Most military sci fi isn’t about aliens. That’d be booring. Humans committ far more violence on each other, than aliens could ever hope to come up with. Firefly.

The only people who assume Spank is a gutless coward that wants to appease terroists, is Spank. Therapy, or PTSD. The military has a lot more of that lately.

I don’t work for defense, so it’s not like I give a damn what bureacrats and military staffers think. I got no General I need to brown nose. No office politics, to concern me. I’m free of the all contrived need to agree with the Admin or disagree, agree with the general or disagree.

I’d like to see a military staff puke say “Suck it” to his superiors. It’d be fun to watch on Youtube.

You’d think Spank would have learned not to be hostile to everyone that disagrees with him, but no. That’s something they forgot to teach him I suppose. That something called “military discipline”.

Finally the cops come in and try to break it up. The crowd grows very angry and some join the thugs who then start fighting the cops. The cops have caused thuggery by fighting thuggery because the crowd would never have gotten angry, causing some to become thugs, if the cops had just not invaded their neighborhood and tried to bust up the fun. Gee, fighting thuggery causes thuggery.

And this is really a key problem: the difference between someone who wants to blow us up and someone who sympathizes with blowing us up is that the former is trying to kill us and the latter is not.

But that wasn’t my point, Spanky. Remember? My point was: I’m all for the aid, the humanitarian stuff that eases the suffering because all human beings are deserving of compassion. I just don’t think we ought to be kidding ourselves that it’s going to change how the Moslem World perceives the West. The Imams control all aspects of life, dictating the total social panoply, behavior, beliefs, customs, etc. No Radio Free Europe style of PR campaign is going to overcome that.

Using your syntax: The relationship between someone who blows us up and someone who sympathizes with blowing us up is that the latter’s acquiescence helps the former to blow us up.

I’ll settle for a world full of people who don’t particularly like me but don’t want to murder me any day.

I would too but the problem is that there is a certain large bunch of people who all seem to be of the same religion, that both don’t like us and also do want us murdered. It could eventually prove to be a catastrophically fatal combination of sentiment, especially for them. And we are unlikely to change their minds.

But I’ll tell you what. You are very intense about this PR stuff; I can tell you believe in it passionately. So I’ll concede another point. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to have some concerted PR effort to present the Western viewpoint. It’s just money and we have plenty of that. Are you sure we don’t already have something going? I really think it would be wasted effort but what the hell, for sure it wouldn’t make them hate us anymore than they do already — that probably wouldn’t be possible.

You know who thinks otherwise? Fools.

Spanky, all men are fools.

Well, I’m off to the dungeon. I have a few irons in the fire, if you know what I mean. Now, where did I put those thumbscrews …

“I would say instead that not liking us and loving it when we are blown up is for all intent and purpose the same as supporting those who blow us up.”

And this is really a key problem: the difference between someone who wants to blow us up and someone who sympathizes with blowing us up is that the former is trying to kill us and the latter is not. I’ll settle for a world full of people who don’t particularly like me but don’t want to murder me any day. Unfortunately, we don’t have that. We have a world full of people who don’t like us, and a few who are trying to blow us up. If we decide to treat everyone as if they’re the same, as if every single one of them is an enemy trying to hurt us, then they will become just that. Now, they’re not doing anything to hurt us. Treat them as if they are, and suddenly they will become exactly what we thought they were in the first place. Real counterterrorism policy must seek not just to destroy everyone who looks at us askance, but to use our finite resources to mitigate the problem in the best possible way. If that means tolerating a lot of people who hate me, but who don’t hate me enough to kill me, then that’s that. You know who thinks otherwise? Fools. Grackle, if you were in charge of our counterterrorism policy, we’d all be dead by now.

The real question is how many of the 166 million think jihad, using terrorism, is a good thing. I suspect, given the abysmal ignorance present and the hatred constantly stirred up in the Moslem Belt by religious leaders, that the majority are all in favor of al Qaeda & al Qaeda’s terror-tactics. It’s regrettable and it’s due to ignorance but it does seem to be there, this approval, this desire to see the Great Satan laid low.

This is the thing, Grackle. I think you just don’t know that much about this part of the world. That’s ok; I doubt most Americans do, and I think a lot of the ones who do “know” something know snippets, cliches, truisms, and the like they get from blogs like this.

Yeah, but you are the real expert, eh Spanky. We should listen to you and heed your wise words, Spanky, because we pro-warriors are not experts and you are. Thanks, I’ll keep it in mind.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not religiously motivated. How do I know this? Because in the long, sad history of terrorism, the majority of terrorism has been commited by non-religious groups. Even the majority of suicide terrorism is commited by secular groups.

Suicide terrorists constantly cite religion in their pathetic pre-suicide/murder videos that al Jazeera is so fond of airing but that’s of no significance, just a mere anomaly, an odd fact of no importance, because terrorism is a tactic and tactics can’t possibly be motivated by religion, terrorism is a tactic and tactics can’t possibly be motivated by religion, terrorism is a tactic and tactics can’t possibly be motivated by religion, terrorism ….

al Qaeda certainly has religious goals, goals that are inseparable from its political goals. But the use of terrorism is a tactical and strategic choice, not a religious choice. The choice to use violence might be a religious choice, but the use of terrorism is not. Counterterrorism, real counterterrorism, must understand this, because so much of counterterrorism is trying to change the group’s strategic logic. You have to change their cost/benefit analysis of certain activities. In order to do this, you have to understand why a group chooses suicide attacks over IEDs over hostage-taking over assassinations.

Let’s see … al Qaeda does have religious goals, but these goals have no relationship to the murder committed, although they are “inseparable.” “The choice to use violence might be a religious choice, but the use of terrorism is not.” Help me, Spanky. I’m having that difficulty again, you know, the problem I have with reading comprehension and due to me not being an expert. My basic problem is trying to figure out how “the choice to use violence might be a religious choice” differs in any essential way from “the choice to use” terrorism. Isn’t terrorism violent? Have you come across any acts of terrorism that were non-violent? Help me out here, Spanky, after all, you’re the expert.

Grackle, you perceive US aid to the Muslim world as appeasement because you assume they’re all trying to hurt us, and we’re trying to buy them off like cowards.

Naw, Spanky. You have it wrong. I don’t think aid is appeasement. For instance, I think humanitarian aid to tsunami countries and earthquake victims is good and wouldn’t want to stop it just because the recipients, after a temporary euphoria, will go back to cheering when terrorism against the West occurs. That would be mean and too stereotypically Anti-freedom Warriors for Evil. No, the problem may be more that the Muslim world perceives US generosity as weakness.

I was all in favor of helping out the starving victims of an earthquake. Not because it would make them like America but because they were in need and the humanitarian aid could be spared. But won’t that generosity likely be forgotten by the recipients the next time a chance to honor and revere al Qaeda comes along, as many other generosities over the years have been forgotten? But unlike most Anti-freedom Warriors for Evil, if there’s another earthquake, I’m all in favor of helping again, even though the recipients will probably go back to hating our guts shortly afterward.

Among religious Muslims there are a few who believe in political Islam.

Is that why most countries with Moslem majorities are Islamic states, where family, law, politics, speech, even thought, is controlled and dictated by religion, because there are only “a few who believe in political Islam”? Wow, it sure is nice to have an expert around to interpret the issues.

That in some places Muslims love America – Bosnia, Kosovo, Djibouti (of all places) – while in others they really don’t like us, but that not liking us is not the same as trying actively to blow us up?

I would never say that “not liking us is … the same as trying actively to blow us up.” Not me. I would say instead that not liking us and loving it when we are blown up is for all intent and purpose the same as supporting those who blow us up.

Also: “every anti-warrior’s How-To-Debunk-Pro-warriors Handbook”

Weren’t we just talking about how “anti-warrior” refers to opposing the war in Iraq? Doesn’t this little phrase, in the context of a discussion about Islam and al Qaeda, tend to imply a little more than just opposition to Iraq?

Anti-warrior = a person who is against the war under discussion(in this case the Iraq war).

Quote from earlier in the discussion:

So, in order to prevent attacks in the US we should stay in Iraq(which seems to be a major part of the “Muslim world”)?

Sounds like the classic win/win situation, Spank! Bin Laden wins because he “wanted us there[in Iraq].” Bush wins because bin Laden won’t “attack us again in order to get us back[into Iraq].”

The folks at State are like me!

Wanna make something of it???? 😉

“Is that why the Pakistani folks we blew up were throwing a banquet in honor of al Qaeda, because the US was popular with them?”

Look at this, Grackle. Look at how sad this is. Because some Pakistanis are hardcore al Qaeda supporters, the 166 million people of Pakistan are irredeemable terrorists?

This is the thing, Grackle. I think you just don’t know that much about this part of the world. That’s ok; I doubt most Americans do, and I think a lot of the ones who do “know” something know snippets, cliches, truisms, and the like they get from blogs like this.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not religiously motivated. How do I know this? Because in the long, sad history of terrorism, the majority of terrorism has been commited by non-religious groups. Even the majority of suicide terrorism is commited by secular groups.

al Qaeda certainly has religious goals, goals that are inseparable from its political goals. There are some purely religious groups; I think of Aum Shin Rikyo as one of the best examples of this. But the use of terrorism is a tactical and strategic choice, not a religious choice. The choice to use violence might be a religious choice, but the use of terrorism is not. Counterterrorism, real counterterrorism, must understand this, because so much of counterterrorism is trying to change the group’s strategic logic. You have to change their cost/benefit analysis of certain activities. In order to do this, you have to understand why a group chooses suicide attacks over IEDs over hostage taking over assassinations.

“Let’s give them money, train them, help them in various ways so they won’t be inclined to blow themselves up around us. We can publicize these deeds and they will like us.”

And this is where the big boys depart ways from the children. Grackle, you perceive US aid to the Muslim world as appeasement because you assume they’re all trying to hurt us, and we’re trying to buy them off like cowards. The difference between appeasing actively hostile enemies and passively hostile civilians is this: if what you really care about is decreasing support for terrorism, and decreasing the recruiting ability of these groups, and you can do that by spending a few million dollars to help the starving victims of an earthquake, it’s a pretty simple decision to make.

What you need to learn are distinctions: there are Muslims, secular and religious. Among religious Muslims there are a few who believe in political Islam. Among them are a few who believe in radical political Islam. Among them are some who believe in violent, revolutionary political Islam. We’re talking about over a billion people who speak hundreds of languages, have thousands of different cultures, who follow thousands of flavors of Islam? That in some places Muslims love America – Bosnia, Kosovo, Djibouti (of all places) – while in others they really don’t like us, but that not liking us is not the same as trying actively to blow us up?

I know a terrorism expert at the NSA. When someone asked her about the cartoon riots, she answered by asking: “Do you really think any demonstration occurs in Damascus unless Assad wanted it to happen?”

Also: “every anti-warrior’s How-To-Debunk-Pro-warriors Handbook”

Weren’t we just talking about how “anti-warrior” refers to opposing the war in Iraq? Doesn’t this little phrase, in the context of a discussion about Islam and al Qaeda, tend to imply a little more than just opposition to Iraq?

“a military staff puke”

Sounds like Yammer’s an anti-warrior! I love that Yammer, who is of military age and seems to believe so fervently in his sci-fi faux Soldier’s Ethic, would be so ready to take a shit on a soldier who disagreed with him. Because you know so much about this stuff, right? You read it in a book! A book about fuzzy aliens who get it.

Yammer, the wonderful thing is this: people like you assume I’m a gutless coward and want to appease terrorists and blah blah blah. You also assume that people like you, you brave level 9 warrior hero, are the ones running the security apparatuses.

What I can guarantee to you is that the people who really are doing something about this actually don’t think that Islam is the problem, or that it causes terrorism, or that the solution to every problem is to drop lots of bombs to how our strength.

This isn’t because they’re cowardly appeasers who don’t get it, but rather experts who have spent their lives acquiring knowledge about terrorism, security, the Middle East, and so on. And the conclusions that they come to have a lot less to do with the garbage I hear Righties spouting all the time.

There’s so much glee, so much relief when you say “thank goodness people who get it are running things, because how could people who possibly believe the things Spanky believes be anywhere near a security apparatus?

Guess what, Yammer: suck it!

Is that why the Pakistani folks we blew up were throwing a banquet in honor of al Qaeda, because the US was popular with them? Aren’t there better ways to demonstrate our popularity than to invite our mortal enemies to a banquet as guests of honor?

our popularity went up in Indonesia after our relief efforts; the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo carry Bill Clinton’s picture in their wallets; we’re very popular among women in Morocco because of our work with them developing job skills.

If we save their hides, train them & give them money they’ll tolerate us, but if we look out for our own interests, try to protect our own, that’s a no no and they’re dancing in the streets to the Imam-tune after the next act of terror against the West.

The only ones that seem to like us are some that have migrated and lived in the West but that’s very few. Just about everyone in the Muslim Belt hates our guts. Don’t most Muslims think Israel did 9/11? You can’t fight that kind of ignorance with a barrage of pro-American PR. Why, the Imams would laugh themselves sane at such a thought.

These people riot over cartoons! Cartoons, mind you! Religion controls every aspect of their life: politics, family, work, law, grooming, dress, thought itself, virtually everything. What Spanky’s really talking about is appeasement: Let’s give them money, train them, help them in various ways so they won’t be inclined to blow themselves up around us. We can publicize these deeds and they will like us.

The popularity appeasement brings never lasts long when the enemy is fanatical. What percentage of all Muslims ‘like’ the US? 20%? 30%? What percentage of Muslims liking us would make a difference in whether or not they support terrorism? How big of a slice of a given group that hate us does it take before a certain checkpoint is reached so that a group can be justifiably characterized as hating the West? There were quite a few Southerners during the Civil War that were against slavery but the South is still characterized as pro-slavery. There are always those who run counter to the majority in any society, but majority sentiments still dictate how a particular society is described by history.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not religiously motivated.

Bin Laden cites religion, the Imams inciting hate against us cite religion, all the terrorists are of a certain religion, all the suicide bombers and their families cite religion, “Allah is great!” is proclaimed by snipers as they send bullets through the brains of American soldiers in Iraq, as they take butcher knives and saw through the necks of kidnapped American construction workers but, oh no, they are not, Spanky vigorously declares, “religiously motivated.”

According to Spanky, if terrorism is the tactic, then religion couldn’t possibly be the motive because tactics are never, ever “religiously motivated.” You got that, readers? After all, this ‘law’ is inscribed in every anti-warrior’s How-To-Debunk-Pro-warriors Handbook, so it must be true.

Well, I suppose if you assume that a billion people are terrorists, then we don’t really have much to talk about.

I don’t imagine we’d have a very productive conversation about plate tectonics either if you believed the world was flat.

Toodles!

PS – “Spanky, instead why don’t we try to cause monkeys to fly out of bin Laden’s rear end? We’d stand a better chance of success doing that than we would ever have of making Muslims like us.”

Guess what? US popularity shot up in Pakistan after our earthquake relief efforts; our popularity went up in Indonesia after our relief efforts; the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo carry Bill Clinton’s picture in their wallets; we’re very popular among women in Morocco because of our work with them developing job skills.

Imagine that?

But I’m done. I have nothing left to say to you. If you’re curious, though, and say please, I can offer a reading list that you might find surprising – it’s full of reports! full of facts! that tend to undermine the notion that religion is motivating hostility to the US in the Muslim world, that nothing we can do will change Muslim opinion, and so forth.

PPS – Terrorism is a tactic. It is not religiously motivated. Groups that choose terrorism usually do for strategic reasons; they weigh their goals and their resources and adopt terrorism based on that analysis. If bin Laden had fighter planes he’d use them; he doesn’t so he plants bombs.

PPPS – “So, in order to prevent attacks in the US we should stay in Iraq(which seems to be a major part of the “Muslim world”)? ” No. This isn’t about preventing terrorist attacks – this is about understanding why we haven’t seen another attack, and that if we do withdraw, the liklihood of another spectacular attack increases. This is sort of like your total misreading of Pape. Sure, if you want to prevent terrorist attacks, do everything the terrorists want you do, if that’s your cup of tea. Generally, it’s not mine.

PPPPPPPS – Done, for realz this time. Peace out, homie.

True words but with a different meaning than the writer intended. Islamic terrorism is defined more by the terrorist’s religion than by the terrorist’s place of birth. Mosques, manned by the Imams, act as recruiting centers. The cause of the new Caliphate easily cuts across borders but has great difficulty cutting across religions. I’ve never heard of bin Laden and his ilk trying to recruit, say, Catholics to the cause, but they’ve certainly recruited from a variety of countries.

In the event that we do withdraw most of our troops from the Muslim world, al Qaeda will probably be more likely to attack us again in order to get us back. They wanted us there in the first place.

So, in order to prevent attacks in the US we should stay in Iraq(which seems to be a major part of the “Muslim world”)?

Sounds like the classic win/win situation, Spank! Bin Laden wins because he “wanted us there.” Bush wins because bin Laden won’t “attack us again in order to get us back.”

Who wudda thunk it, from the keyboard of ye old Spankmiester, himself, by way of Ayman al Zawahiri, no less!

We need to worry not about al Qaeda’s strategy, but rather how US actions in the Muslim world are perceived by Muslims.

People blown up? Heads chopped off? Americans murdered? But all that’s merely “strategy” & not to be worried about. What we should really be concerned about is the fact that we are not going to voted as Most Popular in the Muslim Terrorism High School annual.

Spanky, instead why don’t we try to cause monkeys to fly out of bin Laden’s rear end? We’d stand a better chance of success doing that than we would ever have of making Muslims like us. The US will never overcome the hatred of the US fostered among Muslims by their religious leaders. That’s just the way it is when religion runs everything; no media barrage is going to change the average Muslim’s mind. It’s a waste of energy and resources to even try.