Crown Prince Hassan declares current events are a run up to WW3
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW3?
If we are in the pre-amble to WW3, the immediate question must be, who will be on the opposing sides? It surely isn't going to be conventional forces v conventional forces.
The real problem to the current world situation is that the US seems to believe that there is a conventional military answer to the terrorist threat. However, as the British demonstrated in Northern Ireland, commited terrorists are hard to defeat using purely conventional forces because of the nature of terrorism and how they fight. What does defeat terrorism is to rigidly apply the Rule of Law in a way that all perceive to be impartial. This will then remove their support from the population within which they reside. This is admittedly far harder with international terrorism than against the IRA or the Mau Mau, who work within a known territory, but the principle should still be sound. We also need to work to achieve long term solutions that the international community understands to be as fair as possible. If it is not thought to be fair, someone will keep fighting and these days that means fighting dirty.
For me the real answer is that we need to turn back to the United Nations and prevent the US from undermining their work. The UN was formed for very good reasons post WW2. It is not perfect but it has far more international credibility than the US as it is mostly democratic, with each sovereign nation having a vote. The current world situation is as much a result of the lack of perceived international credibility for the US policy on Iraq than any other factor. After all, had the UN clearly stated that we should go into Iraq I doubt that we would have had a million people marching through London protesting. Once again, the UN may not have all of the solutions but the US policy has probably exacerbated international terrorism, not solved it.
If the international community is serious about achieving a long term solution we would be addressing some of the inequalities in the world and helping those nations whose people are starving or dying prematurely because of lack of resources. If we started building engineering and medical schools in Afghanistan and allowed the people there to become more self sufficient and help themselves, they may turn away from other solutions to their problems. Killing people who feel that they are defending their way of life creates long term problems. If you want proof of this ask yourself why the result of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 is still relevant to the people of Northern Ireland today!
Lastly, the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for destroying the WTC were from Saudi Arabia is still hugely significant. To the young disaffected men of that country there is a basic disconnect between the teachings of the Wahabi strain of Islam and the reality of what they see in their own country. They are told that their religion and beliefs are superior to non-Muslims yet their nation has been unable to defend itself against another arab nation (post the Iran-Iraq War and through the 1990s). Defence of Saudi Arabia has been aided by having large numbers of US forces, who are of course the infidel, based on Muslim territory. What they have been told does not relate to what they see. Their answer seems to be to attack the US and the western way of life. Remembering that the first WTC attack was back in 1993 shortly after the 1991 Gulf War.
This is my understanding and may be an overly simplistic view of a complicated situation. However, the might of the US military and intelligence community have yet to come up with real results on the ground in Iraq and Al Qiada are still active.
The real problem to the current world situation is that the US seems to believe that there is a conventional military answer to the terrorist threat. However, as the British demonstrated in Northern Ireland, commited terrorists are hard to defeat using purely conventional forces because of the nature of terrorism and how they fight. What does defeat terrorism is to rigidly apply the Rule of Law in a way that all perceive to be impartial. This will then remove their support from the population within which they reside. This is admittedly far harder with international terrorism than against the IRA or the Mau Mau, who work within a known territory, but the principle should still be sound. We also need to work to achieve long term solutions that the international community understands to be as fair as possible. If it is not thought to be fair, someone will keep fighting and these days that means fighting dirty.
For me the real answer is that we need to turn back to the United Nations and prevent the US from undermining their work. The UN was formed for very good reasons post WW2. It is not perfect but it has far more international credibility than the US as it is mostly democratic, with each sovereign nation having a vote. The current world situation is as much a result of the lack of perceived international credibility for the US policy on Iraq than any other factor. After all, had the UN clearly stated that we should go into Iraq I doubt that we would have had a million people marching through London protesting. Once again, the UN may not have all of the solutions but the US policy has probably exacerbated international terrorism, not solved it.
If the international community is serious about achieving a long term solution we would be addressing some of the inequalities in the world and helping those nations whose people are starving or dying prematurely because of lack of resources. If we started building engineering and medical schools in Afghanistan and allowed the people there to become more self sufficient and help themselves, they may turn away from other solutions to their problems. Killing people who feel that they are defending their way of life creates long term problems. If you want proof of this ask yourself why the result of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 is still relevant to the people of Northern Ireland today!
Lastly, the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for destroying the WTC were from Saudi Arabia is still hugely significant. To the young disaffected men of that country there is a basic disconnect between the teachings of the Wahabi strain of Islam and the reality of what they see in their own country. They are told that their religion and beliefs are superior to non-Muslims yet their nation has been unable to defend itself against another arab nation (post the Iran-Iraq War and through the 1990s). Defence of Saudi Arabia has been aided by having large numbers of US forces, who are of course the infidel, based on Muslim territory. What they have been told does not relate to what they see. Their answer seems to be to attack the US and the western way of life. Remembering that the first WTC attack was back in 1993 shortly after the 1991 Gulf War.
This is my understanding and may be an overly simplistic view of a complicated situation. However, the might of the US military and intelligence community have yet to come up with real results on the ground in Iraq and Al Qiada are still active.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't negotiate with a terrorist - even if they back down on the one issue another will be just around the corner. Unfortunately, the likes of Hamas and Al-Q maintain middle age grudges and avenge them with modern weapons. When somebody's stated aim is the anhilation of a country (Hamas on Israel) then how do you expect them to negotiate?
No, off with the head and as one previous post said - eventually a less able one will take it's place. It is just unfortunate that the rest of the word doesn't have the political boll0cks of Israel to fight fire with fire.
No, off with the head and as one previous post said - eventually a less able one will take it's place. It is just unfortunate that the rest of the word doesn't have the political boll0cks of Israel to fight fire with fire.
To all contributors to this forum,
Take a look at the text below - it's one of the reasons why Israel exists as a nation state at all. Read, digest and then comment please.
The Balfour Declaration - a letter to Lord Rothschild from the then Foreigh Secretary of Great Britain, Arthur James Balfour regarding the support for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours,
Arthur James Balfour
So what do you make of that Ppruners?
Take a look at the text below - it's one of the reasons why Israel exists as a nation state at all. Read, digest and then comment please.
The Balfour Declaration - a letter to Lord Rothschild from the then Foreigh Secretary of Great Britain, Arthur James Balfour regarding the support for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours,
Arthur James Balfour
So what do you make of that Ppruners?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times have we heard politicians utter the phrase, "We never negotiate with terrorists", only to find that, behind the scenes, they have been doing exactly that? The hard reality is that terrorism does work and negotiating with terrorist is necessary.
As has been mentioned, the Israeli/Palestinian issue and negative western meddling in the Middle East are huge propaganda and recruiting tools for Islamic fundamentalism and every effort must be directed toward alleviating these.
I would like to hear more senior Muslim clerics condemning suicide bombers. Islamic terrorists must be told by those with any influence over them, their actions are abhorrent to all Muslim teaching and belief. Following the Madrid outrage, Muslims placed a large banner on the Central Mosque condemning the attack. It would be heartening to see more of this. Of course, the same applies across the religious board, so I would expect, for example, the Pope to condemn Irish nationalist terrorism. If a religious leader has the power to ex-communicate the followers of his religion, why not use it on those who are so obviously devoid of morality?
BUS
The Zionists did much scouting for a suitable location for the Jewish homeland. Uganda, Argentina and several offshore islands were even considered. It might have saved a whole lot of trouble if they hadn't chosen Palestine, but, they did and that's something we have to work with. All but the most extreme Arab fundamentalists accept the right of Israel to exist. It's just a case of getting the border right. As the 'new kid on the block' it might help if Israel stopped behaving like it and its border have been around forever.
Or, for a completely off-the-wall idea (but one not without merit), check this out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella5.html
As has been mentioned, the Israeli/Palestinian issue and negative western meddling in the Middle East are huge propaganda and recruiting tools for Islamic fundamentalism and every effort must be directed toward alleviating these.
I would like to hear more senior Muslim clerics condemning suicide bombers. Islamic terrorists must be told by those with any influence over them, their actions are abhorrent to all Muslim teaching and belief. Following the Madrid outrage, Muslims placed a large banner on the Central Mosque condemning the attack. It would be heartening to see more of this. Of course, the same applies across the religious board, so I would expect, for example, the Pope to condemn Irish nationalist terrorism. If a religious leader has the power to ex-communicate the followers of his religion, why not use it on those who are so obviously devoid of morality?
BUS
The Zionists did much scouting for a suitable location for the Jewish homeland. Uganda, Argentina and several offshore islands were even considered. It might have saved a whole lot of trouble if they hadn't chosen Palestine, but, they did and that's something we have to work with. All but the most extreme Arab fundamentalists accept the right of Israel to exist. It's just a case of getting the border right. As the 'new kid on the block' it might help if Israel stopped behaving like it and its border have been around forever.
Or, for a completely off-the-wall idea (but one not without merit), check this out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella5.html
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 27th Mar 2004 at 15:05.
Yasser Arafat would probably now regard the Balfour declaration as unexceptionable:
"The establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was non-exclusive, and didn't even amount to full statehood. The PLO have already accepted far more.
But whether any Zionist politicians accept such a limited vision of Israel (no mention of the whole of 'biblical Israel' and thatinconvenient rider: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine") is another matter.
"The establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was non-exclusive, and didn't even amount to full statehood. The PLO have already accepted far more.
But whether any Zionist politicians accept such a limited vision of Israel (no mention of the whole of 'biblical Israel' and thatinconvenient rider: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine") is another matter.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also simplistic and offensive to pretend that the Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea. They may have wanted that once, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad may still want that, but many Palestinians now want no more than a viable state for themselves, preferably based on the 1967 borders.
There is no need to hurl facile accusations of naivity.
There are some Palestinians who accept a rump state based only on Gaza and a very limited part of the West Bank, so there are certainly even more who'd happily accept a return to pre-67 borders (including East Jerusalem).
It is, however, probably naive to think that Israel will do anything at all to compromise, and to allow a Palestinian state without being forced to do so.
There are some Palestinians who accept a rump state based only on Gaza and a very limited part of the West Bank, so there are certainly even more who'd happily accept a return to pre-67 borders (including East Jerusalem).
It is, however, probably naive to think that Israel will do anything at all to compromise, and to allow a Palestinian state without being forced to do so.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the real answer is that we need to turn back to the United Nations and prevent the US from undermining their work. The UN was formed for very good reasons post WW2. It is not perfect but it has far more international credibility than the US as it is mostly democratic, with each sovereign nation having a vote.
A bit like Brussels, Westminster etc etc
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays newsworthy WW3 precursors - Uzbekistan, Manilla and London. Thank god two of the plots were thwarted.
BFB
BFB
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud-U-Like:
Well there's terrorists and there's terrorists. Yes, you can deal with Paddy - he wants the Brits out, but he'll eventually settle for less, so long as the Prod hegemony is ended. Same with PLO/ETA etc. Clearly-defined objectives that have some arguable basis in reason and rationality. 'One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' and so on.
OBL and his ilk are a very different breed of cat. How can you negotiate with someone whose objective is nothing less than to destroy you and your civilisation? You don't negotiate with that, you kill it where you can, and use persuasion, diplomacy and education to address the real or perceived issues everywhere else.
IMHO
R1
How many times have we heard politicians utter the phrase, "We never negotiate with terrorists", only to find that, behind the scenes, they have been doing exactly that? The hard reality is that terrorism does work and negotiating with terrorist is necessary.
OBL and his ilk are a very different breed of cat. How can you negotiate with someone whose objective is nothing less than to destroy you and your civilisation? You don't negotiate with that, you kill it where you can, and use persuasion, diplomacy and education to address the real or perceived issues everywhere else.
IMHO
R1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Digress -
I don't like the way the current conflicts are compared to the crusades. Perhaps some elements are, but calling it a war between chritianity and islam is nonsense - ok the islamic fundamentalists (e.g al-cocksuck) are religious and so are some americans. However, most of the west is atheist or agnostic. I know alot of people in the UK/ Europe and only a fraction (maybe 5%) of them have some loosley held religious beliefs, no one else cares about that stuff in the 21st century.
I don't like the way the current conflicts are compared to the crusades. Perhaps some elements are, but calling it a war between chritianity and islam is nonsense - ok the islamic fundamentalists (e.g al-cocksuck) are religious and so are some americans. However, most of the west is atheist or agnostic. I know alot of people in the UK/ Europe and only a fraction (maybe 5%) of them have some loosley held religious beliefs, no one else cares about that stuff in the 21st century.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the similarity between what is happening now and the crusades is limited to the inability of different religions to co-exist. This is certainly not a problem posed by christianity but it does seem that Islam and Judism suffer from it.
What a shame in the 21st century that the events so far back in history are still used as an excuse for human intolerance.
What a shame in the 21st century that the events so far back in history are still used as an excuse for human intolerance.
Grandpa Aerotart
As far as ETA is concerned I think you will find that their historic reasons for fighting have all, largely, become non issues....they have simply evolved into a 'terrorism for terrorisms sake' group...as did most similar organisations of the past, Bahder Meinhoff etc.
Chuck.
Chuck.
