Enemy numbers & their resources

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many of them are there?

A lot

Where do they get there funding and arms?

Rich people, like Osama Bin Laden, countries like Iran and the USA

Where do they train?

Where ever they are...

Where do they recruit?

Where ever they are...

and why are they popular?

If Muslims were invading Western countries, and your country had 75% unemployment and they had almost total employment, and you were living in poverty, and they were making millions, and they were also threatening to invade the USA I'm sure you'd join the nearest militia...

Nothing excuses terrorism of course, but you can't tell me that every single insurgent in Iraq is a crazy, psychotic madman with no motive.
 
Fosberry,
I could do the same generalizations.

We all know that:
Part of the reason they are popular is abuse and/or maltreatment at one time or another by goverments, industrial corporations, and NGO's.

That some Muslim religous schooling includes intolerance of non-Muslims. That sets a foundation in young minds early on.
 
Killing a bunch of civilians is a low-budget, small operation requiring only a few people.

Developing and deploying smart bombs and special forces to take out a single terrorist cell is a large, multifaceted project requiring many, many people and a lot of money.

So there's an equasion about numbers and resources that you might want to change. If there are 1000 active, violent Jihadists around the world, and a bunch of people who don't oppose them or even "support" them passively, that may be enough to have an enormous impact. Cheering someone on does not mean real operational support.

I can't answer the questions; I don't work in intelligence. I just wanted to point out that comparing numbers and resources is, itself, a complex business.
 
^Just so. But those teachings began for a reason. As I said, nothing excuses terrorism, but we shouldn't shut our eyes and refuse to believe these people have genuine grievences. Once we accept that they do, not only can we fight terrorism on the field of battle or in the courts, but at the root by solving their grievences (or better yet, getting them to solve them themselves).

If you're looking for more detailed answers to the first four questions, well there are many answers because as your original post, to an extent, shows there are many many Muslim terrorist and para-military organisations around the world, not to mention all the non-Muslim ones. I could never provide an exhaustive list of every individual, state and organisation to ever fund or arm Islamic terrorism and I don't think anyone could, not even the leaders of intelligence agencies. Afterall, if they could do that, we wouldn't have a problem. Much the same goes for the other three questions (of the first four).

The latter question though, is not one which requires covert investigation, it is one you can look into simply by talking to that Muslim down the road. I'm sure he would never consider terrorism and condemns it completely, but he is likely to hold or at least understand the same grievences that those who do turn to terrorism also hold.
 
There are grievances, and then there are grievances.

If the primary grievance of the Jihadists is really that they don't control all the land from Turkey to Spain, then I don't think we're going to oblige. If their grievances include things done by people who have been dead for centuries, or include the fact that all the Jews in the world haven't been exterminated, then I think we might actually have to accept that they really are the Enemy in a big way.

I think you see the problem here, with worrying too much about their grievances.
 
Its important to separate the groups mentioned into rough groups, as to suggest they are all cut from the same cloth would be wrong.

For a start, there is a clear difference between a "jihad for jihad's sake" group like al-Qaeda with "political" groups with specific aims and grievances, such as (for example) Hamas. You then have to add in the state-sponsored groups such as Hezbollah (albeit they have rather more of a Lebanese element amongst them than previously).

The latter two can (and are, despite recent hiccups) be reasoned with and deals worked out - in that, they are no different from other terrorist groups such as the IRA or ETA - discuss and resolve some of their grievances, as well as involve them in the political process and the level of violence used decreases. Lets not forget that, in the case of Hamas, they were the only viable option for Palestinians to an immensely corrupt and largely ineffective Fatah party and that they were the democratic choice of the Palestinian people. Yes, they are anti-Israeli, but given the last fifty-odd years of their history, and when picnicking families are the targets of artillery fire on the beach, to be anti-Israeli is probably de rigeur for any politician over there.

State-sponsored groups can also be dealt with by dialogue with or action against the state concerned, or (where they dont reside in that specific state) pressure from the state in which they operate; its worth reminding of the fact that Libya was once in the same league as Iran and Syria when it came to sponsoring terrorists, but was forced (after Lockerbie) to give it up thanks to diplomatic and political pressure from the international community.

True Jihadist groups (such as al-Qaeda) however usually have aims that will never be accepted (such as the spread of Islam across the globe, return of all lands once held by Muslims - such as Spain, for example), and only latch on to certain causes because they are of use in recruiting Muslims / fundraising etc (for example, its notable how little al-Qaeda has actually helped the Palestinians), and tend to aim for attacks which even "political" terror groups will refuse to do and for no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible.

Its also worth noting that these Jihadist groups are invariably Sunni (and usually Wahabist) and are as violent towards other Muslims (usually Shia) as they are to non-Muslim populations, as the daily attacks in Baghdad, and the frequent attacks in Pakistan, demonstrate. They cannot be reasoned with, only killed.
 
Agricola makes a fine point and I agree.

However, I think that the real hardcore world domination terrorists are few and far between. They'll all say they want to conquer the world, but I'll wager the vast, vast majority of these guys wouldn't be doing this if they had reasonably well paid job and a nice place to live and didn't see people just like them getting bombed and mistreated all the time on CNN.

I don't doubt some people will never be happy (or have unrealistic goals like killing all Jews or being given Spain) but there's so few, if you can take away the mass support by solving basic issues like unemployment, you'll make the world far safer than you would by any ammount of military action (not to say military action is never nescessary).
 
thanks to diplomatic and political pressure from the international community
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Libya found a bombing campaign to be more persuasive than the "international community's" blathering.

A multi-pronged approach is certainly needed, and military action is one part of it.

How do we solve unemployment, though, when it appears that several nations in question are going medieval?
 
Fosbery has a point about an ideological core and masses of the disaffected.

One of my wife's ancestors fought in the Civil War; by his own admission, he did so to avoid the labor and boredom of farming. He joined the Confederate army because they occupied the area he lived in when he joined. After being wounded, captured, and paroled home to recover, he joined the Union army, which had subsequently occupied the area in which he lived.
 
To further an earlier point made by Fosbery, if the US was invaded by a foreign army, I'm sure that most Americans would conduct guerilla ops against the occupiers who would brand the American Gs as terrorists.
Personally, I see no problem with killing other americans (lower case "a" intentional) who aided the occupiers.
It's a matter of perspective.

Biker
 
The "enemy" is funded by Iran, Syria is an Iranian puppet used for distrubution of weapons and money.

I wasn't in favor of the Iraq invasion but once it was underway I was dissappointed we didn't take out Syria at the same time.

IMHO the reason we haven't been attacked stateside is the effectiveness of the initial Afghan campaign and Iran being busy running the Iraq insurgency.
 
Bin Laden's father made a fortune in construction in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was such an embarrassment (or maybe it was a plot?) they gave him, IIRC, $320 million dollars to leave the country.

My source is either the Washington Post or the Atlantic Monthly OR the Washington Post and the Atlantic Monthly.

John
 
Agricola-

Your breakdown of the different flavors of Middle Eastern extremists is well put.

My only objection is to your assertion that the legitimately political groups like Hamas and (to some extent) Hezbollah can be negotiated with. I see the reasoning, but I think you're making an error that almost all people do when assessing professional terrorists/freedom fighters. You (and most others) seem to forget the fact that the leaders of these groups do this stuff for a living. To keep their jobs (and Swiss bank accounts - see Yasser Arafat) they must either win completely and come to power or keep on doing what they're doing. Islam and politics aside, that's a whole lot of self-interest to fight. The history of negotiations in the region shows that the leaders of this sort of group either refuse to accept concessions (why agree to put yourself out of business?) or immediately find some other grievance upon which to justify their campaigns.
 
...I read somewhere that 95% of the claims made by terrorists, when justifying a terror incident, have to do with trying to get foreigners to leave their country... and this applies to not just middle-east terrorism, if I remember right...
 
...I read somewhere that 95% of the claims made by terrorists...
Click to expand...
But I read somewhere that 29% of all statistics are made up! ;)

Sorry, but it's hard to give any credibility to anonymous opinions that don't have any supporting evidence. If someone has real numbers on this claim, please chime in - it would be interesting to know.
 
Islam is a sex/death cult created by the Hitler/Stalin of his day as an excuse to raise an army and conquer the known world.

He almost got away with it and may still, by proxy, as the general motivating principles of Islam have changed little.

The trouble with sex/death cults is that they don't deal with everyday life very well, hence the generally crappy, wicked, stupid and shambolic state of the Muslim world.

Also, bear in mind, most "Arab" countries weren't Arab until they were conquered by sex/death adherents from the Arabian peninsula and the majority of their inhabitants enslaved or put to death.

And for my English friends who are so quick to give contemporary and socio-economic excuses for the evil of Islam:

7-7-1099 was the day that Godfrey de Bouillon arrived beneath the walls of Jerusalem prior to sacking the city.

So, you see, the Mooslims have a much better perspective on this Crusade than we, the decadent and self-destructive inheritors of Western Civ.


G
 
I do not think this problem is properly understood, consider this,,,

You are three years old, and your parents teach you, and your school teaches you, and your church teaches you, that "allah" put you on this earth to kill "infidels". (Sorry, if you do not believe as they do you are an "infidel"). You are taught that if you die killing 'INFIDELS" you go to heaven. Fast forward to eighteen or thirty years old, and you get a chance to fly a fuel laden passrenger jet into a tower, and kill a LOT of infidels, and what you will do???

The only thing we can do, is send them to their heaven, IF you believed as they do, what would stop you?
 
I think a lot of the jihadi-type terrorists will come from Western countries in the near future. The muslims in the ME have seen the wages of jihad vs America: JDAM up the pie and 5.56 in the face.

They'll be recent immigrants and a greater portion of their children will also sign up for jihad vs their host countries.

Expect a lot more 7/7s, Theo van Goghs, and Madrids.
 
Actually, I think Libya found a bombing campaign to be more persuasive than the "international community's" blathering.
Click to expand...

Hardly - after the raid they stepped up their attacks, culminating in Lockerbie. It took ten years of sanctions to force them into a situation where they had to negotiate, but it has appeared to work.

Of course, the reason why it has worked is because the West used one of its three great advantages - namely overwhelming economic power (the other ones are overwhelming military strength and modern science) in the form of sanctions to eventually break them. Sanctions arent useful for immediate action or politically glamourous, but they - when rigorously imposed - do work.

We could use that same advantage against the rest of the region - if we could lose our addiction to petroleum, the entire region would return to the irrelevant backwater it was prior to the discovery of oil. They have, in recent years, diversified, but nowhere near to the extent required, and its very difficult to inspire people to blow themselves up when you are poorer than they are.

And for my English friends who are so quick to give contemporary and socio-economic excuses for the evil of Islam
Click to expand...

Its hardly excuses. To identify and fight your enemy effectively you must understand him. There is a world of difference between Hamas and al-Qaeda, as others have noted - and if what happened to the Palestinians happened instead to us, I think we all know what we would be doing. Wolverines! :neener:

My only objection is to your assertion that the legitimately political groups like Hamas and (to some extent) Hezbollah can be negotiated with. I see the reasoning, but I think you're making an error that almost all people do when assessing professional terrorists/freedom fighters. You (and most others) seem to forget the fact that the leaders of these groups do this stuff for a living. To keep their jobs (and Swiss bank accounts - see Yasser Arafat) they must either win completely and come to power or keep on doing what they're doing. Islam and politics aside, that's a whole lot of self-interest to fight. The history of negotiations in the region shows that the leaders of this sort of group either refuse to accept concessions (why agree to put yourself out of business?) or immediately find some other grievance upon which to justify their campaigns.
Click to expand...

That is what happened to Fatah, and its a big reason of why they were kicked out. There isnt a similar body of evidence about Hamas, and diplomatically they are a bit of an untried force, because Israel has pretty much refused to negotiate with them.

Moreover it would be wrong to limit that to just the Palestinians - there have been Israelis who have sought to, at times, kick things off for their own ends (Ariel Sharon being the most immediately obvious example).
 
Why GT believes Islam to be a 'sex/death cult' is beyond me, since Islam is practically Judaism with the names changed and I don't think anybody could accuse Jews of belonging to a 'sex/death cult'.

Islamic terrorism is a not entirely new, but on this scale it is. If we look back, at the beginning of the 20th century, Irish terrorism in Britain became commonplace. It has only now ended, 100 years later. And it didn't end because we said 'Irich people are inferior, le's kill them all'. It didn't end after a military victory or with a muchroom cloud, it ended on the negotiating table.

Are Muslims and Irish Catholics that different? Well, the culture is different, but it's not a massive difference. Ireland had high unemployment, children were taught to hate the English and so on. Muslims arn't the Japanese circa 1945. Where as just about every Japanese person would have fought the would-be invaders, it's only a fairly small minority of people who fight our troops in Iraq. The general populus is often hostile, but not to the point of making bombs and shooting people.

We solved Irish terrorism through non-military means and we managed to de-Nazify the vast majority of Germans (granted, this was after a war, but they had a uniformed conventional army for us to fight), I think we can do much the same with Islamic terrorism. Of course military action is required at times to prevent imminent threats but I think this would be much more effective if it was small-scale and targetted. I think a special forces unit or a stealth bomber eliminating a few, identified terrorists combined with other non-military measures will do more good than any ammount of invading or mass bombing. These things largely do not get the people they are after (you're fighting the battle of their terms, letting them ambush you etc) and secondly create massive collateral damage. Not only is this wrong and unnescessary, but counter productive as it simply produces more terrorists.
 
Fosbery,
Your understanding of the last century is as bizarre as your equivalence of Islam and Judaism. We didn't de-Nazify Germany nor did we squash Imperial Japan through diplomacy. We burned Dresden into ash. We vaporized two entire Japanese cities. Then and only then did they sit down and shut up.

As to your incomprehensible theory that Muslim terrorism is based on poverty, you should investigate the people who blew up a bunch of trains and buses in a city you should know about, London.

Mohammed Atta, the sex/death cult weirdo who commandeered Flight 11 into the WTC was awash in money. He loaned a friend $25,000 to open a bakery, he flew back and forth between the US and Europe dozens of times. He lived for a couple of years in the US with an apartment, car etc with no job.

Islam is practically Judaism with the names changed
Click to expand...
Any response to that idiocy would get me banned.
 
Clearly you didn't read my post properly :confused:

I said we didn't defeat Japan through deplomacy, but that Islamic terrorism is not like Japanese imperialism.

The bombing of Dresdon and Hamburg etc did not win the war for us no more than Germany's bombing of London won the war for them. The was was won when we had defeated the German army and captured Berlin but that's not what I was talking about, I was talking about after the war. Many Nazis survived the war, but today Germany is just about the most un-Nazi state in the world.

Clearly you havn't studied Judaism and Islam. The narrative is extremely similar, as are the general ethical teachings. For instance, the Qur'an features Jesus, the angel Gabriel, Adam, Noah, Moses and Abraham, Islam shares a Last Judgement, just like Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, a key Islamic belief is that Judaism and Christianity are simply succesor traditions to Islam (or that Islam is a succesor to them). Of course, details change such as specific rules on food, dress etc, but the general idea is the same. Islamic terrorism isn't based on Islam as a religion, Islam teaches peace and strictly forbids terrorism. Just as Irich Catholic terrorists ignored the teachings of the Bible, so Islamic terrorists ignore the Qur'an.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

7
  • Locked
Al Qaeda May Have Nukes
Replies
55
Views
2K
Legal
grnzbra
G
L
  • Locked
Terrorism: 'al-qaeda's Mr. Nuclear To Head Fresh Attack On U.S.'
Replies
1
Views
366
Legal
Art Eatman
A
H
  • Locked
Proof that Iraq is legitimate part of WOT
Replies
19
Views
854
Legal
Delmar
D
A
  • Locked
Genesis of Al-Quaida: Pakistan
Replies
10
Views
642
Legal
AZRickD
A
H
  • Locked
Al Qaeda targets coke heads.............
Replies
58
Views
2K
Legal
Art Eatman
A
Top Bottom
Back