A Conversation I Had...

[Nikk]

Response to posting by Kevin_Lowe

The terror tactics arise from this region. They appear to utililze the same techniques. Car bombs. Suicide Bombings, Children as shields, Children as bait, the perpetrators seemingly have the same trainers. Much of the horror ties back organizations like al Queda. Much of the support for terrorism is state sponsored, coming from Iran, Syria and some time ago Libya. I guess if you deny that then what I spout is a kook conspiracy theory.

Sigh. Correlation doth not a conspiracy make.

What possible relevance does the use of similar tactics have? The Zionist jews were amongst the first to use terrorist tactics in the region before 1948, are they in on the conspiracy too?

Syria and Iraq are Baathist states. Baathism is a secular socialist ideology and is the natural enemy of old time muslim religion. This became especially clear after the rise of Theocracy in Iran. Such a state has no room for Baathists. In any event Iraq and Syria developed into mutually loathing and mistrusting dictatorships and would be unlikely to cooperate if this is what you are suggesting. It really should be very clear that there is no reason to believe that either state would maintain a close relationship with a group like AL Q as their destruction is necessary for Al Q to achieve it's objectives . And, as is repeatedly pointed out, there is no such evidence. Iraq and Iran are old enemies of course so they are hardly likely to be members of the same conspiracy. As regards the Israel/Palestine disaster no conspiracy theory is needed. It's a run of the mill dispute about colonialism in which predictable positions are taken by the colonists (Israeli jews) and the locals ( every muslim for thousands of miles around). The locals want the colonists out or at least subordinate and the colonists think things are just fine the way they are. The dispute is purely local and not fundamentally ideological although US has worked hard to make it look that way.


No but pan-nationalism, militarism, expansion through war, racial/spiritual superiority combined with blind hatred of the Jews should at least raise a red flag.

I think the average Muslim would say that was not a bad definition of the USA, if you substitute blind hatred of arabs. Are you in the conspiracy too?

By the way what's wrong with pan arab nationalism? Seems very sensible.

I think the Iran/Syria and previously the Iraq/Syria connections are evidence of a coordinated program. Both Iraq and Iran have tried to become Nuclear powers while using the UN nonproliferation treaty as cover. Both have used terror tactics outside their borders. I did not use the word urgent - but I did call it a global threat. My point is that free peoples should take both the shadowy organizations and the states who sponsor them seriously when they issue their declarations of war against the west as they have. Although I believe that Osama is already dead, a charismatic leader in the region might be all that it takes to turn this nascent movement into the ignition for another world war.


You've said that as a conspiricy theorist I should bring evidence but much of the collaboration of Hamas, Fatah, HizBollah, Iran, Assad, Saddam, al Queda is public record. They may not collaborate with each and every part but they certainly collaborate and trade monies and weapons. Do you agree with that statement? Kevin, if you have an argument against Middle East collaborations and conspiracies, I'll listen. I kinda hold these things to be self evident.

Well Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah are all part of the struggle against Israel as are/were Syria, Iraq, Iran and many other muslims. But so what? It's an anti colonial struggle and it's out in the open as much as the opposition expressed by a wide range of states to apartheid era South Africa. That said the support of the US for Israel and the Iraq invasion do give huge support to those Muslims who are attracted to Islamism and its thesis that the US is intent on imposing some sort of christian dominance on the middle east.

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Nikk
Sigh. Correlation doth not a conspiracy make.

What possible relevance does the use of similar tactics have? The similar tactics, particular hiding among women and children and the disregard they show for their shields indicates to me anyway they are being trained by the same bunch of heartless bassturds.

Syria and Iraq are Baathist states. Baathism is a secular socialist ideology and is the natural enemy of old time muslim religion. This became especially clear after the rise of Theocracy in Iran. Such a state has no room for Baathists. In any event Iraq and Syria developed into mutually loathing and mistrusting dictatorships and would be unlikely to cooperate if this is what you are suggesting. Wherever they had common cause they cooperated. Assad picked up millions of barrels of oil from Saddam during the oil embargo. Likewise today Iran is footing the bill in Lebanon funneling money through Assad.

It really should be very clear that there is no reason to believe that either state would maintain a close relationship with a group like AL Q as their destruction is necessary for Al Q to achieve it's objectives . I didn't say necessary. I would say advantageous. 9/11 proved that al Queda trainees will die for the mission objectives which is tidy for the funders.

And, as is repeatedly pointed out, there is no such evidence. Iraq and Iran are old enemies of course so they are hardly likely to be members of the same conspiracy. Not as partners with each other. But they both offered support and safe haven to those willing to spread their brand of terror around the region and the world.

As regards the Israel/Palestine disaster no conspiracy theory is needed. It's a run of the mill dispute about colonialism in which predictable positions are taken by the colonists (Israeli jews) and the locals ( every muslim for thousands of miles around). The locals want the colonists out or at least subordinate and the colonists think things are just fine the way they are. The dispute is purely local and not fundamentally ideological although US has worked hard to make it look that way. It is clear here that we see this situation from completely different perspectives. Although it resembles your description there is a great deal more here than what you say. The dispute is anything but local. Also, for me, it is at the heart of the militaristic buildup in the region and strangely, not in any way to help the Palestinians. The goal is to merely crush Israel and push it into the sea. And then with military might reestablish an empire to rival the Ottoman.

No but pan-nationalism, militarism, expansion through war, racial/spiritual superiority combined with blind hatred of the Jews should at least raise a red flag.

I think the average Muslim would say that was not a bad definition of the USA, if you substitute blind hatred of arabs. Are you in the conspiracy too?

By the way what's wrong with pan arab nationalism? Seems very sensible. I have no hated of any peoples but the leadership that uses the Palestinian people like pawns, paying children to blow themselves up in glory to god, when peace is theirs for the asking.... I hate that. The European Union, NAFTA and other organizations that serve the common good are a good idea... Saddam had a Pan-Arab dream that was malignant. The radical Islamicists have a Pan-Arab dream that is malignant.

Well Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah are all part of the struggle against Israel as are/were Syria, Iraq, Iran and many other muslims. But so what? It's an anti colonial struggle and it's out in the open as much as the opposition expressed by a wide range of states to apartheid era South Africa. That said the support of the US for Israel and the Iraq invasion do give huge support to those Muslims who are attracted to Islamism and its thesis that the US is intent on imposing some sort of christian dominance on the middle east. Your last statement reminds me of another one the Nazis tools: propaganda, specifically the Big Lie. That is, I take it that Christian dominance of the Middle East is the lie that Islamism is spreading and that you are not an adherent of that position. But I do not accept your idea that this is merely a colonial struggle. I think it is ideological in the extreme. No land that has ever been Muslim can be allowed to be in the hands of the infidel. It's an abomination.

If the US did not support Israel, what would happen Nikk? Would it be good? I think the US has tried to broker peace for Israel and the Palestinians. We support Israel because they are a free people doing good in the world (medicine, science). They want peace, they are willing to trade land for it. Arafat can't make a deal for two reasons... He would lose power and the surrounding Muslim states need him to continue the push for the destruction of Israel. It is a conspiracy.

(You're probably aware by now that this Atlas guy is going to need a lot of deprogramming. I don't believe my country is always right. But I do believe it has a goal of peace in the Middle East and I don't believe the enemy wants that. I appreciate your response to my post. It shows that we start from some fundamentally different assumptions. I didn't really appreciate that before. I've kinda taken it as a fact that this is an ideological struggle and you are the first person who has, very directly, tried to disabuse me of the notion. You've got a real uphill climb there but if you were successful if would mean for me a complete paradigm shift.)

 

[Ion]

Kerry dismantled Bush in today's debate about Iraq.

Iraq was supposedly Bush's strongest suit.

Kerry is going to be the US President in November.

Now I understand that Kerry will have to continue in harmony with the garbage that Bush made in Iraq, but at least there will be no more of these greedy neoconservatives faking religiosity in power in US, and with time US will get better again, resuming the direction that US was following under Clinton.

 

[Atlas]

Kerry dismantled Bush in today's debate about Iraq.

I wouldn't say dismantled but I think Kerry acquitted himself better than I thought he would and "won" the debate on style and substance. I'm not ready to hand him the election. The spin doctors need a little time to tell us how well he is.

There were openings for Bush but he wasn't as quick nor as prepared as he should have been to take advantage. He never gained rapport with the quiet audience.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The terror tactics arise from this region. They appear to utililze the same techniques. Car bombs. Suicide Bombings, Children as shields, Children as bait, the perpetrators seemingly have the same trainers.

They also have the same kinds of resources to use against the same kind of militarily superior enemies. The fact that their tactics are similar does not require a conspiracy to explain. This is really thin.

Much of the horror ties back organizations like al Queda. Much of the support for terrorism is state sponsored, coming from Iran, Syria and some time ago Libya. I guess if you deny that then what I spout is a kook conspiracy theory.

Well, yes, it's a kook theory if that's all you've got. "Much" terrorism involves Al Qaeda, but they're a terrorist organisation so you'd expect that. "Much" terrorism is sponsored by rogue states, but sponsorship is not control nor evidence of a conspiracy between sponsoring parties. So far you've presented nothing.

No but pan-nationalism, militarism, expansion through war, racial/spiritual superiority combined with blind hatred of the Jews should at least raise a red flag.

Calling large and disparate groups of people bad names is not objective evidence of a conspiracy, Atlas.

I think the Iran/Syria and previously the Iraq/Syria connections are evidence of a coordinated program.

Evidence of friendly relations between two nations is not evidence of a larger conspiracy is it?

Both Iraq and Iran have tried to become Nuclear powers while using the UN nonproliferation treaty as cover. Both have used terror tactics outside their borders.

They also hated each others guts, if you recall. They fought a really horrible war against each other. Claiming that they are part of a conspiracy based on the fact that they each independently sought nuclear weapons and each independently sponsored terrorism is just hilariously simple-minded.

You've said that as a conspiricy theorist I should bring evidence but much of the collaboration of Hamas, Fatah, HizBollah, Iran, Assad, Saddam, al Queda is public record.

We already dealt with the Saddam/Al Qaeda "collaboration". I don't like playing Whack-A-Mole.

Since none of the above liked Israel much it's not surprising that you can find a web of links that ties all those entities together in a Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon kind of way. That too is not evidence of a global conspiracy even between all the groups that don't like Israel, let alone evidence of a pan-Islamic conspiracy threatening the globe.

They may not collaborate with each and every part but they certainly collaborate and trade monies and weapons. Do you agree with that statement? Kevin, if you have an argument against Middle East collaborations and conspiracies, I'll listen. I kinda hold these things to be self evident.

Maybe you should rethink this thing that you think is self evident?

Actual evidence of a massive conspiracy that presents a global threat, please.

 

[Atlas]

Actual evidence of a massive conspiracy that presents a global threat, please.

Kevin, I don't know what to tell you. We are seeing this all from different perspectives and I don't know if there is going to be any point of agreement.

With a little googling I found the type of information that leads me to the interconnected web that I am calling conspiracy. The nexus here is Hizbollah...

Since Hizballahs inception, it has had deep ties to both Iran and Syria taking orders from Iran, and establishing a military wing in Syria with Damascus political, military, and financial support. Hizballahs leadership advocated the use of violence and terror as valid and important devices to attain the organizations political objectives. Hizballahs goals encompass the establishment of Shiite Islamic rule in Lebanon and the liberation of all occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem. The goals also encompass the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, as well as the elimination of Jews worldwide.

In 1982 Hizballah assumed control of the terrorist training camps in Lebanon, after the PLO, which had been operating them was ousted from the country. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Irans Ministry of Intelligence continued the international terrorist agenda that had been established under the PLO, and sending instructors to Lebanon to assist in training operatives from terrorist groups the world over. According to the testimony of U.S. Representative Dick Armey, "organizations that the Hizballah trains in Lebanon include al-Qaeda, al-Jihad, Hamas, the Japanese Red Army, Abu Nidals organization, Force-17, New Peoples Republic, the IRA, Chechen rebels, Fatah, the Red Brigade, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Medellin Drug Cartel."

That first pargraph ends with the word "worldwide", some consider that synonomous to "global". But here is a story from Pravda about South America and terroist groups including Hezbollah.

PRAVDA.Ru published November of last year an article about intelligence reports on terrorist activities in South America, specifically in the area known as the "Triple Border" between Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil.

This area, very well known as a black-market paradise, contains one of the most important Arab communities outside Middle East. It is also said that the numerous mosques operate as gathering centers for different terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, El Gamaat al Islamiyad, and Islamic Jihad. These groups are well-known targets of the CIA for supposed links with Al Qaeda.

The reports suggest the terror groups are at least loosely connected, operating in multiple hemispheres, with plans to carry out threats worldwide. Terror states of Iran and Syria operating together to provide funding and logistical support.

The system of terror arising out of this region of the world is conspiratorial with a threatening agenda. I don't see how it can be viewed differently.

 

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Nikk
Sigh. Correlation doth not a conspiracy make.


snip/

(You're probably aware by now that this Atlas guy is going to need a lot of deprogramming. I don't believe my country is always right. But I do believe it has a goal of peace in the Middle East and I don't believe the enemy wants that. I appreciate your response to my post. It shows that we start from some fundamentally different assumptions. I didn't really appreciate that before. I've kinda taken it as a fact that this is an ideological struggle and you are the first person who has, very directly, tried to disabuse me of the notion. You've got a real uphill climb there but if you were successful if would mean for me a complete paradigm shift.)

Well it's 1am here, so I'll have a go sometime tomorrow. One thing to think over though, when looking at sources on the subject, is that if massively funded intelligence services can be utterly wrong about Iraq and it's non existent WMD's how likely are they to get it right about hole in the corner activities by Hezbollah or nebulous links between sworn enemies? My view has the merit of simplicity if nothing else .

 

[Atlas]

One thing to think over though, when looking at sources on the subject, is that if massively funded intelligence services can be utterly wrong about Iraq and it's non existent WMD's how likely are they to get it right about hole in the corner activities by Hezbollah or nebulous links between sworn enemies?

When I do think of it, I don't sleep too well.

My view has the merit of simplicity if nothing else .

True... and mine makes me a conspiracy theorist. Not very comfortable. I'd love to be able to shave with Occam's razor but everything in the Middle East is so bloody illogical, I'm pretty sure all I'd do with that razor is cut my own throat.

If it were as simple as you suggest, I'd be encouraged. The more I read about this clash of civilizations, the more discouraged I become.

I'd appreciate it if you'd, you know, argue cheerfully. Use more smileys.

Thanks

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, I don't know what to tell you. We are seeing this all from different perspectives and I don't know if there is going to be any point of agreement.

Is this really the board for "I don't know if I've got any evidence, but I have a perspective and that's good enough for me"?

The system of terror arising out of this region of the world is conspiratorial with a threatening agenda. I don't see how it can be viewed differently.

I think your statement blurs together the concepts of "conspiratorial and threatening" with "organised and capable of presenting a genuine threat". There's no argument that these groups overlap, nor that many of them have the goal of creating some vaguely defined Islamic state somewhere. The question is whether they are actually organised as a whole, and whether they present a threat.

I've seen no evidence they're organised, nor any suggestion that they were organised until relatively recently when the White House has found it convenient to roll together everybody they don't like into an amorphous figure called "Terror". (I guess they read some kids fantasy novels or something). Nor have I seen any evidence that any or all of these outfits have any hope of achieving their goals.

Allow me to present an alternative perspective to the doom and gloom perspective.

Popular revolutions rarely happen, and even more rarely create successful states in the short to medium term. A price hike for oil is not the bloody end of the world. It's incredibly unlikely anyone is going to smuggle a nuke into the USA: Osama bin Laden was the nuttiest of the nutty and he chose not to crash planes into nuclear power plants because he thought it would be too extreme. There are far too many well-entrenched fiefdoms within the Middle East for any messianic unifying figure to turn the place into an organised whole. The era when wholesale war against major powers was possible ended after WW2 anyway.

Bottom line: The fat, happy citizens of the USA have absolutely nothing to worry about, except in worst-case scenarios a hike in petrol prices and maybe (gasp!) a tiny drop in their standard of living. Government tax and health policies are more likely to have an immediate effect on your welfare than anything]/i] any terrorist will ever do. "Terror" is a phantom.

 

[Atlas]

Kevin, I don't know what to tell you. We are seeing this all from different perspectives and I don't know if there is going to be any point of agreement.

Is this really the board for "I don't know if I've got any evidence, but I have a perspective and that's good enough for me"?

No, thats why I offered those links. It seems that you did read them and I thank you for trying to identify where our disagreement lies and where you believe we are in agreement.

I think your statement blurs together the concepts of "conspiratorial and threatening" with "organised and capable of presenting a genuine threat". There's no argument that these groups overlap, nor that many of them have the goal of creating some vaguely defined Islamic state somewhere. The question is whether they are actually organised as a whole, and whether they present a threat.

I've seen no evidence they're organised, nor any suggestion that they were organised until relatively recently when the White House has found it convenient to roll together everybody they don't like into an amorphous figure called "Terror".

This clarified where you're coming from and I concede my own discomfort whenever I type the word conspiracy. We are in agreement as far as you go, and I am indeed going farther. I admit that terror seemed amorphous and distant to me when I felt protected by the great oceans separating the hemispheres. For Israel, Beslan, and New York it's far more tangible than amorphous. But this is a departure point in our ways of thinking and I'm glad you chose to expand on it...

Allow me to present an alternative perspective to the doom and gloom perspective.

Popular revolutions rarely happen, and even more rarely create successful states in the short to medium term. A price hike for oil is not the bloody end of the world. It's incredibly unlikely anyone is going to smuggle a nuke into the USA: Osama bin Laden was the nuttiest of the nutty and he chose not to crash planes into nuclear power plants because he thought it would be too extreme. There are far too many well-entrenched fiefdoms within the Middle East for any messianic unifying figure to turn the place into an organised whole. The era when wholesale war against major powers was possible ended after WW2 anyway.

Bottom line: The fat, happy citizens of the USA have absolutely nothing to worry about, except in worst-case scenarios a hike in petrol prices and maybe (gasp!) a tiny drop in their standard of living. Government tax and health policies are more likely to have an immediate effect on your welfare than anything any terrorist will ever do. "Terror" is a phantom.

I appreciate the minimalization of my sometimes overblown appreciation of the situation. I'd like to believe it. I hope you can in fact convince me to discount the "Terror" that is apparent to me. In the spirit of your opening comment...
Is this really the board for "I don't know if I've got any evidence, but I have a perspective and that's good enough for me"? - I invite you to build your argument. But I warn you, my worst case scenario is still larger than a hike in petrol prices.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I appreciate the minimalization of my sometimes overblown appreciation of the situation. I'd like to believe it. I hope you can in fact convince me to discount the "Terror" that is apparent to me. In the spirit of your opening comment...
Is this really the board for "I don't know if I've got any evidence, but I have a perspective and that's good enough for me"? - I invite you to build your argument. But I warn you, my worst case scenario is still larger than a hike in petrol prices.

That's a fair response.

If you notice, I tried to divide up my factual response and my opinion. Factual responses to questions like "Were Hizbollah and Hussein's Iraq coordinating their actions towards a well-realised and achievable goal?" are, at least in theory, possible. We can amass data and come to some kind of supported conclusion.

As soon as we get into speculation about the trends of future history, we're well into the realm of opinion. It's very much armchair noodling, and I'm happy to admit it, so it's fair to say this may not be the place for it. I posted it mostly because you requested such an opinion piece rather than because I think what I wrote can be objectively verified.

I'll post more armchair noodling later if I get the time.

 

[Ion]

...
...- I invite you to build your argument.
...

I posted this, many days ago:

...
...- this:

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-chapman310704.htm

shows Bush's economic interest in having the world -starting with Iraq and the Iraq's war- trade in US dollars and not in Euros.

Study it.

It has the key of why the war in Iraq was decided by Bush.