It was hardly Communist or Nazis that invented terror as a weapon. It is a weapon that is as old as humans. I suspect there will be terrorists as long as the human race survives.
Organized crime are terrorists. The street gangs in LA are terrorists. Even the play ground bully is a mini-terrorists wannabe.
Declaring war on terror is like declaring war on killing people.
Now if the "war on terror" is a shorthand for a war against a particular terrorist group, then that is a completely different story.
The idea that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are the "heirs to the ideologies we defeated in the 20th century", Communism and Nazism, is complete nonsense. Anyone who believes that does not understand anything about the problem of 21st Century trans-national terrorism.
I think "War on Terror" is actually showing as being winnable in a literal sense. That is to say, if it is broadly perceived that terrorist tactics are more likely than not to backfire, then terrorism as a tactic is effectively ended.
For example, soldiers fighting in close formation used to be a standard element of warfare. That was ended by Gatling, among others.
Towards that end, it is not enough to defeat al Qaeda. Their ideology must be discredited and plowed with salt.
I think we're getting there. I don't think they're smart enough to turn aside.
The idea that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are the "heirs to the ideologies we defeated in the 20th century", Communism and Nazism, is complete nonsense. Anyone who believes that does not understand anything about the problem of 21st Century trans-national terrorism.
Really? So I don't understand anything about the problem? The evidence you offer seems weak.
Really? So I don't understand anything about the problem? The evidence you offer seems weak.
Oh, sorry, you didn't offer any.
I have explained this here many times in the past. Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East traces its origin to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) that started as a political/social movement in Egypt in the 1920s. This movement was in opposition to the secular western style government being imposed on the region by the colonial powers after WW I. At it's core, the Muslim fundamentalist believe that the government and Islam must be one in the same. Otherwise people will drift into empty lives in pursuit of sinful pleasure. They point to sexual behavior found under secular governments as examples. They are offended by the sexual content of western literature, movies and TV. They believe that the only way to keep society pure, is for the government to enforce Islamic law and outlaw offensive behavior.
The terrorist groups started as spin outs from the Muslim Brotherhood, frustrated with the inability of the MB to bring about change through the political process. These fringe groups tried to overthrow the governments in Egypt and Syria. In both cases they were ruthlessly put down by the government.
In the 1970s and 80s, the US armed these Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. This lead some of their leaders to believe that they had destroyed one of the worlds 2 super powers. They believed that the reason they had failed to overthrow the governments in Egypt was because of US support. Osama bin Laden decided to focus his movement against the US, to try to drive the US out of the Middle East the way they had driven the Russians out of Afghanistan. He wanted to convince the Middle Eastern people that the US was a new colonial power trying to occupy the Middle East to control its oil. This he claimed justified terrorist attacks on the Middle East. He believed once he had driven the US out of the Middle East, the fundamentalist could overthrow the governments in Egypt and other countries.
First, once you mentioned Muslim Brotherhood, you can't overlook the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, who had profound influence on Zawahiri and bin Laden. Qutb ideas were a weird mix of European fascism and Leninism with arch-conservative Islam.
Wikipedia sums it thusly:
"Qutb's intense dislike of the West not withstanding, some of his ideas are strongly reminiscent of European fascism:
the decline of contemporary Western civilization and "infertility" of democracy,
inspiration from an earlier golden age and desire to restore its glory with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system,
victimhood from malicious foreign and Jewish conspiracies, and
violent revolution to expel alien influences and reestablish the power and international domination of the nation/community"
Second, I think you are wrong that the US armed any radical Islamic groups to fight against USSR in Afghanistan. US help was going to the Afghan warlords. Radical Islamists entered Afghanistan on their own and kept to themselves, running their own hospitals, schools, charities and military camps. Can you name any Radical Islamic group that received any kind of support from the US gov't?
This myth that the US armed and raised Taliban and Al Qaida really needs to be put to rest. US supported Afghan warlords and mujaheddin, fighting for their country independence. Taleban and Al Qaida didn't even exist then. Taleban emerged long after USSR withdrew and US left. Some old warlords joined with Taleban at this later period, some left the country, some remained and contnued fighting against the Taleban. For example, Shah Massoud was receiving one of the largest portions of US support when he was fighting Soviet occupation and he continued fighting against the Taleban to the end.
If anything was done wrong in Afghanistan, it's that it was abandoned to civil war. That led to Taleban domination and Al Qaida sanctuaries. Apparently, Democrats are eager to repeat the same thing again in Iraq.
Arab extremism obviously borrows a LOT from communism and fascism, although I guess you could argue just how much one needs to borrow in order to be an "heir".
The Arab world clearly tended to ally with both Nazi Germany and the USSR, and had socialist and fascist totalitarian dictatorships as the standard form of government (as well as a lot of Marxist terrorist groups).
It's also pretty obvious that the Islamists exhibit the very same type of antisemitism that is common in Nazi and Soviet propaganda, but not in traditional Islam.
It seems pretty naive to me to assume that today's violent, totalitarian Islamist Arabs don't have much to do with the violent, totalitarian socialist or fascist Arab leadership that they grew up with.
2.24.2008 2:51pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Organized crime are terrorists. The street gangs in LA are terrorists. Even the play ground bully is a mini-terrorists wannabe.
Declaring war on terror is like declaring war on killing people.
Now if the "war on terror" is a shorthand for a war against a particular terrorist group, then that is a completely different story.
I think "War on Terror" is actually showing as being winnable in a literal sense. That is to say, if it is broadly perceived that terrorist tactics are more likely than not to backfire, then terrorism as a tactic is effectively ended.
For example, soldiers fighting in close formation used to be a standard element of warfare. That was ended by Gatling, among others.
Towards that end, it is not enough to defeat al Qaeda. Their ideology must be discredited and plowed with salt.
I think we're getting there. I don't think they're smart enough to turn aside.
Really? So I don't understand anything about the problem? The evidence you offer seems weak.
Oh, sorry, you didn't offer any.
A belief, and demonstrated willingness to act upon it, that those who do not agree should be killed.
Oh, sorry, you didn't offer any.
I have explained this here many times in the past. Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East traces its origin to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) that started as a political/social movement in Egypt in the 1920s. This movement was in opposition to the secular western style government being imposed on the region by the colonial powers after WW I. At it's core, the Muslim fundamentalist believe that the government and Islam must be one in the same. Otherwise people will drift into empty lives in pursuit of sinful pleasure. They point to sexual behavior found under secular governments as examples. They are offended by the sexual content of western literature, movies and TV. They believe that the only way to keep society pure, is for the government to enforce Islamic law and outlaw offensive behavior.
The terrorist groups started as spin outs from the Muslim Brotherhood, frustrated with the inability of the MB to bring about change through the political process. These fringe groups tried to overthrow the governments in Egypt and Syria. In both cases they were ruthlessly put down by the government.
In the 1970s and 80s, the US armed these Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. This lead some of their leaders to believe that they had destroyed one of the worlds 2 super powers. They believed that the reason they had failed to overthrow the governments in Egypt was because of US support. Osama bin Laden decided to focus his movement against the US, to try to drive the US out of the Middle East the way they had driven the Russians out of Afghanistan. He wanted to convince the Middle Eastern people that the US was a new colonial power trying to occupy the Middle East to control its oil. This he claimed justified terrorist attacks on the Middle East. He believed once he had driven the US out of the Middle East, the fundamentalist could overthrow the governments in Egypt and other countries.
This he claimed justified terrorist attacks on the
Middle EastUS.First, once you mentioned Muslim Brotherhood, you can't overlook the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, who had profound influence on Zawahiri and bin Laden. Qutb ideas were a weird mix of European fascism and Leninism with arch-conservative Islam.
Wikipedia sums it thusly:
"Qutb's intense dislike of the West not withstanding, some of his ideas are strongly reminiscent of European fascism:
the decline of contemporary Western civilization and "infertility" of democracy,
inspiration from an earlier golden age and desire to restore its glory with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system,
victimhood from malicious foreign and Jewish conspiracies, and
violent revolution to expel alien influences and reestablish the power and international domination of the nation/community"
Second, I think you are wrong that the US armed any radical Islamic groups to fight against USSR in Afghanistan. US help was going to the Afghan warlords. Radical Islamists entered Afghanistan on their own and kept to themselves, running their own hospitals, schools, charities and military camps. Can you name any Radical Islamic group that received any kind of support from the US gov't?
This myth that the US armed and raised Taliban and Al Qaida really needs to be put to rest. US supported Afghan warlords and mujaheddin, fighting for their country independence. Taleban and Al Qaida didn't even exist then. Taleban emerged long after USSR withdrew and US left. Some old warlords joined with Taleban at this later period, some left the country, some remained and contnued fighting against the Taleban. For example, Shah Massoud was receiving one of the largest portions of US support when he was fighting Soviet occupation and he continued fighting against the Taleban to the end.
If anything was done wrong in Afghanistan, it's that it was abandoned to civil war. That led to Taleban domination and Al Qaida sanctuaries. Apparently, Democrats are eager to repeat the same thing again in Iraq.
The Arab world clearly tended to ally with both Nazi Germany and the USSR, and had socialist and fascist totalitarian dictatorships as the standard form of government (as well as a lot of Marxist terrorist groups).
It's also pretty obvious that the Islamists exhibit the very same type of antisemitism that is common in Nazi and Soviet propaganda, but not in traditional Islam.
It seems pretty naive to me to assume that today's violent, totalitarian Islamist Arabs don't have much to do with the violent, totalitarian socialist or fascist Arab leadership that they grew up with.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.