Does a government gain by being militant or pacifist ?

[Uncle Chô]

Europe: facing up to al-Qaeda reality

By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The possibility, likelihood even, that, after all, al-Qaeda was responsible for the Madrid bombings brings Europe face-to-face with a new reality.

People across Europe are wondering who will be next

It has taken time for this to sink in. In the immediate aftermath of the Madrid attacks, it was not only the Spanish government who was blaming Eta.

Many experts in the intelligence field did as well. And they did not have, as the Spanish government did, a vested interest in the blaming the Basques.

They had some circumstantial evidence on their side. Eta had previously put a bomb on a train and had a huge consignment of explosives intercepted en route to Madrid recently, it was pointed out.

It therefore had a plan and the intention to carry it out. Even the Spanish crackdown on Eta was used as a possible explanation. A new leadership might have taken over, it was suggested, made up of younger and more ruthless people.

Policy changes?

There seemed to be a collective desire in the intelligence community not to accept that a new Islamist front might have been opened up in Western Europe.

Perhaps ordinary people were quicker to suspect what was going on - that if it looked like al-Qaeda and acted like al-Qaeda, then it probably was al-Qaeda.

But will governments change policies?

We still do not know the truth, of course, which makes comment on the bombings more than usually risky.

But even if the al-Qaeda theory fades in this case, Europe is still faced with the Islamist threat. And if it is confirmed, then the dangers are closer than ever.

And the implications are huge.

First, there is the issue of whether governments will change their policies to try to placate the bombers or whether they will continue as before.

Civil liberties

Could a government carry on "business as usual" after maybe two or three massive attacks? Governments always say that we must not "surrender to terrorism".

The British Home Secretary David Blunkett says bluntly that he prefers to be tough now rather then be blamed later.

But if some countries are not targeted because they did not support the war in Iraq, the others might find it convenient to trim their sails. Political leaders often cry no surrender in public but look for solutions in private.

The tactics of how to wage a war on terrorism are already dividing American society in its election year. In Europe, there are even more doubts. So, does a government gain electorally by being militant or by being pacifist?

A second issue is that of civil liberties. The British Home Secretary David Blunkett says bluntly that he prefers to be tough now rather then be blamed later.

London Underground 'a target'

But what would happen if he proposed a system of imprisonment without trial which applied not just to foreign citizens, as it currently does, but to Britons as well?

It was tried in Northern Ireland with disastrous effect but that was a different time and place and this time internment might be more sophisticated, with reviews and time limits for example. It would still be controversial. And would it be tolerated?

People may be searched before boarding trains

A third consideration is security and how far the citizenry will accept disruption of ordinary life. The idea of being searched before getting on a train seems to many absurd. It might simply displace the target in any case and transfer death somewhere else.

It could not apply to the London Underground without seizing up the whole network and the Underground frankly remains a likely target in London.

It may be that Western Europe just tries to carry on as normal, trusting the police and intelligence services to do their job.

The trouble with that is that in Spain they failed.

It does not take many determined and expert terrorists to cause havoc if they are sufficiently ruthless.

In this new reality there are no easy answers.


I think this kind of article could apply to any country -wordlwide.

There are some very good points.

It raises a lot of current questions and as the author says - there are no easy anwers :(

[IsdatU]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

[Kilgor]

He only wants half of Czechoslovakia, let him have it.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Either people today are missing the point when they read our history or they don't read it at all.

When we remember those who died to preserve our freedom in the second world war and we say the phrase "never again" it isn't supposed to mean never will we go to war for anything ever. It is to me meaning never will be appease those in the world who are our enemy.

[Guttorm]

If it indeed is A-Q who did this (And now everythig points against them),
Should NATO treat this as an article 5 attack, like they did with WTC?

I think they should.

[usa320]

AL Queda only wants half the world- let em have it...

:roll:

[budanski]

Well, it doesnt help but aid the terrorists when the Spaniards themselves blame the gov't for the attacks (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/15/welec115.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/15/ixnewstop.html) – for "making the terrorists mad" – than blame the terrorists themselves.

Even if the ETA werent behind these acts, this will just give them ammo as to how to make change... through detonation.

[AFACadet]

If it indeed is A-Q who did this (And now everythig points against them),
Should NATO treat this as an article 5 attack, like they did with WTC?

I think they should.


I think so too. And I'm not one of those people sitting warm and safe behind their TV in Surburban America saying that--by the time I get out of this place and finish my training, I'll be in the thick of it myself...

[cut]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

no but we do study it. Now tell me do you remember how Britain delt with the terrorist threat from the IRA in the end? Or do you think the way it has been delt with in Israel is the example we should follow?

[von_Moo142]

I don't really see how one can compare the policy of appeasement which was so popular with Britian and France in the late thirties with any modern situation regarding terrorism.

There were clear military (and political) acts which could have possibly prevented the invasion of Poland, or even Czechoslovakia. Appeasment was clearly the wrong policy, but its much easier to see that with hindsight of course.


But terrorism is more complex.

There is no clear solution to the threat of Al-Queda, or most other terrorist organisations. There are steps that we can take to prevent and/or disrupt terrorist actions, but there's no set of decisive steps which can be taken to, for example, prevent AQ attacks in country X or reduce AQ strength by half.

The problem is confounded by the fact that many actios which we can make against AQ will cause publicity problems for the governments involved (in fact this is often overlooked when people examine appeasement in the thirties).

As Cut pointed out, even Israel have not come close to solvind their problems.

Plus there are very few ways to use military power to effect AQ now, and even less ways to use political power against them.

[cut]

Also any appeasement is not done with the terrorists, but the people that they claim to represent and the countries that support them.

[IsdatU]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

no but we do study it. Now tell me do you remember how Britain delt with the terrorist threat from the IRA in the end? Or do you think the way it has been delt with in Israel is the example we should follow?

Not at all the same situation. The Arabs will not stop fighting until they destroy Israel completely.

Many people on the Left are deluding themselves to think that appeasement will work.

What will work is a physical barrier to keep the PLO insurgents and homicide bombers out of Israel. A wall will work for awhile, but I think the Jordan river would be a more secure and permanent border.

[cut]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

no but we do study it. Now tell me do you remember how Britain delt with the terrorist threat from the IRA in the end? Or do you think the way it has been delt with in Israel is the example we should follow?

Not at all the same situation. The Arabs will not stop fighting until they destroy Israel completely.

Many Europeans are deluding themselves to think that appeasement will work.

What will work is a physical barrier to keep the PLO insurgents and homicide bombers out of Israel. A wall will work for awhile, but I think the Jordan river would be a more secure and permanent border.

I suppose you think it is a more similar situation to when Neville Chamberlain was PM?

Many Americans are deluding themselves that this can be solved purely through force.

so how do you suggest the physical barrier theory works in the war on terrorrism?

[M1A2U2]

Force is the only way to solve it. Or maybe we should try talking to them?

[IsdatU]

The recent events in Spain has just proved that force solves everything. It was a big victory for Al Qaida.

Israel suffers Islamic insurgency because it allows the Islamic population to live within its borders.

[cut]

Force is the only way to solve it. Or maybe we should try talking to them?

not the terrorists, the likes of Syria and Iran you can't "liberate" the whole arab world. If force is the only way, give me an exmple of when force and force alone has beat the terrorists, I'll give you one case that shows the opposite Israel.

[IsdatU]

Force is the only way to solve it. Or maybe we should try talking to them?

not the terrorists, the likes of Syria and Iran you can't "liberate" the whole arab world. If force is the only way, give me an exmple of when force and force alone has beat the terrorists, I'll give you one case that shows the opposite Israel.

We would have to change their religion if we are to liberate them. But for now it is enough to destroy the regimes that support terrorism.

Israel has not used its force to move the Arabs out of Israeli borders. They are 'too nice' to do it, but I think the Arabs will someday push them to it.

[cut]

pushing arabs out of israel? I see ethnic cleansing your thing? Well I don't think the Israelis would ever do something so stupid, especially when many of them were on the recieving end.

[IsdatU]

pushing arabs out of israel? I see ethnic cleansing your thing? Well I don't think the Israelis would ever do something so stupid, especially when many of them were on the recieving end.

You talk of problems with the IRA, and its true that you had troubles. But you have not suffered as the Israelis have suffered from terrorism.

The Arabs will never stop fighting until they exterminate the Jews from the region. So it will come down to self preservation.

BTW, these Arabs are really Jordanians. Like any illegal alien, they should be deported to their homeland.

[Kilgor]

Israel suffers Islamic insurgency because it allows the Islamic population to live within its borders.

Exactly

[Kilgor]

The Arabs will never stop fighting until they exterminate the Jews from the region. So it will come down to self preservation.

.

Arabs and their governments have wanted the distruction of Israel from the day it was created. Nothing has changed, execept arab armies at the present stage are not in a position to attack Israel because of its military power. So they governments shelter and sponsor suicide bombers by proxy, but claim not responsibility.

[cut]

pushing arabs out of israel? I see ethnic cleansing your thing? Well I don't think the Israelis would ever do something so stupid, especially when many of them were on the recieving end.

You talk of problems with the IRA, and its true that you had troubles. But you have not suffered as the Israelis have suffered from terrorism.

Only because we didn't respond with violence like the terrorists want.


The Arabs will never stop fighting until they exterminate the Jews from the region. So it will come down to self preservation.

So kill all the arabs? Would you suggest concentration camps, fuhrer?



BTW, these Arabs are really Jordanians. Like any illegal alien, they should be deported to their homeland.

Bollocks, the British empire invented Jordan, and even if that coment were true the original Jordan incapsulated what is now Israel IIRC.

[AFACadet]

We need a combination of EVERYTHING.



Force is the only thing that will stop the current terrorists. If they are willing to die, there is nothing you can say to convince them otherwise.


Peaceful solutions can be used with more firendly governments. And under the same idea, Afghanistan and Iraq are the two absolute most important 'battlefields' in this war. I'm not talking about physical battlefields, I'm talking about idological battlefields. If the Western world can get the Afghani and Iraqi people to embrace true democracy--NOT force it, but have the people embrace it on their own the Western world will have won perhaps the greatest strategic victory in the war on terrorism.

Why? Democracy (I'm talking about the western forms a governemt--hopefully I'm getting the idea across) is probably the strongest form of govt out there. I don't really feel like explaining why (and hopefully I don't have too).

Why these two countries though? Afghanistan was the center of terrorism. Of course there are terrorist cells around the world, but Afghanistan was one of the centers of gravity of Terrorism. If democracy can get a foothold there it can show that democracy can take hold just about anywhere.

Iraq is a different matter. The Islamic world looks at Iraq as a leader in the area. If the people of Iraq can embrace democracy, that will send a HUGE message to the people of the Islamic world.

Why is this so important? The ideals in a strong democratic government are pretty much stronger than anything else. The people will then work to defeat terrorism from the inside out. They will be able to do it on their own. When the other people in the surrounding area see the benefits of such forms of goverenment, they may want the same thing.

That will not happen overnight though--unlike what many expect. It will take years or decades, so until that happens, we need to attack the terrorists directly.

[IsdatU]

Only because we didn't respond with violence like the terrorists want.


It does look like Sinn Feinn will gradually take over.



So kill all the arabs? Would you suggest concentration camps, fuhrer?


That is your suggestion, not mine. Go read the next line.



Bollocks, the British empire invented Jordan, and even if that coment were true the original Jordan incapsulated what is now Israel IIRC.

Ever read the Balfour declaration?

Regardless, there are alot of illegal aliens in the West Bank that need to be deported to Jordan. This action will end the infatadah as the Jordan river is a natural barrier.

[cut]

Only because we didn't respond with violence like the terrorists want.


It does look like Sinn Feinn will gradually take over.



So kill all the arabs? Would you suggest concentration camps, fuhrer?


That is your suggestion, not mine. Go read the next line.



Bollocks, the British empire invented Jordan, and even if that coment were true the original Jordan incapsulated what is now Israel IIRC.

Ever read the Balfour declaration?

Regardless, there are alot of illegal aliens in the West Bank that need to be deported to Jordan. This action will end the infatadah as the Jordan river is a natural barrier.


Sinn Fein are not bombing us, the voting paterns move like anywhere else.

The illegal aliens are one thing, moving them on is fine. But pushing the arabs out of Israel is ethnic cleansing

[IsdatU]

The IRA gunmen have accepted a cease fire because they have won. A war weary Britain is gradually giving N.I. away.

Ethnic cleansing? It is the Arabs that are waging a genocidal war on Israel.

[cut]

The IRA gunmen have accepted a cease fire because they have won. A war weary Britain is gradually giving N.I. away.

and scotland and wales to no doubt? You know they have their own governments now?



Ethnic cleansing? It is the Arabs that are waging a genocidal war on Israel.

so you think they should respond in kind

[Kilgor]

Ethnic cleansing? It is the Arabs that are waging a genocidal war on Israel.

Arabs have wanted the destruction of Israel from day one. How is that not ethnic cleansing ?

[fantassin]

Back to Israel for the umpteenth time....Maybe this site should be called
"endless arguments about people at a loggerhead.net"....

[IsdatU]

so you think they should respond in kind

You are confusing deportation with extermination.

The Arabs wish to exterminate the Israelis. The only way to end this Islamic aggression is to have a secure border between the Arabs and Israelis.

The Jordan river is a natural barrier. Good fences make good neighbors, this will bring peace to the region as the Arabs will not be able to continue with their insurgency.

[ogukuo72]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

no but we do study it. Now tell me do you remember how Britain delt with the terrorist threat from the IRA in the end? Or do you think the way it has been delt with in Israel is the example we should follow?

If the IRA had killed 200 commuters with bombs at the morning rush hour, you can expect the British people to be voting FOR a government resolute against terrorism. I doubt they will vote for a government that advocates bugging out of Northern Ireland.

[Elmo]

Anyone here old enough to remember when Neville Chamberlin was prime minister of Great Britain?

Not at all the same situation. The Arabs will not stop fighting until they destroy Israel completely.

Many people on the Left are deluding themselves to think that appeasement will work.

What will work is a physical barrier to keep the PLO insurgents and homicide bombers out of Israel. A wall will work for awhile, but I think the Jordan river would be a more secure and permanent border.

Neville Chamberlain? These are the anachronisms that should be left in the waste bucket. We do learn from history but I don't see the connection.

Your answer to Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be deportation of Arabs?
I don't see how that could possibly help. It would only increase terrorism everywhere, because that would pretty much require an international green light and boy, would there be problems.

Many people on the right are deluding themselves by thinking that force is the key as long as they don't have to be there themselves.

[Miles Teg]

We need a combination of EVERYTHING.



Force is the only thing that will stop the current terrorists. If they are willing to die, there is nothing you can say to convince them otherwise.


Peaceful solutions can be used with more firendly governments. And under the same idea, Afghanistan and Iraq are the two absolute most important 'battlefields' in this war. I'm not talking about physical battlefields, I'm talking about idological battlefields. If the Western world can get the Afghani and Iraqi people to embrace true democracy--NOT force it, but have the people embrace it on their own the Western world will have won perhaps the greatest strategic victory in the war on terrorism.

Why? Democracy (I'm talking about the western forms a governemt--hopefully I'm getting the idea across) is probably the strongest form of govt out there. I don't really feel like explaining why (and hopefully I don't have too).

Why these two countries though? Afghanistan was the center of terrorism. Of course there are terrorist cells around the world, but Afghanistan was one of the centers of gravity of Terrorism. If democracy can get a foothold there it can show that democracy can take hold just about anywhere.

Iraq is a different matter. The Islamic world looks at Iraq as a leader in the area. If the people of Iraq can embrace democracy, that will send a HUGE message to the people of the Islamic world.

Why is this so important? The ideals in a strong democratic government are pretty much stronger than anything else. The people will then work to defeat terrorism from the inside out. They will be able to do it on their own. When the other people in the surrounding area see the benefits of such forms of goverenment, they may want the same thing.

That will not happen overnight though--unlike what many expect. It will take years or decades, so until that happens, we need to attack the terrorists directly.

Much better than the Kilgor idea.

Come on men, you begin to have good ideas.

You can see in my sig what is the nerve of the problem.
Argyll said an ideology can't be killed but it can be changed, or I prefer can no more be changed. I mean stop terrorist and extremist to influence the ideology of innocent people and countries.

But Argyll have good about one point: It's impossible with the american grunt methods. "Sweep'em all!!"

[Truthsayer]

The Arabs wish to exterminate the Israelis.

Lets generalise, shall we?

"The americans all want to exterminate all non-whites"

(Nevermind the ironi with rednecks claiming themselfs to be 'true' americans...)



If the solution is to deport the arabs or put them in camps, then the solution for the [claimed] 'zion conspiracy' would be to deport or put all jews in camps. O, wait, that has been done...

(Some people will never learn anything from history.)

[HELEX]

Ok, just a very simple Question:


What is the Link between Iraq and the war against Terrorism?


Even the US-Govvermend said there were no contacts between Iraq and Al Kaida! :cantbeli:

Is this some kind of all american stupor?

Iraq is not related to the war against terrorism, so it is irrelevant for Battle against Al Kaida!

[OldRecon]

Benefits of being pacifist vs. militant in government?
Well that's really not an Either/or question where the one thing excludes the other.
Some times to push is the best offer, at others it's better to lay back a bit.
But if you only push and beat the dog all the time, with no oportunity for a respite, it'll get cornered to the point it bites back.
On the other hand if one backs off all the time you gonna get rolled over.
Flexibility of response is the important thing.
As with regards to Al Qaida, for now I don't think it's the right time to be lenient.
Though still think the invasion of Iraq wasn't the smartest of moves, as 1) It has lead to a dispersal of resources that would be better spent on combatting Al Qaida, and 2) The very invasion of Iraq has given Al Qaida a golden oportunity for focusing political resentment against the West among muslims, and gaining support for themselves.
As for the future struggle with Al Qaida I presume us Westerners just have to get to terms with the possibilities for further train bombings and 9/11's. Won't surprise me if this develops into a long hard slog, where the ruthlessness of the Al Qaida opposition will lead to us westerners losing some moral inhibitions along the way too.