Paz on 31/7/2006 at 13:16

---

Well, indeed. We can all disagree about the extent to which this happens and the murky moral equivalency of Western arms sales, however I expect most would concur that bombing Southern Lebanon does nothing to prevent it. This is what always happens in these discussions, the central point spreads like an ink blot until you're either debating other countries or stuff that happened 20 years ago. I didn't really want to do that, my point was that CURRENT ACTIONS were not helping anyone.

However ...

Excluding Syria and Iran from diplomatic discussions isn't exactly a wise move in this department, either. At one stage the UN (I think it was the UN, forgive me if that's not the case) were meeting to discuss the Lebanese situation. Missing, were:

The Prime Minister of Israel
Anyone speaking for Hezbollah
Representation from Syria or Iran

And you have to wonder ... what was the point of that, then? Even if you subscribe to highly dubious "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line (oh hello, it's our new friend Colonel Gaddafi - would you like some guns sir?), at least Israel, Syria and Iran needed to be there!




Syria/Iran have a motive to keep any support as quiet as possible, Hezbollah can only benefit from overstating it. This shouldn't be a surprise.

(By the way, this is a totally irrelevant question, but what gives with all the different (though I assume still correct) spellings of Hezbollah?)

SD on 31/7/2006 at 14:53

---

Evidence? Or just hot air?


Well, there's really no excuse for Westerners getting al-Qaeda wrong, given that it's a term we invented for an organisation that didn't exist!

Agent Monkeysee on 31/7/2006 at 15:24

---

That's not true and I really wish you would stop pushing it. We've gone over this innumerable times before. Like everything else you say in these threads there's a kernel of truth but you blow it so wildly out of proportion as to destroy any kind of perspective, and thus sympathy, for your arguments.

Goddammit why am I even reading this thread.

Agent Monkeysee on 31/7/2006 at 19:09

---

Yes I do have an excuse, I have better sources such as books like "The War for Civilization" written by people like Robert Fisk who have sat in Bin Laden's tent and discussed his plans for organizing Islamic resistance in the Middle East and Western nations.

Besides I've seen parts of The Power of Nightmares and like everything you touch you're blowing their thesis out of proportion. Al Qaeda is not "made up" by the US gov't; they have overstated its unity and extent of formal organization and I won't contest that. But bin Laden is at the apex of a loose organization of information, material, and financial support that other groups rally around under a common banner to perpetuate terrorist activities. Clearly there are groups funded by his network. Clearly there are terrorist activities that can be traced to his network. Clearly he is the driving force behind the creation and maintenance of this network. In what sense does it "not exist"?

"Oh the US government thinks of it as a major organization that they can fight and defeat on a battlefield instead of a disjointed network of disparate groups rallying under a banner". Okay score one for Strontium Dog whoohoo big shit the US government is full of cold-war dinosaurs that fear and hate the world outside America. Great. Thanks. What does this prove of the reality of Islamic terrorism funded by Bin Laden? Nothing which is why your insistent rhetoric is so goddamn annoying; your point is completely empty, you're arguing semantics and treating it like a big goddamn moral victory. Al Queda isn't exactly what the US government says it is. Oh okay I guess we can all go home. Turns out there's nothing to this radical islamic movement and those terrorist attacks were, I dunno, mass delusion I guess. WHAT'S YOUR POINT is what I'm saying.

Islamic terrorism exists, many of these groups are funded and supplied by a network created and maintained by Osama Bin Laden. That network is known collectively as "Al Queda". Do *they* call it that? Does bin Laden refer to it that way? Who gives a shit. The point is IT EXISTS.

SD on 31/7/2006 at 20:17

---

Well, it has no extent of formal organisation, so to ascribe any to it is overstatement ;)



The way the US government describes it is Osama bin Laden sitting in a cave, buying guns and weapons and ordering Al Qaeda sleeper cells to commit Bombing A, Atrocity B and Hijack C.

The reality is a ragtag bunch of Islamist guys going to Osama cap-in-hand for money so they can wage war on the Great Satan, which is the full extent of his involvement.

That's the sense in which it doesn't exist. They're not organised, they don't have coherent aims (save for the promotion of Islamist beliefs) and Osama isn't the capo di tutti capi ordering all his minions to do his bidding. They didn't even have a name until we gave them one.

Of course Osama exists, but one man doling out money to independent, like-minded individuals can hardly be described as an organisation, can he.