Terrorism in London

I felt similarly for years, whenever Americans complain how they're entitled to a good life and a steadily improving standard of living while most of the rest of the world is mired in poverty.

Hello, and welcome back, CanadianSteve.

quote:

---

Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to talk about democracy.

---

I guess I don't know what you mean here. Arab intellectuals have had a longer history of speaking out against their non-democratic governments. The reason that we have rarely heard of them in the past is that these intellectuals have also been inconveniently critical of Israel, as well as US foreign policy in general. In fact, Al-Jazeera originated as a way to provide uncensored news to the Arab world -- it has consistently broadcast criticisms of Arab regimes and provoked criticisms by these regimes.In fact, intellectuals face grave danger of secular allies of the US like Egypt.So, what evidence do you have that Arab intellectuals face less fear than before? I know from our previous discussions that you don't like providing evidence for your opinions, but are there more pro-democractic article and speeches by Arabs than before? Are fewer intellectuals in jail than before? Was there a poll showing that intellectuals are less afraid? Or are you again going by a few unsupported comments by people like Daniel Pipes?

quote:

---

There have been no terrorist attacks on the US, in part because the Islamists have concentrated their resources in Iraq.

---

I don't understand the reasoning here. The "concentration" of resources didn't prevent the attacks in London, nor the attacks in Spain last year. Why do you think that the lack of attacks in the US can be attributed to this "concentration of resources"?

quote:

---

We did not lure and then confine a limited number of terrorists to Iraq where they can more easily be defeated.

---

Why does this remind me of Comrade Stalin's brilliant plan of luring the German army deep into Soviet territory where they could be easily defeated?

Getting way OT. Please do not reply to this message

quote:

---

I find it disgusting that you compare Blair and Bush to Hussein and Jong-Il.

---

I agree. Jong Il has never invaded a country without provocation.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-08-2005 01:32 PM

quote:

---

What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been.

---

And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production. The US thought that they could scare the regimes of the middle east into being more conducive to US interests so they would be freer to march on.I will at least admit my statement is rather simplistic, but it is a bit more accurate than yours.

I have no idea how you could state what you just stated. In the post to which you replied, I linked to an article about a Lebanese democratic activist who was active since at least 1990. Khatami and the reformists won the Iranian elections in 1997, well before 9/11 and the US response to it; furthermore, Khatami and the reformists could not have been elected unless the voters were familiar with them, that is, unless they were speaking openly in the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you would read the liberal press, which, by the way, are no friends of Islamic dictatorships, you would know about dissidents and activists that have been active in Islamic countries for decades.Interestingly enough, the Lebanese I was talking about was assassinated earlier this year, and the Islamic hardliners have lately been cracking down on the reformists -- well after the US invasion of Iraq.Nonetheless, it is possible that democratic reformers are "less afraid" to speak out than before. I would like to see data on this. Data, not unsubstantiated quotes from "experts". Are there more pro-democracy newspapers than before? Are more articles in government run newspapers and TV? Are there more speeches? Are reformers actually stating that they are less afraid? What data do you have that these people are less afraid?Edited to add:
And if reformers are less afraid to speak out, what analysis suggests that the US invasion of Iraq is responsible for this?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:05 PM

You made a statement, that there has not been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 because the terrorists are tied up in Iraq. That Islamists have not carried out a terrorist attack on American territory is true -- however the recent attacks in London and Spain show that whatever the reason is, it is not because their resources are concentrated in Iraq. You have given no reason why the concentration of resources in Iraq would prevent terrorism in the US but not in the UK or in Spain.Edited to add:
The rest of your post is an interesting hypothesis, but unsubstantiated by facts.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:12 PM

What does the price of oil have to do with the motives of the administration in the Iraq invasion? First of all, the aftermath of the invasion is nothing like what the administration thought. If the invasion has anything to do with the price of oil, then it is a result of their plans having gone badly awry. Second, I didn't say that the war was about the price of oil; it is, partly, on the control of oil.And the oil money has been pretty well mismanaged by the US. I should think that those who thought the UN oil-for-food program was corrupt should be looking into this as well.And the Iraq invasion couldn't possible been about 9/11. As holmes has pointed out to you, it is public record that the Bush administration had Iraq in its sights well before 9/11.Edited to add:

quote:

---

As you'd expect, i reject such conspiracies.

---

And yet you accept a world-wide conspiracy to impose Islam on the West with even less evidence.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:38 PM

And well you should laugh, Meeb. I did a google search on Bat Ye'or. A wikipedia article claims that some consider her to be a legitimate scholar; she may be, but the only sites that seemed to mention her were retail sites selling her books, anti-Muslim sites, and some Jewish sites which I didn't check close enough to judge.It appears that Bat Ye'or claims that Europe is being over-run by Arabs and Islamists, and that their foreign policy is being influenced by a deliberate program to link Europe with the Arab world. My "crank alarm" is going off.

And I can't believe that you know nothing about Iran. Khatami was constantly fighting against the hard-line clerics to get his reforms passed. His legislative agenda was constantly vetoed by the Revolutionary Council. Politicians supporting him were jailed, newspapers supporting him and his reforms were shut down, political activists supporting him and his re-election were beaten up by thugs loyal to the hard-liners or jailed or both.Are you so convinced that before 9/11 that there was no dissent in any Islamic country that you are now going to deny the obvious?

So you have identified a alternate reason why there have been no attacks in the US since the Iraq invasion. It is harder to get to the US, and there is a much smaller Arab community in which to "blend in" and hide. This makes sense -- Islamic terrorism was not a daily occurrence in the US that only stopped when Hussein was removed.

Again, I never said prices were reason for the invasion. Why would you think that control means low prices? Besides, even if it did, the higher prices would be sign that the invasion destabilized the oil markets unintentionallly.And I never said that the invasion was to supply the US oil market. It was to be able to exert control over the international oil market. To be able to bring pressure on other countries which need oil.How would lifting sanctions against Hussein have aided the US in being able to exert control over oil production? Hussein was implementing an oil production policy that was in Iraq's interests (or at least in his vision of Iraq's interests), not in the interests in the US.

Why? Does he deny that there were reformist newspapers that would start publishing, and then shut down by the Islamists? Does he deny that there are pro-democracy activists that are beat up and jailed?

quote:

---

The islamists are tied up in iraq, making another 9/11 much ahrder to carry off.

---

You keep saying this; maybe if you keep saying it enough times it will become true?-

quote:

---

They're afraid of the US, especially that the US will bring yet another democracy to their world in the battle for the hearts and minds of muslims.

---

Since the US has never brought any democracy to the Middle East and has actually toppled democracies and populist regimes worldwide, I doubt that is what the Jihadis are afraid of.-

quote:

---

Europe is an easier target, especially for smaller scale attacks such as those in GB and Spain, compared to 9/11.

---

I already agreed with this. In fact, this is probably the main reason there have been very, very few Islamic terrorist attacks in the US (only two so far).--

quote:

---

There's also that the US has tightened up security far better than either of those countries.

---

I doubt this. Perhaps true, but it needs to be demonstrated.-The second paragraph is a list of assertians for which there is no supporting fact.-

quote:

---

But, as long as they are muslims who take the war verses and sharia Law for what they say, there will be islamist movements of varying strength and lethality.

---

This sounds like a tautology to me.