09-09-2002 11:27									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Y'know US policy is not to blame for the existence of radical Islamic fundamentalism or its targets. As pointed out by "Chris 62," Bin Laden has a particular way of interpreting the Qu'ran and he opposes any state or nation that is not Islamic, or more accurately, not consistent with his interpretation of Islam (remember, he also opposes the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia). This segment of Islam would exist with or without US interference in the Middle East. As Michael the Great points out, the reasons for Bin Laden's hatred are not so much about foreign policy as they are about religious, interpretive issues.

However, having said this much, the US is still in some respect responsible, through its foreign policy, for the attack of 9/11. How? Bin Laden would be a powerless, raving lunatic on the fringe of the Muslim world if it were not for US policies in the region that allow him to gain a hearing and audience with the people. If the US were not propping up corrupt regimes, unilaterally supporting the State of Israel, and turning a blind eye to the plight of poor Muslims in the Middle East, there would be considerably fewer disaffected Muslims for Bin Laden to recruit nor would he have a podium from which to incite hatred against the US. But because the US does these things, Bin Laden can tap into a justifiable sentiment against the US and enflame it into a radical and dangerous global terrorist network. In other words, the US gave Bin Laden the means to move from a powerless, raving lunatic on the fringe to a populist and powerful, raving lunatic who stands, however insanely, for those Muslims who can not stand for themselves.

	09-09-2002 11:31									#92
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Wrong. 9-11 and the videos are far more about inciting jihad and inspiring Islamic uprisings and fundamentalist movements, by demonstrating that they had the power to dramatically strike even the "most powerful" country in the world. Bin Laden and his followers derive much of their Islamic views from the writings of al Qutb, who took Sayyid Maududi's writings on modern Islamic fundamentalism and expanded on them after his visits to the west in the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was long before the US was a major player in the middle east, and at the very beginning of US prominence in foreign policy, long before there was much to particularly hate us over. Al Qutb's hardon for the US and the west in general was primarily based on morals and decadence. (Keep in mind this was the socially conservative 40's and 50's we're talking about - just imagine what they think of us now ) Everything from the consumer society, to the roles of women - especially all that nakedness and brazen sexuality for which the early 50's are known to the total lack of faith in Allah. We are apostates, sinners, ones who defile the holy days and outrage Allah with our countless abominations. We are hated, to be destroyed without mercy unless we happen to see the light, renounce our wicked ways and in turn take up jihad (and no doubt prove our sincerity by martyrdom). We violate Allah's law by refusing to govern ourselves under Sharia. Our biggest "crime" (and sometimes I see his point ) is the spread of our values and culture. The big difference between al Qutb's time and bin Laden's has been the availabity of wealth, technology and communications with which the Jihadi could develop and expand their power, and their ability to strike out. The US was picked for two simple reasons - as the most powerful nation on earth, hitting us proved they could hit anyone. The other (and this gives China a big advantage) is that we are extremely easy to infiltrate. I doubt they would have been able to get 19 guys long term visas and into Chinese flight schools.

Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.?

All of them of well to the left of te US socially.

He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

	09-09-2002 11:33									#93
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.? All of them of well to the left of te US socially. He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

Why is **** censored but ass is not?

	09-09-2002 11:33									#94
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Because of **** Cheney.

	09-09-2002 11:35									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher So the US' stance on stuff like Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it... I've heard the "guilty of our own success" stories too many times to care anymore. Everyone but the US thinks differently, perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

It's because you haven't bothered studying the roots of Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe you should start thinking out of the box, read the Quran and read what you can find on radical Islam.

If everything else was the same on September 11, 2001, except the state of Israel had been exterminated in 1948 (or never created), we'd still be the target. It has nothing to do with "guilty of our own success" - it includes things like failing to stone you, for example. We're not a nation of Abdullah abu CivNationi

Israel is just a nice, convenient, 30 second sound-bite for the two digit IQ crowd, both inside and outside the Islamic world. It's a little easier to explain to the average peasant than "Brittney Spears naked" websites and women walking in public with exposed navels.

	09-09-2002 11:40									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 You REALLY need to read entire threads dear boy...

I don't I've ever read more than 10% of any "serious" thread

	09-09-2002 11:40									#97
	Put an end to popups!

Mike, your argument is kind of disingenuous.

Do some people hate the West because of its freedom/openness/whatever? Yes.

Would this have the same power in a world where it wasn't combined with a feeling of having your national affairs being trampled on by neo-colonial militarism? No.

	09-09-2002 11:40									#98
	Tired of ads?

So the Reb restates what I said on page one, and was a big whoosh for Bucephalus and several others.

The only part the US is at fault was not taking the threat seriously.

Oh, BTW Frogger, I was correct about Gitmo, you should read that thread.

	09-09-2002 11:42									#99
	Got spare money?

What part?

There were more objections than simply the fact they were being kept in open cages (which IIRC has been corrected now)...

	09-09-2002 11:42									#100
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I don't I've ever read more than 10% of any "serious" thread

Yes, but I was driving at something, and you stepped on the banana peal instead of reading on.

	09-09-2002 11:43									#101
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.? All of them of well to the left of te US socially. He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

Hitting the Netherlands or France also doesn't demonstrate to prospective financial backers or recruits that you can take on anyone. Plus the effect was global - remember bin Laden on video talking about the (overestimated) economic effect of the attacks. What are you going to attack in the Netherlands or France or anywhere else that gives you that global bang for the buck?

They wanted something that would top taking on the USSR. Besides, Baywatch and Xena are syndicated worldwide far more than any Dutch or French TV series.

However, al Qutb is still the major key to bin Laden's thinking, and that of most fundamentalists. Al Qutb spent a couple of years in the US, so his contact with apostate western culture is primarily US based, and his writings really hold the US as the symbol of everything the Islamic fundamentalist should oppose by jihad.

	09-09-2002 11:45									#102
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Frogger What part? There were more objections than simply the fact they were being kept in open cages (which IIRC has been corrected now)...

That they wouldn't be considered POWs, since they were illeagal combatants by the Geneva stautes.

They are being held in a sort of limbo, no status has been given for them.

	09-09-2002 11:46									#103
	Put an end to popups!

Oh come on Chris, people know why.

Americans are just in this huge state of denial about it.

Anyway, better to talk about this now rather than on the evil day.

I wonder if we could have a commemoration thread on the OT?

	09-09-2002 11:47									#104
	Tired of ads?

So the US is the only one getting hit because of some strange myopia on the Islamic fundamentalists' part?

One would think that those with a smattering of international education (many Al Qaeda members seem to qualify) would have driven at least some attention to the Eurocoms, who are like the US...except much worse.

Especially when they see stuff like this.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020904/6/oq46.html

	09-09-2002 11:48									#105
	Tired of ads?

Yes, we all know why.

What kind of thread did you have in mind?

My thread about it was not preserved, it's gone to electronic limbo.

	09-09-2002 11:48									#106
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 That they wouldn't be considered POWs, since they were illeagal combatants by the Geneva stautes. They are being held in a sort of limbo, no status has been given for them.

How so? The Geneva convention doesn't force combatants to be citizens of the country they're fighting in...

	09-09-2002 11:49									#107
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Mike, your argument is kind of disingenuous. Do some people hate the West because of its freedom/openness/whatever? Yes. Would this have the same power in a world where it wasn't combined with a feeling of having your national affairs being trampled on by neo-colonial militarism? No.

Disingenuous? moi?

So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content?

Sorry, but the only thing that would change is the tactics. Until the entire world is under Islam and their interpretation of Islamic law, they're in a state of armed jihad. The relative balance of power (interference) only determines the tactics, not the existence of the conflict.

Hey Yank, what's up?

	09-09-2002 11:51									#108
	Support Apolyton

The term of "illegal combatant" means crap all. Was made up by the US admin to justify the fact that they wanted to break the Geneva convention.

Especially when the Convention states that in cases of any doubt, there should be some sort of internat. council to determine staus.

The Geneva convention's definition of POW was written so broadly that it covers just about anybody captured in open combat (i.e. not being hidden in a civilian pop.)

	09-09-2002 11:52									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogger How so? The Geneva convention doesn't force combatants to be citizens of the country they're fighting in...

But distinct uniforms, command structures, recognizeable insignia, and comformance to the rules governing the conduct of war are required. Armed mobs don't count. Taleban fighters in many/most cases would be POWs. Al Qaeda fighters in most cases did not qualify.

	09-09-2002 11:52									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Disingenuous? moi? So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content? Sorry, but the only thing that would change is the tactics. Until the entire world is under Islam and their interpretation of Islamic law, they're in a state of armed jihad. The relative balance of power (interference) only determines the tactics, not the existence of the conflict. Hey Yank, what's up?

What I think you are missing, however, is that Bin Laden would have considerably greater problems in recruitment and fundraising if it weren't for US policy in the region.

	09-09-2002 11:54									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Johhny's under the weather reb, keeping me up.

Frogger, have you yet seen any POW designation for them?

They are "detainees".

I looked at the last Geneva convention some time ago, it was clear about several things, especially "non-identified combatants", IE not properly uniformed or wearing identifing markings, and this area was quite ambibious, and this is where those guys fall, the Taliban portion are POWs, the others are criminals, not soldiers, and not provided the same rights.

I had a lengthy discussion with Roland about this some time ago, trying to hammer out the leagality about it.

	09-09-2002 11:54									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Especially when the Convention states that in cases of any doubt, there should be some sort of internat. council to determine staus.

No, just a tribunal.

quote: The Geneva convention's definition of POW was written so broadly that it covers just about anybody captured in open combat (i.e. not being hidden in a civilian pop.)

Partly true as to the background of the combatant, not true with respect to organization and conduct. The reason is that precise definition of local inactive reserve and militia units is rather difficult, so it's more a standard of "if you fight like soldiers, you're soldiers" than anything else.

	09-09-2002 11:56									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Frogger The term of "illegal combatant" means crap all. Was made up by the US admin to justify the fact that they wanted to break the Geneva convention.

Actually, illeagal combatant is in the convention, the US didn't make that up.

	09-09-2002 11:58									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Disingenuous? moi? So do you think if they were allowed to depose the monarchies and secular dictatorships and the token democracy in the arab world, create a pan-arabic fundamentalist Islamic state, overrun Israel, exterminate the jews and eliminate the Judeo-Christian holy sites there, and we all left them alone, that they'd be content?

Nope. And I don't think that because they arose due to actions of West interfering in their affairs is enough justification to let them run things all of a sudden either.

And allowing "them" (I'm assuming you mean some sort of Holy Alliance of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia) to overrun Israel would of course be unacceptable.

But to deny that religious nationalism as a backlash against Western "influence" with Arab governments is the main cause of Islamic terrorism is just blinding yourself to the truth. And maybe you should consider that the harder you stick it to 'em, the harder they'll want to stick it to you. Because moderate voices for reform are just plain ignored, it seems. People are forced between being content with sad little puppet regimes in every important oil producer or mad anti-US dictatorships in all the others.

	09-09-2002 11:59									#115
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by ckweb What I think you are missing, however, is that Bin Laden would have considerably greater problems in recruitment and fundraising if it weren't for US policy in the region.

US policy does provide simple and easy to use propaganda. But as long as there was some major discontent (which is massive in much of the Islamic world) there would be some way to draw a pretty picture linking non-Islamic governments, evel infidels, and local suffering because Allah is displeased at the local's failing to heed his commandment for Jihad and conversion.

We give them real issues, but the spin would be there even if we didn't. And any policy "concessions" or changes we made would allow the fundamentalists to expand their power. So they don't give us much choice in the matter.

	09-09-2002 12:00									#116
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I wonder if we could have a commemoration thread on the OT?

I think its more appropriate if you U.S. guys come up with something - maybe a condolence thread, shoot anyone who trolls on it.

I'm not making any more critical policy comments now because I know this is a sensitive time for you guys.

I'll try really really hard not to anyways

	09-09-2002 12:00									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Actually, illeagal combatant is in the convention, the US didn't make that up.

It seems to be restricted to spies, saboteurs and urban guerillas from what I remember...

Everybody who can be identified as an enemy before he pulls the knife out of his pocket and sticks it in your back is protected. There are about 3 catchall clauses that Al Qaeda members who fight openly fall under...

	09-09-2002 12:01									#118
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The craken heads date has been set Reb, just so you know, got it from the grapvine.

	09-09-2002 12:03									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat US policy does provide simple and easy to use propaganda. But as long as there was some major discontent (which is massive in much of the Islamic world) there would be some way to draw a pretty picture linking non-Islamic governments, evel infidels, and local suffering because Allah is displeased at the local's failing to heed his commandment for Jihad and conversion. We give them real issues, but the spin would be there even if we didn't. And any policy "concessions" or changes we made would allow the fundamentalists to expand their power. So they don't give us much choice in the matter.

True. But the propaganda given by the US is not just easy to use, it is effective! It resonates with people who would not otherwise support Bin Laden or his type of Islam. Bin Laden would be a man with very limited recruits and a lot less financial resources if it wasn't for US policy. And if he were so limited, he would not have been able to strike the US on 9/11 or build the kind of global terrorist network that presently exists. He would be confined to suicide bombing targets in the Middle East.

	09-09-2002 12:05									#120
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I think its more appropriate if you U.S. guys come up with something - maybe a condolence thread, shoot anyone who trolls on it. I'm not making any more critical policy comments now because I know this is a sensitive time for you guys. I'll try really really hard not to anyways

How about a thread of of one line statements on what people feel about what happened, or what they think of it.

Short, concise posts.