"War on Terrorism" - is it hopeless ?

[readingstockport]

But the American constitution is. I know that the Republican Party has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians, but I think you over-estimate the extent to which America is a theocracy. It is not like Iran, or Saudi Arabia - it's a different scale entirely.

And lets just pause and have a think about which countries imposed the ruling house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, with all the minority Wahabi baggage that came with them, and imposed the Shah of Iran on that country and created Iraq in the first place.



Ohhh yes, I remember now. It was the UK and the US.

Those who do not learn from history?

As for the US constitution, if shrub is re-elected the constitution will be shredded. Watch and see.

 

[US Seagull]

The problem isn't religion per-se, indeed religions are of benefit to millions of people worldwide because of the moral framework they provide for their lives. Don't forget that the principles of most religions are broadly similar, be good, get a place in heaven etc. The problem is where religion is manipulated for political ends, a problem that has been going on for centuries. Religion can be manipulated, interpretted if you like, to provide a moral justification for pretty much anything. And because of this it worries me that we see any religious inflection in any system of governance, government and law should be about what society believes is right and wrong, not what a specific religion thinks, as this is clearly not inclusive of all aspects of society (particularly in a country like ours were all religions together are in the minority).

Which is exactly the problem. While religion may provide a moral framework (one that is thousands of years old and mostly out of date) it is the same framework that is manipulated (and has been from the dawn of humanity) to justify all kinds of hatred, bigotry and bloodshed. The world doesn't need religion anymore. It served it purpose in our early history, but now it is a massive weight around our society holding us back.

 

[Yorkie]

Leaving religion aside, the latest terrorist outrage appears to be linked to the General Election in Spain, so it is still far more likely to be ETA than Al Qaeda.

No religious connection there at all. Just differing views on how to run their region.

It could just as easily be Yorkshire Freedom fighters (no light-heartedness intended) wanting independant rule.

 

[Sorrel]

But can you really let me know what the difference is between a constitution based on an interpretation of the belief system known as Islam and a constitution based on an interpretation of the belief systems known as Chrisitianity and rationalism?

My trouble is that I think one is superior to the other. Which is the difference as far as I am concerned.

I'm not sure what you mean by rationalism. To me it would mean something based on scientific thought and understanding, which to my understanding is superior to one based on religion.

 

[US Seagull]

Leaving religion aside, the latest terrorist outrage appears to be linked to the General Election in Spain, so it is still far more likely to be ETA than Al Qaeda.

No religious connection there at all. Just differing views on how to run their region.

It could just as easily be Yorkshire Freedom fighters (no light-heartedness intended) wanting independant rule.

This still feels like Al Qaeda rather than ETA to me. ETA usually call in warnings before setting off bombs and have never tried anything on this scale. In fact ETA have been in decline for many years.
I think the Spanish PM wants to blame ETA because his party has been tough on them but will not entertain any notion that it might be Al Qaeda because of how enormously unpopular his support of the war in Iraq was. At least he won't until Monday morning.

 

[Yorkie]

I agree US Seagull but the subject of the thread was War On Terrorism and it seems to have got sidetracked into the religious side of terrorism.

There are a lot more causes of terrorism than religion although I would agree that it is a 'good label' to used for a cause.

 

[Spiros]

Yorkie - I agree that this is far more likely to be ETA, although there are some individuals who appear to have links with both ETA and Al-Qaeda. Reasons why it could be ETA:
1. ETA-type explosives (ie dynamite, not semtex)
2. Not a suicide-bomber job
3. Timing linked to Spanish election
4. A few weeks ago a very similar plot was foiled when a lorry-load of the same explosives was intercepted on it's way into Madrid, being driven by a known ETA terrorist.
5. The only Al Qaeda claim has come from a strange group who also claimed to have caused the power black-outs in the US & Canada last year but were since proved to be due to incompetence/cost-cutting

 

[readingstockport]

My trouble is that I think one is superior to the other. Which is the difference as far as I am concerned.

Wherein lies the problem. You think it's better. Others don't. Who is to say you are correct and they are incorrect?

One of the problems with much of this debate, from both sides, is the total unwillingness of too many to admit that although they may think and believe something they may equally well be wrong.

I think the way Islam has been preverted in the last few centuries to degrade, in my eyes anyway, women is wrong (and much of the current Islamic attitude towards women in fact decends from the Turkish Ottomans and not before). That doesn't mean I am right in believing that. It means it's my view.

 

[US Seagull]

I agree US Seagull but the subject of the thread was War On Terrorism and it seems to have got sidetracked into the religious side of terrorism.

There are a lot more causes of terrorism than religion although I would agree that it is a 'good label' to used for a cause.

I apologize if you feel we are getting sidetracked. But examining the causes of terrorism (of which religion is but one cause) is part of the wider discussion. I don't think you can win a war on terror by charging in and bombing somebody. I think you can only hope to work at the root causes and identify what drives people to commit such acts. I think it is injustice (either real, or more often imagined) and hopelessness that drives people into these terrorist groups because the terrorist claim to offer them something they don't feel they have, justice and a chance to strike back. It all comes back to the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter arguement. I wonder how many terrorist really consider themselves terrorists? Did the people behind the Madrid bombs really think they were doing the right thing? Presumbly they did, and we need to understand how they came to that conclusion.
As to the original question. Is it hopeless? Maybe, but what else can we do?

 

[readingstockport]

Yorkie - I agree that this is far more likely to be ETA, although there are some individuals who appear to have links with both ETA and Al-Qaeda. Reasons why it could be ETA:
1. ETA-type explosives (ie dynamite, not semtex)
2. Not a suicide-bomber job
3. Timing linked to Spanish election
4. A few weeks ago a very similar plot was foiled when a lorry-load of the same explosives was intercepted on it's way into Madrid, being driven by a known ETA terrorist.
5. The only Al Qaeda claim has come from a strange group who also claimed to have caused the power black-outs in the US & Canada last year but were since proved to be due to incompetence/cost-cutting

Equally.

1. ETA type explosives. So? They are available on the international market if you want them.
2. Actually I heard reports that the Spanish police thought it may well have been a suicide bomber.
3. Irrelevant quite frankly.
4. True.
6. True to a point.

Add to this.

6. For the first time in its history ETA denied responsibilty. They have never dopne this in nearly 45 years previously.
7. Multiple bombs. Not ETA's style at all.

For me it's far more likely to be AQ

 

[fatbadger]

I'm not sure what you mean by rationalism.

I mean the post-Enlightenment theory of the rational self - the basis of all of the principles of secular political theory.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

All this stuff about years, etc - please remember that as far as the bombers were concerned, the attacks on New York and Washington took place, not on 11 September 2001, but on 23 Jumaada al-Thaany 1422 H.

i disagree 9/11 is a symbol of help - 911. They knew of their date, but they used our dates as a symbol. It was not a "random day" to them.

 

[Spiros]

Equally.

1. ETA type explosives. So? They are available on the international market if you want them.
2. Actually I heard reports that the Spanish police thought it may well have been a suicide bomber.
3. Irrelevant quite frankly.
4. True.
6. True to a point.

Add to this.

6. For the first time in its history ETA denied responsibilty. They have never dopne this in nearly 45 years previously.
7. Multiple bombs. Not ETA's style at all.

For me it's far more likely to be AQ

I hadn't heard that the Spanish police thought it might have been a suicide bomber - if it was it changes the likely cause. Last night I saw a Spanish minister inteviewed who was adamant it was a 'plant and run' type of mission. I also hadn't heard that ETA had denied responsibility, just that they hadn't admitted it.

I agree that the multiple bombs is not ETA's style but they have had a few of their older leaders caught recently and it seems that younger more extreme leaders have taken their place. I also saw an interview last night with someone (Spanish police?) who thought that this may represent a tie-up between ETA and AQ to hit a 'common enemy'. Bit frightening if so. Imagine the Real IRA using AQ suicide bombers over here.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

The biggest weapons of mass destruction on the planet still remain, poverty, injustice, disease, hunger (even thought there is more than enough food) and preventable disease. If we spent half as much on solving these issues as we do on ludicrous weapons systems that no-one in their right mind would use, then maybe there would be less terrorism.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

We still don't know who carried out yesterday's outrage in Madrid and we may not for several weeks. If this is ETA it will be radical departure from their previous tactics and if it's Al Queda, it confirms that they are capable of carrying out huge attacks in Europe. But what it already crystal clear is that Bush and Blair's war on terrorism... the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't made the world safer, rather they've done exactly the opposite. We now live in a much more insecure and dangerous world than prior to September 11. There are armed Al Queda groups operating in the Uk today and I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before London is hit.

 

[readingstockport]

BBC are now reporting that the bombs were set off remotely, possibly using mobile phones. IIRC both groups have used similar tactics in the past.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

This thread as usual has turned into " I am much more intelligent thank you and will spout US foreign policy over the last 50 years and blame Bush, America etc etc etc blah blah blah thread.

I don't need a history lesson from a spotty studenty computer nerd to know that the people who did this are scum and no amount of dubious justification can change that.

You stick with Al Queda I will stick with the USA.

Give me 10 minutes with Binner Laden on my own except for a baseball bat.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

ETA havent denied responsibility - the political wing said as far as they were aware it was not an ETA operation as it targeted workers as opposed to their usual targets of state employees. ETA has rarely given warnings in the past and normally wait a number of weeks before claiming responsibilty. It is an ETA style operation and it is not in the interests of Islamic militants to try and copy another group to have them blamed. The Spanish authorities have been very careful to steer away from the Islamic route, which leads me to think that they have more information than they are revealing. ETA and its supporters are not a force in the coming election so there is no gain to blame them unless they really were responsible.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

This thread as usual has turned into " I am much more intelligent thank you and will spout US foreign policy over the last 50 years and blame Bush, America etc etc etc blah blah blah thread.

I don't need a history lesson from a spotty studenty computer nerd to know that the people who did this are scum and no amount of dubious justification can change that.

You stick with Al Queda I will stick with the USA.

Give me 10 minutes with Binner Laden on my own except for a baseball bat.

Who are you saying supports Al Queda ?

 

[berkshire seagull]

The biggest weapons of mass destruction on the planet still remain, poverty, injustice, disease, hunger (even thought there is more than enough food) and preventable disease. If we spent half as much on solving these issues as we do on ludicrous weapons systems that no-one in their right mind would use, then maybe there would be less terrorism.

Religion is the biggest killer although disease in some parts i.e africa is well out of control.
Take away religion and the world would be so diffrent