Muslim Terror in India

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<p align="justify">Iranian acts of terrorism against the US = 0 (except for the hostage situation 28 years ago)
North Korean acts of terrorism against the US = 0 (except for the Korean War back in the 50s)
Cuban acts of terrorism against the US = 0 (except for the Cuban missile crisis back in the 60s)
[/quote]You should notify the state department that the remaining axis (sic) of evil has been cleared of threats. Seriously though, counter terrorism strategy is not necessarily about terrorist acts, it's about potential terrorist acts. One percent doctrine and all that.
[/quote]

<p align="justify">... and you should notify the state dept. we're all clear of threats from radical islam. What else are you picking up from your crystal ball that we may steer clear of?

[SallyLightfoot]

I think I made it clear that radical islam is a threat. My posts have been about how we should put them in perspective so we can deal with them more effectively. More specifically, the 'war' part of name 'war on terror' leads people to endorse actions which undercut our ability to thwart terrorism.

[MetaMatrix]

if i've read this thread correctly , no-one so far has stated where the biggest danger is currently coming from : PAKISTAN !

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by MetaMatrix[/i]
<br>if i've read this thread correctly , no-one so far has stated where the biggest danger is currently coming from : PAKISTAN !
[/quote]No, don't you know how it works? Musharrif may be a bastard, but he's [i]our bastard[/i]-- and besides, they've got the bomb. So it's a political love-fest. We'll continue to pour billions into their coffers and sell them high-tech arms and kiss their asses all-around while they feign interest in their 1500 mile unguarded border with Afghanistan and a certain Saudi terrorist leader in their Waziristan province.

[drsevrin]

My point is not to defend radical Islam, but some may find it interesting and surprising to see who introduced terror bombings to the modern Middle East:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by drsevrin[/i]
<br>My point is not to defend radical Islam, but some may find it interesting and surprising to see who introduced terror bombings to the modern Middle East:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
[/quote]

<p align="justify">That is - literally - old news. It's a given that israel is a terrorist state, but they're "our" terrorists[}:)] They don't do any of our dirty work... they just happen to have a powerful lobby that gets them all the money and political backing they need.

[KYYX4ever]

Having just met with Pakistan's new president, Yousuf Raza Gilani, Bush calls him a "strong ally" against the war on ter'rism. Reality to BushWorld:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 17426.stor

[MetaMatrix]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
don't you know how it works?[/quote]

as a matter of fact i do know it all too well & it may finally prove as the worst fault in recent times that especially the u.s. government is still supporting the regime in pakistan - also because they have "the bomb" ( like israel too btw ) & the most dangerous taliban forces are currently residing & also operating from there & no longer in afghanistan itself !

it's indeed high time to wake up for some people , methinks !

[SallyLightfoot]

[b]Study questions US strategy against al-Qaida[/b]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_ ... s_al_qaida
Tue, July 29

[i]Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon... said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.[/i]

[edisonoside]

If Muslims attacked with war planes missiles and tanks would that be considered Terrorism? Or does Terrorism only count when they, the Muslims use explosive devices and blow themselves up? ...Just curious.

[SallyLightfoot]

That's a subjective question. Most people will define terrorism as an act of aggression by a group that is not state-sponsored and not in military uniform. So, if it's a group of muslims that are not part of any nation's army, yeah, I'd guess it would be considered terrorism even if they attacked with battleships and heavy armor.

However, if the aggressors are white (and US citizens), the label 'terrorist' is not proper nor courteous; these individuals are labeled enraged, disgruntled or crazy, like the Tennessee church shooter Jim D. Adkisson. If Adkisson had been a brown-skinned foreigner with a Semitic name, you can bet the word 'terrorist' would have been on all the newspaper headlines.