Do terrorists win even when they lose?

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: yllus
I wrote a lot above, but it's really not very far-fetched and is as simple as 1 -> 2 -> 3. Is it a sign of overdone paranoia that I can see it actually happening?

That is exactly what I see happening IF WE STAY. History has shown that the Taliban is the direct consequence of staying the course. Lets try a different option and maybe we'll get a different outcome. Either way, it'll be far cheaper.

The Taliban was the direct consequence of abandoning Afghanistan to its own doom after our proxy war in the region was won. We have very literally seen the results of allowing a Taliban-like group a safe base of operations - what calamity would occur with that group strengthened 100x over?

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: yllus
The central end goal, in this case, is the abolition of our morally degenerate society in favour of an Islamically-minded one.

What an utterly laughable notion, since al Qaeda numerous times has stated nothing even close to the notion of worldwide domination. You make them sound like The Borg :laugh:

If you're silly enough to want a Taliban-ruled pan-Middle East Islamic state, then I suppose you would be silly enough to think that they'd kick back their heels at that point and declare normalized relations with the rest of the world. Because Afghanistan totally worked out that way.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: yllus
So you have an extremist-governed pan-Middle Eastern state with nuclear capabilities and control of an enormous chunk of the world's oil supplies.

At least you finally admitted what our war is about.

Yes, I did. I said early on:

Originally posted by: yllus
It's ideology versus ideology, and it's seemingly impossible for more than one to flourish at the same time.

Thanks for reading!

 

[theeedude]

Yep, the likes of Dick Cheney make sure we are terrorized and terrified even if the terrorists fail.

 

[jpeyton]

yllus, you're not going to find much support here, even among the most vehement pro-war anti-terror members, for your idea that the Taliban will rule the Middle East. It's just not going to happen. Iran will still be Iran. Saudi Arabia will still be Saudi Arabia. They are not going to dissolve their borders, dissolve their governments and promote some two-bit warlords to their heads of state.

It's a great fear-mongering tactic though, but luckily it seems to be limited to your view in this thread.

 

[yllus]

That displays your own ignorance of the history of the region.

Iran has attempted to be the mover-and-shaker to create that unified pan-Middle East Islamic state. So it was the goal of Iraq under Hussein as well. Playing one off the other was a primary objective of the United States in earlier decades to prevent either from happening (Iran/Iraq war).

Iraq made a move in 1991 to do this, Kuwait being its first step - Saudi Arabia the second. They were beaten back soundly - heavily by luck of timing - by NATO forces.

Al-Qaeda claims to be avenging wrongs committed by Christians and Jews against Muslims over the ages.

It wants to re-shape the Muslim world, replacing secular states with a single Islamic political leadership.

It also wants to drive Americans and other non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites.

Al-Qaeda draws support from people who see the US's military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its support for Israel, as a war against Islam itself.

BBC - Quick Guide: Al-Qaeda
Note that I never said that it would be Al Qaeda who pulls off this move. It's much more likely to happen at the hands of Iran. Frankly, to me the name of the particular sect that wins in pushing extremist Islam on the entire region is unimportant. Quibble with that detail if you wish.

Again, what do you suppose happens if one group achieves majority control of the Middle East? Peace in our time?

 

[Lemon law]

In any society there are always those who are uphappy---and try to impose their views on a larger society that is not buying any of it. We have both abortion clinic bombers
and Animal rights activists. Even though these people do feel they have a compelling case on being right--the larger society ignores them---and they become criminals and terrorists when they start taking active steps to enforce their views by violent means. But neither of these aforementioned groups are an example of the appeal of terrorism.

Serious terrorism happens when the voices of moderation are driven out by the extremists on either side of an issue. One group holds the military power and oppresses another group
along social or religious grounds---and the very conflict drives the entire society---such a classic case can be found in the Protestant vs. Catholic split in Ireland which started with teh Protestant English taking over a Catholic Ireland many centuries ago---the Irish fought back but the larger and stronger English army won---after that the best economic jobs went to Protestants----and the catholic Irish got the dregs---unable to resist militarily they turned to terrorism---and so it went for hundreds of years---now the terrorism is largely defused there---some may say it was because the English actually opened talks with the IRA through Jerry Adams---but I point out that Ireland attracted many new factories that employed
Protestants and Catholics without discriminating---and without the reason for terrorism---terrorism just slowly wilts.

Right now the USA is trying to occupy Iraq---and playing with powerful culteral forces our leadership is clueless about----but if we decide the modern Moslem terrorist is just some beloved patriot who hates freedom and justice---we will never even start to come to understand how we can defuse the hatreds that drive terrorism---and due to that failure we will ineveitably increase terrorism.

Its only total desperation that drives most of the population into supporting terrorism---when that happens---its a big clue that something is deeply wrong---and until that deep wrong is corrected---and fundemental human justice is restored---you will only get more terrorism for a longer time.

There are always terrorists like Bin Laden---that normallally would get little support---but when they can hitch their wierd agenda to another valid social cause---they can become quite
a problem. Nor do countries like Israel---who are very repressive--make solving intractable problems easier.

But when you have large amounts of terrorism---you can always bet their is something deeply unjust about the larger society its opperting in.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: yllus
That displays your own ignorance of the history of the region.

Iran has attempted to be the mover-and-shaker to create that unified pan-Middle East Islamic state. So it was the goal of Iraq under Hussein as well. Playing one off the other was a primary objective of the United States in earlier decades to prevent either from happening (Iran/Iraq war).

Iraq made a move in 1991 to do this, Kuwait being its first step - Saudi Arabia the second. They were beaten back soundly - heavily by luck of timing - by NATO forces.

Al-Qaeda claims to be avenging wrongs committed by Christians and Jews against Muslims over the ages.

It wants to re-shape the Muslim world, replacing secular states with a single Islamic political leadership.

It also wants to drive Americans and other non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites.

Al-Qaeda draws support from people who see the US's military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its support for Israel, as a war against Islam itself.

BBC - Quick Guide: Al-Qaeda
Note that I never said that it would be Al Qaeda who pulls off this move. It's much more likely to happen at the hands of Iran. Frankly, to me the name of the particular sect that wins in pushing extremist Islam on the entire region is unimportant. Quibble with that detail if you wish.

Again, what do you suppose happens if one group achieves majority control of the Middle East? Peace in our time?

That simply will not happen, as long as the US and others have any say in the matter.

It's not like the Syrian government wants to be taken over by another, nor SA, nor anyone else in the ME. That, and the USA and allies would bomb the crap out of Iran after the invade one country.