| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
What I don’t yet see being widely commented on, is that this coordinated series of bombings, echoes a pattern that has recently developed in Iraq, in which multiple bombs are set off simultaneously. Those who made these attacks on London either learned from watching, or from carrying out, similar attacks in Iraq.
This is is an example of how our current approach to terrorism isn’t sufficiently effective.
By “our current approach,” I refer to our very odd experiment—previously unthinkable in human history—of considering “innocent” the civilian society that gave birth to those who kill our civilians, and refraining from attacking them directly. In all previous wars in human history, if a nation’s civilians were killed in large numbers by those of another nation, that was considered an act of war, and the attacked nation surrendered, paid ransom, or made war back on the attacking nation, including everybody in it, military or civilian. For example, in World War II, the Nazis and their allies bombed civilian cities, and the Allies responded by bombing Axis cities.
Many nations therefore refrained from killing civilians, instead attacking military personnel and targets, and in return the war was confined to soldiers. The French novelist Guy de Maupassant wrote many stories describing this, such as “Boule de Suif” and “Mother Sauvage” (see this excellent translation by Sian Miles. )
Never before in human history have nations said that they will do anything to spare the civilians that gave birth to the killers of their own women and children, even risking continued terrorist actions targeting the attacked nation’s own civilians. Since the terrorist actions do continue under such circumstances, as we are currently seeing in Israel, in Iraq, and today in London, this strategy isn’t sufficiently successful. It’s noble, but it lets things drag on too long.
In cultures that give rise to terrorists, the civilian society is calling out for terrorists to arise from among them and to go and murder the civilians of the targeted nation. There are many accounts of the Palestinians, for example, who are known for their terrorist attacks on Israel, celebrating terrorist attacks on Israel. Clearly this is a civilian society that celebrates the killing of civilians.
Therefore such civilian societies are in no way innocents, but are directly responsible for the existence of the terrorists, who are literally only doing what their friends and families want them to do. The terrorists are people, after all. And that’s what people do—they try to do something that their friends and families, and the civilian society in which they live, want. You can raise kids to be good, as usually happens in nations of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or to be evil, as often happens in nations which give birth to terrorist killers of women and children.
While this seems self-evident to me, perhaps it does not seem so to others. If so, surely it could be easily studied via interviews with those who know terrorists. What were the ways in which a given terrorist was first exposed to Islamofascism?
Here’s an example, cited last Monday by Little Green Footballs. The wife of Al Qaeda member Al Majati, killed by the Saudis last April, states that he wasn’t an extremist until he met her. She wanted him to be an Islamofascist:
It wasn’t until my confrontation with the Institute after I decided to wear the veil, that Al Majati was introduced to religion. He asked me once, “Why did you put yourself through so much trouble?” I answered that it wasn’t me who created the problem adding, “This is a divine command which as a Muslim, should not disobey it”.
Al Majati didn’t speak Arabic very well. When I quoted verses about the veil from the verses of Al Nur and Al Ahzab, he couldn’t understand them. I then bought him a book as a gift, entitled “The Translation of Quranic Meanings” and he became convinced after reading the verses and their translations. Two days later, I saw him again and was surprised to see that his thinking had radically changed. He read the book and was touched by the word of God. I believe this was instinctive love, as God himself had planted it in his heart.
[...]
Q: When did your husband discover jihad?
A: Towards the end of 1991, we traveled to Paris for a month to attend an Islamic conference where representatives from various organizations had gathered, including Hamas and the Mujahedeen from Afghanistan . There were also members of the Al-Yarmouk team for Palestinian songs. We found the atmosphere amazing. It also became evident to us that Islam was not just a religion for Arabs.
Surely Al Majati was predisposed toward Islamofascism by those with whom he grew up as well.
Since in my view the civilian society is directly responsible for the very existence of the terrorists, taking the heart out of that society’s wish to kill us appears to me to be key to ending the conflict. The alternative is nothing less than the sacrifice of one’s own civilians, since, as we have seen today in London, targeting only terrorists permits the conflict to drag out interminably, for years and perhaps for decades, and during that time the terrorists go on killing one’s civilians.
Rather than suggesting mass destruction of civilians, I’m suggesting targeting some number of blocks of civilian residences surrounding terrorists who have recently murdered civilians. Societies supporting terrorist killings of civilians can easily be shown that so doing results in the loss of their own civilians, as has been the case in war throughout human history, until our current odd experiment, in risking the lives of our own civilians in order to avoid casualties to those civilians of other countries who are seeking our deaths. Once it has been shown that terrorism doesn’t work, it will be abandoned as a failed strategy.
As often—but not always—happens in the first hours after a terrorist attack, we do not yet have details on who did it, or the geographic location in which they live. But frequently that changes after a period of time has passed. P.S. War is hell, and the sooner we win this one, the better it will be for the survivors on both sides.
The counter-argument is, yes, but it’s better to take civilian casualties for 5 or 10 or 20 years, rather than having a larger conflict. To which I respond, what larger conflict? The civilian societies that spawn terrorists have no military capabilities with which to oppose us.
The next counter-argument is, yes, but it’s better to take civilian casualties for 5 or 10 or 20 years, rather than having to kill civilians who want to kill us and who are giving birth to those who kill us. And that, I suppose, is a matter for further discussion. I personally would rather take no further losses of women and children on our side, and demonstrate to the world, for all future generations, that terrorism is a strategy that just doesn’t work.
#2do you advocate the same process for Irish Republican Army terrorists?
I believe the IRA is no longer active, which would make this a hypothetical question. Can you ask the same question with regard to terrorists who are active today?
And do you think we should blow up Eric Rudolph’s neighborhood? Or maybe just shoot his pastor?
Eric seems to be just one guy, rather than a member of a group of killers. There's no indication that his neighborhood is looking for people to do what he allegedly did.
Okay, Vik, let me ask you a -hypothetical- question: Imagine you were in charge of counterterrorism in 1970s and 1980s Northern Ireland. Would these policies appeal to you in that situation?
#4What I'm saying is, I follow the advice which is frequently given, not to answer hypothetical questions. Please ask me a non-hypothetical question.
#5The IRA splinter group the Real IRA is still active and has been blamed for bombings as recently as December 2004. Do you support killing civilians in Northern Ireland in retaliation?
#6Honor the Dead
Here’s a comment I just posted to Dan Darling over at Winds of Change.
*****
We must kick the enemy’s butt and right now! We must stay focused, our heads in the game, and keep our eye on the ball.
We must ignore the shots of the detractors from the bleachers.
We must win this war.
See my two cents worth in this thread over at Roger L. Simon’s:
#7What I’m saying is, I follow the advice which is frequently given, not to answer hypothetical questions. Please ask me a non-hypothetical question.
Apparently you don't answer non-hypothetical questions either.
#8
#9The IRA splinter group the Real IRA is still active and has been blamed for bombings as recently as December 2004. Do you support killing civilians in Northern Ireland in retaliation?
I'm not familiar at this time with the group you refer to. Are these a bunch of guys left over from 20 years ago who are still making attacks, after the rest of their society has moved on? Not being familiar with the specifics of this group, I will reserve comment on them at this time.
However, there are plenty of more current examples with regard to places where Islamofascists are killing women and children, for example, Israel, Iraq, and England.
#10Yes, the IRA is a terrorist group pursuing a political agenda. Generally they give brief warnings before a strike to avoid civilian casualities.
They do carryout targeted political assasinations.
Relative risk of IRA causing political instability and using WMDs is quite low.
On the otherhand Islamofascists are neither. These are two seperate issues and causes.
Because AQ uses IRA tactics and conceal themselves within civilian populations they are similar.
Unfortunately they are a danger to modern civilized society. They must be engaged and engaged with full force. It is unfortunate when civilians are killed or injured in the crossfire but I wouldn't blame society. AQ must be recognized as the instigator.
Islamofascism is a real threat to modern society. All what we stand for is at risk by the enemy. The enemy is a cunning, determined, patient, and stateless/transnational driven by a cult-like religious ideology (e.g. Jim Jones and the Cool-Aid bunch)whose mission is to destroy us. Our very culture, way of life, and what we hold dear the free will of men and women is the antithesis of this ideology.
This ideology hate and evil of the 12th Century needs to be identified for what it really is and shown as doomed to failure as other similar repressive/tryannical ones e.g. Nazism, Communism, and Fascism. The GWOT will not be won until the enemy and Islamofascism are driven from the face of the earth.
And don't bother to say how we are the cause of this. President Bush has made a fundamental change in our strategic foreign policy in the ME. We will no longer support repressive regimes for the sake of regional security.
As for oil at the root yes. But I would look closely at these regimes who have spent lavishly on themselves with the sale of their natural resources at the expense of their people. That's not all our fault. The victim role and blaming the Great and Little Statan for all the the problems in the region is BS. These repressive regimes know that and are in a precarious position because if the masses begin to receive alternative objective sources of info/news via the Net and the Blogos, the people will overthrow these hypocrites.
If you want to do something worthwhile instead of just jawboning here, go to Dr. Zin's site and see how you can help topple the Mad Mullahs of Iran:
#11In case you haven't made it to Dr. Zin's site yet, here's a link to what dangers we are facing by the enemy and Islamofascism.
What do they want?
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/07/and-this-is-why-they-did-it.html
Ron, and anyone else who is scared of terrorism: Them wanting to destroy our way of life does not constitute a threat to our way of life. Fatal car accidents kill more people than terrorism by a huge margin, and we don't let it destroy our way of life. They are going to have to do a lot worse than 9/11 to have a serious impact on our society. The last thing we need to do is go ahead and compromise our own morality and our own ideals because some crazy people occasionally attack us.
Keep in mind that many, many far more powerful enemies have completely failed to destroy us, and... relax.
#13Bellman, is it okay with you that they have killed and continue to kill our women and children? Wouldn't you agree that it is appropriate for us to act so as to seek to prevent them from continuing to do so?
Keep in mind that many, many far more powerful enemies have completely failed to destroy us, and… relax.
Are you relaxed about them killing our women and children? It's kind of an odd comment you're making. Are you saying we should relax and let them go on killing us?
#14When do you believe was the last time "they" killed "our" women and children?
#15This week in London is an example of terrorists killing the women and children of a democratic nation.
#16I didn't ask about "the women and children of a democratic nation." I asked about OUR women and children, which was the phrase you used.
Are you English, Vik?
#17I didn’t ask about “the women and children of a democratic nation.” I asked about OUR women and children, which was the phrase you used.
You asked about the phrase I used, and I responded about the phrase I used. By "our women and children", I was referring to the women and children of democratic nations.
Vik, I always feel like you are playing with me and pretending not to understand what you understand perfectly well.
Ron, in the comments above, called Islamofascism a real threat to Western society. He said it twice.
Islamofacism is NOT a threat to our society. It is a dangerous thing, but it's not dangerous to our way of life. We aren't about to be invaded by the Nazis. They can kill a few of us at a time, and we should try and stop them. But LOTS of things can kill us (car accidents, flu, lightning, regular murders, and so on). When people start blowing hard about "a clash of civilizations," usually they are purposefully muddying the issue and mis-prioritizing the problem so that they can push through their crazy neo-con imperialist strategy.
#19Bellman, I'm being perfectly straightforward. It seems to me like a comment such as "Islamofacism is NOT a threat to our society" is very odd in light of the fact that the Islamofascists are killing our civilians. Do you really think I don't mean that? I can't imagine why you would want us to "relax" about something like that.
Okay, I will rescind the word "relax," for clarity. Let me put in it's place: "Please treat the threat of terrorism in accordance with the level of the threat, which, compared to other threats we have faced and still face, is small." If you think that terrorism is the main, or even a serious threat to the continuing existence of Western society, I'd like to know how you think a few crazy suicidal attackers could possibly bring us down.
#21Bellman,
Actually a small dedicated cell could do a lot of damage if they come in under our radar again.
The first is an EMP weapon launched offshore over the Northeast Power Grid from one of AQ's ghost ships.
[read this comment and scroll back up to the main post]
Another is a bioweap straight out of early colonial America. The Brits did it to the French and Indians in the French Indian War. Only three agents over our Southern Border could cause 30K deaths before it could be stopped. It was very effective:
Any finally a dirty bomb into this location also done by a very small group could cause a $34B hit to the US economy.
[scroll down in this post to link to "Event Clock is Ticking . . .]
#22Also, the 9-11 attacks alone did a $100 billion dollars in property damage, plus a trillion in lost capital, plus 3000 lost lives:
We know that there are three thousand dead. A trillion dollars in capital has been lost; $100 billion in property damage was incurred; and millions of Americans were put out of work.
And that was one attack. If you don't consider that a serious threat to our society, you got some 'splainin to do.
#23Bellman,
Sorry but I should have given the underlying link to a paper on the bio-weap. I didn't realize I hadn't included it in the post I linked to on the border issue:
#24Rather than suggesting mass destruction of civilians, I’m suggesting targeting some number of blocks of civilian residences surrounding terrorists who have recently murdered civilians.
Detectives now believe all four London bombers were British citizens.
Do you support bombing British neighborhoods in retaliation?
#25Great question,a, and thanks for the link. I'll be answering the question in a post, and posting on the link as well.
Vik, do you advocate the same process for Irish Republican Army terrorists? And do you think we should blow up Eric Rudolph's neighborhood? Or maybe just shoot his pastor?