What an arse

[I Ratant]

How does the threat of torture dissuade a jihadist from his goal of martyrdom?
He WANTS to die for his cause!
Either in the commission of the attack or after capture, he will be happy.
What is needed is a way to persuade those inclined to such activities that murder and subsequent death is NOT acceptable to Allah.
9/11 and those daily suicide bombings are murder, which is proscribed, and suicide, which is also proscribed.
A martyr is killed -for- his faith. He isn't a martyr when he kills -for- it! He's a murderer/suicide.

 

[Ziggurat]

How does the threat of torture dissuade a jihadist from his goal of martyrdom?
He WANTS to die for his cause!

There's no contradiction there: a person can be willing to die but unwilling to suffer pain.

Either in the commission of the attack or after capture, he will be happy.

Actually, I can pretty much guarantee you that if he's being tortured, he won't be happy. I'm not saying we should therefore torture jihadists (there are other reasons not to), but the idea that it's just as satisfying as martyrdom is really without any basis.

What is needed is a way to persuade those inclined to such activities that murder and subsequent death is NOT acceptable to Allah.

Not quite. Allah is far too abstract. What we need to create is an atmosphere where it's not acceptable to their fellow muslims. Because large numbers of men will only place their lives at risk if it gets them approval. Terrorism, just like ordinary warfare, is a social activity.

 

[JihadJane]

The Bush/Petraeus surge succeeded in virtually destroying al Qaeda in Iraq.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the USA/UK invasion and occupation so destroying them hardly counts as a "success".

It's more like a massive job creation scheme for the invaders at the expense of Iraqis.

My question was a 'what if' question. If the US was run according to the (lack of) principles you appear to advocate, then I would see no reason to support the US over islamic terrorists. Fortunately it is not so.

The "War on Terror" isn't about principles. It's about controlling energy supplies and maintaining imperial dominance by force.

[The Taliban] had that option before. In fact, we only demanded the handover of ONE Al Qaeda leader. Did they do so? No.

Because the US provided no evidence to back up its demand.

Nice attempt at a parallel, but you've unintentionally revealed the real reason that killing jihadis won't swell their ranks. Paying an activity higher wages makes the activity more attractive. Increasing the mortality rate of an activity makes it less attractive. One is a positive incentive, one is a negative incentive. See the difference?

How many US Americans would you have to kill to discourage Americans from joining the US Army?

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the US provided no evidence to back up its demand.

Are you seriously going to argue that they were really acting in good faith?

How many US Americans would you have to kill to discourage Americans from joining the US Army?

Beats me. It took about 2.7 million dead Japanese to discourage them, and about 7 million dead Germans. It's not always an easy task to kill enough of the enemy to make them give up, but the idea that it cannot be done is, well, stupid.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And making life tougher for the jihadis all around the world is, what? Productive or fun?

What do you think our goals in the Middle East are?

Who is this we, pale face?

 

[Darth Rotor]

You say this like its a bad thing.
Thats just crazy talk.

1 The existence of Gitmo probably recruited more jihadists than any promise of raisins or virgins or whatever in the afterlife.

Nope.

The rest of your post made sense.

 

[Smackety]

Are you seriously going to argue that they were really acting in good faith?



Beats me. It took about 2.7 million dead Japanese to discourage them, and about 7 million dead Germans. It's not always an easy task to kill enough of the enemy to make them give up, but the idea that it cannot be done is, well, stupid.

It is not a magic number of bodies that ends a war. The decision to not fight is an individual one. When we fight a country the war ends when the leaders of that country (or ours) decide to no longer fight. When we fight terrorists, who have no central leadership, the war does not end until some percentage of individual terrorists have died or surrendered such that the remainder are no longer capable of effectie action against us. There will always be terrorists, but they will not always require a major mobilization of our armes forces. We cannot, therefore, "win" the war on terror, we can only de-escalate it to a point where policing actions suffice to provide adequate security.
It is going to be hard to say exactly when we have reached that point.

 

[JihadJane]

Are you seriously going to argue that they were really acting in good faith?

What reason do you have to doubt it? They were doing what any other government would do in the same situation - ask to be shown the evidence.

Beats me. It took about 2.7 million dead Japanese to discourage them, and about 7 million dead Germans. It's not always an easy task to kill enough of the enemy to make them give up, but the idea that it cannot be done is, well, stupid.

How many "terrorists" has the US killed so far?

 

[Ziggurat]

What reason do you have to doubt it?

Hmm... what possible reasons could I have to doubt their sincerity? Oh, I don't know. Seems like bin Laden's public declaration of war against the US years before kinda gave the game away.

 

[JihadJane]

Hmm... what possible reasons could I have to doubt their sincerity? Oh, I don't know. Seems like bin Laden's public declaration of war against the US years before kinda gave the game away.

It seems you may have fallen victim to the old racist stereotype of the deceitful darky, ironic after eight years of sincere deception, courtesy of the murderous Bush/Blair white Christian lie machine.

Deception was at the heart of the Neo-Conservative gangsters' philosophy as denunciated by their ideological hero Leo-Straus. Donald Rumsefeld once remarked that strategic truths need to be defended by a “bodyguard of lies”.

‘Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie - The Neo-Cons at War

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6934434/Leo-Strauss-and-the-Noble-Lie-The-NeoCons-at-War

Pretending that Islam is a uniquely deceitful ideology or religion is deceitful, probably racist, bunk.

What has Osama bin Laden’s declaration got to do with the Taliban’s sincerity?

Do you think it was unreasonable of the Taliban to ask for evidence against bin Laden to support the US demand?

The Taliban had no reason to take the word of the USA on faith.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems you may have fallen victim to the old racist stereotype

Apparently someone can't distinguish between race and religion.

Deception was at the heart of the Neo-Conservative gangsters' philosophy

Admit it: when you say neo-conservatives, you really mean "jews".

Donald Rumsefeld once remarked that strategic truths need to be defended by a “bodyguard of lies”.

You've got no knowledge of history either. Because that phrase is originally from Winston Churchill, in reference to the need to protect the secrecy of the Normandy invasion plans.

The Taliban had no reason to take the word of the USA on faith.

And apparently no reason to take bin Laden's declaration of war against the US seriously either. You are an apologist for terrorism.

 

[JihadJane]

Apparently someone can't distinguish between race and religion.

The "War on Terror" uses the sneaky Arab stereotype that you appear to believe represents reality.

Admit it: when you say neo-conservatives, you really meant "jews".

When I said Neo-Conservatives I meant, specifically, Neo-Conservatives. What foundation do you have for thinking that I mean "jews" instead? Is that what you think “Neo-Conservative” means?

You've got no knowledge of history either. Because that phrase is originally from Winston Churchill, in reference to the need to protect the secrecy of the Normandy invasion plans.

I know. It said so in the reference I provided with the quote. What difference does it make that Churchill said it too? He also believed deception to be a necessary part of waging war.

And apparently no reason to take bin Laden's declaration of war against the US seriously either.

What has bin Laden's declaration got to do with the Taliban asking for evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the 911 attacks?

You are an apologist for terrorism.

How do you reach this conclusion?

 

[Ziggurat]

The "War on Terror" uses the sneaky Arab stereotype that you appear to believe represents reality.

Funny thing: I said nothing about Arabs, the Taliban aren't Arab but Pashtun, and the guy who wrote that article, Mr. Raymond Ibrahim, is an Arab himself.

 

[JihadJane]

Funny thing: I said nothing about Arabs, the Taliban aren't Arab but Pashtun, and the guy who wrote that article, Mr. Raymond Ibrahim, is an Arab himself.

For the purpose of war propaganda none of that matters. All that matters is that there is an identifiable enemy Other.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the purpose of war propaganda none of that matters. All that matters is that there is an identifiable enemy Other.

What a convenient excuse you've now found to dismiss anything and everything I say. But then, you've always been fairly impervious to reality.

 

[tomwaits]

For the purpose of war propaganda none of that matters. All that matters is that there is an identifiable enemy Other.

So you are admitting that your point about it being "the sneaky Arab stereotype" has actually nothing to do with Arabs? That would sort of destroy your point, if you ever had one.

 

[JihadJane]

So you are admitting that your point about it being "the sneaky Arab stereotype" has actually nothing to do with Arabs? That would sort of destroy your point, if you ever had one.

Brown skin, beards, funny clothes and religion, living in foreign Sandyoilyland is specific enough when you think you're being attacked.

How do you think so many people believed so easily that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 911 attacks?

 

[JihadJane]

What a convenient excuse you've now found to dismiss anything and everything I say. But then, you've always been fairly impervious to reality.

It's a truth, not a "convenient excuse".

How many US Americans know or care that the Taliban aren't Arabs? Most are more likely to see their demonized religion - the feared Islam - the same religion as the terrorists.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many US Americans know or care that the Taliban aren't Arabs? Most are more likely to see their demonized religion - the feared Islam - the same religion as the terrorists.

How many Americans care that Arab terrorists are Arabs? Not that many, actually, and none of the ones I know. They tend to focus more on the fact that they're terrorists.

And yeah, go figure that the Taliban, the 9/11 terrorists, the London subway bombers, the Madrid 3/11 bombers, Daniel Pearl's killers, etc. share a religion. Doesn't that, you know, maybe suggest that religion is, perhaps, a rather relevant issue?

 

[Polaris]

Protecting Israel, Oil, Reconstruction contracts and the general crushing of Islam.

Anything else?

None of these are bad things.