Beating terrorism

Muteea Al Fadi

I am a former Muslim form Saudi Arabia who is a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. Ever since I left Islam I have been warning others that Islam has a much deeper agenda than what they can see on the surface. Islam's ultimate agenda is to Islamitize the world at any cost and by any means possible. This can include: peaceful communities (at first), neighborhood outreach, prison ministry, educational system infiltration, and civil law modifications.
Any way you look at it, If we do not stand firm against this, we will be swallowed by Islam sooner or later.
Do not let the peace talk deceive you, becasue it hides the real ICEBERG to come.

MF

Headless chicken

Mmm... according to the article in the WST 300 violent incidents in Iraq in week.

What does that suggest? Well perhaps that MP's "getting on top of terrorism" may have a little further to go there than she would like to lead us to believe.

nosmo29

....What does that suggest? Well perhaps that MP's "getting on top of terrorism" may have a little further to go there than she would like to lead us to believe.....

And that pleases you Headless Chicken ?

Alcuin

Mindless shibboleth indeed. You would have thought the success against the Communists in the Malayan Emergency would have taught us how to do it.

A correspondent on some recent BBC travel progamme related how he met reality. I only caught a bit of the programme so missed which country it was. When local people heard he had been wandering around unarmed on his own they thought he was mad. "Why would anyone want to kill me?" he asked. "To please the trigger finger" was the response. A chill ran down his spine. He just got out, quickly, with his life, with bandits in pursuit.

Perhaps our liberals could advise on the best way to "engage" with an AK47.

Doug McA

In war, someone once noted, there's no substitute for victory.

Fabio P.Barbieri

Let us remember Italy. The Red Brigades seemed rooted in the territory, terrifying, and invincible - until they went down before a combination of improved police techniques and popular revulsion. Terrorism is not invincible. In fact, it is easier to see it as a product of despair - as the work of people who would love to lead a revolution or a civil war, but do not have the strength.

Michael B

"All this is good news in its own right. Better yet, it explodes the mindless shibboleth that there is ‘no military solution’ when it comes to dealing with insurgencies. On the contrary, it turns out that the best way to end an insurgency is, quite simply, to beat it."

Precisely. Whether successfully confronting jihadist styled insurgencies or successfully confronting insurgent mindlessness is the more difficult is difficult to say. Regardless, mindlessness is a formidable weapon of choice among ideologues of varying stripes and on varied and sundry fronts. Too, that's no mere coincidence.

Brian O'Connor

Headless Chicken wrote: "Mmm... according to the article in the WST 300 violent incidents in Iraq in week.

"What does that suggest? Well perhaps that MP's "getting on top of terrorism" may have a little further to go there than she would like to lead us to believe."

And thus does the Headless Chicken use the fantasy "utopian perfect" kill the demonstrable "real-world excellent."

Shy Guy

Muteea Al Fadi
June 3rd, 2008 7:32pm

Ever since I left Islam I have been warning others that Islam has a much deeper agenda than what they can see on the surface. Islam's ultimate agenda is to Islamitize the world at any cost and by any means possible.

Many people don't want to believe. People need to open books and educate themselves.

Warnings must be accompanied by accurate documentable facts. The best of luck to you!

Headless chicken

Nosmo29 and Brian O' Connor

I think if you trouble to read my post you'll see the point was to suggest MP may just perhaps be somewhat overstating matters. Unfortunately this is something she appears rather prone to doing.

Marin

Yes, indeed. Bret Stephens does seem to have re-discovered the wheel. Will we follow through? This is the question.

Brian O'Connor

Headless Chicken wrote:

Nosmo29 and Brian O' Connor

I think if you trouble to read my post you'll see the point was to suggest MP may just perhaps be somewhat overstating matters. Unfortunately this is something she appears rather prone to doing.

You, of course, are free to define "overstatement" any way you wish. But for the record, here is the WSJ paragraph which MP cited:

For the week of May 16-23, there were 300 "violent incidents" in Iraq. That's down from 1,600 last June and the lowest recorded since March 2004. Al Qaeda has been crushed by a combination of U.S. arms and Sunni tribal resistance. On the Shiite side, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army was routed by Iraqi troops in Basra and later crumbled in its Sadr City stronghold.

You are perfectly free to disagree with MP's opinion (that the 5-fold+ drop in violent incidents represents "getting on top" of terrorism) or that her opinion somehow is a nefarious attempt to mislead her readership by somehow falsely suggesting that the job is complete.

I respectfully disagree with you: IMO, that paragraph indicates nothing more than that we're "getting on top" of terrorism. I see nothing nefarious about that conclusion; I see no falsehood; I see no attempt by her to deceive by any means whatsoever (including overstatement). Nor do I see in MPs conclusion to indicate that the job is done.

But I see in your posts a deliberate attempt to put the worst possible spin on things, and to do so by bludgeoning the actual "excellent" developments with the fantasy "utopian" perfect that can never be achieved.

Feel free to disagree.

Headless chicken

Brian O' Connor

An intelligent response, which deserves an (I hope) intelligent response. I think we read MP differently. But I would also observe that while you appear to be supporting her, you seem in fact to rule out what is her key message.

Of course this piece is only an add-on to the earlier piece, and (to put it slightly unkindly) MP is wheeling out someone, an article, to confirm her previous wisdom and vindicate her position, which is not to talk.

In fact in that earlier piece, although she thinks there has been some "startling success" she admits the Taleban and Al Q are far from finished. Quite so I'm sure. But I don't see that caveat in the new piece. The new piece encapsulates the earlier one. But without the caveat, the effect, I believe, is to spin the previous piece in a more positive direction. In other words the new piece not only leads the reader in a very positive direction, but it actually probably overstates her own position as well.

I think the paragraph she quotes (which may not reflect the WSJ article as a whole) significantly adds to this very positive impression: For example "it explodes the mindless shibboleth that there is 'no military solution" very much suggests it's pretty much job done - "explod(ing)" is not good progress, but game set and match, something very definitive, very conclusive. Likewise "it turns out that the best way to end an insurgency is, quite simply, to beat it" implies that this is precisely what has been done - that the insurgency has been beaten, or is so close to being beaten as makes no difference.

You quibble a bit about the meaning of numbers. In Iraq the number of violent incidents (as quoted in WSJ) has declined. But 300 a week still seems a whole lot to me. I'm guessing but probably several (many?) times more than in NI at the height of the troubles.

Your penultimate paragraph puts me in mind of Donald Runsfeld and his use of English (often unfairly mocked in my view). But when you write about "the fantasy utopian perfect that can never be achieved" you're at odds I think with MP. She thinks it can. She thinks it - the military solution - is the only thing that will work. You don't (or at least that it will work only imperfectly) and on this I think we'd probably agree.

As for MP overstating things generally, this piece is quite understated by comparison to most.

Frank Pulley

B O.C and HC

Sit's back to get more comfortable, as this exchange seems bound to go on till the failing of the light. We're all agog!

Your service Brian.

Brian O'Connor

Headless Chicken wrote . . . well, a whole bunch, most of it challengeable. A few of your points, and my responses.

Again, you have every right to your opinions I value them enormously. Please understand that I'm not trying to argue you off your position. Having said that, I disagree with some of the judgements you've posted in this thread, and, too that I'm not attempting to persuade you that you're wrong. I'm merely saying that your case — whatever it might be — is profoundly unpersuasive to me, largely because of how you argue it.

Here are a couple of major nits I would pick with your argument.

You say: "But I would also observe that while you appear to be supporting her, you seem in fact to rule out what is her key message."

But you never define what you believe to be her "key message."

1) To my mind, one "key claim" is a simple and verifiable one: things are improving in Iraq. The numbers support this claim. It is a reasonable one. She said nothing about the job being done, yet the only plausible interpretation for your first post ("What does that suggest? Well perhaps that MP's "getting on top of terrorism" may have a little further to go there than she would like to lead us to believe.") reveals that you are conflating "progress towards a goal" with the "goal having been perfectly accomplished."

You have also stacked the deck in your favor: even if there were merely 5 acts of violence per week, down from 300 and down from over 1000, one could raise the same objection you already have: it's not good enough (which is "perfect" in disguise — one can always complain that something isn't "good enough"). When a style of argument is crafted such that the theory underlying it can never be matched by objective reality, it is an example of the "perfect killing the excellent," and I become wary.

(You use the same technique with your "caveat" criticism of Mel's post at the top of this thread: no matter what she includes, there's always something to be pointed to that she omitted and that would open her to charges of misleading others. Again, the "perfect" kills the excellent.)

Again, this isn't a criticism of you, or your way of arguing. Nor am I saying your perceptions are incorrect. It's simply one reason why I find your case to be profoundly unpersuasive. You have your way of reaching conclusions, I have my own.

2) You wrote: "But when you write about "the fantasy utopian perfect that can never be achieved" you're at odds I think with MP. She thinks it can. She thinks it - the military solution - is the only thing that will work."

Well, I'm less confident in my ability to read Mel's mind than you evidently are, but I believe strongly that the application of military force is essential for success, but not by itself sufficient.

I don't think you can point to anything Mel wrote which implied her thoughts are as you characterized them. I believe her writing is perfectly consistent with the "necessary but not sufficient" model I offer for your consideration, not the "military solution is the only thing that will work" model you proposed.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong — merely that I find your case profoundly unpersuasive.

James C

The argument seems to be as follows. According to Bret Stephens, the FARC, the Tamil Tigers, and the Iraqi insurgents are on the verge of defeat; this proves that those who said there was no military solution to insurgencies were wrong; it also proves, as the headline of Stephens’ article proclaims, “There Is a Military Solution to Terror”; and this, according to Melanie Phillips, demonstrates that Hugh Orde is wrong in saying that we will at some point have to talk to Al Qaeda.

There is in my opinion a serious flaw in the argument. Let us suppose for a moment that the groups mentioned are on the verge of defeat. This would indeed show that those who said insurgencies could no be solved by military means were wrong. But the headline of Bret Stephens’ article is “There Is a Military Solution to Terror,” so he has generalised from “insurgencies” to “terror”. Yet he has only proved that there is a military solution to insurgencies, and these are essentially localised matters where the position of the enemy is more or less known. For example, the Tamil Tigers’ strongholds are in the north of Sri Lanka, and the government is accordingly directing its operations at this region. The same point is true of Iraq.

Al Qaeda is an entirely different matter, since it is not a localised organisation. Where are its leaders? Somewhere in Afghanistan, we suppose. Where are its operatives? Who knows? Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly, but also Hamburg, Paris, and London as well. Let us suppose we muster a large number of troops by conscription in order to defeat them. Where will you send them? Peckham? In short, how are you going to stop by military means a large number of extremely small dispersed groups of people from carrying out terrorist attacks? Moreover, even if the leaders are caught, there is no reason to suppose that the rest of the organisation will fold.

But it was about these dispersed elements in Europe, and not about insurgents, that Orde was talking. Hence his comments “If somebody can show me any terrorism campaign where it has been policed out, I'd be happy to read about it, because I can't think of one.” and “Are we actually going to police our way out of the current threat? No.” The Guardian summed up his position as “policing alone - detecting plots and arresting people - would not defeat al-Qaeda inspired terrorism.” He also mentioned the idea of talking as a long-term notion. In my view, he should have said nothing on the matter, since such remarks serve only to encourage the militants, but that is a different matter.

It is as if Bret Stephens has shown that a problem with rats has been cleared up with a shotgun, and Melanie Phillips believes the same method can be applied to a flu epidemic.

Finally, Brett Stephens says that these groups are “on the verge of defeat”, but even if we caught the leaders of Al Qaeda, is it really plausible to suppose that all the other radicals will give up the ghost? We are hardly going to reach the point where we say “You’re only chance is surrender. We’ve got you surrounded.” My point, then, is not whether we are or are not “getting on top” of terror in Iraq, which is a semantic issue, but whether the marked improvement in Iraq shows that those who say that Al Qaeda cannot be defeated militarily are completely wrong.

field

No one's done better than the USA in combatting Al Queda and they have there you have to be charged within 48 hours - not 42 days.

That's why they still have the claim to be the land of the free.

field

MF

Thanks for that interesting post.

I agree the most important thing we have to do is stand by our values and understand what Islam believes and how its adherents behave to promote their religion.

Headless chicken

Brian O'Connor
My original post was an aside about how MP argues and I'm not sure it's worth either of our energies taking this further. You challenged me however and being forced to explain why I read her that way was good.

One of the other criticisms I would make of MP is that behind the bombast and the villification it can be quite difficult to work out what she is actually saying. Your comment about not being confident to be able to read her mind, perhaps suggests you would agree.

I think I would add the following which I hope will go some way to answering your questions.

I think the key thing is context. The starting point of the original piece was Hugh Orde and in particular his comments that he could not think of a single terrorism campaign that has been ended without negotiations. MP's key message is that that is nonsense. and then that negotiations make things worse and that the only way to defeat terrorism is through military force and policing (see her first piece, she's quite explicit on this and clearly you don't agree with her).

The second piece is supposed to vindicate the first which necessarily sets up certain expectations and a framework in which her comments are to be read. Because to vindicate the first what you really need is an example of terrorism campaign that has been ended through military force and policing and without negotiations. The second piece is supposed to provide that. I think if there are 300 incidents a week, Iraq doesn't provide that. It seems to me without quite saying it she is trying to create the impression that what is happening in Iraq proves Orde is wrong and she is right.

Steve

People warn about "Islam" I do not see this as the actual problem just an extremely clever smokescreen.
The problem I see is that One family has used religion to spread its power over more and more of the world.Muteea would know of whom I speak many even in the middle east have fought them unsuccesfully in the past
many still do today though they refer to it as sectarian do your history Lawrence backed the wrong horse.do not repeat his mistake.

Brian O'Connor

Headless Chicken wrote: "My original post was an aside about how MP argues and I'm not sure it's worth either of our energies taking this further. You challenged me however and being forced to explain why I read her that way was good."

With respect, you're spinning and attempting to sidestep.

Your original comment was not simply "an aside." It called into question Mel's integrity, as did at least one other of your comments. Your original comment was a cheap shot, a kind of hit-and-run.

In a later post, after I'd challenged you, you admitted that your objection was that she had failed to include a vital caveat, which, omitted as it was, you claim overstated her case and which you implied she omitted for that purpose ("spin" is not a neutral word, and I refer you to your first comment for other evidence of your having maligned her character):

In fact in that earlier piece, although she thinks there has been some "startling success" she admits the Taleban and Al Q are far from finished. Quite so I'm sure. But I don't see that caveat in the new piece. The new piece encapsulates the earlier one. But without the caveat, the effect, I believe, is to spin the previous piece in a more positive direction.

You now find yourself in an interesting position: in essence, I nailed you because you failed to provide the "caveats" that you are now attempting to assemble into some sort of defense.

I did to you what you did to Mel. I hope you like irony, because our exchange is awash in it . . .

Headless chicken

Brian O'Connor

Too much heat? I've simply been trying to explain how I read the two pieces and in the process invite you and others to consider whether, even on the basis of the facts stated in the article she was quoting with approval as proving her point, the Iraq experience does in fact do that. The point I think being the falseness of Orde's position.

I haven't raised and don't want to get into questions of integrity. I think my reading is a fair one and if people agree with me they can ask the integrity question for themselves. As a general point I think to question someone's integrity on the basis of a little spin would be very harsh. But there probably comes a point where it is appropriate to do so.

Commondog

Brian O'Connor.

RE: Headless Chicken.

"With respect, you're spinning and attempting to sidestep."

It's what he does my friend. A messer.
I just had the same old run around with him on a recent item.

You lay before him the fallacy of his line of thought, and either he spins off into some pseudo philosophic cushion-straightening, or he goes a pecking in some other unrelated direction.

I did speculate early on whether he was a plant or a plank. A bit of both.

Headless chicken

Commondog. I don't recall you pointing out any fallacies on the "Terror and appeasement" thread (2 June). Readers can see for themselves.

What I do remember is this. That you made little attempt to address the issues I raised. That when I tried to address the points you were yourself making and asked for clarification, you couldn't provide that. That you twice claimed you couldn't understand a point I was making and then when I had explained it twice, effectively claimed the point was a cliché.

I see two things in your post above. Insults. And then a littering of words and phrases like “spinning”, “attempting to sidestep” and “fallacy” to try to suggest you are somehow winning the argument. What I don't see is examples to back these charges. And what I don't see is any argument.

Commondog

Headless Chicken.

The omission for starters would do.

patricia

I am reminded of Mr Begin.
And his demolition of the King David Hotel.

Are you?