and terrorist groups have only arisen because the governments were too weak to thrust us out.

We. MUST. Leave.

There will be no peace until we do, because our presence alone is enough to keep the terrorists--and all the ordinary people who are sick, scared, tired to the bone of it all, and finally willing to support the terrorists--inflamed.

Bring in the UN. The US cannot solve this problem as long as we keep an army on the ground.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

And if you were India, and a fanatical group took over the nation next door, that you've fought three wars with in 50 years, and that group had access to nuclear weapons what would your response be. Not you, Bit, the beautiful, kind and non-violent person but you the leader of a billion Indian national who are looking to you and your cabinet to take care of the national self-interest?

I dunno, Ghandi did pretty well for a non-violent person...

If I were the leader of India, the place where American corporations were headed in droves, I would use my new-found economic clout to convince the US to bring in the UN, bigtime.

You understand that I am not saying there will be no more violence, Aj. I'm not all butterflies and roses; I understand there will still be war. BUT as long as it is war with the US, there will NEVER be peace. War with all the countries of the world, as represented by the UN??? THEN there is a chance for peace; then there is even a chance for diplomacy.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I know you don't like thinking like this. *I* don't like thinking like this!

Then stop. Change the filter through which you view the world, and allow for other options. They ARE out there. You mentioned that the terrorist organizations stated they would never negotiate.

How shortsighted of our government to accept that at face value.

EVERYONE has a price. The question is, do we care enough to find out what it is? Maybe the answer would be startlingly simple. Maybe the answer would be hospitals, food, schools, roads--some of the terrorists actually DO care about their countries; it is, after all, what drove them to mount defensive actions, yes?

Maybe the answer would be crass and greedy; maybe it would be payoffs. Maybe it would be some combination.

But how would we know? We've not tried.

WHY have we not tried, Aj?

What do WE get from continuing these wars? How do WE benefit?

Where is the profit going?

There's your answer. There's the reason you've been carefully taught to look through your current filter.

It's not that I'm non-violent, darlin. It's that I question everything.... heh... guess the 60s are still with me.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But to see the problem clearly we sometimes have to think like this.

Cheers
Aj

No. To see any problem clearly, we have to stop thinking like the people who created it, and start thinking outside the box. We have to get up and move across the room, see things from a new perspective, reject what other people tell us is the-way-it-is... and never, never allow ourselves to be blind to our own history and our own hubris.

Thanks for the discussion. I've enjoyed it.

Cath

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Bit

No dear; it's just plain wrong.

/derail
Really with the 'no, dear'? Uncalled for. If your argument(s) are sound, you don't need it, and if they're not, they'll be exposed as such. Prefacing your comments with this unnecessary piece of condescending tripe just makes you seem like a patronizing prat. Please stop. /end derail

[Bit]

Originally Posted by Bob

......Prefacing your comments with this unnecessary piece of condescending tripe just makes you seem like a patronizing prat. Please stop.

Wow, Bob, I wasn't feeling patronizing and I'm sorry it came across that way. I was actually feeling warmth and affection. My apologies to you.