If that's even a possibility.
While I'm going to mention the candidates for president, this is NOT intended to be political, as far as our situation in the U.S. or with elections coming up.
With that said, after the most recent suicide bombers acted, it was immediately claimed as an act of ISIS. Both U.S, presidential candidates weighed in. One said "fight fire with fire," while the other said to keep our resolve in the fight against global terrorism, or close to that.
I've tried to stay somewhat informed about the conflict(s) in the Middle East, and even how they relate to the West, but it's such a deep, seemingly never-ending story.
We hear that we have to defeat these global terrorists, or radical jihadists. But what is their end game? Is it to kill every "infidel?" Is it to rule land and people? Is it to drive U.S. off land they believe they have a right to (somehow)?
I'm not suggesting this should happen, but what if the rest of the world one day said, "All right. Have it your way." Would the attacks stop?
Obviously I'm laying it out there in overly simplistic terms. But I'm hoping for an informative discussion from folks who understand this on multiple levels. Calling Bill2!
In 732, the Franks actually successfully defended France from the muslim crusaders - but the Franks had it coming to them, I guess because of some bad cheese or something.
In the end, distilling the arguments and the history of the last century, it's all about the oil, brothers.
Innocent women, children (and men) don't deserve to be blown up or beheaded because they don't believe in...
We have to defeat them, the only way they understand..
was it about the oil in the 10th century?
Did the Orlando bomber give a rats ass about oil?
Did the San Bernardino killers say anything about oil?
How about the Fort Hood killer?
Why are all these killers yelling allahu akbar! and not OIL!? It's about their religion not oil.
The only way oil plays a part here is that it helps ISIS fund itself, no differently than afghan heroin.
We are attacked because we are a world power and we pose an imminent threat to a society that has a different set of cultural beliefs.
Our progressive society that allows females to actually not be clothed head to toe. Our society that doesn't decapitate people for drinking or stone them for adultery. Our society that become an envy for a people that are sheltered, suppressed and held to strict laws and what we would call outdated policies.
One shouldn't minimize the impact living in a free society has one ones that aren't free. Just look at the pains a country like North Korea has to do to keep people in line, they pretty much forbid any outside influences. If the Islamic world could do that, they probably would, and they sure the hell try.
The hatred of us has little to do with oil and has a lot to do with religion and culture. If that isn't acknowledged, I don't know what else to say.
If you hold the viewpoint that there is no acceptable way to vet these refugees and take them in currently... Isn't the real danger now directly north of your country?
Canada is likely to have 25,000 to 35,000 of these refugees by year's end. With the longest unprotected border in the world separating the two countries. The customs process between Canada and the US is a colossal joke that I can get into if you want. The drive thru at a Burger King might be more secure. So if you truly believe the US can't take in refugees and there are likely terrorists among them... Doesn't that mean they are already here and the real scare is no longer 3000 miles away?
Yes it's a problem. As is the open borders policy in Europe where anyone from there can come here. At this point, it's closing the hen house after the foxes are in.
But I honestly don't see a point to bringing refugees here. Beside the security risk, most don't want to move thousands of miles away. Jordan could take these refugees and we could send the money spent on them here to Jordan where it would go a lot further. I think it's virtue signaling by Obama and Trudeau to show how enlightened they are. At our expense, of course.
"In 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.
Unlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims...
(The Blind Sheikh was "a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.)
So my colleagues and I pored over the Blind Sheikh’s many writings. And what we found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately...
When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up...
When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up..."
it's not about oil - ( New Window )
I believe history wiLl view us much differently than many here do today.
I believe history wiLl view us much differently than many here do today.
That's generally what will happen when a fervent religious group has little tolerance for anyone else.
I believe history wiLl view us much differently than many here do today.
Of course oil is a factor. If it wasn't for oil, all these countries would still be living in tents. But you miss the big picture. We have oil, why aren't we drilling it? Oh, it's because 'that's not who we are' right?
Quote:
in our foreign policy. I don't see how any one can deny that policy is a significant reason the current situation exists. And one of the reasons the ME is a mess.
I believe history wiLl view us much differently than many here do today.
Of course oil is a factor. If it wasn't for oil, all these countries would still be living in tents. But you miss the big picture. We have oil, why aren't we drilling it? Oh, it's because 'that's not who we are' right?
Thanks, Obama! :)
In Barrels per Day... - ( New Window )
Despite Obama! :)
In Barrels per Day... - ( New Window )
Fixed it for you
I am under no illusion that the west will ever cede control of the oil-rich region to it's inhabitants, nor do I think the west would ever try a 'Marshall-Plan' approach to addressing the problems.
There's no cure - there is nothing that will ever make Muslim extremists "Stand Down", because we will NEVER leave.
Terrorism is with us for at least the rest of our lives.
But I'm all for being energy independent. I would love to tell the Saudis, et al we don't need their stinking oil.
But anyone who thinks that's going to solve the terrorist problem is, imo, sadly mistaken.
These people are the cockroaches of the world and we are the orkin man. what do you do when you have cockroaches? you exterminate them not coddle them and give them a reach around.
Sorry I'm just sick of seeing too many innocent lives taken and all we do is raise our fist and say you better stop or we will be real mad next time
/rant over
Occam's razor says it's what the terrorists say it's about.
That's why they shout "allahu akbar” which means "allah is greater" (than your God or Government)
I think we should just bring in Wonder Wart-Hog to save the day.
Remember that the United States had for multiple decades a fairly disinterested approach to the Middle East. And ME nations not only did not view us negatively, but often with actual favor (in contrast to the perceived imperially minded France & Britain).
That changed markedly as more Americans began to drive, and then later as Israeli security and checks first against Nazi Germany then against Soviet influence became paramount (Mujahideen, anyone? Btw, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great in that movie). We became intimately involved in the geo-politics of the region and have not looked back right up to the present.
No, that's not self-reproach. Merely a means of establishing historical perspective. Also to highlight that there are some non-military things we can do to ameliorate the situation and that not everything (e.g. Islam being an enduring trainwreck and a magnet for bigots and the homicidally insane) is beyond our control.
It would include, for instance, a Palestinian state. It's both an understandable gripe for Arab Muslims as well as a convenient excuse to continually blame Israel/America for their self-imposed problems (a similar dynamic to the Castros and the embargo) Eliminate the excuse.
I'd also look to legitimize non-oil Saudi industries - Dubai-ification, if you will - because an economically unstable SA is a far bigger nightmare than the current iteration.
As always, securing Pakistani nukes must be paramount even if it involves dirty shit, like CIA agents getting away with murder.
Long term it's hard to be cheery. The Arab Spring offered a sobering lesson...that even if Autocrats are overthrown, the newly liberated don't necessarily favor progress (Tunisia perhaps excepted). Those who do, like Sadat further back, become targets.
I have no good or even acceptable solution to the Syrian clusterfuck. The window for doing anything meaningful is probably closed. I urge you (well, not buford, but serious people) to tonight grab a couple beers or bottle of wine, get naked and comfortable, and read in its entirety this article which is remarkable and illuminates well the Syria conundrum.
This post more a commentary on the wider Muslim world, and certainly an incomplete one but I'm short on time presently, but it is obviously deeply intertwined with the rise of IS and OBL & Co.
many experts with no political axe to grind say present strategy is correct one but needs to be implemented more intensely.
Quote:
then all the terrorists should be happy.
They don't care how much we use. They care that we are there.
I am under no illusion that the west will ever cede control of the oil-rich region to it's inhabitants, nor do I think the west would ever try a 'Marshall-Plan' approach to addressing the problems.
There's no cure - there is nothing that will ever make Muslim extremists "Stand Down", because we will NEVER leave.
Terrorism is with us for at least the rest of our lives.
The Saudi's run their country. The US doesn't control them. If anything, the Saudi's have many western countries by the balls because they control OPEC. The illusion of Western Control is ridiculous.
For example, did we bid on more than tiny parcels of Iraqi oil?
Answer: no the Russians did.
Are western nations directly dependent on Saudi oil?
Or does the fact base indicate that we care about the following:
1) the supply of oil is vital to reduce the chance for global chaos
2) sudden price shifts upwards produce sharp global multi year recessions ( take a time line of the last ten global recessions going back to 1952. Match it to increases in oil prices due to unrest in the ME. Now map global mortality rates and downward mobility for families caught in the undertow. Work through that before trying to interpret much of anything about our past actions). That's not a defense...it's an aspect needed to comment cogently.
3) there is a threat to our status as the one reserve currency of the world. Remove that and then go re think global chaos and suffering.
4) when Russia makes an attempt to gain a warm water outlet or encircle Turkey ( how we have kept Russia bottled up and Russian southern oil reserves in the ground is Turkey and their position astride the Bosporus which allows us to shut it down and bottle everything to the East of it.).
5) defense of Israel when Russian client states oppose it ( but not as much when they have other opponents).
Let's also use good words. If we wanted to control something we would. If we want to influence an outcome we do. From a pure power perspective there are tons and tons of costs to control another nation that does not want to be controlled. And there is more than enough backlash from physically intervening as a means of influencing the outcomes above.
I may help to examine the USA and the ME as religion based or imperial based perspective. Look at it as a place where stability and global health outcomes fight those inclined to chaos.
This post is not intended for debate. Could not care less what opinions anyone else has. And no one should care what i think. No need tp be right. Have had evolving opinions for decades. However it may broaden ones perspective to do the homework down this vein. Depends on one's objectives.
Bill2 - one of the worst things I've read on BBI is you saying you no longer like to engage on threads like these.
Let me thank you for your contributions and let you know that I consider your insights invaluable and will miss your future thoughts on these issues.
You have demonstrated thoroughly that sometimes the best way to make your point is by asking the right questions. You have also helped me remember that the emptiest drums make the most noise, and that I really don't know as much on many topics as the internet has led me to believe.
Thanks again.
CNN had an op ed worth reading
Attack on Islam - ( New Window )
While this is an existential issue for people in the ME, it simply isn't for us. This stuff is way down the list of priorities, IMO. Orders of magnitude more Americans are directly and adversely affected by things like inner city gang violence and rapidly increasing addiction to very dangerous drugs, as examples. Those are things that ruin lives here on a scale that people should give a crap about.
I get it. Terrorism has sex appeal. It makes you feel like you're in an action movie. But it simply doesn't move the needle here.
If we were to go from most-specific actual goals, to the most broad, while looking for common denominators against all the different groups, we might have something that looks like:
1. Local control for Sharia Law and the mitigation of the rights of non-Muslim and "bad" Muslim (more below) influence, local representation through devout Muslim representation and the removal of secular/ "bad" Muslim leadership, especially secular leaders/dictators. Who decides who is worthy or not, is a local dynamic, but i think it's pretty safe to say that there are no recognized state leaders (again, leaving out Shiites of course) that would be worthy.
2. Control over the holiest places. This has been an area of conflict since at least 1979, given the siege of the Grand Mosque that year by the representatives of the Mahdi. As we know, bin Laden tried (much later) to offer his services to oust Saddam from Kuwait and do whatever it would take, to keep the US and other infidels out of the Arabian Peninsula, and only much later, turned on the Saudi royalty, eventually deeming them unworthy of protecting or being worthy of safeguarding, 2 of the 3 holiest sites of Mecca and Medina. So I think it is safe to assume that all these major Sunni groups would like to overthrow the Monarchy. These new attacks and what they have done and said in the past, make that pretty clear. So both ISIS and aQ want them gone. Their ability to make this happen, especially within the Kingdom, seems to be very limited, based on the intelligence and police control of the country by the Saudi state.
3. Adding in the Dome of the Rock (Jerusalem-the 3rd of the holiest 3 sites), brings in the Israel issue. Again, this is a relatively recent development where the Palestinian conflict (destroying Israel, or at least getting them out of Jerusalem and creating a Palestinian homeland with all they land back, etc) has been more broadly embraced as a goal of global jihad.
4. At this point, the goals start to break up and get more nebulous. e.g. How big should the caliphate be and how far to extend its' borders ? Who should be in charge ? What nation/states (I assume all) should be dissolved and rolled into the caliphate ?
(5.) Back to the Shia at this level (obviously they play a huge role at the more local level I left them out of, especially in Iraq, Iran and Syria), what to do about them ? I think it's safe to assume ISIS and aQ would gladly completely subjugate if not wipe them out if they could.
So the opinions of what the goals/end game of these 2 groups starts to get a lot more difficult to gauge.
So theoretically, their goals are :
1. The removal of the Saudi monarchy and gain control of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. Gain control of Jerusalem and all of Palestine. Leave a small state of Israel for the sake of argument for now.
3. Establish a caliphate from North Africa (not sure about southern Spain, like the good old days, but let's leave it out for now) to Afghanistan.
4. Overthrow the Pakistani government as well as get control of any surrounding (in their view_ "Muslim" lands e.g. Kashmir, parts of Bangladesh).
5. Be able to fold in the Caucuses and the former USSR states with large Muslim populations.
6. Remove all semblance of power from the Shiites and let them live as second rate citizens.
Not sure about what they would do about Europe or the neighbors of even closer proximity. Probably safe to assume that they will always have a jihadi raison d'etre, but this would certainly make them happy.
As the above makes answering the question a lot harder, and also gets way ahead of what might make them "stand down" or at least chill out for a while...I'll go with:
(final answer Regis) "a Sunni caliphate that includes Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia, ruled by a theocratic council made up of Zarqawi, al Baghdadi and a few others."
Jeezus, I cannot think. Zawahiri.
It's a theoretical question of what they would want to make them happy, as posed by the OP. Not sure why estimating actual capabilities is even a concern or why you brought it up.
You may need to better understand their motivation if you believe that they are "thugs."
"thugs" beat up shop keepers for protection, sell contraband and murder informants to avoid jail time.
While this is an existential issue for people in the ME, it simply isn't for us. This stuff is way down the list of priorities, IMO. Orders of magnitude more Americans are directly and adversely affected by things like inner city gang violence and rapidly increasing addiction to very dangerous drugs, as examples. Those are things that ruin lives here on a scale that people should give a crap about.
I get it. Terrorism has sex appeal. It makes you feel like you're in an action movie. But it simply doesn't move the needle here.
Those things require leaders (both colors) to make tough decisions and potentially compromise. Distracting the public with "terrorism" is far simpler and an easier way to get re-elected.
CNN had an op ed worth reading Attack on Islam - ( New Window )
They (broadly speaking) have been doing this, or trying for decades. It changes nothing.
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure (wiki) - ( New Window )
Quote:
2nd holiest site in Islam. I believe it's being blamed on a Pakistani worker
CNN had an op ed worth reading Attack on Islam - ( New Window )
They (broadly speaking) have been doing this, or trying for decades. It changes nothing. 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure (wiki) - ( New Window )
That's 37 years ago, and I haven't heard of a bombing of Mecca or Medina (or even attempted bombing that got beyond the nascent stage) since. That's hardly a continuous string of incidents.
RB - I think Medina, specifically, is NOT the rule.
1) Remove the infidels (US) from Muslim lands;
2) Bring a war of attrition unto the state of Israel
Since then, we have successfully decapitated many of the heads of this doctrine through physical force or means economic pressure. The message is muddled, the enemy is unclear and the money isn't flowing like it once was. If it appears bad now, it's only going to become more of a clusterfuck as the petrol dollars dry up.
The real threats, imho, are Russia and Pakistan.
Quote:
In comment 13021886 njm said:
Quote:
2nd holiest site in Islam. I believe it's being blamed on a Pakistani worker
CNN had an op ed worth reading Attack on Islam - ( New Window )
They (broadly speaking) have been doing this, or trying for decades. It changes nothing. 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure (wiki) - ( New Window )
That's 37 years ago, and I haven't heard of a bombing of Mecca or Medina (or even attempted bombing that got beyond the nascent stage) since. That's hardly a continuous string of incidents.
RB - I think Medina, specifically, is NOT the rule.
Ahh..yes, I see your point. I was thinking more of Saudi Arabia as a whole (see link below if interested). Security is pretty tight around the holy places since 1979. That one was the game changer.
Link - ( New Window )
While this is an existential issue for people in the ME, it simply isn't for us. This stuff is way down the list of priorities, IMO. Orders of magnitude more Americans are directly and adversely affected by things like inner city gang violence and rapidly increasing addiction to very dangerous drugs, as examples. Those are things that ruin lives here on a scale that people should give a crap about.
I get it. Terrorism has sex appeal. It makes you feel like you're in an action movie. But it simply doesn't move the needle here.
RB^2, I understand what you're saying about gang violence and drug addiction. Those issues should be addressed, but we shouldn't ignore the growing terrorism threat. Why do we have to choose only certain problems to be concerned about?
You might not think terrorism moves the needle unless it involves your own loved ones or until we have another 9/11. The next attack of that scale might not happen for another 5-10 years, but it could be much bigger. Look at how much damage 19 terrorists caused on 9/11; with only box cutters. Just think about if or when they get some kind of nuke or some kind of chemical or bio weapon. Possibly add a drone to the equation... Will it move the needle when X thousands of innocent Americans are killed? Should we wait until that happens to be concerned?
This is strictly my own opinion based on my own anecdotal experience professionally.
There is no "standing down" of extremism. Whether it's ISIS or al Qaeda or any other groups holding extremist values, it's just not something that's going to happen. Extremism as we see in Islamic radicals is merely a manifestation of base human nature that seeks to spin/alter/misrepresent something (or anything) to suit their own agenda whether it's out of hatred of the different, desire for retribution, hunger for power, etc.
Let's use ISIS as an example here. Even in ISIS, you have to break it up into various parts. You'll always have the hardcore group, who are the center of the ideology and the extremist values that the organization is founded on. They're insulated by those, who believe in these individuals as their leaders more so than the actual ideologies themselves. However, for the most part, the organization is made up mainly of uneducated dolts, sadistic assholes, educated narcissists needing to feel important, and many others, who barely understand the meaning of the ideology beyond what's cherry-picked for their own selfish consumption, which gives them an excuse to feel that they have purpose and power.
It's impossible to eradicate human nature, and that's what this is, the base human nature devoid of humanity that people have beyond these extremist organizations.
Only thing we can do is to safeguard ourselves against continued assault through vigilance and actions. And in that regards, you need rough men to do terrible things against these groups and individuals making up these groups. Pessimistic to the core, I know. However, there is no single answer to what has been going on since humans learned to crack each others' skulls with rocks.
But that's just me. Radical Islamist or Nazis or Khmer Rouge or whatever...they're all the same when it comes to what drives them and the end they want to achieve...the difference is the means.