A refreshing, realistic view on terrorism and the so called security theater...

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Also, in case of Islamic terrorism, there you have left the field of ordinary crime for sure, since djihad is a form of ideologically motivated and ideologically excused war.

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

But his point, and I can't believe I'm agreeing with Skybird, is that terrorism is not an ordinary crime and terrorists aren't ordinary criminals.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

It's a difference if you hijack and kill a german federal bank president in the 70s, or blow up a bus in northern Ireland for claiming that Ireland is for the Irish, or to to call the police in Spain and tell them that you are about to blow up a building in 30 minutes for you want the Bask proivince to be independent - or if you hijack four planes, kill 3000 in two hours, and implement a network around the globe that is driven by a desire and motivation to cover all the world with Islam and shatter the value system of the West. This is what djihad is about, and it hardly is just "ordinary crime".

The fight against Islamic terror necessarily is a fight against the ideology that motivates it. You cannot avoid to confront Islam over it. You cannot watch a video of 9/11, tell the americans that you feel solidaric with them - and then proclaim that "religion has nothing to do with it". That is insane. Religion is the heart and core of the issue of Islamic terrorism - and very necessarily so. Compared to the ambition behind it, the Italian and German terror waves of the 70s are children's game, they acchieved nothing. 9/11 has changed everything, and Madrid and London. Plus the attempted attacks that got prevented. If it would have been ignored, we would have had many thousands people more being killed by djihad in the West since 9/11.

However, although I feel that Goldorak probably disagrees with me on the above, we both agree on that even this djihad-form of terrorism (which I indeed do not compare to other terrorism we have seen in the past 30 years) cannot be fought with tehcnology and wars exclusively, but that good policework, intel-gathering, infiltration, are key to prevent djihad terror striking with single attacks. There are times for military action, too, but I think these get overestimated, and where carried out, they nevertheless are underperformed.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Letum

Is that any different to other forms of terrorism?

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

I agree completely on this point.

Now answering to Skybird yes terrorists are not simple criminals (in the sense that the former have a political agenda and the acts they perpetrate are but a means to an end not the end in itself whereas the later don't have any kind of political end game in mind), but you cannot as the US has done put on the same level terrorists and a hypothetical "terrorist nation". The means to attack and protect from an agressive nation are completely different than those used to protect our societies from terrorism.
The scale is so different that you cannot do it unless you change the rules of the game and by this fact undermine the foundations of our democratic societies.
I'll take as an example the UK and Italy. 2 countries which have had to contend with terrorism for many years. In the UK the IRA because of the situation in Northern Irleland and in Italy during the 70's because of left wing extremists. In each case there were bombings, tens, hundreds of victims over the years. Legislation was passed that enabled the police to hunt down those extremists and yet we didn't lose our democracy. We didn't become countries of citizens obssesed with terrorism fear or countries in which we advocated the application of torture. In this sense dealing with terrorism is more an extension of police duties then that of an army going to war.
And even so, the resolution of these crisis is always political and never military. That is why the US is going to lose the war on terrorism, they don't understand the nature of this fenomenon and try to use the only method they know, the might of the military industrial complex. Why why don't they learn from countries that have had experience in such matters ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I agree completely on this point.

Now answering to Skybird yes terrorists are not simple criminals (in the sense that the former have a political agenda and the acts they perpetrate are but a means to an end not the end in itself whereas the later don't have any kind of political end game in mind), but you cannot as the US has done put on the same level terrorists and a hypothetical "terrorist nation". The means to attack and protect from an agressive nation are completely different than those used to protect our societies from terrorism.
The scale is so different that you cannot do it unless you change the rules of the game and by this fact undermine the foundations of our democratic societies.
I'll take as an example the UK and Italy. 2 countries which have had to contend with terrorism for many years. In the UK the IRA because of the situation in Northern Irleland and in Italy during the 70's because of left wing extremists. In each case there were bombings, tens, hundreds of victims over the years. Legislation was passed that enabled the police to hunt down those extremists and yet we didn't lose our democracy. We didn't become countries of citizens obssesed with terrorism fear or countries in which we advocated the application of torture. In this sense dealing with terrorism is more an extension of police duties then that of an army going to war.
And even so, the resolution of these crisis is always political and never military. That is why the US is going to lose the war on terrorism, they don't understand the nature of this fenomenon and try to use the only method they know, the might of the military industrial complex. Why why don't they learn from countries that have had experience in such matters ?

Because the terrorism as seen on 9/11 does not compare to that we have seen in germany and italy, or still see in the Bask province. That was my point, goldorak: that djihad adds a new qualitative and quantitative dimension to the game.

On the terror examples you gave, I completely agree with you. Where we disagree is that you do not differ between past examples of terrorism in europe (RAF, ETA etc), and today's djihad and Al Quaeda, while I do. Where then we agree in our disagreeing again is that even djihad for the most (not completely) gets best tackled not by war operations, but solid police work, intelligence infiltration, counter terrorism operations. that can - and miust - include hitech options, but these should not be understood to be capable to replace HUMINT capabilities.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Because the terrorism as seen on 9/11 does not compare to that we have seen in germany and italy, or still see in the Bask province. That was my point, goldorak: that djihad adds a new qualitative and quantitative dimension to the game.

Let me ask you, if the buildings had not collapsed, would you have had a different view on the events of 9/11 ? For me no (and to be honest I was just as emotional as anybody else seeing those towers collapse), but you cannot act emotional when dealing with such matters. Because you loose sight of what is important and what the terrorists want.

On the terror examples you gave, I completely agree with you. Where we disagree is that you do not differ between past examples of terrorism in europe (RAF, ETA etc), and today's djihad and Al Quaeda, while I do. Where then we agree in our disagreeing again is that even djihad for the most (not completely) gets best tackled not by war operations, but solid police work, intelligence infiltration, counter terrorism operations. that can - and miust - include hitech options, but these should not be understood to be capable to replace HUMINT capabilities.

We do not agree because for me there is no difference between basque, or islamic terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. There is no fundamental difference. The acts they perpetrate are done to change what they consider to be a political status quo. We can debate wether making a car explode or putting a bomb in a pub, or cutting the throat of some poor sob is worse or less worse than putting a bomb on a plane, and on an emotional level yes there is a difference (the same difference between someone being hanged and someone being shot, in the end they are still being killed) but the point is that these acts are not done because, they are perpetrated to induce a change in policy. And the terrorists win each and every time we change the rules of your society to respond to this threat. You cannot protect from terrorism and you cannot wage war on terrorism as if it were some kind of well defined nation, it is not possibile.
Those that think the contrary are living in the cloud, or have just smoked a ton load of weed.

[SteamWake]

The reason entitys such as El Al are more effective at stopping terror threats is that they are not afraid to 'profile'.

Simple as that.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The reason entitys such as El Al are more effective at stopping terror threats is that they are not afraid to 'profile'.

Simple as that.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...odem/Islam.jpg

Yes but that still doesn't stop palestinian terrorism in israel does it ?

Tell me SteamWake, what happens when islamic terrorists start blowing up cars in american cities, or trains, or put bombs in malls or pubs or hotels or any other kind of target ? What is the US going to do ? Close all the frontiers, and put its citizens in prison so that nobody can have the ability to perpetrate acts of violence ?
People tend to think that terrorism starts and stops at airports and airplanes.
Thats never been the case. You think that terrorism on US soil that doesn't take into account airplanes is somewhat more acceptable ? And if not then why are we not seeing stupid security measures in the streets, in the cinemas, in the pubs, in the train stations etc....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Yes but that still doesn't stop palestinian terrorism in israel does it ?

Tell me SteamWake, what happens when islamic terrorists start blowing up cars in american cities, or trains, or put bombs in malls or pubs or hotels or any other kind of target ? What is the US going to do ? Close all the frontiers, and put its citizens in prison so that nobody can have the ability to perpetrate acts of violence ?
People tend to think that terrorism starts and stops at airports and airplanes.
Thats never been the case. You think that terrorism on US soil that doesn't take into account airplanes is somewhat more acceptable ? And if not then why are we not seeing stupid security measures in the streets, in the cinemas, in the pubs, in the train stations etc....

You must confront the ideology motivating djihad, that is why I am so angry about this constant appeasing of Islam, and having "good relations" with terror-funding states. You must confront those states supporting it - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, for example. It is counterproductive to just appease Islam, or such nations.

But still, if djihad is waged, what do you want to do about the violence it creates? Sit still and suffer the losses? Hardly. until the disease - Islam - has been "cured", the symptoms of the disease - djihad, Islamic terrorism - must be dealt with. My quarrel is that today many think that dealing with the symptoms only already provides a soluution for the disease, a disease that is helped to spread and grow strong while one is battling it's symptoms. It's shizophrenic.

Also, in case of Islamic terrorism, there you have left the field of ordinary crime for sure, since djihad is a form of ideologically motivated and ideologically excused war.

The fight against Islamic terror necessarily is a fight against the ideology that motivates it. You cannot avoid to confront Islam over it.

Yes and you cannot fight against the LRA unless you confront Christianity

The reason entitys such as El Al are more effective at stopping terror threats is that they are not afraid to 'profile'.

Rubbish, the reason El-al is more effective is because it does its own heavy security on top of the airports security and whichever governments security is there. It isn't because it is not afraid to profile, it is because they are far more thorough and would rather delay flights and miss slots than cut corners.

Political, religious, ethnic, social or environmental terrorism is all justified
and motivated by ideologies. Islamic terrorism isn't exceptional in that
respect.

It is if you have swallowed global conspiracy about the protocols of the elders of mecca rubbish like Sky has.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Let me ask you, if the buildings had not collapsed, would you have had a different view on the events of 9/11 ? For me no (and to be honest I was just as emotional as anybody else seeing those towers collapse), but you cannot act emotional when dealing with such matters. Because you loose sight of what is important and what the terrorists want.

The quality and quantity of this attack is woithout example. the act itself is beyond belief, and loss in live is extreme, the economical costs are monumental, and the chnage to the world, to our rights and liberties and habits and procedures already needs thick box to be covered in full. This does not compared with anything the IRA, the ETA, the RAF or the red briages have achieved.

We do not agree because for me there is no difference between basque, or islamic terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. There is no fundamental difference.

There you are wrong, there are many significant differences. Lets do not even mention operational differences and an organsiation and infrastructure, a network of fund-raising that in case of Al Qaeda excedes everything european terrorism ever was capable of. Let'S focus on that Djihad attracts people no matter their nationality, without having lbks to the region where they strike. Let'S see that djihad is linked to a religious demand and by that is capable to ufnold far more motivaitonal energy than we have seen from terrorism in europe. Let'S see that Al Qaeda is capable not only to threatening the taking over of whole nations, but already has demonstrated that ability to wide degrees in several nations.

and most imporant, neither ETA nor the IRA nor the RAF had eyed the taking over of all the world. Djihad/Islam claims right that to be the ultimate goal: global ruling.

That is a bit more than just some political suckers bombing a taxi in front of an embassy, or a group of gangsters cionsidering themselves to fight for rtegional independence.

The support for ETA, RAF, IRA, always was and still is minor, and regional. Djihad is capable to activate crowds and masses counting by the donzens of millions, and more.

As I said, compared to djihad, european terror organisations of the past 40 years have been children's game. They never were popular with the masses. Djihad is.

In my last post I summarised that we disagree on the nature of european terrorism and Islamic terrorism being two different things, both in quality and quantity. but we agree for the most that both must be tackled by the same means, with good police work, intel, infiltration, counter-terrorism operations, etc etc - what i have listed. I focus on all that, too, like you, and like you I think it is foolish to assume one could beat Islamic terror by military means alone or hightech scanners and satellites. I want HiTech included where needed, but not at the cost of not weighing the costs in freedoms and rights versus the security gains, and not at the cost of giving up human intel capacity, like it was done until some years ago. It was a mistake to give up human resources in intel capacity for hightech solutions exclusively.