[Vaal Satori]

I have come to the conclusion that Islamic terrorists in their present state will not be able to achieve their goals, which are firstly to expel Western imperialism and cultural hegemony from the Middle East, secondly to unite the Muslim world in a resurrected Caliphate, and thirdly to make Islamic society more traditionalistic by rejecting what are seen as corrupting influences.

The main reason they will not succeed is because their first and third goals can never both be achieved at the same time, and reaching one by default makes the other one almost impossible to attain. Afghanistan served as a perfect example of this. The Taliban brought more tradition to their society, outlawing almost all modern technologies and essentially taking their country back to a pre-modern civilization. The inevitable result of this was that the Taliban became militarily weak and was easy to overthrow. This happened despite the fact that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult terrains to invade and very easy to defend by way of guerrilla warfare. If Islamic radicals' desired level of technology was insufficient to defend one mountainous nation with no strategic resources to even make it worth conquering, then how do they expect to defend an Islamic Empire spanning from Morocco to Pakistan and containing the most precious natural resource in the world?

This degree of international terrorism has happened before, and is by no means exclusive to Islamic fundamentalists. It was in the mid to late 19th century, when socialists were attempting to introduce their ideology to the world through intense political statements. In particular Russia was the subject of the most spectacular terrorist attacks. There was actually a measure of success attributed to the terrorism of that era, culminating in the establishment of a socialist nation, which may be why Islamic radicals today think they have a chance at achieving similar successes. There is however a very significant difference between then and now. The socialists were attempting to introduce a post-modern industrial society that was capable of defending itself militarilly and using economic prosperity to extend its influence abroad. The Islamic fundamentalists are proposing no such system. Their ideal would not be capable of survival in the modern world, which makes their goals unattainable.

I'd appreciate everyone's input, and whether you think this is a valid conclusion to reach.

[cjav0]

They seem to be succeeding quite well in europe though... New wave of self censorship and other !@#$% behaviour by european politicians and the leftist elite..

[Kenadian_2006]

I think you are ultimately correct, though they do still post a threat. I think, conversely, those on our side of the conflict that think they can stamp out and kill the movement are equally delusional.

cjavo, on Mar 18 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

They seem to be succeeding quite well in europe though... New wave of self censorship and other !@#$% behaviour by european politicians and the leftist elite..

That's hardly going to achieve they're goals and really sounds more like just another conflict between Europe's xenophobes and Europe's apologists.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 18 March 2008 - 03:01 PM

[cjav0]

Disagree Kenadian. Its playing right in their hands. You can't critize a muslims, the islam or the behaviour leading to extremism without being called a xenophobe. Also unnecessary censorship

The word is censored for a reason is not a word that needs to be censored. Its ridiculous to censor it.

The Mod

[Deepthinker]

They won't achieve their goals, alls they do is give our governments reasons for us to fear. When we fear, we play right into the governments agenda.

[Scott Robb]

cjavo, on Mar 18 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Disagree Kenadian. Its playing right in their hands. You can't critize a muslims, the islam or the behaviour leading to extremism without being called a xenophobe. Also unnecessary censorship

The word is censored for a reason is not a word that needs to be censored. Its ridiculous to censor it.

Yeah ... don't spell it out, that's asking for a warn.

Back on topic - The western world does not negotiate with terrorists. They will never succeed, but to be a terrorist in the first place, you would have to be quite deluded. So let them dream of their virgins waiting for them in paradise. In the mean time, we will continue to not care. Just as they don't care about us.

[Meso Commonwealth]

We could win... By nuking them. However that is both suicidal and quite stupid. Shame so many actually think that's the right decision.

[Slavicius]

Quote

We could win... By nuking them. However that is both suicidal and quite stupid. Shame so many actually think that's the right decision.

Just who are they? I was unaware that there are nations exclusively populated by terrorists on this planet :|

Nuclear weapons are about as useful against terrorists as they would be against organised crime and street thugs...

Edit: Fair enough about Middle-Eastern based terror groups, however I somehow think they aren't the most rational of individuals to sit back and reevaluate their plans.

But what about "Home-grown" terrorists? Is a guy who walks into a U.S. school or college with an automatic weapon as much as a terrorist as another on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul?

This post has been edited by Slavicius: 18 March 2008 - 08:19 PM

[Meso Commonwealth]

Slavicius, on Mar 18 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

Just who are they? I was unaware that there are nations exclusively populated by terrorists on this planet :|

Nuclear weapons are about as useful against terrorists as they would be against organised crime and street thugs...

Read the rest of my post...

[Slavicius]

I did.

Quote

We could win... By nuking them. However that is both suicidal and quite stupid. Shame so many actually think that's the right decision.

Despite the fact you said it would be "suicidal and quite stupid", you still thought "we could win" as a result of such drastic actions. At least thats the way it reads.

I disagree for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

[Caliph]

Scott Robb, on Mar 18 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Yeah ... don't spell it out, that's asking for a warn.

Back on topic - The western world does not negotiate with terrorists. They will never succeed, but to be a terrorist in the first place, you would have to be quite deluded. So let them dream of their virgins waiting for them in paradise. In the mean time, we will continue to not care. Just as they don't care about us.

That is not quite true.

The United States and Israel have both negotiated with terrorist groups.

The United States have engaged in talks with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Israel has engaged in numerous cease fire and prisoner exchanges with Hizbullah.

The West does indeed negotiate with terrorists. In addition, the US's move to support Kosovo independence, which by the way is a violation of UNSC Resolution 1244, only serves to create the hope that other "terrorist/separist" movements have a chance at achieving their goals.

The terrorists can indeed win. They already have public support in the communities they live in, and are gaining support in other countries who are anti American and anti west.

The situation of terrorism is not as simple as being able to label them automatically the "bad guys". In their minds, they truly believe they are in the right, and that some of their attacks are in direct response to agression against them/their religion/their country.

In the eyes of some of the people in the world, they are the freedom fighters, and it is the West who are the terrorists.

[Kenadian_2006]

Caliph, on Mar 19 2008, 02:06 AM, said:

That is not quite true.

The United States and Israel have both negotiated with terrorist groups.

The United States have engaged in talks with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Israel has engaged in numerous cease fire and prisoner exchanges with Hizbullah.

The West does indeed negotiate with terrorists. In addition, the US's move to support Kosovo independence, which by the way is a violation of UNSC Resolution 1244, only serves to create the hope that other "terrorist/separist" movements have a chance at achieving their goals.

The terrorists can indeed win. They already have public support in the communities they live in, and are gaining support in other countries who are anti American and anti west.

The situation of terrorism is not as simple as being able to label them automatically the "bad guys". In their minds, they truly believe they are in the right, and that some of their attacks are in direct response to agression against them/their religion/their country.

In the eyes of some of the people in the world, they are the freedom fighters, and it is the West who are the terrorists.

Hence the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[Caliph]

Kenadian_2006, on Mar 18 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Hence the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Quoted for truth.

[MadScotsman]

Scott Robb, on Mar 18 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

Yeah ... don't spell it out, that's asking for a warn.

Back on topic - The western world does not negotiate with terrorists. They will never succeed, but to be a terrorist in the first place, you would have to be quite deluded. So let them dream of their virgins waiting for them in paradise. In the mean time, we will continue to not care. Just as they don't care about us.

Three letters for you...

I R A

Or how about another three

U D F

[Anglo-fuhrer]

Back on topic - The western world does not negotiate with terrorists. They will never succeed, but to be a terrorist in the first place, you would have to be quite deluded. So let them dream of their virgins waiting for them in paradise. In the mean time, we will continue to not care. Just as they don't care about us.
[/quote]

MadScotsman, on Mar 19 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

Three letters for you...

I R A

Or how about another three

U D F

Have some more:
K L A
E T A
P L O

[Xiao Weng]

Add some C I A, N S A, D E A, and tomato sauce. I could use some soup.

[Lord GVChamp]

The terrorists have a significant chance of victory, though you are correct in that they cannot win in their present. The extremist Islamic terrorist movement is pretty much an underground, unspoken movement at the moment, with lots of cash from some sick weirdos that believe in their goals.


What they will need to do in order to accomplish it, though, is to actually secure the mechanisms of a state, and get the West off of their back. They have known this to some extent for years: however, they were largely focused on the first, trying to control a state, for a very long time. The innovation of Al Qaeda is that it was seen as the umbrella group under which all other terrorist groups would act, and they would concentrate on fighting the United States as opposed to nearer enemies.


Their chance of winning is quite low. But we didn't think that they would in Iran after the Shah fell. They shouldn't be underestimated.

[kingzog]

In human history, groups using methods that are generally seen as being those of "terrorists" have been overwhelmingly successful in achieving their goals.

Look at just about every single national liberation war fought over the last century. Suicide killings, bombing of innocents....it has all been done before. And it has worked from Ireland to Israel to darn near everywhere else I can think of off the top of my head.

You are right, though, that the terrorists will not win. For when they win, no one will call them terrorists.

[Gairyuki]

kingzog, on Mar 19 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

You are right, though, that the terrorists will not win. For when they win, no one will call them terrorists.

Quoted because he's right. The USA can relate. Remember way back when Old George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were around.

[Alterego]

Operation banner, the 30+ year British operation in Northern Ireland is over. This document was leaked and supposed to remain classified/Top Secret. It will give you an idea about what America & co will be thinking about and doing behind closed doors. Feel free to show it around:

http://www.serve.com...sc/opbanner.pdf