Ok, I don't want this to get into a pacifist v. isolationist v. neocon debate, but I'm wondering what exactly would make the terrorists lay down their arms. Would it be:

1. Completely leave the middle east, even before our adventure in Iraq occurred?

2. All convert to Islam? (As an aside, I think that religion is the root of many evils)

3. Have Israel give back lands conquered in the war?

4. Stop "meddling" in other country's affairs, however you (or they) would define it?

5. Buy our oil in an "arm's length transaction"?

what is it? I'm at a loss.

Well let's just put it this way, they didn't ask Paul Johnson what voter registration card he filled out. They don't care who or what you are as long as you aren't one of them. They kill with equal hate. Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. Don't you get it? There is no reasoning with them. They want power and want everyone else dead.

Well let's just put it this way, they didn't ask Paul Johnson what voter registration card he filled out. They don't care who or what you are as long as you aren't one of them. They kill with equal hate. Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. Don't you get it? There is no reasoning with them. They want power and want everyone else dead.

Yes, fine. BUT, what made them this way? Com'on you don't end up blowing yourself up or flying planes into buildings because you're bored. Ignoring the ignorant morons who think they'll end up with 70 virgins, what motivates the directors of terrorism? I'm not talking about reasoning with them, I'm talking about not creating more and how they came about in the first place.

Ok, I don't want this to get into a pacifist v. isolationist v. neocon debate, but I'm wondering what exactly would make the terrorists lay down their arms. Would it be:

1. Completely leave the middle east, even before our adventure in Iraq occurred?

2. All convert to Islam? (As an aside, I think that religion is the root of many evils)

3. Have Israel give back lands conquered in the war?

4. Stop "meddling" in other country's affairs, however you (or they) would define it?

5. Buy our oil in an "arm's length transaction"?

what is it? I'm at a loss.
#4 caused most of the current problem. Our buddying up to Israel sealed the deal. I don't think they give a rip if we convert to Islam as long as we stop meddling in their affairs. Since we won't they will continue to escalate the Jihad. I am, of course, painting with a very broad brush. I don't know any Iraquis personally, but I'm guessing that there is only a small minority that are involved in this right wing fringe Jihad. The rest are probably a lot like us--trying to support a family and live the best they can with all the crap going on around them.

#4 caused most of the current problem. Our buddying up to Israel sealed the deal. I don't think they give a rip if we convert to Islam as long as we stop meddling in their affairs. Since we won't they will continue to escalate the Jihad. I am, of course, painting with a very broad brush. I don't know any Iraquis personally, but I'm guessing that there is only a small minority that are involved in this right wing fringe Jihad. The rest are probably a lot like us--trying to support a family and live the best they can with all the crap going on around them.

Can someone tell why the hell we just overthrew the only secular state in the entire middle east? Why could we make so many two bit despots our lackeys but not Saddam. Why couldn't we keep him in power, hell use him as our hammer in the middle east?

#4 caused most of the current problem. Our buddying up to Israel sealed the deal. I don't think they give a rip if we convert to Islam as long as we stop meddling in their affairs. Since we won't they will continue to escalate the Jihad. I am, of course, painting with a very broad brush. I don't know any Iraquis personally, but I'm guessing that there is only a small minority that are involved in this right wing fringe Jihad. The rest are probably a lot like us--trying to support a family and live the best they can with all the crap going on around them.

If Isreal was handed over to the Palistinians and the U.S. became completely isolationist then the Jihad terrorist wouldn't go away. Next they would want to take over every country with a Muslim population. Then they'd want Spain, which they consider rightfully and historically theirs. Hand them Spain and they'd want have to find another demon to unite the faithful. Give them the world and they'd splinter into two groups and demonize each other (which they do already).

#4 caused most of the current problem. Our buddying up to Israel sealed the deal. I don't think they give a rip if we convert to Islam as long as we stop meddling in their affairs. Since we won't they will continue to escalate the Jihad. I am, of course, painting with a very broad brush. I don't know any Iraquis personally, but I'm guessing that there is only a small minority that are involved in this right wing fringe Jihad. The rest are probably a lot like us--trying to support a family and live the best they can with all the crap going on around them.

Oh please. IT"S NOT OUR FAULT. This didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen because of Israel. Not too long ago, Islamic terrorists were slitting throats in Algeria, and it had nothing to do with US meddling or with Israel. There are lots of other examples.

The real source of the problem are the corrupt regimes in the Middle East. They screw over their people and to keep the people off their back, they tell them all their problems are the fault of the west. Or it's the Jews. The bulk of the people in these countries are poor and illiterate. There are no schools, or the schools are basically brainwashing centers that create fundamentalists. Their access to free media is limited. It's not that hard to convince them of anything.

Why were there Nazis? It was because some sick individuals got into power and played on the fears and historical prejudices of suffering people. The government convinced them that all their problems were caused by certain people. It was irrational, but it worked. And that's exactly what is happening in the middle east.

There are two things we need to do to stop it. First, we have to replace the governments who run Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I don't know how to do that, and certainly no one in the Bush administration does, either. So we're stuck with it for a while.

The other thing is that the so-called moderate Muslims, who claim to detest Al-Qaida and terrorism, have to step forward. I'm talking about the big guys--the imams of Mecca and Medina, and the other holy sites. They have to launch a multi-media campaign to make it clear that true Muslims don't murder people. TV, newspapers, billboards, personal appearences, etc. It has to be big and it has to be powerful. If the fundamentalists truly are the minority, then they will start to lose the support of the people and they will get fewer and fewer new recruits. There is hope for this, as the imams of Mecca did say that killing the latest beheading victim was wrong, and real Muslims don't do that. It sure would be nice for all the Muslims in the world to hear him say that.

Generally I agree with you, but we are not blameless here. Out policies in the Middle East (ala Reagan) have certainly had an impact on the instability of the region, as well as how we are viewed in the world community in general. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am not sure how much further things would go as far as the spread of "I want a homeland too Muslims" if we were to stop blindly supporting Israel, and actually strive for creation of a Palestinian state.

1. Completely leave the middle east, even before our adventure in Iraq occurred?
2. All convert to Islam? (As an aside, I think that religion is the root of many evils)
3. Have Israel give back lands conquered in the war?
4. Stop "meddling" in other country's affairs, however you (or they) would define it?
5. Buy our oil in an "arm's length transaction"?




1, 3, and 4. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Now tell your president in November.

Why were there Nazis? It was because some sick individuals got into power and played on the fears and historical prejudices of suffering people. The government convinced them that all their problems were caused by certain people. It was irrational, but it worked. And that's exactly what is happening in the middle east.

There are two things we need to do to stop it. First, we have to replace the governments who run Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I don't know how to do that, and certainly no one in the Bush administration does, either. So we're stuck with it for a while.





Why were there Nazis? Why were there neocons? Bush has been demonizing "terrorists" for how long now? Playing on peoples fears... using words like "axis of evil." It is exactly what has happened in the US. He used those fears to justify an invasion. It was irrational. It has yet to work... and to my knowledge, the third reich lasted considerably less than a thousand years.

I guarantee that "replacing the governments" will only make matters worse. Most so-called "terrorists" work beyond the scope of governments. For us to blame these countries for harboring terrorists is akin to accusing the US of harboring gang-members, drug dealers, and prostitutes in inner-cities. The US cannot irradicate their own social ills- isn't it a bit presumptuous to expect other countries to do the same?

The terrorists have already won. The US has spent billions of dollars responding to a few box cutters and a few human lives, and there is no end in sight.

I've wondered the same thing, but bear in mind that after nearly four years since 9/11 we have not yet received a clear statement as to why it was done. We can piece together a few "infidel this, infidel that" statements from Bin Laden, however most terrorist issue a statement of sorts. Their brand of terrorism is unique in that it is a message of death with no explanation. Although I doubt if their demands are reasonable, I see no chance to reach a compromise if they have no vocal platform.

They've stated their "explanation" on many occasions, and the message has been quite clear: "Look - we don't want you in our affairs, Mr. Uncle Sam. Stay out of the Middle East and let us deal with Israel." The message is the same, whether it comes from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, PLO, whatever.

As a rule, a legal state of war has existed between Israel and her Arab enemies since the beginning of the first war in 1948, when the current state of Israel first came into being. You had The Sinai War (1956), The Six-Day War (1967), the terrorist incident at the '72 Olympics, The Yom Kippur War (1973). But the violence was mostly geared toward Israel, until the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Revolution in '79, when Khomeini took the U.S. hostages. Then the Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (1981), The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1982), and the subsequent occupation until 2000, the PanAm 103 hijacking (1988), The Persian Gulf War (1991). The 90's/early 00's had the 1st WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, 9/11, and the continuing Palestinian Intifada. Most recently have been the bombings in Bali, Turkey and Spain, not to mention the almost daily suicide attacks in Iraq and Israel.

Which brings us to the present-day situation created by GWB.

I guess nobody learned from the 241 U.S. troops killed by the suicide truck bomber in Lebanon in '83? (Well, maybe temporarily, because Reagan immediately pulled out after that). Notice the change in the pattern of attacks after '83, and especially after '91 - it was no longer just Israel that the Islamists were after.

I'm all for removing all US troops from the middle east and letting them sort out their own issues, but I don't think that will satisfy our enemies. I look at the example of the PLO and Israel. Israel has brokered over a dozen peaceful solutions to the situation, including some generous land rights, but Hamas and the PLO derail the process. If there were peace, these organizations would have no purpose, so they have become dependent on the infidels they fight against. I would bet my last dollar that there is no means of satisfying their demands because they demand to make us their enemy.

Concerning the clarity of their demands, it is a judgment call I suppose. I read from the 9/11 commission that an original component of the plot was to have one plane land at an airport with all the passengers killed and issue a statement. This idea was declined by Bin Laden in favor of a pure death message. Either they need to take a Communication 101 course or they are more interested in killing than articulating any message.

I do believe the hostages were taken in Iran before Reagan ever became president, so blaming him for the crisis is kind of foolish. Seems to me there have been problems in the ME for eons. They're a violent society - or at least one that tolerates violence. No other way to put it.

I'm all for removing all US troops from the middle east and letting them sort out their own issues, but I don't think that will satisfy our enemies. I look at the example of the PLO and Israel. Israel has brokered over a dozen peaceful solutions to the situation, including some generous land rights, but Hamas and the PLO derail the process. If there were peace, these organizations would have no purpose, so they have become dependent on the infidels they fight against. I would bet my last dollar that there is no means of satisfying their demands because they demand to make us their enemy.

Concerning the clarity of their demands, it is a judgment call I suppose. I read from the 9/11 commission that an original component of the plot was to have one plane land at an airport with all the passengers killed and issue a statement. This idea was declined by Bin Laden in favor of a pure death message. Either they need to take a Communication 101 course or they are more interested in killing than articulating any message.

I think their attitude at this point is that most people understand their message very clearly and anyone who doesn't by now is too stupid to be missed in the course of a very logical escalation. Add to this the extensive use of private military contractors and the way in which this war was served up to the american people and it seems like a perfect recipe for doom. It used to be that you could usually say that they hated america, but not americans, I think that's changed a lot recently.

It’s all about the original "wandering people". Unfortunately the "wanderers” were much more intelligent and civilized than the other nomads in the desert. The "other" nomads got pissed because they were so lacking. Just like a stereotypical alpha chimp in a school yard, they couldn't defend themselves with brains or logic, so they wanted to kill these semi-civilized wanderers.

If you stop by local dog pound for a few minutes you can observe this behavior first hand and get a better grip on what it is they want in the Middle East. Can you use formal logic with a dog? I think in their eyes the Unites States has "pissed" on what these small minded people see as their bed. Looks like a dog fight to the death to me.
:eek:

Ideology being used to chase money is a powerful force. The guys high on the food chain are very wealthy and would like to stay that way. A democracy would certainly threaten their ability to control funds for themselves.

Last week I heard on the BBC that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have become immensely wealthy from their "differences" and that neither is willing to give up their ATM PINs.

I do believe the hostages were taken in Iran before Reagan ever became president, so blaming him for the crisis is kind of foolish.

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking LS, or you simply enjoy trolling/twisting someone's meaning. Please show where I "blamed Reagan for the hostage crisis".(?) I clearly stated the taking of the hostages in 1979 - before Reagan was elected.

But since you bring up the Reagan administration's involvement in the hostage crisis, perhaps you're familiar with the original "October Surprise" in 1980? It was the plan executed by those who backed the Reagan campaign who set out to unseat Jimmy Carter by making a deal with the Iranians (through the CIA) to continue to hold American hostages beyond the 1980 November elections.

Now all we have to do is wait for GWB's version of it coming to a Fox News channel near you this fall. Here's a good link for ya: http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/denied/octsurprise.htm

Duane

Israel has brokered over a dozen peaceful solutions to the situation, including some generous land rights, but Hamas and the PLO derail the process. If there were peace, these organizations would have no purpose, so they have become dependent on the infidels they fight against. I would bet my last dollar that there is no means of satisfying their demands because they demand to make us their enemy.

That merely reiterates my statement that the Arab countries have been in a constant state of war will Israel since its inception. If I'm not mistaken, only Egypt and Jordan recognise their right to exist.

That's why I give much credit to Clinton's very determined attempt to broker a peace deal with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, pre-GWB. Barak was willing to give great concessions to the Palestinians, some of which were unacceptable to Israel only just prior to that time, but Arafat would have none of it. However, it appears that with the actions of the Bush administration, our permanence as an enemy of Islam has been sealed.

Last week I heard on the BBC that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have become immensely wealthy from their "differences" and that neither is willing to give up their ATM PINs.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Well, that's sounds about right. Why am I not surprised??

:rolleyes:

I can see why they may think this, but they really need to throw us a bone, otherwise we wouldn't be stymied on this board about what they want. I can only hope that the administration knows more about what they want than we do, but the terrorists would be well served by a publicist. (However, I do think Bush is oversimplifying or dead wrong when he says they hate freedom) This leads me to think they don't care if the message gets through or not as long as they kill people.

It reminds me of a line in the movie Braveheart when the crazy Irish guy stumbles into Wallace's group and says, "If I fight for you, do I get to kill English swine?" Wallace, "yes." Crazy Irish guy, "Excellent."

Hey, you must either have difficulty following a thread or are logging in using more than one screen name and are getting them confused. (something I would put past some people that post here) My Reagan post was in response to what Thorn Bait posted. The point was there were problems in the ME before Reagan took office. He intimated that Reagan's policies caused the problems.

PS I do believe I remember reading something OES posted here or on that other cycling forum about using more than one screen name. Hmmmm?

I can see why they may think this, but they really need to throw us a bone, otherwise we wouldn't be stymied on this board about what they want.

What's not to understand? It is obvious that the larger part of the Arab world wants nothing less than the complete destruction of the state of Israel, and anyone who aids and abets them is in the crosshairs as well.

But it is much more than our long-standing aid and friendship to Israel now. One reason is when the U.S. invaded Kuwait/Saudi Arabia to eject Saddam in '91, the Saudi king made it clear that after Kuwait was liberated, the U.S. was to leave and would not have permanent bases in country. Since Bush Sr. did not support the Shia uprising in the south, and Schwartzkopf allowed in the surrender terms that Iraq could still use their remaining helicopters, the uprising was brutally put down by Saddam. This gave the Saudi's reason to then ask U.S. forces to stay in case Saddam tried another border crossing. Bin Laden then started on his mission to plan attacks on the U.S. infidel's for occupying holy Muslim territory.

My opinion? I believe Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam purposely knowing there would be another conflict in the future if he were left in power in Iraq, not because the mandate was to merely push Saddam out of Kuwait and then stop.

"An audio recording purportedly made by al-Qaida-linked militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and found online Wednesday threatened to assassinate Iraq's interim prime minister and said the fight against 'infidels' would continue 'until Islamic rule is back on earth.'"

Seems pretty cut and dry.

(Hey two cliches in one post, pats self on back)

"An audio recording purportedly made by al-Qaida-linked militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and found online Wednesday threatened to assassinate Iraq's interim prime minister and said the fight against 'infidels' would continue 'until Islamic rule is back on earth.'"

Seems pretty cut and dry.

(Hey two cliches in one post, pats self on back)


Now does that mean Islamic rule back in certain countries. Or does it mean that the whole earth should be ruled by people of the Islamic faith? When I first read it I figured for the second of the two???????

Now does that mean Islamic rule back in certain countries. Or does it mean that the whole earth should be ruled by people of the Islamic faith? When I first read it I figured for the second of the two???????

That was pretty much my reading.

He's sooooooo easy.
They kill 3000 Americans............We invade Iraq

If bush stays in, they probably think that after the next attack, we'll invade Poland.

Invade Poland? Nah - the "Old Yurp" already did that. The "New USA" needs something a bit more contemporary - like invading a few weak, sovereign Muslim countries. Hey! We're big n' tough - why not?

How 'bout Jordan ????

How 'bout Jordan ????
How about Saudi Arabia? How about tonight?

But back to the original question: What do the terrorists want?

Answer: I don't care.

Asking what they want, or wondering what they want, is the first step of negotiation. You know how I feel about negotiating with terrorists.

Of course, I realize that one man's terrorist is another man's founding father. Until they win, I'll plan for their defeat.

How about Saudi Arabia? How about tonight?

But back to the original question: What do the terrorists want?

Answer: I don't care.

Asking what they want, or wondering what they want, is the first step of negotiation. You know how I feel about negotiating with terrorists.

Of course, I realize that one man's terrorist is another man's founding father. Until they win, I'll plan for their defeat.

Sounds like a pretty typical american attitude, the kind that got us into this most recent mess. Maybe one good thing about that is that most americans won't even know if they've won or lost.

Ok, I don't want this to get into a pacifist v. isolationist v. neocon debate, but I'm wondering what exactly would make the terrorists lay down their arms. Would it be:

1. Completely leave the middle east, even before our adventure in Iraq occurred?

2. All convert to Islam? (As an aside, I think that religion is the root of many evils)

3. Have Israel give back lands conquered in the war?

4. Stop "meddling" in other country's affairs, however you (or they) would define it?

5. Buy our oil in an "arm's length transaction"?

what is it? I'm at a loss.

I think they want 1, 3, and 4. 2 and 5 would be a bonus.