Terrorists target "soft" targets for shock value

[Cowperson]

Among the reasons terrorists are looking at soft targets like schools and beheadings of civilians, is that global audiences have become increasingly difficult to shock for attention, says this article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/03/...ain641016.shtml

Cowperson

[jonesy]

I'm just waiting for someone to blame Bush for the approx. 450 deaths in Russia the past 2 weeks. (about half of them children)

This proves absolutely to me that these terrorists, in this case Muslims do NOT CARE who they kill. I am also starting to strongly believe that the Iraq war has SLOWED down terrorist attacks, regardless of whether the invasion strictly for WMD's was mistaken.

Terrorist attacks had slowly been building to WTC levels. If the USA under Clinton had shown more resolve, say after the USS Cole maybe the WTC's would still be standing. (Cole was on Clinton's watch right?)
Terrorists have an agenda and they are not suddenly going to stop, just because Kerry is in Charge.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

jonsey the uss cole was under clinton's watch, as were the bombing of american embasies in africa (sorry can't remember specific nations right now). His only responce was to lob a few cruise missiles over and call it a day.

It amazes me that some people blaim Bush for September 11th, while ignoring the fact that Clinton did nothing and that was a good reason as to why the attacks occured. He did nothing in 8 bloody years in office.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by jonesy@Sep 5 2004, 06:41 PM
I'm just waiting for someone to blame Bush for the approx. 450 deaths in Russia the past 2 weeks. (about half of them children)

This proves absolutely to me that these terrorists, in this case Muslims do NOT CARE who they kill. I am also starting to strongly believe that the Iraq war has SLOWED down terrorist attacks, regardless of whether the invasion strictly for WMD's was mistaken.

Terrorist attacks had slowly been building to WTC levels. If the USA under Clinton had shown more resolve, say after the USS Cole maybe the WTC's would still be standing. (Cole was on Clinton's watch right?)
Terrorists have an agenda and they are not suddenly going to stop, just because Kerry is in Charge.

Not blaming Bush for the terrorist attacks, but I have to disaggree with your other statement jonesy, the attacks have not slowed down at all. There was the nightclub bombing in Bali, the theatre attack in Moscow, the train station bombing in Spain (Madrid?) and this recent school attack. All after September 11th 2001.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists except for that fact that they flooded into the area when Saddam's regime fell. It's not slowing down the terrorist attacks either. If the U.S. and the world in general wanted to really slow down the terrorist attacks they should have finished the job in Afghanistan (not trying to be anti U.S. on this one, Canada had it's role too) and gone from leads there. Malaysia and a bunch of other countries along the southern pacific rim have a bunch of terror organizations and they should be focusing on these areas as well as the middle east.

But now a whole new generation of terrorists have been created and inspired by what happened in the jails in Iraq. And that one you CAN blame Bush for.

[Looger]

Daradon, this guy agrees with some of what you're saying:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not sure about the whole 'Bush created a new generation of terrorists' argument.

Terrorism is something thats been around forever, the bombings and killings in the middle east have been going on for longer than any bush has been in the white house. the bottom line is that the only reason why it has come to the forefront is because the targets have become more westernized, and not in a geographic way.

No matter what American's would do its likely that it would have gotten to this point whether the American's had begun a generational intervention into the middle east or not.

America is the last global superpower, this makes them a target that can shake the global foundation more than if they set off bombs in bali or Germany or Israel.

Countries and goverrnments look for support from America, whether financial or charitable or militarily, therefore if you want to hurt your enemy you try to attack thier benefactor in the hopes that they'll cut off support.

Its too easy to blame global terrorism by Muslims or others on American's and thier foreign policy, its the surface issue, but goes no deeper then that.

The other fact of terrorism is that a great deal of it is about money. A lot of these terrorists are not motivitated by ideology or religion, or politics, a lot of these terrorists are getting paid or financed and financed well.

This recent Chechen incident looks to be financed and paid for by Al Queda, since these terrorists actually tried to escape instead of dying for thier cause, my gut feeling is they're being paid

Why dosen't anyone ask Arafat to use some of his millions to feed his own people

I'm not saying they're all mercenaries, but I'm betting a lot of them can.

No man who believes in god, or freeing his country from Russian occupation, truly would be able to find it in thier heart to slaughter woman and children. At the end of the day things are about to get worse, the Russians are going to go after Chechnya with vengence in thier hearts.

There are only two ways to stop terrorists.

find them and kill them all

Or find thier funding sources and kill those.

which is easier?

[Looger]

i don't attribute the iraqi invasion to creating all the terror we have yet to face.

at the same time i know that alquaeda has been a large factor in the organization and funding of some chechen rebel groups, but accepting russian claims that al quaeda was behind this specific attack is somewhat childish and simplistic in my opinion.

there is a hell of a lot more than al quaeda in the world of international terror. they steal the headines here but before them there were plenty more, and there will plenty more after them as well.

[transplant99]

there is a hell of a lot more than al quaeda in the world of international terror. they steal the headines here but before them there were plenty more, and there will plenty more after them as well.

Thats the truth.

One of the worst of the last 20 years was Abu Nidal, a guy that set up shop in Iraq among other places BEFORE the war. In fact he died IN Iraq, though IIRC the circumstances were muddled at best. Either a suicide or a murder at the hands of Hussein.....Which contradicts this following statement somewhat wouldnt we agree?

Originally posted by daradon
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists except for that fact that they flooded into the area when Saddam's regime fell.

Never mind the fact that Hussein himself is a confirmed terrorist with his funding of PLO suicide bombers, and not counting the terror he reigned all over his own people for 3 decades.

At any rate...terrorism is nothing new. Its a war that cannot be won, but absolutely MUST be fought.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Looger@Sep 6 2004, 02:54 AM
Daradon, this guy agrees with some of what you're saying:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

He also says this in his interview:

I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. . . . . .

. . . . . My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival.

That sounds very . . . oh, I don't know. . . "Israeli," doesn't it?

In the days immediately after 9/11, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said this from the heart in the heat of the moment:

"We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilisation, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human, political and religious rights. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries."

He had added, he hoped "the West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered communism."

In another thread some weeks ago I observed that Pakistani President Musharraf has given numerous speeches in the last few years on Muslims needing to take responsibility for their own misery. Like most Muslim leaders, religious or non-religious, his hands aren't exactly blood free but there's a growing chorus within that community for something different. We see that in the reaction in Arab media to the events in Breslin as well.

Some have also argued that the West is getting in the middle of a Muslim civil war, a conflict between the hardline elements and those who want to join the rest of the world, with 9/11 and other attacks the result as the West appears to favour one side over the other.

Comments?

Cowperson

[Looger]

comments?

yeah, here's a blast from the past:

mossadeq.

slightly pinko leader of the new iran, circa 1950s.

under the threat of commie infiltration from under beds and in closets, the hard-line pro-westen-domination-of-iranian-oil and severe butcher the shah is re-installed.

the muslim world, or more specifically (and stepping aside from iran) the arab world, is very divided.

we, the west, have chosen which side we are on.

it is not the progresive secular side. it is the backstabbers' side. the corrupt-as-all-hell saudi regime, the source of so much of our trouble these days.

and before anyone says anything, yes i know, the secular leaders are probably even more corrupt (saddam hussein, quadaffi, old man assad and his optomologist son etc.), but the fact remains - when the mideast had its coming-out party, intervention by 'our side' in the name of the cold war has had some ugly effects on the region's current state.

baathism, yes, is antisemitic in nature. but it does spawn from ataturk's secular, western dream.

i am NOT HERE to spout some ivory-tower chomsky-ish crap aboot the clash of civilizations, and how it's "all our fault..."

i simply see a traceable cause-and-effect.

why is the US the great satan in iran? hmmm.... let's go down the list:

1) backing the shah. period. no excuses. once read a 1978 article in a playboy while sifting through a stash (we were all 12...), there was plenty of warning aboot khomeini and american policy makers must have been pretty stupid not to see it. and pretty smart to keep plugging their 'main man', the shah.

2) shooting down that airliner. over iranian territory. on a planned route. the revelation that the lockerbe terrorist attack came partly from iranian money, well hell i am not surprised. mistaking a civilian jet transponder for and F-14 transponder? talk to anyone in the know aboot transponders, and yikes does that event get suspect quick.

3) the backing of iraq in the iran/iraq war. forget the rhetoric of muslim/jewish conflict. this was THE jihad of modern islam, in both scale and implications. the betrayals involved among rich 'religious' arabs and poorer secular arabs still haunt the region, years later, and have more to do with american involvement in iraq today than any other single event in my opinion.

also read a couple of books by a political advisor named said abourish, such as 'the coming fall of the house of saud'. and if i ever find a copy of his book on hussein, 'the politics of revenge', for under 50 bucks i will have to buy it.

the basic premise that this guy works from is the betrayal of poor arabs at the hands of rich ones. the 'palestinians die at the hands of the israelis and at the feet of other arabs' argument.

another book is 'children of bethany'.

absolutely amazing insight into the arab world, from the eyes of a true insider.

i am not saying we cause all the problems in the musim and arab worlds.

but to claim we, the west, are innocent bystanders, and have done no wrong, is a recipe for further education by some sick bas**rds.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The US might be the great Satan to the Iranian government, but there is mounting evidence that government is on thin ice with the people of Iran.

Just a note.

[Looger]

as i alluded to earlier,

the iranian people were anti-shah more than pro-ayatollah. the people have chafed long under the rule of the mullahs, khatami as president - a reformer - was evidence of that.

they are simply power-mongers, and change threatens them.

recent droughts, economic slowdown, friction with iran's neighbours (turkey), etc. are wearing the peoples' patience with the current regime pretty thin.

backing the shah as ridiculously as america did i see as a calculated risk that paid dividends. it got their saudi buddies into a leadership role in the arab world, and it helped move the region backwards by miles in progressive thinking.

the upcoming israeli osirak-style raid into iran will keep iran's government in business for the foreseeable future, unfortuneately methinks.