Analyzing Operation: Restore Hope

[Sgt.Banes]

Besides the Black Hawk Down incident on October 3rd 1993, should the U.S. have spawned a heavy military response to that attack?

My reply is yes, for the following. In the early 90's we were coming out of the Cold war with the Soviet Union, and with that feeling of "victory" we came to some sort of conclusion that we could take on any foreign contender. With the UN peace mission in Somalia already a flop due to rival clans attacking the Pakistani and Malaysian troops under UN mandate.

So with the advent of Task Force Ranger being deployed into the country. You have the rise of moderated violence, and then the event of October 3rd. 18 servicemen are killed and we are withdrawn after the release of Black Hawk pilot Mike Durant, and Bill Clinton chuckling with that candy ass chuckle. What if Clinton were to have had a back bone and some balls and sent more mechanized divisions to Somalia. Or even if he had sent Marines back to Somalia, to take over the situation could the outcome of that day ended without vain.

Because I believe that if we were to have sent a military response to Somalia after October Third. Perhaps that certain Saudi man that we've been frantically searching for since September 11th, would have thought twice than to stand up so boldly to the United States. But this is merely the opinion of a independent guy looking in.

 

[TrangleC]

And what for?
You'd have been in the same mess as in Iraq now, just without the oil that makes it worth it.

And how should that have prevented 9/11?
By scaring the terrorists? lol
How do you want to scare a suicide attacker?

Interventionist hegemonial politics are just the reason why people around the world oppose and hate the USA. More of that would certainly not have prevented anything.
Even a very unlikely glorious victory in Somalia would just have made your enemies more angry and more willing to strike.

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as an insult or flaming, but i really have to say i often am wondering why it seems so hard to understand for americans that other people have their pride too and because of that the more you bully them, the more resistance you will get.
You can't scare people into submission on a international scale. You just produce more hatred and provoce counter atacs.

Just try to see the world through the eyes of your enemies for once. If you would feel bullied by a foreign power and have the feeling they are trying to impose their rule on you and to harm your culture and your national sovereignty, would you just let that happen? If foreign bombers would fly over your roof and foureign soldiers would kick in your door at night and take you and your male family members to interiogation because they are searching for somebody, would you like that? Even if you suffered under the gouvernemt they have overthrown? Would you just say "Well, they got more money and more sophisticated weapons, so they are superiour. Let's not fight them and do what they want."?
I guess not. So why should they do that?

 

[Sgt.Banes]

And what for?
You'd have been in the same mess as in Iraq now, just without the oil that makes it worth it.

And how should that have prevented 9/11?
By scaring the terrorists? lol
How do you want to scare a suicide attacker?

Interventionist hegemonial politics are just the reason why people around the world oppose and hate the USA. More of that would certainly not have prevented anything.
Even a very unlikely glorious victory in Somalia would just have made your enemies more angry and more willing to strike.

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as an insult or flaming, but i really have to say i often am wondering why it seems so hard to understand for americans that other people have their pride too and because of that the more you bully them, the more resistance you will get.
You can't scare people into submission on a international scale. You just produce more hatred and provoce counter atacs.

Just try to see the world through the eyes of your enemies for once. If you would feel bullied by a foreign power and have the feeling they are trying to impose their rule on you and to harm your culture and your national sovereignty, would you just let that happen? If foreign bombers would fly over your roof and foureign soldiers would kick in your door at night and take you and your male family members to interiogation because they are searching for somebody, would you like that? Even if you suffered under the gouvernemt they have overthrown? Would you just say "Well, they got more money and more sophisticated weapons, so they are superiour. Let's not fight them and do what they want."?
I guess not. So why should they do that?

Hatred is one thing, but acts of hatred are another. Yes it is true that it would create hatred among middle east, but just pulling out of a turkey shoot with Somali gun men is different than Iraqi troops. After we inflicted serious damage to the Iraqi army there was hate and more of a negative view of the U.S., but there was no direct attack on the United States. But after the Black Hawk Down incident you have the Barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Then you have the Embassy bombings in 1998, and later the USS Cole bombings in Yemen. Now should one make a connection that when you run from a gun fight your enemies become emboldened to attack directly on your soil.

 

[Rich]

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as an insult or flaming, but i really have to say i often am wondering why it seems so hard to understand for americans that other people have their pride too and because of that the more you bully them, the more resistance you will get.
You can't scare people into submission on a international scale. You just produce more hatred and provoce counter atacs

Gee, I'm glad you didn't mean to insult or flame. Instead maybe you should read a history book and discover why the American led UN coalition went into Somalia in the first place. There was a mass genocide occurring there where an entire people were being starved to death. So George Bush senior sent in a huge Marine contingent to provide security while the UN fed the starving masses. But I guess that's a Euro-definition of "Bullying" isn't it? Especially in light of the fact that Africa, in large part, is a product of European Imperialism. Somalia in the first place was carved up by Italy and Britain before gaining independence. But the entire continent was fleeced, enslaved, and raped by Euro-Imperialism for hundreds of years.

Including, BTW, Germany.

Interventionist hegemonial politics are just the reason why people around the world oppose and hate the USA.

Giggle, on second thought maybe you shouldn't read any German history books.

And how should that have prevented 9/11?
By scaring the terrorists? lol
How do you want to scare a suicide attacker?

I agree. We should expend 100% of our efforts on killing them and forget "scaring". Unless you have a better idea? The last thing we should do is go into such a country trying to feed them and save them from themselves like we did in Somalia. Maybe we should handle it like the French did in Rwanda:unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6079428.stm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

There is, and never has been, any national sovereignty in Somalia. Its a country ran by armed gangs and thugs. More recently, and even during Restore Hope, its been a base for Al Qaeda and I personally couldn't care less if the entire place starves.

We Yanks have to get out of the habit of thinking we can "save the world". We should instead act as the Europeans do which means only in our "National interests", "and BTW the same way the rest of the world does". You think Germany would risk the blood of her sons to save some hopeless African nation from starvation?

Take a good look at how Germany deals with terrorism http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed122305e.cfm

Boy some of these Europeans walk around like butter wouldnt melt in their mouths. BTW Triangle, your spelling sucks!

 

[merocaine]

Especially in light of the fact that Africa, in large part, is a product of European Imperialism. Somalia in the first place was carved up by Italy and Britain before gaining independence. But the entire continent was fleeced, enslaved, and raped by Euro-Imperialism for hundreds of years.

your so full of Sh#t Rich its not true.

 

[TrangleC]

@ Sgt.Banes:
I doubt it.

There are so many examples in history (just look at european colonialism) that show that no matter how successful you are on the battlefield, it's always other things that decide whether peace and stability can return.

And there is one other thing that you should take into consideration: Most of those terrorists don't really care that much about the USA. They know that they can't destroy the USA. What they are really after is to tople the US backed regimes in their own countries. If you would ask Osama BinLaden what he would prefer, to nuke 10 big cities in the USA while everything stays the same in the middle east, or to leave the USA be and get successful islamic revolutions in Saudi Arabia, the arab emirates and Egypt in exchange, he surely would chose the latter.
The islamic world is much more self centered than people in the west realize. Those Alkaida guys may talk a lot about the great satan USA and how corrupted we westerners are, but what they really care about is what happens in the middle east and those old wars between the different islamic groups and sects.
When the USA was bombing Iran after the revolution there, many sunni arabs liked that because somebody was attacking the hated shiites.
Before the previous gulf war Osama Bin Laden offered to join in on the campaign against Saddam Hussein with his army of holy warriors from Afghanistan. He was willing to fight side by side with the USA just to fight against Saddam Hussein whom he hated much more than the americans, because Hussein was a declared enemy of radical islam. Saddam was considered a godless headen by radical islamists because he had established a strictly unreligious regime in Iraq.
Night club singers, artists, stripers and hookers from Asia and Europe were going to Iraq to work in Baghdads strip clubs in the 70ies and 80ies.

Who do you think was put in Saddams torture prisons? Sure, a lot of innocent people, but most of all naturally Saddams enemies and enemies of his regime. And who were those enemies? Most of them were radical islamists - Osama's buddies.
Can you imagine how Osama must have laughed his ass off when the USA went to Iraq to root out islamist terrorists there? What the coalition of the willing did was they removed Osama's worst enemy, the godless headen and his regime from power and freed all those radical islamists from his prisons. Now those poor guys who were supressed by evil Saddam Hussein and were freed by the USA are the ones running around in Iraq killing US soldiers and bombing police recruites and students.

What i want to say is that the islamists hate each other, the liberal islamic clerics and the secular leaders of their countries much more than they hate the west. When they strike at the USA or Europe, then because they want to harm the pro-western arab elites and gain publicity and support on the arab street.
In a way it is like when people poison their neighbour's dog. They usually don't do that because they hate the dog, but because they want to hurt the neighbour, if you know what i mean.

It is not really a "clash of cultures". It's not really a "west against middle east"- or "islam against christianity"-thing. The leaders of those terrorist groups who really got an agenda and a plan are rather seeing the western powers as an obstacle than as their main enemy.

Look at Iraq today... Instead of organizing a combined guerilla war against the western invaders, certain people there seem rather happy about the chaos the westerners brought with them, so they could finally start slaughtering each other again, which was impossible under Saddam.

As hard to swallow as it might be because it harms the pride of a superpower to be attacked only for a publicity coup, but 9/11 was just that - it was not meant as a real attack against a main enemy, it was a big show and a publicity coup made for the arab street. Osama BinLaden and his gang are no idiots. They knew that they would not achieve a victory against the USA this way, but they managed to become superstars of radical islamism. Radicals all around the world now got pictures of them hanging in their living rooms and name their sons Osama. And they managed to get rid of Saddam Hussein this way, a man they really considered a enemy. The only leader in the whole arab world that was powerful and ruthless enough to prevent them from eroding or infiltrating the political system of his country, like they do it in so many other nations.

That is why it really doesn't matter so much how strong or how weak or how scary or how "hateable" the USA were before 9/11, because the whole thing was not really directed against the USA. They just used New York as a stage to perform a big show on - a show for the audience on the arabic (or better said "islamic", including non-arabic islamic nations) street. A show that would make them big stars at home.

One of those radical clerics once said in an interview: "If you hit a cow to make it moo, then you naturally hit the cow that moos the loudest." (or something like that)

 

[Manfred]

Ahem... taking it from a purely Military point of view (as opposed to the political one ) , it would not have nescessary to have a "Heavy response" if heavy assets had been in place from the start.

The lesson I got from that action is that light units operating in isolation far from heavy support, even if they are not facing heavy units, can get into serious trouble very easily.

 

[TrangleC]

Gee, I'm glad you didn't mean to insult or flame. Instead maybe you should read a history book and discover why the American led UN coalition went into Somalia in the first place. There was a mass genocide occurring there where an entire people were being starved to death. So George Bush senior sent in a huge Marine contingent to provide security while the UN fed the starving masses. But I guess that's a Euro-definition of "Bullying" isn't it? Especially in light of the fact that Africa, in large part, is a product of European Imperialism. Somalia in the first place was carved up by Italy and Britain before gaining independence. But the entire continent was fleeced, enslaved, and raped by Euro-Imperialism for hundreds of years.

Including, BTW, Germany.

Read my first posting again. Did i say anything about the genozide being a good thing or against the UN mission?
All i'm talking about was my disbelief into Sgt.Banes' theory about a bigger campaign in Somalia preventing 9/11 and why i don't believe that 9/11 could have been prevented by that.
Even with my sucking spelling, that should be obvious.

And i also didn't say anything about the "euro definition of bullying" either. I said "try to see it through the eyes of your enemy". They - those warlords in Somalia, Al Quaeda, Osama and others - they see it as bullying and that is why they would have attacked on 9/11 even with a US victory in Somalia.
Besides the other - the main - reason i pointed out in my second posting here.

Giggle, on second thought maybe you shouldn't read any German history books.

Yeah, the old "you Germans did...!"-song.
See above. Did i say anything to justify, defend or marginalize german or general european imperialism? I think not. So what is your point here?

I agree. We should expend 100% of our efforts on killing them and forget "scaring". Unless you have a better idea? The last thing we should do is go into such a country trying to feed them and save them from themselves like we did in Somalia. Maybe we should handle it like the French did in Rwanda:unknown http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6079428.stm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

The more people you kill, the more will stand up to resist you and to take revenge for their dead fathers, brothers and friends.
What else is there to say about this?

If you want to expand the discussion on all the bad things the europeans did, we can do that by all means, but i'm afraid on that matter we wouldn't disagree enough to have a nice quarrel.
Like i said, i only talked about Sgt.Banes' idea of preventing 9/11 by going all the way in Somalia. That has nothing to do with european imperialism.

There is, and never has been, any national sovereignty in Somalia. Its a country ran by armed gangs and thugs. More recently, and even during Restore Hope, its been a base for Al Qaeda and I personally couldn't care less if the entire place starves.

Just a little earlier in your posting you seemed quite appaled about the genozide and my typical (but non-existent) european disregard to it.

We Yanks have to get out of the habit of thinking we can "save the world". We should instead act as the Europeans do which means only in our "National interests", "and BTW the same way the rest of the world does". You think Germany would risk the blood of her sons to save some hopeless African nation from starvation?

Actually there have been german soldiers in Somalia too.
Yes, we are reluctant to send combat troops anywhere, but that is a result of our history and the rather liberal and clearly pacifistic political climate.

Take a good look at how Germany deals with terrorism http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed122305e.cfm

Germany deals with terrorism by upholding and applying its laws.
"Sentenced to life" means 15 years in Germany. The fact that this guy spend 18 years in prison must be due to the pretrial detention that usually takes years in international terrorism trials.
Only if a psychologist declares you to be a total psycho the judges have the right to put you into a special prison hospital for a longer time after this maximum of 15 years of normal prison. So if that guy wasn't walking up and down in his cell, mumbling "I want to kill more. I want to kill more.", there was no possibility to put him away longer than 15 years.

I know how strange that seems to an american, since over there you sometimes even sentence children to a life in prison if the procecutor manages to get the jury and judge worked up enough with revenge lust.
But there is no jury and thus no revenge lust and other psychological phenomenons in german courtrooms. There is only the law that has to be applied and that tells the judges what punishment has to be sentenced for the crime and this decisions have to be re-checked to make sure no judge let his personal feelings cloud his judgement, but really followed the law.
However, that is how it is, so this guy spend as much time as possible in a german prison.

Whether that is good or not might be debateable, but our liberal law and it's emphasis on protecting everybody, even criminals from arbitrariness by the state are results of our history.

Same for the fact that german law prohibits prisoners to be handed over to foreign authorities if they are likely to suffer what the german law consideres inhuman treatment or conditions, which includes a possible death sentence in the hands of those authorities.

The "journalist" who wrote the article you linked here should have checked on such facts before claiming that those stupid germans deliberately set a terrorist free because they don't like americans or because they "capitulated to terrorism".

He would have been entitled to critizise german law, but he should have gathered at least some informations before writing something about the case.

I guess we would show our commitment to the fight against terrorism better if we would just throw our laws over board and open up our own little Guantanamo Bay-like special prison where we can put people away without a trial and legal protection, right?
Yeah, i guess that would go down smoothly with the international press.
I can already see the headlines: "Germany builds new concentration camp!"

Boy some of these Europeans walk around like butter wouldnt melt in their mouths.

Some europeans open their mouth when it seems neccessary.
I'm no anti american. I got relatives and friends over there.
Sometimes friends tell you when they feel you are making a mistake, even if you don't want to hear it and they do it because they care, not because they want to insult you.
The mess in Iraq was foreseeable. The people who went to march the streets to protest the war weren't doing so because they hate the USA, but because they knew that a lot of people would die in vain.
And europeans know a bit about the middle east and arab history and culture, because we are their neighbours and shared a lot of that history. So most europeans knew how ridiculous it was to claim that Osama BinLaden and Saddam Hussein would be allies who planned 9/11 together. We knew that they hated each other more than any of them hated the USA and that Osama would like nothing more than somebody removing the headen Saddam Hussein from power so his poor supressed islamic radical buddies could finally roam Iraq free and start a civil war against shiites.

BTW Triangle, your spelling sucks!

So what. I mostly taught it to myself. And since i pretty much only use it to quarrel online with guys like you who don't bother to really read what i'm writing anyway, it doesn't matter much, does it? hehehe

 

[Rich]

Germany deals with terrorism by upholding and applying its laws.
"Sentenced to life" means 15 years in Germany. The fact that this guy spend 18 years in prison must be due to the pretrial detention that usually takes years in international terrorism trials.
Only if a psychologist declares you to be a total psycho the judges have the right to put you into a special prison hospital for a longer time after this maximum of 15 years of normal prison. So if that guy wasn't walking up and down in his cell, mumbling "I want to kill more. I want to kill more.", there was no possibility to put him away longer than 15 years.

15 years? You jail brutal killers like that for 15 years? Hogwash! You released him in exchange for a German national being held hostage, and in the opinion of your countrymen, or at least your leaders, American lives aren't that important. In other words Germany acted in their own national interest, kissing the rear end of terrorists, as is a on/off again habit in Europe. So spare me the condescension and arrogance in your lecturing.

I'll go back even earlier then the Sarge, back to a conflict I was "in region" for. And when this war first started. That was Iran Nov. 1979. That was when we should have attacked. Our embassy was over-run, which gave us the legal right to wage war, and we still had plenty of allies in Irans military. I was a young man at the time a few hundred air miles from Tehran and we sat in our dorms for a week with weapons and gear ready to go. All that was needed was a "go" from Jimmy Carter. Which we never got! And that moment of weakness, that extended humiliation, set us back and from which we never recovered. But, maybe that was before your time.

I lost friends to terrorism as a young man and I have been living under its shadow for most of my life. I think we have to meet it with ruthlessness and extreme violence everywhere we find it. We have the weaponry to target its leaders without mass casualties among the populace. But in the end the only thing that matters is taking out the terrorists. An example we should use is the Israelis, whom have survived all these years while inside the Lions den.

I guess we would show our commitment to the fight against terrorism better if we would just throw our laws over board and open up our own little Guantanamo Bay-like special prison where we can put people away without a trial and legal protection, right?
Yeah, i guess that would go down smoothly with the international press.
I can already see the headlines: "Germany builds new concentration camp!"

Now what are you blathering about? Or is this A-typical Liberal misdirection? You freed a vicious terrorist in exchange for the freedom of one of your citizens, himself held hostage by terrorists, and now your blubbering about morality trying to misdirect the subject. A-typical! Take a visit to Auschwitz and then Guantanamo. Then tell me what the difference is.

I for one could care less about the smutty INTL press, "as wretched a bunch of anti-Yank whores as there ever was". And if I were running the show these terrorists would get one trial, under military tribunal, and if found guilty of terrorism, or aiding terrorism, they would be swinging from the rope the next morning.

The more people you kill, the more will stand up to resist you and to take revenge for their dead fathers, brothers and friends.
What else is there to say about this?

So your plan is what? jail them for 15 years and rehab them?

Act

ually there have been german soldiers in Somalia too.
Yes, we are reluctant to send combat troops anywhere, but that is a result of our history and the rather liberal and clearly pacifistic political climate.

Yeah I keep hearing about your "political climate". Personally I think you just dont want to spend the money or risk the blood of your troops. Its far easier and safer to stand on the sidelines critiquing every move made by the Yanks.

I know how strange that seems to an american, since over there you sometimes even sentence children to a life in prison if the procecutor manages to get the jury and judge worked up enough with revenge lust.
But there is no jury and thus no revenge lust and other psychological phenomenons in german courtrooms. There is only the law that has to be applied and that tells the judges what punishment has to be sentenced for the crime and this decisions have to be re-checked to make sure no judge let his personal feelings cloud his judgement, but really followed the law.
However, that is how it is, so this guy spend as much time as possible in a german prison.

Yeah look. I dont think I need you to lecture me about our criminal justice system. Ive only been a Policeman here for 24 years. And Ive also been to Germany and the arrogant above statement is so ludicrous I would laugh if I weren't drinking coffee. So your thesis is that yank courtrooms are filled with revengeful lust while German courtrooms are models of moderation, peace, and love for their fellow man? BTW sharpie many Yank courts have guilt or innocence decided by a judge as well. Its up to the accused if they want a trial by judge or one by jury. And every guilty verdict can be reviewed numerous times all the way up to the Supreme court.

So you learned something today MR. America expert. Tho it must sound strange to a German, a country that releases murderous thugs for Political expediency.

 

[TrangleC]

Well, sorry that i have to lecture you some more, but first of all there is no prove that Hammadi's release has anything to do with the negotiations to free the german hostage. His sentence just happened to end a few weeks before the german hostage was released. And there not just is no prove, it also is extremely unlikely because virtually all the kidnappings of western hostages, including the one with the german hostage, in Iraq were done by sunni militias and terrorist groups that associate themselves with Alquaeda, as you surely know.
It was a sunni group that named itself „Saraja al-Salasil“ (Which means as much as "Stormtroopers of the Earthquake" or some bullshit like that.)

Now check the article you linked and you will see that this Hammadi guy is a lebanese shiite. A former member of Hezbollah.

Like i pointed out before, like everybody with basic knowlegde about the war between sunnis and shiites and the fact that Alquaeda is a strictly sunni organisation knows, like everybody knows who watches tv once in a while and heard about the sectarian violence going on in Iraq between sunnis and shiites, a sunni terrorist would surely never do anything to free a shiite terrorist from prison.

The shiite Hezbollah has nothing to do with the sunni Alquaeda, exept being mortal enemies.

And especially in this context it's funny you should bring up the shiny example of how Israel deals with terrorism. Check out the facts about Hammadi's case. He kidnapped an aircraft, took about 145 hostages, killed one of them (Robert Dean Stethem), then he and his comrade (who never was caught) graduadely released the hostages. In exchange for releasing the last 39 hostages, Israel in return released 700 (!) Hezbollah fighters from it's prisons.
So who was capitulating to terrorism here?

Whatever you think about the german legal system, it definitely is independent from political decisions. Not even the chancellor can just order a judge to do anything.
The only way in which a politician can free a convicted prisoner from jail is if the president pardons him, which has to be re-checked by the supreme court. This did not happen in Hammadi's case. Its a big thing that cannot be done in secret.

He simply was through with his sentence and had to be released according to the law, like any other prisoner who had done his time.

 

[bonita.h]

Hegemonic policy of powerful countries make tiny things complicated.
US should not impose her interest over other countries, the root of the mess in the Middle East nowadays attribute to that. maybe , multipolar world is a better choice.
I'm wondering how Mr Bush feel about the heavy casulties in Iraq everyday, the sadness of the mothers and wives who lost sons and husbands in both US and Iraq.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Hegemonic policy of powerful countries make tiny things complicated.
US should not impose her interest over other countries, the root of the mess in the Middle East nowadays attribute to that. maybe , multipolar world is a better choice.
I'm wondering how Mr Bush feel about the heavy casulties in Iraq everyday, the sadness of the mothers and wives who lost sons and husbands in both US and Iraq.

The hatred of America, as far as the middle east is concerned. Is spawned from our culture(liberal culture), Our support of Israel, Our dealings with Saudi Arabia as far as oil and military bases, and Our domestic and international policy regarding individuals (mainly Muslims or Arabs). And Bush doesn't seem to care about it, since he regards lettuce packaging as a "high point" in his Presidency.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Ahem... taking it from a purely Military point of view (as opposed to the political one ) , it would not have nescessary to have a "Heavy response" if heavy assets had been in place from the start.

The lesson I got from that action is that light units operating in isolation far from heavy support, even if they are not facing heavy units, can get into serious trouble very easily.

That's exactly how I was stating my position. If we were to have gone after the clan that attacked the U.S. in '93 then it would have kept the hatred high, but would have kept the acts of hatred contained and low.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

@ Sgt.Banes:
I doubt it.

There are so many examples in history (just look at european colonialism) that show that no matter how successful you are on the battlefield, it's always other things that decide whether peace and stability can return.

And there is one other thing that you should take into consideration: Most of those terrorists don't really care that much about the USA. They know that they can't destroy the USA. What they are really after is to tople the US backed regimes in their own countries. If you would ask Osama BinLaden what he would prefer, to nuke 10 big cities in the USA while everything stays the same in the middle east, or to leave the USA be and get successful islamic revolutions in Saudi Arabia, the arab emirates and Egypt in exchange, he surely would chose the latter.
The islamic world is much more self centered than people in the west realize. Those Alkaida guys may talk a lot about the great satan USA and how corrupted we westerners are, but what they really care about is what happens in the middle east and those old wars between the different islamic groups and sects.
When the USA was bombing Iran after the revolution there, many sunni arabs liked that because somebody was attacking the hated shiites.
Before the previous gulf war Osama Bin Laden offered to join in on the campaign against Saddam Hussein with his army of holy warriors from Afghanistan. He was willing to fight side by side with the USA just to fight against Saddam Hussein whom he hated much more than the americans, because Hussein was a declared enemy of radical islam. Saddam was considered a godless headen by radical islamists because he had established a strictly unreligious regime in Iraq.
Night club singers, artists, stripers and hookers from Asia and Europe were going to Iraq to work in Baghdads strip clubs in the 70ies and 80ies.

Who do you think was put in Saddams torture prisons? Sure, a lot of innocent people, but most of all naturally Saddams enemies and enemies of his regime. And who were those enemies? Most of them were radical islamists - Osama's buddies.
Can you imagine how Osama must have laughed his ass off when the USA went to Iraq to root out islamist terrorists there? What the coalition of the willing did was they removed Osama's worst enemy, the godless headen and his regime from power and freed all those radical islamists from his prisons. Now those poor guys who were supressed by evil Saddam Hussein and were freed by the USA are the ones running around in Iraq killing US soldiers and bombing police recruites and students.

What i want to say is that the islamists hate each other, the liberal islamic clerics and the secular leaders of their countries much more than they hate the west. When they strike at the USA or Europe, then because they want to harm the pro-western arab elites and gain publicity and support on the arab street.
In a way it is like when people poison their neighbour's dog. They usually don't do that because they hate the dog, but because they want to hurt the neighbour, if you know what i mean.

It is not really a "clash of cultures". It's not really a "west against middle east"- or "islam against christianity"-thing. The leaders of those terrorist groups who really got an agenda and a plan are rather seeing the western powers as an obstacle than as their main enemy.

Look at Iraq today... Instead of organizing a combined guerilla war against the western invaders, certain people there seem rather happy about the chaos the westerners brought with them, so they could finally start slaughtering each other again, which was impossible under Saddam.

As hard to swallow as it might be because it harms the pride of a superpower to be attacked only for a publicity coup, but 9/11 was just that - it was not meant as a real attack against a main enemy, it was a big show and a publicity coup made for the arab street. Osama BinLaden and his gang are no idiots. They knew that they would not achieve a victory against the USA this way, but they managed to become superstars of radical islamism. Radicals all around the world now got pictures of them hanging in their living rooms and name their sons Osama. And they managed to get rid of Saddam Hussein this way, a man they really considered a enemy. The only leader in the whole arab world that was powerful and ruthless enough to prevent them from eroding or infiltrating the political system of his country, like they do it in so many other nations.

That is why it really doesn't matter so much how strong or how weak or how scary or how "hateable" the USA were before 9/11, because the whole thing was not really directed against the USA. They just used New York as a stage to perform a big show on - a show for the audience on the arabic (or better said "islamic", including non-arabic islamic nations) street. A show that would make them big stars at home.

One of those radical clerics once said in an interview: "If you hit a cow to make it moo, then you naturally hit the cow that moos the loudest." (or something like that)

I haven't even mentioned Iraq, that is an entire mess on its own. The point that I'm trying to point out is that if the U.S. had gone after the Habar Gidir clan and Mohamed Farrah Aidid full force then it would have kept most of these Radical Islamic organizations in a balance. High Hatred, minimal amounts of violence abroad, and though that may sound insane or foolish to imply. The middle east has generally always hated the west, but these groups have never attacked the U.S. or Western Europe directly until the 70's when we have the withdraw of troops from Vietnam, and later with 9-11 caused by the events of Operation Gothic Serpent.

 

[harryriedl]

I haven't even mentioned Iraq, that is an entire mess on its own. The point that I'm trying to point out is that if the U.S. had gone after the Habar Gidir clan and Mohamed Farrah Aidid full force then it would have kept most of these Radical Islamic organizations in a balance. High Hatred, minimal amounts of violence abroad, and though that may sound insane or foolish to imply. The middle east has generally always hated the west, but these groups have never attacked the U.S. or Western Europe directly until the 70's when we have the withdraw of troops from Vietnam, and later with 9-11 caused by the events of Operation Gothic Serpent.

what you seem to be saying is that in 93 the USMC should have annihilated the Habar Gidir clan after the sweet Irene op. not unlike the SAS and the Royal Marines after the Green Jackets were kidnapped in Sierra Leone. and in return Operation Palliser and op Barres was launched and was successfully accomplished. is that the kind of plan you would have imagined

 

[Sgt.Banes]

what you seem to be saying is that in 93 the USMC should have annihilated the Habar Gidir clan after the sweet Irene op. not unlike the SAS and the Royal Marines after the Green Jackets were kidnapped in Sierra Leone. and in return Operation Palliser and op Barres was launched and was successfully accomplished. is that the kind of plan you would have imagined

Yes, I honestly would have just kept the Marines in Somalia, because from what I've studied and reviewed there would have been little or no violence in the Nation if USMC had stayed in Somalia.

 

[Rich]

Well, sorry that i have to lecture you some more, but first of all there is no prove that Hammadi's release has anything to do with the negotiations to free the german hostage. His sentence just happened to end a few weeks before the german hostage was released.

Funny aint it? That coincidence stuff? And the German Govt. then gives him safe passage to Lebanon where he can join his terrorist pals again. 18 years for hijacking a plane and beating an American to death savagely and then dumping his body on the tarmac like he was garbage. THEN he gets pinched again trying to board another airplane with explosives.

Boy that's some justice system you have over there. Its an honor to have such humanitarian allies. tell me? Did you like rehabilitate him?

Whatever you think about the german legal system, it definitely is independent from political decisions. Not even the chancellor can just order a judge to do anything.

Yeah, make me laugh some more. I'm done with this thread.

 

[TrangleC]

Funny aint it? That coincidence stuff? And the German Govt. then gives him safe passage to Lebanon where he can join his terrorist pals again. 18 years for hijacking a plane and beating an American to death savagely and then dumping his body on the tarmac like he was garbage. THEN he gets pinched again trying to board another airplane with explosives.

Boy that's some justice system you have over there. Its an honor to have such humanitarian allies. tell me? Did you like rehabilitate him?

No, i only played checkers with him. Must have been one of the other germans. I'll ask around tomorrow.

Yeah, make me laugh some more. I'm done with this thread.

I don't blame you, since you know everything better and shit. And since you don't find anybody here who's worthy to hear some credible arguments from you, unfortunatelly you are forced to keep your wisdom for yourself and to throw around ridiculous, illogical accusations instead.

I wish i would have been worth being explained by you why an iraqi sunni militant group should blackmail the german gouvernment to get an former low level shiite Hezbollah terrorist out of prison. Or why this "Stormtroopers of the Earthquake" never claimed any credit for this hughe victory. Or why nobody who knows better than the germans tried to get hold of this extremely dangerous man now that he is sitting in his brother's home in Lebanon since about 16 months. Or why the whole thing didn't "cast a huge shadow over the forthcoming January 11 White House meeting between President Bush and newly elected German Chancellor Angela Merkel" (quote), as the article you linked predicted it?

I guess i have fucked up and now you will never enlighten me, hu? Bummer.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I guess i have fucked up and now you will never enlighten me, hu? Bummer.

Are you ok??? I know this sort of thing can be tough so if you need a sholder to cry on you can talk to me. I have also seen the pain of rich's distain. :teary

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Guys can we put this personal bickering aside and just get back on topic.