2009, a bad year to be a terrorist

If I was an everyday Muslim, and looked at this picture of Western and Islamo-fascist attacks and counter-attacks, I'd certainly think there was an undeclared war on between the West and the Islamic world.

Click to expand...

I think this is what he meant to say:

If I was an everday Westerner (which I am), and looked at this picture of Islamo-facist attacks and Western counter-attacks, I'd certainly think there was an undeclared war on between the Islamic world and the West.

Which fits into the rest of his world view very nicely.

AoD

Oh BTW, Beez, if I read ONE more post from you conflating Islam with terrorism, you are out. And don't even try your way with words.

AoD

let he who is without religious ideology cast the first criticism!

Admiral Beez said:

IIRC, it was the British that started the mess by importing Tamil labourers to Ceylon from their homeland in Tamil Nadu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. There are two Tamil populations on Sri Lanka. One is indigenous, while the other are descendants of Indian tamils. These are the "Hill Country Taimls" and are a small group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Country_Tamils

As for the rest, there has been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years over who was there first.

I noticed you said this in another thread as well and I corrected you there as well...maybe keep this in mind in the future...?

Brian69 said:

Yes, the Sinhalese government essentially started the whole mess with their discriminatory practices a few decades ago and gave the Tamils there a reason to push back.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the British started it by favouring Tamils whether intentionally or just by geographic coincidence, and so a disproportionate number of them were enrolled in universities and in government positions. When they left, the Sinhalese had a backlash and then starting their slow campaign of marginalization and affirmative action against the minority (and many incidents of outright violence and murder). And then the Tamils responded to that, but the LTTE "grabbed the mic" as it were and declared themselves the representatives of the minority population and killed anyone who disagreed (there used to be plenty. Not so much anymore.)

People seem to forget that for decades before the violent separatists formed, there was only political opposition - which was met with constant pogroms against the minorities. But things like that aren't convenient for our modern good vs. evil world.

AlvinofDiaspar said:

Oh BTW, Beez, if I read ONE more post from you conflating Islam with terrorism, you are out. And don't even try your way with words.

AoD

Click to expand...

Oh come on Alvin, that's a little harsh. As someone who works in the security and intelligence community and grew up in the Gulf, I certainly bemoan the lack of debate on religious, ethnic extremism in the world. We are lucky not to have strife in Canada. Most of the world isn't that way. And those Pew surveys certainly lend credence to Beez's point of view that a good chunk of the muslim world might view what's going on as a clash of civilizations. It is a truism of our time that most of the terrorists of this era come from the muslim world. There's a reason every intelligence agency in the west is running out to get arabic, urdu, farsi, pashto speakers. Gone are the days of the Shining Path, the IRA, the PLO, and in short order the LTTE. We have moved from the age of violent ethno-nationalist to violent religious fundamentalists.

Now, none of that means that Islam = terrorism. Far from it. But when dealing with folks who twist the good book for political means we have to acknowledge that religion is part of the problem and must be part of the solution. A great example of this is the deployment of the first Canadian Forces Muslim Chaplain to Afghanistan or the partnering of the CF with Emirati troops in some areas. There's no doubt that playing the religion card in those instances has helped us. Had we stuck our heads in the sand and said that it's not about religion, there probably would be a few more body bags coming home.

Without, talking about it in a reasoned manner we'll never find ways to address the problems of extremism that we face. As to Beez's apparent bigotry (real or perceived), it's always best to challenge those view publicly than to have them fester privately. Why ban him/her? Bring on the debate and the truth shall prevail.

It must be so convenient to be able to live with such a black-and-white view towards the world and its conflicts. Those violent extremist ethno-nationalist terrorists!

Today's terrorists are no different than yesterday's anarchists. If you reading about the run that anarchists had in Europe during the 19th and 20th century. We defeated the radicalists then and we'll defeat those who threaten us today.

But to put it all in perspective one military journal I was recently reading made the pointed comment that Americans have a 1 in 80 000 chance of dying of a terrorist attack. So Beez relax. You should probably worry more about getting in your car and making it to work then the subway blowing up.

As for the whole threat of a nuke strike, I worry far less about that than about a dirty bomb, a chem-bio attack, a strike against our infrastructure, etc. It's a lot of work to build a workable nuke. But any high school student if so inclined could launch a wave of terror on a city using materials from his school science lab.

Any nuclear attack would be more likely in Obama's era only because of the Bush team's extraordinary efforts at encouraging the recruitment of terrorists as Beez pointed out.

Click to expand...

however it would be silly to suggest, that if such an attack occurred, I doubt we would see a less restrained response from Obama.

If America gets attacked especially like that, I am certain he would go out on a full scale attack in Afghanistan.

We would see a rise in racism and fears from Americans as we saw before 9/11. However it has happened even in rather "liberal" Great Britain.

theowne said:

It must be so convenient to be able to live with such a black-and-white view towards the world and its conflicts. Those violent extremist ethno-nationalist terrorists!

Click to expand...

I assure you that my world is hardly black and white. That was one of the failings of the Bush era. His policies have seriously harmed the US Intelligence Community (IC) by his efforts to remove nuance, qualification, integrity and rigour from their work. Thankfully, our IC fared a little better. That's not to say we aren't politicized from time to time. It's amazing how many analysts cover Africa in Ottawa when the Liberals are in power.

Today's terrorists

Click to expand...

Who are today's terrorists? People who attack civilians? People who treat populations unfairly based on their identity or religion? Or people who's names are spoonfed to the ignorant public as blatant evildoers? With all these people watching these terrorists so closely it's no wonder governments of Israel, Sri Lanka, and even the United States among other countries don't have to worry about any of their unpleasant actions being watched too closely.

lordmandeep said:

however it would be silly to suggest, that if such an attack occurred, I doubt we would see a less restrained response from Obama.

If America gets attacked especially like that, I am certain he would go out on a full scale attack in Afghanistan.

We would see a rise in racism and fears from Americans as we saw before 9/11. However it has happened even in rather "liberal" Great Britain.

Click to expand...

Not so. Great leaders can rally their followers. If Obama explains the threat and rallies the US against xenophobia, then racism might be a mere footnote after any future attack.

In the aftermath of any nuke strike, however, there may not be too many options for the US. Nuking sovereign states as revenge for attacks from non-state actors is rather taboo these days. I highly doubt the US will be able to do much. That's why it's vital that we stabilize failing states like Afghanistan so they don't become safe havens for those who fantasize about causing such destruction.

theowne said:

Who are today's terrorists?

Click to expand...

Groups that aim to terrorize opposing populations to attain political objectives.

theowne said:

People who attack civilians? People who treat populations unfairly based on their identity or religion?

Click to expand...

Among others....

theowne said:

Or people who's names are spoonfed to the ignorant public as blatant evildoers?

Click to expand...

I am fairly sure if you ask the common man on the street they'll tell you that they fear the 9/11 hijackers or the London subway bombers far more than they fear the US government and that has nothing to spoonfeeding an ignorant public. The US government hasn't killed too many Canadians in recent memory. The 9/11 hijackers on the other hand have separated 2 dozen Canadians from their family and friends prematurely.

theowne said:

With all these people watching these terrorists so closely it's no wonder governments of Israel, Sri Lanka, and even the United States among other countries don't have to worry about any of their unpleasant actions being watched too closely.

Click to expand...

And for that we have definitions of state terrorism and a multitude of human rights organizations that do make a big deal about every act committed by these countries. Yet, do they do the same for the other side? Where was the UN when Hamas was launching rockets into southern israel and little kids were wetting their beds in fear for weeks? Or what about the recent reporting from the UN that the LTTE are using human shields (in direct contravention of the Laws of war and armed conflict)? Or what about Hezbollah in 2006 launching rockets from the ground floor of apartment complexes?

How is it that we are always talking about the human rights record of the US but China, Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia gets a relatively free pass? I get your cynicism about labelling people and groups terrorists but that does not mean the label is not appropriate. If we are to condemn the actions of the Sri Lankan Army, for example, than surely it is fair to also condemn the actions of the LTTE when they launch suicide attacks against civilians. Or is it only okay if the group you favour does something in contravention of the accepted conventions?

I do think that missing in this discussion and the broader societal discussion is some understanding of the distinction between terrorist groups and insurgent groups. While, I'm somewhat critical of their tactics, I would not consider Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and the LTTE to be terror groups. They are insurgent groups that occasionally resort to terrorism. We do make this distinction in the intelligence community. Nobody refers to the Taliban as terrorists in the community. We recognize our opponent for what they are, insurgents fighting against the Afghan government and its supporters (western forces). This would contrast with groups like Al Qaida which have geopolitical aims not based on any particular geography or nationality. The latter are probably far more dangerous. The former are only a threat to the extent that they enable the latter.

I don't "favour" any group who uses violence and terrorism to achieve their goals, regardless of whether the news reports tell me I should hate them or not, and regardless whether they hide behind a government banner or a forest.

I get your cynicism about labelling people and groups terrorists but that does not mean the label is not appropriate.

Click to expand...

Let's go back to the Sri Lanka example. I said in my first post in this thread that if it were up to me both sides of this conflict would be labelled as terrorists, yet the perception is skewed by people who seem to think that it is a fight between good-and-evil, and conveniently forget all the murder and kidnappings and multitudes of other human rights abuses done by the majority of that country before any large scale armed rebellion even started. That's the danger here. I don't think one kind of murder is worse than another. But when you start describing people as despicable terrorists then we skew our perception of reality and give the governments a free pass.

The only reason that I have a slight bias against the government of that country is because there is a clear record of marginalization and aggression against the minorities prior to any armed conflict.

When it comes to Canada though we do look at both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict with perspective. For example, Canadian defence contractors aren't allowed to sell weapons to the Sri Lankan government. And our diplomats and defence attache do speak directly to the Sri Lankan government and discuss and criticize their actions directly.

As for the LTTE, they only ended up with the terrorist designation when they decided that Canada would become party to the conflict....fund raising, efforts to procure weapons, harassment and coercion of Tamil Canadians, etc. That's what put them on the radar.

When it comes to the conflicts in the middle east, one wishes it were that easy to come up with reasonable policies....