Missed the boat.

Fremmer,
Negotiate with Osama, Hammas, and the rest of 'em?
I cannot accept the possibility that your 'mis'interpretation of the words
legitemate and peaceful representatives
is anything other than a clumsy strawman attempt. Nobody who learned english as a primary language could conclude that by mistake. Knock it off, wouldja? Some of us are attempting to have a rational discussion here.
 
They are useful for giving the moderate Muslim population an alternative source for dispute resolution to the terrorists. Moreover, it cements in their minds (the moderate Muslim majority) that
#1 We are reasonable and ultimately looking for a mutually beneficial situation.
#2 Peaceful negotiation gets them results.
#3 The terrorists don't.

This is all part of the broader picture of undermining the support for the terrorists, thus rendering them impotent.
There is no point in talking to terrorists. Talking to them merely reinforces their claim to authority, thus playing into their hands.
 
They are useful for giving the moderate Muslim population an alternative source for dispute resolution to the terrorists.

Well, if the so-called "moderate muslims" consider terrorism to be an alternative source of dispute resolution, they sure don't sound very moderate to me. I don't like China's forced abortions and many other policies of the Chinese government, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to decide that if China doesn't make certain concessions, I'm going to blow up a bunch of civilians until I get my way. That would be neither moderate nor rational. But then, I don't use my religious beliefs to justify terrorism, unlike the Muslim terrorists that we are dealing with.

I believe he meant with legitimate governments.

Fine by me....the United States already does this! We already negotiate with Muslim governments. For example: Omar; Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and several other Muslim countries.

But I still don't understand how we are supposed to understand, empathize with, and be sensative towards the terrorists who deliberately kill civilians, but we're not supposed to negotiate with the terrorists. Instead, we're supposed to negotiate with the people who are "moderate", as though the moderate Muslims have any control or influence over the terrorists.

And if the moderate muslims with whom we are negotiating do have control over the terrorists, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as "moderate" at all.
 
Oh, I think you have more in common with them than you can comfortably admit. ;)
Funny you should mention "abortion" in the context of religiously motivated terrorism. If you were trying to draw a distinction between a radical Muslim and a radical Christian...I think you just torpedoed your argument.

I still don't understand how we are supposed to understand, empathize with, and be sensative towards the terrorists

How much straw have you got on hand, anyway? :confused:

If you can't grasp the necessity of reviewing a battle plan from your enemy's perspective in order to spot and correct your weaknesses while spotting and taking advantage of his weaknesses.....perhaps you're not the one to be advocating strategy in the first place.

Instead, we're supposed to negotiate with the people who are "moderate", as though the moderate Muslims have any control or influence over the terrorists.
And if the moderate muslims with whom we are negotiating do have control over the terrorists, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as "moderate" at all.

Yeah...more like them than you'd ever willingly admit to yourself. One *might* even go so far as to think of them as "legitemate targets" since they're supporting the aggression, eh?

They are just people. The same sort of people who supported & rejected the Nazis, the Klan, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers....IOW, just like us.

Just to clarify, do you even support the notion of defeating the terrorists, or are you just out to see how many Arabs we can kill?
 
I doubt that the Chinese have instituted mandatory abortions for religious reasons. It was an example of a policy that I don't like. Nevertheless, I still don't plant bombs to kill innocent Chinese civilians for the purpose of forcing the Chinese government to change that policy (or, for that matter, to enforce my religious beliefs). Anyway, I suppose that some people approve of mandatory abortions, while others don't. To each his own.

Just to clarify, do you even support the notion of defeating the terrorists, or are you just out to see how many Arabs we can kill?

I support the "notion" of waging war on terrorists, not coddling them like infants who just need understanding, sensitivity, and tolerance. Terrorists take that as a sign of weakness. Their terrorist activities are based, at least party, on a religious belief of radicalized Islam. America is not an Islamic State; therefore, American needs to be destroyed. Once again:

You seem to be advocating for a certain method, and when challenged, you drop it and morph your ideas to something else, all the while forgetting you espoused a previous stance.

You now add to the equation, that we can win this by undermining this religious movements underlying popular support?! Just how are you going to undermine a religious belief? I want to hear this.

I'd like to hear the answer to that question, too.
 
Fremmer,
Are you intentionally misinterpreting every word I type, or is it some kind of disability? :confused:
I doubt that the Chinese have instituted mandatory abortions for religious reasons.
Strawman. I never said they did.
But our own domestic terrorists who have bombed clinics and murdered practitioners are religiously motivated. Radical Christians, one might say.
I support the "notion" of waging war on terrorists, not coddling them like infants who just need understanding, sensitivity, and tolerance.
Strawman. I never said that.
You now add to the equation, that we can win this by undermining this religious movements underlying popular support?! Just how are you going to undermine a religious belief? I want to hear this.
Conflation and a strawman.
#1 You posit that terrorism is a religious belief, which is incorrect. It's a criminal activity that is partially driven by a religious belief.
#2 I never said that we need to undermine a religion (although I have heard various forms of that argument from your side). To the contrary, it's the terrorists who are undermining the Muslim faith and we have been inept in highlighting that fact to the moderate Muslim majority.

That's three strawmen in a single post, which invokes my "3 strikes and you're out" rule. Do not expect any further responses from me unless your argument refutes what I have *actually said*. Cut 'n' paste if you have to.
 
GS, that last quote was not from Fremmer. It was mine.

It was neither a strawman nor a conflation. It was an extrapolation based upon your previous postings, in this thread.

You want that I should list the various statements you have made that leads me to this extrapolation? I will be very happy to comply, and you won't like the results. I highly suggest that you review all of your remarks in this thread, because in doing so, I suspect you will see what I am seeing.

Just as an example, you state:
#1 You posit that terrorism is a religious belief, which is incorrect. It's a criminal activity that is partially driven by a religious belief.
We are talking about specific terrorists here. Not terrorism in general. In this, these specific terrorists are religious fanatics. Their beliefs are what motivates them, regardless of any criminal laws that may or may not be in effect. For them, it is not a criminal activity driven by a religious belief. That is your take on this. Most decidedly, not theirs. If you look at their actions from their POV, there is no criminality involved. It is in fact, the logical conclusion based upon their beliefs.

You want I should go on?
 
Interesting thread... glad it wasn't closed...

When Sherman waged war in the south, he not only fought the enemy troops but he also destroyed that which sustained the enemy - the factories, transportation, food, and in effect, the morale of the southern public.

It makes sense that in order to wage "total war" against terrorists you not only kill or capture them as aggressively as possible, but you destroy that which sustains them - popular support.
 
We're not waging total war. Far from it.

We're taking little mincing hits at a few of them while at the same time being scared to death of offending those who are pushing the driving philosophy in screaming, foaming speeches of hate and destruction.

They're laughing at us.
 
I agree, we're not waging "total war" against terrorists. They have even more popular support now than a few years ago.
 
Antipitas,
Just as I said, conflation and strawman. You may call it "extrapolation" or whatever you want, but you're still trying to turn it into an argument I never presented because you can't refute the argument I *have* presented.
And it's quite frankly obnoxious.

You want I should go on?
Go on? I'm waiting for you to get started. :confused:

The terrorists certainly do treat this as a religious crusade. I'm not arguing that point.
What I'm arguing is that the majority over there *don't* see it that way. We're not trying to convince the terrorists to change their ways, we're trying to convince the people over there to reject the terrorists.

I think the problem is that you can't tell the difference between the two.
 
The terrorists certainly do treat this as a religious crusade. I'm not arguing that point.
What I'm arguing is that the majority over there *don't* see it that way.

This is a sound American concept, but projecting it on Middle Eastern or Muslim societies that do not share western civilization's ambivalence toward religion is probably a grave mistake.
 
gc70, I believe that's something I've been saying all along. If GS won't listen to me, what makes you think he'll listen to you?
 
gc70,
Thanks for disputing something I actually said. :)

Yes, it would be a huge mistake to assume the opinions of the man-on-the street over there. I'm not "projecting" anything. There have been plenty of public opinion polls conducted and that's what the people over there say.
They have several gripes about us, and none of it has anything to do with "our freedoms" or wanting to establish the new Caliphate or spreading the influence of Islam.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/index.php?nid=&id=&lb=brme

Here's what's telling:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...astnafricara/248.php?nid=&id=&pnt=248&lb=brme

And this would be fantastic news....if it wasn't for this:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...esregions_bt/330.php?nid=&id=&pnt=330&lb=brme

So yeah. It's a grave mistake to make assumptions about public opinion in that region. Better to base your plans on solid intel ;)
 
Submitted for consideration (all emphasis mine), The Congressional testimony of Dr. Steven Kull
Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA),
University of Maryland
Editor, WorldPublicOpinion.org

As I discussed the last time I testified to this subcommittee, in the world as a whole negative views of the United States have increased sharply in recent years. A key factor contributing to these feelings is that the United States is perceived as unconstrained in its use of military force by the system of international rules and institutions that the US itself took the lead in establishing in the post war period.

Today I will focus on attitudes in the Muslim world. Clearly the Muslim world is of particular interest as it is a major source of violence against the US. As you have already heard, it is also an area of the world with particularly negative feelings toward the United States.

The question I wish to address today is whether this is important. It is not self-evident that it is. Popularity is not intrinsically good.

In particular I want to address the question of whether negative feelings toward the US have an important impact on the US effort to deal with al Qaeda and its related groups.

In this context some have argued that what is important is not that people in the region like the US, but that they fear it. When forced to make a choice between the US and al Qaeda, it is surmised, this fear will increase the likelihood that people in the region will choose the US.

Others have argued that negative feelings toward the US drive Muslims into the arms of al Qaeda; that people in Muslim countries are so angry at the US that this leads them to actively support al Qaeda in its fight against America.

According to our research, neither of these views is quite correct. However, I will say from the beginning that our research does show that anti-American feelings do make it easier for al Qaeda to operate and to grow in the Muslim world.

This conclusion is based on a review of publicly available surveys from the Islamic world as well as the in-depth study of Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia that we conducted this year in conjunction with the START Center at the University of Maryland. START is a center of excellence funded by the Department of Homeland Security and stands for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism. The study included focus groups which I conducted in all four counties as well as in-depth surveys. Detailed data from these studies can be found at our web site www.WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Not surprisingly we did indeed find negative views toward the US government even though the governments of the countries surveyed, by and large, have a positive relationship with the US government. Most negative were the Egyptians—93% expressed an unfavorable view with 86% very unfavorable. In Morocco, 76% had an unfavorable view with 49% very unfavorable. In Pakistan, 67% had an unfavorable view with 49% very unfavorable. The most moderate responses were in Indonesia where 66% did have an unfavorable view but a more modest 16% had a very unfavorable view.

However these numbers do not capture what I think is the most important dynamic in the Muslim world today.

For decades, polls in the Muslim world and the statements of Muslim leaders have shown a variety of resentments about US policies. Muslims share the worldwide view that the US does not live up to its own ideals of international law and democracy. There have also been specific complaints that the US favors Israel over the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole, that the US exploits the Middle East for its oil and that it hypocritically supports non-democratic governments that accommodate its interests. These attitudes persist.

But now there is also a new feeling about the US that has emerged in the wake of 9-11. This is not so much an intensification of negative feelings toward the US as much as a new perception of American intentions. There now seems to be a perception that the US has entered into a war against Islam itself.
I think perhaps the most significant finding of our study is that across the four countries, 8 in 10 believe that the US seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.”

We do not have trend-line data to demonstrate that this is something new. But in the focus groups this was described as something that has arisen recently from American anger about 9-11. America is perceived as believing that it was attacked by Islam itself and as having declared war on Islam. People repeatedly brought up the fact that President Bush’s used the term “crusade” and cited this as evidence of these underlying intentions.
(An attitude that I see readily displayed on this forum -slashy)

In this context it is not surprising that three out of four respondents favor the goal of getting the US to withdraw its military forces troops from all Islamic countries.

Most disturbing there is widespread support for attacks on US troops. Overall about half of all the Muslims polled approve of attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. Support reaches as high as nine in 10 in Egypt. It appears that American troops stationed throughout the region are widely perceived as occupiers.

(end part 1)
 
part 2 continued
In the focus groups, some respondents said that this sense of Islam as being under siege has enhanced people’s identification with Islam. Polling done by the Anwar Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland in Arab countries over the last few years has found a dramatic increase in the number citing their Muslim identity as primary. In our poll seven in 10 approved of the goal of requiring “a strict application of sharia law in every Islamic country.”

So does this mean that all these negative feelings toward America have driven Muslims into the arms of al Qaeda? It does appear that Muslims are embracing the type of religiously-based interpretation of the conflict with the US that is consonant with vies that al Qaeda has also long promoted.

But in fact al Qaeda is not popular. Across the four countries only about 3 in 10 express positive feelings toward Osama bin Laden and only 1 in 7 say they both share al Qaeda’s views of the US and approve of its methods.

Perhaps most significant, very large majorities reject attacks on civilians. Overwhelming majorities in all countries also specifically reject attacks on civilians including attacks on US civilians in the United States and US civilians working in Islamic countries. Most agree that such attacks are contrary to Islam.
So does that mean then that the Muslim public is basically with America against al Qaeda? The answer is no. While al Qaeda may not be popular, large majorities said that they perceive al Qaeda as seeking to “stand up to America and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people” and equally large majorities agreed with this goal.

Though al Qaeda and America are both seen as largely illegitimate, America is seen as the greater threat. It is as if Muslims are living in a neighborhood where there are two warlords operating. They do not like either one, but one is much more powerful. As long as the weaker one is standing up to the stronger one, it makes sense that they are inclined to play down their dislike for the weaker one.
And in the focus groups people clearly resisted criticizing al Qaeda. Having rejected attacks on civilians as wrong they became uncomfortable and somewhat defensive when asked about 9-11. They strongly insisted that there was no proof that al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks.

This pattern was present in the survey as well. When we asked respondents who they thought was behind 9-11, in no country did more than one in three identify al Qaeda as the culprit and in Pakistan the number was a mere 2 percent. Some respondents blamed the US itself, some blamed Israel, and many refused to even make a guess.

In the focus groups when I brought up the fact that there are videos in which al Qaeda leaders brag about the 9-11 attacks a common answer was: “Hollywood can create anything.”

While this may sound very strange, we should remember that it is not unusual for people to ignore evidence that is, shall we say, ‘inconvenient.’ During World War II when the Soviet Union was America’s ally against Hitler, Americans probably stopped paying attention to Stalin’s gulags. In the 1980s when the mujahideen were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with CIA aid, we probably did not pay too much attention to their ideology.

Enemies of one’s enemies are not necessarily one’s friends. But it is pretty normal to not spend a lot of time scrutinizing their faults.

This brings us back to the question we started with: What are the consequences of anti-American feelings in the Muslim world?

Our study has found that anti-American feeling is by itself not enough to lead one to actively support al Qaeda. To approve of attacks on civilians one must have views that—I am pleased to report—are quite unusual in the Muslim world.

However, anti-American feeling can lead Muslims to suppress their moral doubts about al Qaeda. This makes it politically more difficult for governments to take strong action against al Qaeda, it makes general publics more likely to passively accept al Qaeda and it creates an environment where it is more likely that individuals will cross the threshold into actively supporting al Qaeda. In other words it gives al Qaeda more room to maneuver.


In closing, I will not go so far as to make policy recommendations, but I would like to point out a few of the policy implications of what we have found. When the US decides whether to expand its military presence in a region clearly there are many factors that need to be taken into account. The impact on public opinion is only one. But the impact on public opinion can have significant consequences on the ground as we are seeing vividly in Iraq today. When the US acts on its own initiative, without multilateral approval, these public feelings are also apt to be highly focused at the US itself.

It is also not easy to judge in advance what those public reactions will be, though it is easy to formulate what sound like plausible assumptions. When, the US greatly expanded its military footprint in the Muslim world after 9-11, some assumed that this expansion would not intimidate the general population, that people would perceive it as targeted against a highly circumscribed enemy that did not include them. But the population does not perceive the target of US military presence as separate from them. Rather the target is widely seen as the religion with which they deeply identify.

Others assumed that this dramatic expansion would induce a kind of awe in the general population that would draw people closer to the US and away from America’s enemies. The Muslim people are indeed awed by American power, but it appears that this awe quickly turned to fear leading people to pull away from the US and to take a more accommodating view of those, like al Qaeda, who defy America.

There may be some steps that America can take at this point to mitigate these unintended consequences. Above all the challenge now is to provide reassurance through credible evidence that the US has not targeted Islam itself. There may well be symbolic steps that could have some moderating effects. What is most important, however, is how the US comports its military force and how it communicates its long-term intentions.

Equally important, though, is for America to learn from its experience. We will no doubt face challenges in the future and it is critical that we have a clear-eyed view of the likely side effects for the United States when it uses military force.
These side effects are likely to be more pronounced when the US acts without the legitimizing and diffusing effect that comes from a multilateral process. And they are likely to be stronger in a region where relations with the US have become laced with the intensity of religious convictions. We may well decide that the costs are worth the strategic objective, but we should not assume that the costs will not be high.

Thank you for your attention.

So to summarize, our perceptions do not align with theirs. This causes us to enact policies that inadvertently help our enemies.
Helping our enemies is not something that we wish to do, so our interests would be best served by acknowledging that the "war on terror" is also fought on the battlefield of middle eastern public opinion.
IMO it's the primary battlefield.
 
Back
Top