Times Square Bomber Declares War

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to an attempt at detonating a car bomb in Times Square, and under scrutiny of his motives, declared that they are justified by the actions of the United States military overseas performing operations that put civilians in danger. Therefore, Faisal Shahzad considers his actions apart of a war.

What do you think?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFOVhFy6si7fR4CQDL8xaOHVHbHwD9GFVDTO0

NYC car bomb suspect pleads guilty, calls it 'war'
By TOM HAYS (AP) – 6 hours ago

NEW YORK — Calling himself a Muslim soldier, a defiant Pakistan-born U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to carrying out the failed Times Square car bombing and left a sinister warning that unless the U.S. leaves Muslim lands alone, "we will be attacking U.S."

Wearing a white skull cap, prison smocks and a dark beard, Faisal Shahzad entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan just days after a federal grand jury indicted him on 10 terrorism and weapons counts, some of which carried mandatory life prison sentences. He pleaded guilty to them all.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum challenged Shahzad repeatedly with questions such as whether he had worried about killing children in Times Square.

"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad calmly replied. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."

The 30-year-old described his effort to set off a bomb in an SUV he parked in Times Square on May 1, saying he chose the warm Saturday night because it would be crowded with people he could injure or kill. He said he conspired with the Pakistan Taliban, which provided more than $15,000 to fund his operation.

He explained that he packed his vehicle with three separate bomb components, hoping to set off a fertilizer-fueled bomb packed in a gun cabinet, a set of propane tanks and gas canisters rigged with fireworks to explode into a fireball. He also revealed he was carrying a folding assault rifle for "self-defense."

Shahzad said he lit a fuse and waited 2 1/2 to five minutes for the bomb to erupt.

"I was waiting to hear a sound but I didn't hear a sound. ... So I walked to Grand Central and went home," he said.

Shahzad dismissed the judge's question about the children by saying the U.S. didn't care when children were killed in Muslim countries.

"It's a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people," he said. "On behalf of that, I'm revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."

Cedarbaum also asked Shahzad if he understood that the people in Times Square might not have anything to do with what happened overseas.

"The people select the government. We consider them all the same," Shahzad said during the hour-long hearing.

Shahzad made the plea and an accompanying statement as Cedarbaum began asking him a lengthy series of questions to ensure he understood his rights.

She asked him if he understood some charges carried mandatory life sentences and that he might spend the rest of his life in prison. He said he did.

At one point, she asked him if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty.

He said he wanted "to plead guilty and 100 times more" to let the U.S. know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, halt drone attacks and stop meddling in Muslim lands, "we will be attacking U.S."

Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 5.

The Bridgeport, Conn., resident was arrested trying to leave the country May 3, two days after the bomb failed to ignite near a Broadway theater.

Authorities said Shahzad immediately cooperated, delaying his initial court appearance for two weeks as he spilled details of a plot meant to sow terror in the world-famous Times Square on a warm Saturday night when it was packed with thousands of potential victims.

The bomb apparently sputtered, emitting smoke that attracted the attention of an alert street vendor, who notified police, setting in motion a rapid evacuation of blocks of a city still healing from the shock of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

According to the indictment issued last week, Shahzad received a total of $12,000 prior to the attack from the Pakistani Taliban through cash drop-offs in Massachusetts and Long Island.

Attorney General Eric Holder said after the plea: "Faisal Shahzad plotted and launched an attack that could have led to serious loss of life, and today the American criminal justice system ensured that he will pay the price for his actions."

FBI New York Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos called the plea "right on the mark" and praised the work of "ordinary citizens who alerted law enforcement of suspicious activity."

Shahzad was accused in the indictment of receiving explosives training in Waziristan, Pakistan, during a five-week trip to that country. He returned to the United States in February.

The indictment said he received $5,000 in cash on Feb. 25 from a co-conspirator in Pakistan and $7,000 more on April 10, allegedly sent at the co-conspirator's direction. Shahzad said in court Monday that the Pakistan Taliban gave him more than $4,000 when he left training camp.

Shahzad, born in Pakistan, moved to the United States when he was 18.

Pakistan has arrested at least 11 people since the attempted attack. An intelligence official has alleged two of them played a role in the plot. No one has been charged.

Three men in Massachusetts and Maine suspected of supplying money to Shahzad have been detained on immigration charges; one was recently transferred to New York.

Federal authorities have said they believe money was channeled through an underground money transfer network known as "hawala," but they have said they doubt anyone in the U.S. who provided money knew what it was for.

Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister contributed to this story.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/how_many_more_b2d4UeNlfLKKUjGuCkkcPP

It's good to know that Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty yesterday to the attempted Times Square car bombing, will face a mandatory life sentence.

And, yes, it certainly was a relief that he was caught -- before he could escape on a plane out of JFK.

But no one should take the least bit of comfort from this outcome.

Let's face it: New Yorkers were spared mass disaster in the heart of the city thanks primarily to Shahzad's own failure to build a workable bomb. Imagine if he'd known what he was doing.

Rather, Shahzad's tale holds a bigger lesson -- one, in fact, that keeps recurring in the many plots on US soil since 9/11: Terrorists continue to hide under Americans' noses. They need to be hunted down -- aggressively, continuously. Or, as in Shahzad's case, barred from entering the US in the first place.

Faisal ShahzadShahzad, a footsoldier, now goes behind bars, perhaps for life.

Again, that's gratifying.

But it's cold comfort.

http://article.nationalreview.com/436803/why-has-holder-indicted-the-times-square-bomber/andrew-c-mccarthy

After the initial spate of chest-beating, we hadn’t heard much from the Justice Department about the case of would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and the many ways it illustrates how splendidly the criminal justice system performs in terrorism cases — even the cases of enemy combatants who could otherwise be held indefinitely and interrogated for intelligence purposes.

Now comes word from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that Shahzad has been indicted. He is charged with ten terrorism counts, ranging from bombing and terrorism conspiracies to the transportation and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. This is a strange development.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been telling anyone who would listen that Shahzad is cooperating and providing valuable information. Civilian due process has been no obstacle at all, Holder insists: no problem posed by Miranda, the appointment of counsel, the prospect of providing discovery, and the dynamics of plea-bargaining. Yet it is highly unusual to indict a cooperator, precisely because it is so strategically disadvantageous to the government. When someone is cooperating, the standard practice is to strike a deal, complete with a cooperation agreement and a guilty plea, in what is known as a “criminal information,” rather than to file an indictment.

It usually works this way: Once the cooperator has given the Justice Department and the investigators the broad outline of his criminal culpability, and once the government is satisfied that the cooperator is being candid and not holding anything back, the prosecutors and defense counsel agree to a set of charges to which the cooperator will plead guilty. Both sides sign a cooperation agreement. This is a contract, requiring the cooperator to continue providing truthful information in exchange for the government’s commitment to file a cooperation motion. That motion enables, but does not require, the sentencing judge to impose a lenient term of incarceration — i.e., less time than the cooperator would get (life imprisonment in this case, almost certainly) if he weren’t spilling the beans.

A prosecutor indicts people only if he thinks he may have to go to trial against them. Getting an indictment requires putting witnesses before the grand jury and eliciting testimony that is likely to be the subject of defense-counsel scrutiny down the road. You don’t do that if you can avoid it. That’s why cooperating defendants are asked to waive indictment and plead guilty in an information. An information is a charging instrument brought in the name of the U.S. attorney, not the grand jury. It doesn’t subject prosecutors to the burdens and headaches of presenting evidence and testimony.

Usually, the prosecutor and a cooperator’s lawyer also collaborate on an “allocution.” This is a statement by the cooperating defendant given during a guilty-plea hearing, in which the judge asks the defendant to explain in his own words what he did that makes him guilty. The allocution is carefully scripted, because it is anticipated that a cooperating defendant may one day be a witness against other conspirators. The lawyers for these other culprits will be able to use the allocution in cross examination, so the government wants to make sure the cooperator has admitted everything he should admit and implicated everyone he is in a position to implicate. Any omissions could critically damage cases that are based on the cooperator’s testimony.

Filing an information suggests that there’s significant cooperation. An indictment, on the other hand, is the throwdown moment in a criminal case, the opening bell for the first round of a prize fight. It signals that the parties have been unable to work out an agreement and are in an antagonistic posture.

The indictment doesn’t mean that a guilty plea cannot be worked out at some later point. What it probably does mean is that Shahzad’s relationship with the government is on the rocks. We don’t know exactly why this is so, but we can hazard an educated guess: Despite Holder’s protestations to the contrary, immediately bringing a person into the civilian criminal-justice system, with its rigorous due-process rules, is fraught with complications that make it very difficult for the government to gather intelligence without interruption.

Once you arrest a person in the civilian system, he gets a lawyer. That lawyer’s job is not to cooperate with the government. To the contrary, his job is to make the government live up to its burden of proof, to give the defendant the same expertise in manipulating the legal system the government has. A competent defense lawyer strikes a plea deal with the government only after exhaustively studying the case, pressing the government for every possible concession, and deciding that a guilty plea — rather than indictment and trial — is in the defendant’s best interests.
In Shahzad’s case, the government wants intelligence. It wants both to protect national security and to obtain a conviction. Those goals are often in conflict, but that’s not the defense lawyer’s problem. His job is to get the best possible result for his client, which usually means exploiting the government’s problems, not solving them.

Shahzad’s lawyer knows Holder is deeply invested in showing that the criminal-justice system can handle terrorism cases just as well as, or better than, any military system. Counsel also knows (a) that Holder defines success by whether the Justice Department gets a conviction (not by how much valuable intelligence the government obtains), and (b) that Holder has shown a willingness to plead cases on the cheap in order to get a conviction (see, e.g., the case of Ali al-Marri, an al-Qaeda terrorist who was allowed to plead guilty to a relatively minor charge, which resulted in a sentence that renders him eligible for release in about six years).

The government desperately wants Shahzad’s cooperation and his conviction, but hanging tough is cost-free for the defendant at this point. If the government expects him to accept life imprisonment, his lawyer will figure: “We might as well go to trial.” Prosecutors are no doubt telling Shahzad that, if he continues cooperating, the sentencing judge may cut him a break down the road. But defense counsel knows Shahzad will never have as much leverage as he does now. He doesn’t want a speculative possibility of leniency; he wants something concrete, and he wants it up front. He wants a ceiling on the amount of prison time he will have to do — just like al-Marri got.

Of course, the attorney general will not want to give this to him. Shahzad tried to kill hundreds of people. If he were to get a deal that capped his sentence at, say, 20 years, with the possibility of an additional shave by the sentencing judge at some future date, the public would go ballistic. Nevertheless, defense counsel knows that if there is no plea deal, then the discovery rules kick in. Now that he has been indicted, Shahzad will be able to demand of the government all the information in the government’s files that could be material to preparing his defense.

Think that could be a problem? You bet it could. To cite only the most obvious concern, the indictment alleges that Shahzad conspired with and was trained by the Pakistani Taliban. Any good defense lawyer is now going to demand all the sensitive intelligence in the government’s possession about that organization: What has the Pakistani intelligence service told U.S. authorities about the Taliban? If the Taliban is really in a terrorist conspiracy to attack New York City, why hasn’t the State Department ever designated it a terrorist organization?

#pageAnd what about witnesses? When, counsel will demand, will Shahzad be given access to the Taliban prisoners in the custody of Pakistan and the U.S. military, prisoners who may have provided information that Pakistan shared with the United States? After all, the government says it has a very effective working relationship with Pakistan and its intelligence agency, right? They even coordinated on this case, right? So, surely, the Obama Justice Department can lean on Pakistan to cough up all its intelligence files and informants, right? Oh, and by the way, the press keeps saying that parts of that rascally Pakistani intelligence service are actually in cahoots with the Taliban — could you show us your files on that, too?

Those are just the most obvious complications a Shahzad trial could pose for the U.S. war effort . The demands defendants make for mountains of information from government files always grow even larger once lawyers start looking at the first tranches of discovery.

And here’s the kicker: It’s all about tactics. Most of the information Shahzad will demand won’t really help his case at all. He will demand it because he knows the government will not want to disclose it. If the government refuses to turn it over, that could induce the trial judge to start striking parts of the government’s case, as happened in the Zacarias Moussaoui circus in federal court a few years back. DOJ resistance could create appellate issues that would put a conviction in jeopardy. It could create severe tension between the prosecutors and the trial judge that could hurt the government’s case in various other ways (again, see Moussaoui’s trial).

None of this had to happen. Shahzad could have been held as an enemy combatant and interrogated without counsel. In al-Marri’s case, and in the case of Jose Padilla, the government detained enemy combatants for years before turning them over to the criminal-justice system for trial. The statute of limitations on bombing attempts gives the government plenty of leeway to delay charging a defendant for years if there are good reasons for delay — and war is a better reason than any.

When you detain a war criminal without counsel, he is more apt to tell you much of what he knows. Those statements probably won’t be admissible at trial, but they may not be necessary to secure a conviction; in any event, it’s more important to the war effort to get the intelligence. By contrast, when you bring a war criminal into the civilian criminal-justice system while the war is ongoing, you empower him — with lawyers, with investigators, with discovery rights, with subpoena power, and with the complex dynamics of plea negotiations.

Rife with lawyers who spent the last several years volunteering their services to terrorists and deriding the Bush/Cheney law-of-war approach to counterterrorism, the Obama administration chose to empower Faisal Shahzad. Top officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and the military evidently convinced themselves that doing so would be cost-free. They may soon learn the hard way that it is not.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

**sebster**

And they used to say it was because of what the US did in Israel. Or the US base near Mecca. Now it's troops in the Middle East. And all the while the Russians have been doing the most abhorrent things in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and have suffered a fraction of the terrorism of the US (they even had to resort to making an attack up, they were so ignored).

Whatever, crazies will blow stuff up, and rationalise a reason later on. Fortunately a significant portion of the crazies are like this guy and really incompetent, and don’t manage to hurt anyone.

That last article is pretty crazy though.

**mattyrm**

Its war? Ok then lets start bloody acting like it. The civilian population of our nations certainly dont seem to think its a war either, which makes me very concerned about our ability to actually win the bastard.

**sebster**

mattyrm wrote:Its war? Ok then lets start bloody acting like it. The civilian population of our nations certainly dont seem to think its a war either, which makes me very concerned about our ability to actually win the bastard.

It's because it isn't a war. It isn’t a war because some random crazy is pretending it is, whether the crazy is on trial for terrorism or writing opinion pieces for the National Review.

**mattyrm**

sebster wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Its war? Ok then lets start bloody acting like it. The civilian population of our nations certainly dont seem to think its a war either, which makes me very concerned about our ability to actually win the bastard.

It's because it isn't a war. It isn’t a war because some random crazy is pretending it is, whether the crazy is on trial for terrorism or writing opinion pieces for the National Review.

So what is it then Seb? What IS happening around the world? There is a genuinely intense "regional conflict" In Afghanistan and Iraq involving UK/US and UN troops. Violent clashes in Pakistan, Turkey looking increaingly Eastwards with regards to its foreign policy (read an article on this in the economist only yesterday) some more anti-semitism from Syria, endless gak with the Iranians and numerous clashes globally involving the practitioners of that desert fairy story from Russia to China.

I say there is a war on and i learned everything i need to know about Islam on September the 11th. But me being (slightly) more curious than some of the blind bigots i stole that line from (a placard at a US tea party rally!) i did some more research of my own and was pleased to find out it only got worse. Be it 9 year old wives or Ayatollahs putting Fatwas on the heads of writers or stoning poets to death and destroying ancient monuments. It just gets better and better as the more lefties try to tell me to "educate" myself the more my feelings are cemented.

People like you are intent on telling us all about the religion of peace instead of actually informing people of the facts regarding this issue. There is a war on, what the hell else would you call it? A few minor scuffle's with Islamic zealots in every single continent at least once every few hours?

**Kilkrazy**

Have you read this book?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Arab-Peoples-Albert-Hourani/dp/0571226647/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277201927&sr=1-1

It is quite hard going but it is really worth reading to get some background about how the situation in the Middle East has arisen.

**Ediin**

Just another crazy brainwashed dude making Muslims look bad.

**Frazzled**

Ediin wrote:Just another Islamofascist making Muslims look bad.

Fixed your typo.

**Ediin**

I just feel sad because of the fact that when people see these idiots trying to blow stuff
up they will think that all Muslims are the same. Media+ these ''Islamofascists'' (

) have made
many who live in Europe and the US that all Muslims are ''Terrorist bastards''.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

mattyrm wrote:
sebster wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Its war? Ok then lets start bloody acting like it. The civilian population of our nations certainly dont seem to think its a war either, which makes me very concerned about our ability to actually win the bastard.

It's because it isn't a war. It isn’t a war because some random crazy is pretending it is, whether the crazy is on trial for terrorism or writing opinion pieces for the National Review.

So what is it then Seb? What IS happening around the world?

Wars are between nations. This guy isn't a soldier in the war on Islam any more than white supremacists are soldiers in the war on racial integration.

There are a lot of extremist fundamentalist muslims, but they're in the minority. Unfortunately, they have much of the actual power in various fethed up countries around the globe.

This guy isn't representative of the average muslim any more than Fred Phelps is representative of the average christian. The Taliban and other repressive regimes aren't representative of Islam any more than the KKK is representative of christianity.

**sebster**

mattyrm wrote:So what is it then Seb? What IS happening around the world?

I'd call it the way the world's been for a long time, only a lot less violent.

People like you are intent on telling us all about the religion of peace instead of actually informing people of the facts regarding this issue. There is a war on, what the hell else would you call it? A few minor scuffle's with Islamic zealots in every single continent at least once every few hours?

Yeah, I'd call it minor scuffles with zealots every so often. Why would you give any more credence to a handful of yahoos crapping about with low level skirmishes? Why would you give some guy who fails to set a car bomb the credit of being a soldier?

This clash of cultures silliness really needs to end.

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:
So what is it then Seb? What IS happening around the world? There is a genuinely intense "regional conflict" In Afghanistan and Iraq involving UK/US and UN troops.

We may be fighting in Iraq, but we aren't fighting Iraq. The same can be said of Afghanistan, but the divergence between the insurgency and the populace isn't as clear.

mattyrm wrote:
Violent clashes in Pakistan,

Are we at war with Pakistan?

mattyrm wrote:
Turkey looking increaingly Eastwards with regards to its foreign policy (read an article on this in the economist only yesterday)...

I didn't realize that was an act of war.

mattyrm wrote:
...some more anti-semitism from Syria,

I didn't realize that American and the United Kingdom were Jewish nations.

mattyrm wrote:
endless gak with the Iranians

None of which is tantamount to war.

mattyrm wrote:
and numerous clashes globally involving the practitioners of that desert fairy story from Russia to China.

Most of which we aren't involved in.

mattyrm wrote:
I say there is a war on and i learned everything i need to know about Islam on September the 11th. But me being (slightly) more curious than some of the blind bigots i stole that line from (a placard at a US tea party rally!) i did some more research of my own and was pleased to find out it only got worse. Be it 9 year old wives or Ayatollahs putting Fatwas on the heads of writers or stoning poets to death and destroying ancient monuments. It just gets better and better as the more lefties try to tell me to "educate" myself the more my feelings are cemented.

Its now an act of war to take a 9 year-old wife? To threaten a writer? To stone poet to death in their nation of origin or, rather, outside of our nations? To blow up an ancient monument that is not ours?

Wow, we must be at war with nearly the entire continent of Africa.

**mattyrm**

Dogma, what was the point of that post? You know exactly what i mean in each sentence so why pick the post apart? Clearly i dont think the UK is a Jewish nation or Turkey or Pakistan have declared war on us. Your just making outlandish claims from what i have written in a childish attempt to make me look like i think the sky is pink, and your needlessly being facetious "wow we must be at war with Africa!"

You arent 8 years old so dont act like it mate, ive no interest in getting into an argument with you via the internet, its a forum and we both give our opinions, so stop with the sarcasm eh?

I say there is a war on, my old unit (40 commando) has lost 3 men in 3 days. What is happening if there is not a war on? Granted it is correct what you say, we are fighting an isurgency, and i did two tours of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I entirely agree with your statement regarding the fight not being against nations, as i found 90% of the civilian populous in both to be relatively friendly. Especially the terps and ANA troops. However, It is far more than a small scale regional struggle when it has ramifications that affect every continent surely? And agents/soldiers willing to bear arms in almost every nation?

The word jihad literally means "struggle" and millions of Muslims are involved in it. In Afghanistan we have foreign fighters as well as Taliban fighters native to the country, and they come from Syria, Egypt, Chechnya and even European countries.

I say there is a war on, convince me otherwise and lets have a chat about it, its an interesting topic and i enjoy reading other peoples views, but if your reply is going to be something along the lines of

"wow! So Egypt must have invaded London" or some other sentance with the word tacit needlessly added, then you dont need to bother, i can go and argue with my Dad.

**Albatross**

Whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, there are many muslims around the world who consider themselves to be culturally 'at war' with the west. In this context, 'war' doesn't have to conform to the narrow definition that some people wish to place upon it. You could just as easily substitute the word 'war' for 'struggle', 'clash', or 'conflict'. Or 'jihad', for that matter.

'Wars' aren't always prosecuted with tanks and planes - they can also take the form of thoughts, ideas, attitudes, protests and viewpoints.

**Colossal Donkey**

mattyrm wrote:my old unit (40 commando) has lost 3 men in 3 days.

Just heard on the radio there that it has gone up to 4 today.

I don't know why we don't just pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan. It would leave a power vacuum, granted, but we can't afford it and it's costing too many lives. At the end of the day, you can't force the extremists away from their belief system. It's what gives them power and control. The only solution is to back off and take a hard line approach like the Russians seem to do.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/61579,news-comment,news-politics,vladimir-putin-vows-to-destroy-rebels-behind-moscow-metro-blasts

The politicians would say it keeps the violence off our streets/out of our country. Surely that is a border control issue rather than a foreign doctrine one.

**Kilkrazy**

We (the British) have pulled out of Iraq. The US are trying to pull out -- they have a timetable.

There are several reasons why we (the Coalition of the Willing) do not pull out completely from Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. It would be an admission of defeat. This would psychologically boost the Taleban and Al Qaeda.

2. Iraq might be destabilised.

3. Afghanistan certainly would be destabilised, leading to the replacement of the Karzai govervnment by the Taleban, and possibly the re-establishment of Al Qaeda.

4. Afghanistan is next door to Pakistan. Pakistan could become destabilised.

5. Iran borders all three countries and is no friend of the West. Iran also borders Turkey and two of the post-Soviet mini republics.

All in all it is a volatile region and now we are involved there we are like a man riding a tiger.

**Colossal Donkey**

Kilkrazy wrote:We (the British) have pulled out of Iraq.

My bad, thought we still had some troops stationed over there on some kind of training/non combat role with Iraqi armed forces.

Kilkrazy wrote:All in all it is a volatile region and now we are involved there we are like a man riding a tiger.

A man riding a tiger... with nukes in his pockets.

Seriously though, we should just let them get on with it. As much as the West is the worlds police force, countries do need to build themselves.

**Kilkrazy**

Colossal Donkey wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:We (the British) have pulled out of Iraq.

My bad, thought we still had some troops stationed over there on some kind of training/non combat role with Iraqi armed forces.

Kilkrazy wrote:All in all it is a volatile region and now we are involved there we are like a man riding a tiger.

A man riding a tiger... with nukes in his pockets.

Seriously though, we should just let them get on with it. As much as the West is the worlds police force, countries do need to build themselves.

We may have a few troops there but they are not in combat and aren't getting killed.

Ignoring them wasn't really working 10 years ago since it led to the rise of the Taliban who sheltered and trained Al Qaeda.

Our big mistake was getting involved in Iraq. We should have done a thorough job in Afghanistan before looking for more foreign adventures.

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, what was the point of that post? You know exactly what i mean in each sentence so why pick the post apart?

No I don't. You referenced a series of facts that you think are connected to militant Islam, but you didn't explain how they're connected to militant Islam, or why several of the more benign examples are to be considered as elements of warfare. For example, what does Turkish foreign policy have to do with the insurgency in Afghanistan?

mattyrm wrote:
Your just making outlandish claims from what i have written in a childish attempt to make me look like i think the sky is pink,...

Granted, I was a bit snarky, but some of the connections you drew between otherwise irrelevant and Islamism really threw me. I don't understand why we're supposed to treat things like antisemitism as a reason for military aggression. I can understand refusing to trade with blatantly antisemitic nations that have the capacity to threaten Israel, at least to the exact extent that we consider Israel to be a useful ally, but I can't understand treating the same thing as a cause for violent reprisal.

mattyrm wrote:
...and your needlessly being facetious "wow we must be at war with Africa!"

How else am I supposed to react to a comment about how the behavior of certain groups of people within their own nation's is to be treated as a just cause for warfare?

mattyrm wrote:
I say there is a war on, my old unit (40 commando) has lost 3 men in 3 days. What is happening if there is not a war on? Granted it is correct what you say, we are fighting an isurgency, and i did two tours of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I entirely agree with your statement regarding the fight not being against nations, as i found 90% of the civilian populous in both to be relatively friendly. Especially the terps and ANA troops. However, It is far more than a small scale regional struggle when it has ramifications that affect every continent surely? And agents/soldiers willing to bear arms in almost every nation?

Sure, but that doesn't mean its a war. All the features of nominal warfare are absent in this case. There is no rigid opposing chain of command, or conventionally regular enemy. The enemy doesn't have production facilities, conventional supply lines, or any semblance of a logistical network. I'll grant you the multinational character of the majority of insurgencies we face, but there's an important line to be drawn between the kind of conflict we would expect between two or more nation set against one another, and this sort of loosely organized insurgent force.

mattyrm wrote:
The word jihad literally means "struggle" and millions of Muslims are involved in it.

Strictly speaking, all Muslims are involved in it. Jihad doesn't carry an overt religious connotation in Arabic. Any struggle towards a goal is 'jihad'. The only definite connotation of 'jihad' is one of social significance; ie. you wouldn't consider your struggle to lose weight to be your personal 'jihad' against a fat ass.