Heroes are all around us.

[Whip]

Some of the stories are starting to come out about the Mumbai attacks.

 

The employees of the Taj will be remembered for years.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4AR1OY20081128

 

 

"The man in front of my wife shielded us. He was a maintenance section staff. He took the bullets."

 

 

 

"Just imagine, they even served us food the first few hours,"

[bakerzdosen]

You know, this whole thing has been quite sad. Thanks for posting that. It's still sad, but you are right about calling them heroes.

[Gary in Aus]

It's hard to write a response that is adequate in this situation.

 

It is the murder of innocents.

 

We have had at least two Australians killed and some are still missing.

 

The gunmen were apparently after US and British passsport holders and according to a couple of the Australian survivors , their Australian passports saved their lives.

 

http://www.bigpond.com/news/world/content/20081201/2433789.asp

 

This is a really complex part of the world and people in these regions have been killing each other for the past many thousands of years. The Chinese would probably be best placed to become involved ,partly because of their previous involvment in the region and they are disliked much less than the US or UK. { I was in Mumbai in 2003 and there was a lot of anti US sentiment going around then} Mind you the Indians dislike the Chinese as well.

 

Another report from one of the captured gunmen apparently claims they were trying to kill at least 5,000.

 

The ramifications of this attack are worrying .

 

1. the impact of becoming as security conscious as the US to the point that it pervades all aspects of the country and slowly cripples it. Mumbai is probably the worlds largest motion picture production centre and threats to this would effect the whole city and region.

 

2. that the countries in the region live in fear of this episode escalating. They both have access to nuclear weapons and have been fighting with each other for years.

 

3 The contrast between the two countries is vast and their differences in wealth , population , religion and politics have seen confrontation looming . India's billion plus population apparently see's itself as the "engine room" of this part of Asia ,the dominant country, and dislikes any threats to this status.

 

4 I have visited the US in 1979 , 1981 , 1985 , 1990 , 1997, 1999, 2006 and 2007 and am concerned at the change in the country since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.The costs in increased security and changes in attitude and lifestyle caused by 9/11 were probably part of the response the terrorists were after , apparently this is also the goal of the Mumbai attacks.

 

If an aggrieved Afghanistan becomes involved with an aggrieved Pakistan against a petulant and aggrieved India then who knows what the outcomes will be.

 

This is potentially a very dangerous situation that hopefully will be resolved diplomatically.

[SANTA]

I am saddened at the loss of life, in at least 1 location a canadian was also a victim.

 

the perpetrators, and we all recognize their modus operendi will continue to do what they are doing, as their goal is to bring down western countries and governments, isolation of the USA is key, if they can't destroy us they want to isolate us, once that is achieved they can strangle us using continued threats of violence in regions were they hold sway.

 

and i believe north america is not safe. the incident here in canada says that they walk among us and are bidding their time.

recently a hairdresser (muslim) had commented to an individual that their goal was to take over our country ... so how do we prepare?

[EffBee]

And we're being told that closing Gitmo is going to be a reality.

 

This would force us to release the terrorists currently there, or try them in civilian courts where the ACLU has vowed to expose all aspects of America's intelligence gathering for the world to see, basically rendering this country a security eunuch.

 

Lovely.

[Lawman]

I am saddened at the loss of life, in at least 1 location a canadian was also a victim.

 

the perpetrators, and we all recognize their modus operendi will continue to do what they are doing, as their goal is to bring down western countries and governments, isolation of the USA is key, if they can't destroy us they want to isolate us, once that is achieved they can strangle us using continued threats of violence in regions were they hold sway.

 

and i believe north america is not safe. the incident here in canada says that they walk among us and are bidding their time.

recently a hairdresser (muslim) had commented to an individual that their goal was to take over our country ... so how do we prepare?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think you can. I posted this not long ago so many have seen it but just in case you didn't I'll post it again..It's long but well worth the read and is the best answer to your question..I would think Israel must be much farther along the learning curve when it comes to dealing with terrorism..Couldn't we perhaps learn something from them?

http://davesays.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/sheep-wolf-or-sheepdog/

[Francois_Dumas]

Not only Israel, unfortunately. In Europe we've been having this pest for many decades already. Rote Armme Fraktion, Brigata Rosi, Molukkers, PLO..... we've seen a lot of their actions and killings. Germany, Italy, Holland, Spain, England......

 

You can be prepared all you want, and make your own life miserable while at it(!) and you still will not be able to stop the one or other lunatic with a bomb.

 

Just making certain we take out the ones we know and not release the ones we capture for 'good behavior' is all we can do.

[Mike]

Some of the stories are starting to come out about the Mumbai attacks.

 

The employees of the Taj will be remembered for years.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4AR1OY20081128

 

"The man in front of my wife shielded us. He was a maintenance section staff. He took the bullets."

 

"Just imagine, they even served us food the first few hours,"

 

Those are pretty remarkable stories, the likes of which almost always emerge after terrorist attacks. They stand in striking contrast to the heartlessness of the terrorists, who invariably prey on the defenseless.

[pbharvey]

Not to start a big to do about guns and such, but does anyone know if its legal for regular citizens to carry a gun in India? I assume that even if it is, the hotel would frown on it and many of the guests are from other countries but still I wonder if some may have had somewhat of a fighting chance against the terrorists. I'm honestly just curious and not trying to high-jack this into a gun thread.

[Whip]

http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

[Francois_Dumas]

http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

 

As just about everywhere else in the world..... Where I live there are even strict rules on pellet guns !

[SeanC]

Worrying indeed. I think the attack was a beta test of sorts for a new type of tactic.

 

So how should we deal with terrorism and the medieval culture/society that spawns it?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The gunmen were apparently after US and British passsport holders and according to a couple of the Australian survivors , their Australian passports saved their lives.

 

I saw this in the news - that they were targeting US/British passport holders - but then only 4 Americans were killed, and no Britons, out of 170+ dead. Were there really not many Americans/British in the area?

[smiller]

I saw this in the news - that they were targeting US/British passport holders - but then only 4 Americans were killed, and no Britons, out of 170+ dead. Were there really not many Americans/British in the area?

Later reports I read indicated that while some attackers seemed to target US/British citizens it is not now thought that was a primary aim of the overall mission (although I hate to dignify it with such a term), rather just an intention to cause as much general mayhem as possible with an emphasis on whatever 'enemies' they could discern.

[bakerzdosen]

Worrying indeed. I think the attack was a beta test of sorts for a new type of tactic.

 

So how should we deal with terrorism and the medieval culture/society that spawns it?

Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Whip]

The Texas solution

[bakerzdosen]

The Texas solution

OK, so I'll ask a semi-serious hypothetical question then:

 

How would the situation have been different if these attacks had taken place in Dallas or Houston instead of Mumbai - with today's carry laws in effect?

 

I'm not trying to make light of a tragic situation. I do however want to point out that just because you've got a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it (or will have your wits about you in order to do so in a stressful situation.)

[Francois_Dumas]

Maybe not...... but if criminals KNOW there are a lot of guns around and people might actually shoot BACK at them, they'll have to get even better organized, come with even more.... or think twice.

 

Happenings like these...... and the Somali pirates, to name but a few, are rapidly increasing the desire to be able to defend oneself.

 

Simple but heavy punishment may be another deterrent (although not for kamikaze idiots). Back in the old days there was just ONE punishment for horse thieves, pirates and rapists I believe.....

[Firefight911]

I do however want to point out that just because you've got a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it (or will have your wits about you in order to do so in a stressful situation.)

 

And this is where the carrier better be prepared or not carry and the perp has to ask him or herself one question, do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

 

And I am not trying to make light either but I'm with Francois on his response.

[StuGotz]

Ok , that's it.

 

I'm gettin' a rifle holster for the bike.

 

MB>

[Whip]

Maybe not...... but if criminals KNOW there are a lot of guns around and people might actually shoot BACK at them, they'll have to get even better organized, come with even more.... or think twice.

 

Happenings like these...... and the Somali pirates, to name but a few, are rapidly increasing the desire to be able to defend oneself.

 

Simple but heavy punishment may be another deterrent (although not for kamikaze idiots). Back in the old days there was just ONE punishment for horse thieves, pirates and rapists I believe.....

 

 

The Dutchy is my friend......

[Francois_Dumas]

 

[EffBee]

[Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Au contraire. Enlightened doesn't have to equate to STOOPID. Politically correct doesn't have to equate to SELF VICTIMIZATION. We can be as kind and as caring as we want. But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold. If my little brother kicked the neighbor in the shins, and he came over and beat me up, I'd keep an eye on my little brother. It ain't purty. But it's effective. And we're all past purty in this world. It's a noble idea that was never workable, despite best intentions. And ultimately, it's not intentions that keep you and your family/city/country safe. It's effectiveness that does, finger-wagging and tongue-clicking be damned.

[Whip]

[Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Au contraire. Enlightened doesn't have to equate to STOOPID. Politically correct doesn't have to equate to SELF VICTIMIZATION. We can be as kind and as caring as we want. But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold. If my little brother kicked the neighbor in the shins, and he came over and beat me up, I'd keep an eye on my little brother. It ain't purty. But it's effective. And we're all past purty in this world. It's a noble idea that was never workable, despite best intentions. And ultimately, it's not intentions that keep you and your family/city/country safe. It's effectiveness, finger-wagging and tongue-clicking be damned.

 

 

Wow!!!!!

 

I'm glad I didn't kick him.

 

....as I said a while ago.....It's kill or be killed time.

 

Whip

[SeanC]

Simple but heavy punishment may be another deterrent (although not for kamikaze idiots).

Yeah-but, that's the problem... If we've learned one thing about Islamists, it's that they're all what you termed "kamikaze idiots." When martyrdom is not only the underlying tactic, but the objective -- hell, a personal and culturally-recognized reward in and of itself! -- what's a viable deterrent to that?

 

I'm not asking leading questions. I honestly have no idea what we should be doing to deter or even protect ourselves from the spread of jihad.

[smiller]

But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold.

That is exactly the justification many terrorists use when defending their actions.

[EffBee]

Simple but heavy punishment may be another deterrent (although not for kamikaze idiots).

Yeah-but, that's the problem... If we've learned one thing about Islamists, it's that they're all what you termed "kamikaze idiots." When martyrdom is not only the underlying tactic, but the objective -- hell, a personal and culturally-recognized reward in and of itself! -- what's a viable deterrent to that?

 

I'm not asking leading questions. I honestly have no idea what we should be doing to deter or even protect ourselves from the spread of jihad.

 

First, let me adjust your statement about Islamists to Islamic Extremists. Second, let them know they're going to die before they partake of any jihadist actions, and there's no Nirvana or 74 virgins, or even a good shave. They can behave and maybe get to Allah the old fashioned way. Or they can die fast, die now, and never have their eyes opened.

 

I disagree with Whip that it's Kill or Be Killed Time. But we must accept that there are those who, left unchecked and undeterred, want it to be that time for us. It's our humanity that makes us appear weak in their eyes. Show no mercy. Apologize to no one. And lay down a preemptive defense they'll never dare trigger, and they'll stay put (more or less). I don't care if the world loves us or not. No one loves the mother bear who attacks the hunters who were after her young. They do understand her, though. And they don't go near her a second time.

[Lawman]

We need more of those on our side to have guns..Big guns...that shoot lots of bullets...and we need em in all those places we don't want to get killed..That's the way I run my house and so far it's worked for me..

[azkaisr]

We need more of those on our side to have guns..Big guns...that shoot lots of bullets...and we need em in all those places we don't want to get killed..That's the way I run my house and so far it's worked for me..

 

Stop leaking out the Manifesto! Good God Man I hope the Moo doesn't read this.

 

I haven't been there in 12 years, but last time I was in a place where everyone had guns, disagreed on principles, they called it a civil war. The tipping point is really tough to measure for me. People need to feel safe, and there needs to be security. There are a lot more mentally unstable folks in the mall each year than Jihadists and I rarely take the Uzi to Sears.

But again maybe I have just been lucky so far.

 

[Lawman]

There are a lot more mentally unstable folks in the mall each year than Jihadists and I rarely take the Uzi to Sears.

 

That's precisely the reason we need to have more of the population armed..Those along with the Jihadists are the ones we need to be prepared to eliminate..

[Mark P]

The gunmen were apparently after US and British passsport holders and according to a couple of the Australian survivors , their Australian passports saved their lives.

 

I saw this in the news - that they were targeting US/British passport holders - but then only 4 Americans were killed, and no Britons, out of 170+ dead. Were there really not many Americans/British in the area?

 

Actually there was 1 British National killed, a number of others were injured and/or had lucky escapes.

[Twisties]

[Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Au contraire. Enlightened doesn't have to equate to STOOPID. Politically correct doesn't have to equate to SELF VICTIMIZATION. We can be as kind and as caring as we want. But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold. If my little brother kicked the neighbor in the shins, and he came over and beat me up, I'd keep an eye on my little brother. It ain't purty. But it's effective. And we're all past purty in this world. It's a noble idea that was never workable, despite best intentions. And ultimately, it's not intentions that keep you and your family/city/country safe. It's effectiveness that does, finger-wagging and tongue-clicking be damned.

 

Wow, no problem with collateral damage, e.g. the killing of innocent non-combatants?

 

I'll give you the scenario I gave a lady at work just after 911. In Germany there have been terrorist night club bombings that have killed hundreds. These are done by neo-Nazis. In Germany it is illegal to spread pro-Nazi literature. So it's being produced in the US by our neo-Nazis and shipped into Germany, fuleing terrorism. Germany has asked the US to stop this breaking of their laws and put an end to it. The US, citing it's free speech laws refuses.

 

By your standards Germany would be within it's rights to come into the US and bomb suspected Neo-Nazis and not care a lick if they missed and took out your home with your wife in it.

[Whip]

"I disagree with Whip that it's Kill or Be Killed Time."

 

 

 

....and were doing so good. One minute your Patton the next your Montgomery.

 

[Whip]

[Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Au contraire. Enlightened doesn't have to equate to STOOPID. Politically correct doesn't have to equate to SELF VICTIMIZATION. We can be as kind and as caring as we want. But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold. If my little brother kicked the neighbor in the shins, and he came over and beat me up, I'd keep an eye on my little brother. It ain't purty. But it's effective. And we're all past purty in this world. It's a noble idea that was never workable, despite best intentions. And ultimately, it's not intentions that keep you and your family/city/country safe. It's effectiveness that does, finger-wagging and tongue-clicking be damned.

 

Wow, no problem with collateral damage, e.g. the killing of innocent non-combatants?

 

I'll give you the scenario I gave a lady at work just after 911. In Germany there have been terrorist night club bombings that have killed hundreds. These are done by neo-Nazis. In Germany it is illegal to spread pro-Nazi literature. So it's being produced in the US by our neo-Nazis and shipped into Germany, fuleing terrorism. Germany has asked the US to stop this breaking of their laws and put an end to it. The US, citing it's free speech laws refuses.

 

By your standards Germany would be within it's rights to come into the US and bomb suspected Neo-Nazis and not care a lick if they missed and took out your home with your wife in it.

 

.......are you equating a bunch of dudes in a garage with a printing press with a bunch of dudes in their garage making bombs?????

 

 

I like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twisties]

[Ah... and that's the issue isn't it? As a so called "enlightened" society, it's not politically correct to speak of repressing another culture/society in ways that would be necessary to truly eliminate it. (Especially when using terms such as "collateral damage.") So, the current answer seems to be to suck it up and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - which is what they want anyway.

 

Au contraire. Enlightened doesn't have to equate to STOOPID. Politically correct doesn't have to equate to SELF VICTIMIZATION. We can be as kind and as caring as we want. But when it comes to bringing harm upon OUR land, OUR cities, OUR families, I have no problem with "collateral damage." Control your criminals, suppress your maniacs, and no harm will befall you. Turn away and let them loose on the world and their atrocities will be visited back upon you tenfold. If my little brother kicked the neighbor in the shins, and he came over and beat me up, I'd keep an eye on my little brother. It ain't purty. But it's effective. And we're all past purty in this world. It's a noble idea that was never workable, despite best intentions. And ultimately, it's not intentions that keep you and your family/city/country safe. It's effectiveness that does, finger-wagging and tongue-clicking be damned.

 

Wow, no problem with collateral damage, e.g. the killing of innocent non-combatants?

 

I'll give you the scenario I gave a lady at work just after 911. In Germany there have been terrorist night club bombings that have killed hundreds. These are done by neo-Nazis. In Germany it is illegal to spread pro-Nazi literature. So it's being produced in the US by our neo-Nazis and shipped into Germany, fuleing terrorism. Germany has asked the US to stop this breaking of their laws and put an end to it. The US, citing it's free speech laws refuses.

 

By your standards Germany would be within it's rights to come into the US and bomb suspected Neo-Nazis and not care a lick if they missed and took out your home with your wife in it.

 

.......are you equating a bunch of dudes in a garage with a printing press with a bunch of dudes in their garage making bombs?????

 

 

I like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would the US treat al Qaeda's media center (or whatever they have that feeds the media and the web) any different than than bin Laden's hideout?

[Whip]

 

 

 

Would the US treat al Qaeda's media center (or whatever they have that feeds the media and the web) any different than than bin Laden's hideout?

 

 

 

I don't know.....do you???????

[Boffin]

Worrying indeed. I think the attack was a beta test of sorts for a new type of tactic.

 

So how should we deal with terrorism and the medieval culture/society that spawns it?

 

As distasteful as it may be, at some point you have to talk to them. No conflict has ever been ended without some form of dialogue before the ceasefire.

 

Andy

[Twisties]

Worrying indeed. I think the attack was a beta test of sorts for a new type of tactic.

 

So how should we deal with terrorism and the medieval culture/society that spawns it?

 

As distasteful as it may be, at some point you have to talk to them. No conflict has ever been ended without some form of dialogue before the ceasefire.

 

Andy

 

Finally some sense.

[Dennis Andress]

And lay down a preemptive defense they'll never dare trigger, and they'll stay put (more or less).

 

The days of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) were insane. But, I miss how they kept our leaders from marching off to save the world.

 

 

 

There are a lot more mentally unstable folks in the mall each year than Jihadists and I rarely take the Uzi to Sears.

 

That's precisely the reason we need to have more of the population armed..Those along with the Jihadists are the ones we need to be prepared to eliminate..

 

I do feel that we need to take more responsibility for our own safety and security. However, at some point in the future we are going to have to abandon either Phoenix or Las Vegas due to lack of water. Both populations are already armed.

 

 

[Whip]

Worrying indeed. I think the attack was a beta test of sorts for a new type of tactic.

 

So how should we deal with terrorism and the medieval culture/society that spawns it?

 

As distasteful as it may be, at some point you have to talk to them. No conflict has ever been ended without some form of dialogue before the ceasefire.

 

Andy

 

 

Someone has to be defeated before a ceasefire or it just goes on forever. It's just the way it is in the middle east.

 

 

Kill or be Killed

 

Black and White.

 

The rest is just talk.

 

Sorry.....you can't fight 1000 years of history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SeanC]

First, let me adjust your statement about Islamists to Islamic Extremists.

"Islamic Extremists"? I consider that a weaker label diluted for the sake of political correctness. Besides, it conjures images of jihadists on snowboards chugging Mt. Dew and yelling "Allah to the max, bro!" on ESPN 8, the Ocho. No, I use the term "Islamists" as its followers define it. It is not a synonym for "Islamic" or "Muslim." It is an ideology that seeks to apply sharia (a medieval concept of Islamic law) to modern society. Their goal is to establish a pan-Islamic state, and to achieve this, they believe the elimination of non-Muslims is necessary.

 

Islamists by definition are Islamic extremists. There is nothing even remotely moderate or reasonable about their ideology or their methods. I'm not saying you shouldn't use the term Islamic Extremists; I'm just explaining why I don't.

 

As for the second part, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but does the non-Muslim world (Israel excluded) have the will to pursue such a policy? I mean, if events such as 9/11, Bali 10/12, Madrid 3/11, London 7/7 and now Mumbai are insufficient to muster such a resolve, what's it going to take?

 

Gary said he hopes diplomacy can resolve the problem, but hope ain't a plan, and diplomacy's only as effective as the guy on the other side of the table.

 

 

[SeanC]

As distasteful as it may be, at some point you have to talk to them. No conflict has ever been ended without some form of dialogue before the ceasefire.

That sounds reasonable, Andy, but who is this "them"? Who sits down at the table and talks with us?

 

The Islamist movement in general, and al qaeda specifically, are designed as distributed systems. There is no central authority, no diplomatic corps, no phone numbers or mailing addresses. It's very much like a computer virus. Sure, you can bring the virus author to the table, but once the virus is in circulation, he's not going to be able to control it or make it stop.

[Twisties]

As distasteful as it may be, at some point you have to talk to them. No conflict has ever been ended without some form of dialogue before the ceasefire.

That sounds reasonable, Andy, but who is this "them"? Who sits down at the table and talks with us?

 

The Islamist movement in general, and al qaeda specifically, are designed as distributed systems. There is no central authority, no diplomatic corps, no phone numbers or mailing addresses. It's very much like a computer virus. Sure, you can bring the virus author to the table, but once the virus is in circulation, he's not going to be able to control it or make it stop.

 

On the other hand, the factors that motivate the Islamists are likely to be similar amongst them all. You suggest that talking is hopeless because their ideology requires our elimination. This suggests your view that there is a unifying vision and ideology in the movement. At present I think it's fair to say we don't really understand these people or what they want. I would argue as well, that in many cases it may enough to understand what their recruits want, before they are indoctrinated. If we can establish conditions that make becoming an Islamist a less attractive option, we will have taken a step.

 

You have already pointed out that the world is not going to do what it costs to eliminate them. Given that reality, what would you do? I see no harm in talking.

 

That said, I think we will see a big change in world approach over the next few years. I'm very hopeful that we can now formulate a unified and coordinated global policy with global resources brought to bear.

 

One way or another, I think we would agree that we are locked in a religious war, or the resurgence of one that has been going on since the Crusades or before, and that it is dire.

 

Finally we agree on something.

[smiller]

On the other hand, the factors that motivate the Islamists are likely to be similar amongst them all. You suggest that talking is hopeless because their ideology requires our elimination. This suggests your view that there is a unifying vision and ideology in the movement. At present I think it's fair to say we don't really understand these people or what they want. I would argue as well, that in many cases it may enough to understand what their recruits want, before they are indoctrinated. If we can establish conditions that make becoming an Islamist a less attractive option, we will have taken a step.

This is exactly what they don't want. They need us as an enemy if they themselves are to survive. They don't want the West to show any interest in the concerns of the Muslim world, they don't want us to try to understand/address/educate potential recruits, or make any positive actions at all. What they want is a thoughtless, chest-pounding military response (which they know very well has no chance in destroying the movement all by itself) to provide plenty of pictures of our 'aggression' and similar propaganda. So far we have played precisely into their hands.

 

 

[SeanC]

On the other hand, the factors that motivate the Islamists are likely to be similar amongst them all. You suggest that talking is hopeless because their ideology requires our elimination. This suggests your view that there is a unifying vision and ideology in the movement. At present I think it's fair to say we don't really understand these people or what they want.

They want to eliminate non-Muslims. They've made that abundantly clear. And by elimination, they're not just referring to our ideas, our social mores, our political and economic influence, but our very existence. They also seek to eliminate an entire nation -- Israel -- along with all the people calling themselves Israelis.

 

What part of that are we not "really" understanding?

 

I would argue as well, that in many cases it may enough to understand what their recruits want, before they are indoctrinated. If we can establish conditions that make becoming an Islamist a less attractive option, we will have taken a step.

These are people who strap bombs to themselves, who use their heartbeat as timers, who fly planes into buildings, who conduct suicide missions in crowded metropolises armed with nothing more than Kalashnikovs and hand-grenades. How do we make that less attractive? Unlike, say, the IRA, they have no list of negotiable grievances... unless you consider our existence negotiable.

 

And maybe that's the condition... maybe we should just completely withdraw from that part of the world... But then, what about the non-Islamists in the Islamic world, the people, governments and enterprises who do seek our engagement and involvement?

 

You have already pointed out that the world is not going to do what it costs to eliminate them. Given that reality, what would you do? I see no harm in talking.

I don't know what to do. And I see no harm in talking, but I see no benefit either, even if we knew who to talk to.

 

"Osama! Long time, huh? So talk to me, babe. Let's get to the bottom of all this. Whatta we need for a win/win?"

 

That said, I think we will see a big change in world approach over the next few years. I'm very hopeful that we can now formulate a unified and coordinated global policy with global resources brought to bear.

What does that mean? If you're talking about achieving better relations with our co-infidels (read: Europe), absolutely. I'm hopeful too. But what do coordinated global policies with global resources mean to Islamists?

[Twisties]

On the other hand, the factors that motivate the Islamists are likely to be similar amongst them all. You suggest that talking is hopeless because their ideology requires our elimination. This suggests your view that there is a unifying vision and ideology in the movement. At present I think it's fair to say we don't really understand these people or what they want.

 

They want to eliminate non-Muslims. They've made that abundantly clear. And by elimination, they're not just referring to our ideas, our social mores, our political and economic influence, but our very existence. They also seek to eliminate an entire nation -- Israel -- along with all the people calling themselves Israelis.

 

What part of that are we not "really" understanding?

 

Why? Why do they want this, and is this what they really want, or a strategy towards something else? I don't think it's well understood in the western world. I hear all sorts of reasons. With a deeper understanding we may be able to motivate Muslims against them. They need a cooperative Muslim society. As well, we might find enough common ground to achieve some degree of peace.

 

I would argue as well, that in many cases it may enough to understand what their recruits want, before they are indoctrinated. If we can establish conditions that make becoming an Islamist a less attractive option, we will have taken a step.

 

These are people who strap bombs to themselves, who use their heartbeat as timers, who fly planes into buildings, who conduct suicide missions in crowded metropolises armed with nothing more than Kalashnikovs and hand-grenades. How do we make that less attractive? Unlike, say, the IRA, they have no list of negotiable grievances... unless you consider our existence negotiable.

 

And maybe that's the condition... maybe we should just completely withdraw from that part of the world... But then, what about the non-Islamists in the Islamic world, the people, governments and enterprises who do seek our engagement and involvement?

 

Obviously you missed my point. I was talking about preventing Muslims from becoming Islamists, not what they will do or what they believe once converted.

 

That said, I think we will see a big change in world approach over the next few years. I'm very hopeful that we can now formulate a unified and coordinated global policy with global resources brought to bear.

 

What does that mean? If you're talking about achieving better relations with our co-infidels (read: Europe), absolutely. I'm hopeful too. But what do coordinated global policies with global resources mean to Islamists?

 

Hopefully a much harder time conducting operations, much more restricted resources, fewer recruits, etc.

[David]

Why? Why do they want this, and is this what they really want, or a strategy towards something else? I don't think it's well understood in the western world. I hear all sorts of reasons. With a deeper understanding we may be able to motivate Muslims against them. They need a cooperative Muslim society. As well, we might find enough common ground to achieve some degree of peace.

 

They hate us because we treat women as equal members of humanity, because we allow freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

 

Look it up and with a little searching you'll find that in their own words.

 

Are you willing to give any of those things up? I'm not.

 

I am willing to meddle in their affairs less, for sure, which has exacerbated the issues. But the fundamental differences are still there.

 

Hell, militant Muslims are willing to kill more open-minded ones. It's a fool's errand to think we can come to a reasonable compromise.

 

I'm not comfortable with collateral damage unless there is no other way, and unless those hurt have repeatedly done nothing to stop their own people.

[David]

Here's a good start:

 

http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1362

[smiller]

More than anything else their leaders want power, just like any other of history's megalomaniacs, and one of the more effective ways of gathering and controlling their following is to create a common enemy. That is our role, and by so willingly assuming it we are greatly delaying their downfall. Killing 100 civilians to take out a third-rate commander is a foolish strategy in the extreme, whether those civilians did anything to stop him or not.

[Whip]

On the other hand, the factors that motivate the Islamists are likely to be similar amongst them all. You suggest that talking is hopeless because their ideology requires our elimination. This suggests your view that there is a unifying vision and ideology in the movement. At present I think it's fair to say we don't really understand these people or what they want. I would argue as well, that in many cases it may enough to understand what their recruits want, before they are indoctrinated. If we can establish conditions that make becoming an Islamist a less attractive option, we will have taken a step.

This is exactly what they don't want. They need us as an enemy if they themselves are to survive. They don't want the West to show any interest in the concerns of the Muslim world, they don't want us to try to understand/address/educate potential recruits, or make any positive actions at all. What they want is a thoughtless, chest-pounding military response (which they know very well has no chance in destroying the movement all by itself) to provide plenty of pictures of our 'aggression' and similar propaganda. So far we have played precisely into their hands.

 

 

As someone raised in a family with both the Qur’an and the Bible at every family gathering nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

I can't believe someone as smart as you in so many ways could utter such a statement. Unless your pullin my chain. In that case.

 

Go for it.

 

 

 

 

David has it very close to what this is all about.