Are we safer? Are we better off?

[OmahaLDS]

That is a stark difference from the last Presidents policy of we will fight terrorism any were we find it. You may want to notice that having a policy, doesn't guarantee out come.

That's actually the problem, the policy has never been "fight terrorism any were we find it". Al-Qaeda was sponsored by the US when they were fighting the Soviets. Iraq was supported by the US when they were fighting the Iranians. In both cases the people that were supported were bad people, but at the time, the short term goals were met and long term goals were ignored.

This is the problem with all foreign policy. Long term goals have to be considered. Most of US policy in the Middle East has been so short term that it is really kind of absurd.

While it is nice to think that we fight terrorism wherever we see it, the reality is very different.

[Hemidakota]

That's actually the problem, the policy has never been "fight terrorism any were we find it". Al-Qaeda was sponsored by the US when they were fighting the Soviets. Iraq was supported by the US when they were fighting the Iranians. In both cases the people that were supported were bad people, but at the time, the short term goals were met and long term goals were ignored.

This is the problem with all foreign policy. Long term goals have to be considered. Most of US policy in the Middle East has been so short term that it is really kind of absurd.

While it is nice to think that we fight terrorism wherever we see it, the reality is very different.

Islamist Mujahideen Resistance was anti-soviet and had no ties to Al-Qaeda since it was not even form at this time. It was Joe Wilson plight to aid these bands with anything that could defeat the Soviets at their own game. Now, when he left it, what remain of shipped arms fell into the different factions who at the time were fighting among themselves for power.

Since CIA was the faulting party in supporting Iraq over Iran, I can agree. We simply should have not been involved with this war no matter our discontent with the new Iran regime and aiding a murderer who climbs to rank is no different from other thugs today.

We need to fight terrorism at its own confrontational level and not as if it is all out war.

[OmahaLDS]

Islamist Mujahideen Resistance was anti-soviet and had no ties to Al-Qaeda since it was not even form at this time. It was Joe Wilson plight to aid these bands with anything that could defeat the Soviets at their own game. Now, when he left it, what remain of shipped arms fell into the different factions who at the time were fighting among themselves for power.

Bin Laden got his start in Afghanistan. The shift to his control and a name change does little to change the overall nature of the individuals involved. It was Afghanistan that mobilized and developed the networks that are dangerous today. World War I both provided the impetus for the Soviet and Fascist movements, for example. Germany actually supported the Soviets by sending Lenin into Russia. The Soviet union then attacked Germany in WWII. I do not think the situations are really that dissimilar.

We need to fight terrorism at its own confrontational level and not as if it is all out war.

Well one problem is that we cannot fight terrorism. Terrorism is a military tactic. It would be like trying to fight air warfare. Incidentally America has its own terrorists who were patriots. The Boston Tea Party could be considered a terrorist act, as could the tactics of Francis Marion.

What we can do is try to undermine groups that employ terrorism, but this requires a significant reassessment of how we view the issues involved.

[Hemidakota]

Let you know he was not in-charge since there was more than one faction involved during the Soviet regime of Afghanistan. This has nothing to do with AQ at all or saying we aided AQ. This maybe a slap in the face for poor journalism we see today on seeking to find answers of who did it and why.

Yes! There is still an element under the veil of the cloak and daggers [travelers knows what I am referring too] agency and aided by the military to seek out AQ leaders; as well with the latest thugs of the Taliban. This was talked about few years ago as Bush announced the war on terrorist by the newly appointed Def Sec. We play the game on the same level as them but in a minor way. But generally, we need to back out of a country whose populous refuses to fight for their own freedom as it was in the case of Vietnam. It becomes useless at this point to help your neighbor when the neighbor refuses to help himself.

[boyando]

While it is nice to think that we fight terrorism wherever we see it, the reality is very different.

My point is that you can state a policy, as President Bush did by making the statement, we will fight terrorism wherever we see it, and then not follow through. FDR's policy, from his first election, was to never enter into a war in Europe again.

Bush's policy was based on being attacked and finding way to not be attacked in the future.

Roosevelt's policy was too try and stay out of war. But war came anyway and he did not falter.

Obama's policy is, diplomacy will alow us to avoid conflict, all together.

All three of these Presidents, will or have fallen short of there stated goals. All because the aggressor set's the rules. And we Americans, don't like being the aggressor, so the rules keep changing.

Long term policy will continue to fall apart, as long as terrorist continues to make changes in there tactics.

I think diplomacy works very well, among peoples with like minded thinking. That is why I believe that our nations safety, has gone from bad to worse.

b

[OmahaLDS]

Let you know he was not in-charge since there was more than one faction involved during the Soviet regime of Afghanistan.

? Who?

This has nothing to do with AQ at all or saying we aided AQ.

But we did. Just because it was not called Al-Qaeda does not mean it was not the primordial soup that eventually became Al-Qaeda.

This maybe a slap in the face for poor journalism we see today on seeking to find answers of who did it and why.

Actually it is history, not journalism. I suppose the two issues are mixed, since some of the best histories have been written by journalists.

Yes! There is still an element under the veil of the cloak and daggers [travelers knows what I am referring too] agency and aided by the military to seek out AQ leaders; as well with the latest thugs of the Taliban.

You are aware that if you had knowledge of a secret program to discuss it on any discussion forum would be a violation of your security clearance? As well as illegal?

If you have open source information, I would be interested in seeing it.

This was talked about few years ago as Bush announced the war on terrorist by the newly appointed Def Sec.

I assume you are referring to "Ghost Wars"?

We play the game on the same level as them but in a minor way. But generally, we need to back out of a country whose populous refuses to fight for their own freedom as it was in the case of Vietnam. It becomes useless at this point to help your neighbor when the neighbor refuses to help himself.

You are misconstruing both conflicts.

[OmahaLDS]

My point is that you can state a policy, as President Bush did by making the statement, we will fight terrorism wherever we see it, and then not follow through.

That is in fact true, but it also makes the statement sort of silly. All of the talk of fighting for freedom and democracy in the Middle East is kind of absurd when the US is simultaneously supporting dictators in the Middle East. It is one thing to be hypocritical, it is another to be blatantly hypocritical.

Long term policy will continue to fall apart, as long as terrorist continues to make changes in there tactics.

Terrorists have not really changed their tactics in hundreds of years. It is a pretty straightforward idea.

I think diplomacy works very well, among peoples with like minded thinking. That is why I believe that our nations safety, has gone from bad to worse.

Diplomacy is actually a very, very good tool against terrorism, as it undercuts the political support the movement requires for existence.

[OmahaLDS]

Sweet, thanks

If you are really interested in a good book on the subject Dr. Augustus Norton has written a nice, compact history on Hezbollah.

Amazon.com: Hezbollah: A Short History (Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics) (9780691131245): Augustus Richard Norton: Books

They are interesting group, they are very interested in taking care of people while killing others. In many ways they are like a violent version of the Salvation Army. They are bizarre if you do not understand them. If you do understand them, they are very calculating, but still somewhat bizarre.

[talisyn]

Why must it be partisan politics with all of you? You think terrorists care which political party is in the White House? Geez! You're like my 2 kids...

"Where is the gift wrapping tape?"

"I didn't do it. My brother did it!"

"Mommy, my brother is lying, I didn't do it!"

Sigh. All I wanted was to find the tape...

Thanks for singling me out. After all, if I didn't speak there would be no partisan discussion on this board. Duly chastised.

[Guest]

Thanks for singling me out. After all, if I didn't speak there would be no partisan discussion on this board. Duly chastised.

Not singling out... is why I said, "with all of you"... that was meant to say "all of you making this a partisan discussion".

[talisyn]

But you quoted me lol I'm feeling paranoid, time for bed.

[Moksha]

There are thousands of members of Hezbollah in the US already! The same can not be said for Al-Qaeda, for example.

Al-Qaeda has a stated goal of attacking the US, Hezbollah does not.

Both groups have a history of terrorism and an ever present capacity to wage more terrorist activities. They both need to be continually scrutinized.

[Moksha]

But you quoted me lol I'm feeling paranoid, time for bed.

Talisyn, you can continue to be a voice of reason on the other more partisan threads.

[OmahaLDS]

There are thousands of members of Hezbollah in the US already!

Hezbollah is a MUCH more multifaceted organization than Al-Qaeda. Hezbollah is more like the IRA, with non-terrorist activities. There were/are IRA members in the US for years, but it did not really matter.

The same can not be said for Al-Qaeda, for example.

The groups are very, very different. Comparing them is not as easy as you think.

Both groups have a history of terrorism and an ever present capacity to wage more terrorist activities. They both need to be continually scrutinized.

Scrutiny does not equal fear mongering, which is what is being done here. Hezbollah is a political movement that actually can be engaged. Al-Qaeda is not. You really might find the book by Dr. Norton interesting if you can find it.

[Traveler]

I thought I would post something about Middle Eastern conflicts. The first and most important thing is to understand age old traditions. The Arabic peoples and religion believe that Allah gave the people of Arabia three great gifts. The first of these great gifts is of particular interest. The first gift was water. Water and control of water is the first goal of anyone seeking power in the Middle East. Water is more important than oil, more important than money. From tradition, control of water is proof that G-d is on your side.

It is not about territory or oil – it is about water. This is why Israel is such a thorn to Islamic peoples that are wealthy with oil; Israel controls the water – especially the water of Jerusalem. This is a greater threat to Islam than Science is to Christianity. The conflict of the Middle East is for control of water. We will not end the conflict in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East until we are willing to use water as a weapon.

The Traveler

[boyando]

Diplomacy is actually a very, very good tool against terrorism, as it undercuts the political support the movement requires for existence.

Diplomacy is only good when it works. Diplomacy only works when there is a reward for what you wish to accomplish or a disincentive for actions contrary to your goal.

In the case of Iran for instance, we have nothing they want (except maybe if we did a mass suicide, by every non Muslim in the US). They don't believe we will attack them. So, why are they going to give up there nukes? Is it because we will, through the United Nations, cut off food and medicine, like we did with Iraq? What does the government of Iran have to gain by dropping their nuclear program?

We tend to think that they would think like we do, but they don't. We like to think that they want peace because we want peace. But the government of Iran has already shown that they don't care for peace, but prefer chaos. Chaos, will bring there Messiah, who will bring peace through the elimination of infidels.

Not every one of the Islamic faith believes this way. In fact I would say that 95% do not. But a 100% of the leaders in Iran do. So how do you achieve a goal of security for our nation, through diplomacy, with a government like Iran's?

b

[Islander]

Here are some of the stats:

1983 US Embassy attacked: 63 killed. Same year the Marine barracks in Beirut blown away 241 killed.

1984 Torrejon, Spain: 18 killed. same year Kuwait Airline plane 4 dead

1985 TWA flight 1 US navy diver killed

Since then, Hezbollah has killed more civilians in terrorist bombing in the ME, Asia and even in South America than any other group. Just today, HLS hinted that there is a link between the Christmas Eve failed attack and the Iranians.

Again, a threat assessment relates to who can actually do the most damage and not which one is the dog that barks the most. What we call Al Qaeda is a loose and for the most part autonomous cohorts of the mujaheddin that share a common ideology. Hezbollah has the organizational structure, finance, training, support and operational capabilities that Al Qaeda lacks. Remember, their slogan "was, is and always will be: death to America" That is a pretty telling statement.

[Elphaba]

There is still an element under the veil of the cloak and daggers [travelers knows what I am referring too]. . . .

If Traveler knows, why can't the rest of us know as well. What is this "cloak and daggers" entity you are talking about?

Or is this yet another cryptic reference to something you just happen to know about even though the rest of the planet has no clue, with the apparent exception of Traveler).

For example, I'm still waiting for you to provide the post where you claimed you had a vision of airplanes flying into tall buildings prior to 9/11.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

FDR's policy of "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" was designed to keep us out of war.

Actually the phrase is "Speak softly, but carry a big stick," and it was Theodore Roosevelt, not Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said it.

T Roosevelt was referring to his strong belief that diplomacy was the most effective way to deal with areas of disagreement with other countries.

Of course, his diplomacy was always backed up with the threat of the big stick of military might.

Sis

[Hemidakota]

If Traveler knows, why can't the rest of us know as well. What is this "cloak and daggers" entity you are talking about?

Or is this yet another cryptic reference to something you just happen to know about even though the rest of the planet has no clue, with the apparent exception of Traveler).

For example, I'm still waiting for you to provide the post where you claimed you had a vision of airplanes flying into tall buildings prior to 9/11.

Elphaba

My mail is still monitored by our lovely government based on previous works I have done and still do at times. I have found there are moments you can ride the line in casting pearls to the cyber friends and then there moments that is not smart to do it.

That was back in 2000 and was posted on site that is no longer operating. However, in receiving dreams or visions on that order is a constant in life and not unusual for any person who do listen to the Spirit.

[OmahaLDS]

I thought I would post something about Middle Eastern conflicts. The first and most important thing is to understand age old traditions. The Arabic peoples and religion believe that Allah gave the people of Arabia three great gifts. The first of these great gifts is of particular interest. The first gift was water. Water and control of water is the first goal of anyone seeking power in the Middle East. Water is more important than oil, more important than money. From tradition, control of water is proof that G-d is on your side.

That is an interesting position. While it is possible, in my time in the ME, I never came across that belief (that God gave the Arabs the gift of water). He did give Hagar water, but I am not sure that is what you are referring to.

It is not about territory or oil – it is about water. This is why Israel is such a thorn to Islamic peoples that are wealthy with oil; Israel controls the water – especially the water of Jerusalem. This is a greater threat to Islam than Science is to Christianity. The conflict of the Middle East is for control of water. We will not end the conflict in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East until we are willing to use water as a weapon.

This is incorrect.

When it comes to people who are really wealthy with oil, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, etc... none of them share a water source with Israel. Those countries that DO share a water source with Israel, Egypt possibly, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, two already have peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

In fact the only water source that is an issue is really the Jordan river, and it does not originate in Israeli territory at all, making Israel the weaker partner in the situation. So far, any discussion of Israel and water, outside of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, is invalid. Afghanistan certainly has nothing to do with Israel and water.

Afghanistan is actually central Asia, and not really Middle Eastern.

So you are correct that water is an issue, but incorrect in the magnitude, relationships, and even which sources are in conflict (if you think water in the UAE has anything to do with Israel).

Edited December 31, 2009 by OmahaLDS

[OmahaLDS]

In the case of Iran for instance, we have nothing they want

That is not true at all. Most Iranians want a closer relationship with the West and US.

(except maybe if we did a mass suicide, by every non Muslim in the US)

That is an absurd statement. If you want to seriously discuss the issue, such statements would best be left at the door. It is untrue, and really kind of silly.

They don't believe we will attack them.

I do not think that is true either.

So, why are they going to give up there nukes?

Because we remove the incentive to have them. Having nuclear weapons puts a nation in a category that only a select few are in. It grants international dignitas. If that can be provided by another means, it may change the equation. Having nukes is also costly, so there is legitimate reason to avoid the acquisition.

Is it because we will, through the United Nations, cut off food and medicine, like we did with Iraq?

No. Sanctions have never worked.

What does the government of Iran have to gain by dropping their nuclear program?

International aid and assistance.

We tend to think that they would think like we do, but they don't. We like to think that they want peace because we want peace. But the government of Iran has already shown that they don't care for peace, but prefer chaos.

That is not true at all.

Chaos, will bring there Messiah, who will bring peace through the elimination of infidels.

Again not correct. "Their" Mahdi will appear simultaneously with Christ, oddly enough.

Not every one of the Islamic faith believes this way. In fact I would say that 95% do not. But a 100% of the leaders in Iran do. So how do you achieve a goal of security for our nation, through diplomacy, with a government like Iran's?

b

This is odd. Shias are 20% of Islam. You're saying only 25% of Shias believe this? It is also odd that you say 100% of Iran's leaders when it should be clear to anyone who has watched news in the past few weeks that there is significant disagreement between leaders in Iran.

[OmahaLDS]

My mail is still monitored by our lovely government based on previous works I have done and still do at times. I have found there are moments you can ride the line in casting pearls to the cyber friends and then there moments that is not smart to do it.

That was back in 2000 and was posted on site that is no longer operating. However, in receiving dreams or visions on that order is a constant in life and not unusual for any person who do listen to the Spirit.

This does not necessarily sound that stable.

[Traveler]

That is an interesting position. While it is possible, in my time in the ME, I never came across that belief (that God gave the Arabs the gift of water). He did give Hagar water, but I am not sure that is what you are referring to.

This is incorrect.

When it comes to people who are really wealthy with oil, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, etc... none of them share a water source with Israel. Those countries that DO share a water source with Israel, Egypt possibly, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, two already have peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

In fact the only water source that is an issue is really the Jordan river, and it does not originate in Israeli territory at all, making Israel the weaker partner in the situation. So far, any discussion of Israel and water, outside of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, is invalid. Afghanistan certainly has nothing to do with Israel and water.

Afghanistan is actually central Asia, and not really Middle Eastern.

So you are correct that water is an issue, but incorrect in the magnitude, relationships, and even which sources are in conflict (if you think water in the UAE has anything to do with Israel).

My sources on water are Omar Kadar (married my cozen – I also attended school with his brother Abraham). Omar has been a consultant of several administrations in Washington DC. A second source I will present is a personal friend, Bashar El Nasser a citizen of Bahrain (one of the most oppressive countries of the Middle East and where the largest US navy base in the Middle East is located).

The three great gifts of Allah to Arabs (Arabian Peninsula) are as follows:

1. Water

2. The domestic camel

3. The Tree of Life. (A date palm tree with white fruit)

These gifts are also spoken of in the Koran but most associated with the Arabian Peninsula.

The major conflict that we are interested in the west is the conflict with Israel and the Palestinians (the heritage of Omar). This conflict has its roots in the Ottoman Empire with fingers that go back to the Crusades. Many in Islam look upon the Crusades with the same affection that most modern Christians look upon jihad. The conflict between Palestinians and Israel is about water and who controls it.

There is another conflict in the Middle East that few from the West have any understanding. That is the conflict between Shiite and Sunni. Few in the West – and this includes within the USA administrations such as the state department, CIA (and other intelligence organizations) and Home Land Security even know which Islamic fundamentalist organizations are Shiite and Sunni. For example is Al Qaeda predominantly Shiite or Sunni? The reason this is important is because of fundamental differences and that each needs to be approached and dealt with differently. The resent Terror plots (Texas and North West airlines) involved which group – Shiite or Sunni? Try to find that in the News. If anyone can tell me which group (Shiite or Sunni) were involved in these incidents (without looking it up) I will believe you are somewhat informed – If you do not know, then please realize that you do not know squat and start doing some research before displaying your ignorance.

The Traveler

BTW - Bahrain has no oil but is ruled by a branch of the same family that rules Saudi Arabia.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Traveler
added BTW

[OmahaLDS]

My sources on water are Omar Kadar (married my cozen – I also attended school with his brother Abraham). Omar has been a consultant of several administrations in Washington DC. A second source I will present is a personal friend, Bashar El Nasser a citizen of Bahrain (one of the most oppressive countries of the Middle East and where the largest US navy base in the Middle East is located).

Thanks for the appeal to authority.

My sources are a Masters Degree in Middle Eastern studies, I lived in the Middle East, I speak Arabic, and I have studied/worked in the region for a decade.

None of this has any bearing on your comments regarding beliefs, water, or anything similar.

Additional, Bahrain is surprisingly open for a Middle Eastern country, has one of the most open economies in the Middle East, does not require the hijab, and sold alcohol, an oddity. There was some effort to end this, but I do not know if it passed.

You might want to ensure the person you are speaking to did not live in Bahrain (or anywhere else in the Middle East) before lecturing them on Bahrain.

The three great gifts of Allah to Arabs (Arabian Peninsula) are as follows:

1. Water

2. The domestic camel

3. The Tree of Life. (A date palm tree with white fruit)

Can you cite a source where these three are specifically called out? It is certainly possible, but I have never seen them specifically delineated.

These gifts are also spoken of in the Koran but most associated with the Arabian Peninsula.

Which sura?

The major conflict that we are interested in the west is the conflict with Israel and the Palestinians (the heritage of Omar).

The current conflict has nothing to do with Omar, of the Rashidun. What are you talking about?

This conflict has its roots in the Ottoman Empire with fingers that go back to the Crusades.

This is not true at all.

Many in Islam look upon the Crusades with the same affection that most modern Christians look upon jihad.

Again not true at all.

The conflict between Palestinians and Israel is about water and who controls it.

So you have said, but you have failed to recognize the flaws in this argument, pointed out above. Restating a failed argument does little to make it more valid.

There is another conflict in the Middle East that few from the West have any understanding.

No, some people understand it quite well.

That is the conflict between Shiite and Sunni. Few in the West – and this includes within the USA administrations such as the state department, CIA (and other intelligence organizations) and Home Land Security even know which Islamic fundamentalist organizations are Shiite and Sunni.

Again, not true.

For example is Al Qaeda predominantly Shiite or Sunni?

Sunni.

The reason this is important is because of fundamental differences and that each needs to be approached and dealt with differently. The resent Terror plots (Texas and North West airlines) involved which group – Shiite or Sunni?

Sunni.

Try to find that in the News. If anyone can tell me which group (Shiite or Sunni) were involved in these incidents (without looking it up)

Yes.

I will believe you are somewhat informed – If you do not know, then please realize that you do not know squat and start doing some research before displaying your ignorance.

I would take your advice. Nothing you have said indicates you have the slightest idea on any of these subjects.

BTW - Bahrain has no oil but is ruled by a branch of the same family that rules Saudi Arabia.

Again not true, Bahrain has a lot of oil, and is not related to the Sauds. Saudi Arabia comes from the Saud family. The Bahrainis are Khalifas.