Dos and don'ts for superpowers fighting terror....

Very good read, indeed. Actually sounds a lot like Isreal's approach in a lot of ways.

 

Superpower is a relative term. In the turn of the century world Britain was undeniably a superpower. This is still (just about) in living memory, and therefore more relevant than say ancient Rome, which well beyond living memory.

After WWII Britain ceased to be a superpower, having lost significant parts of her empire, and having been thoroughly drained by WWII.

Britain will never again be a superpower, it will now spend eternity as a follower, instead of the leader it once (undeniably) was.

Back to this article - I cannot see the distinction between superpowers and soveriegn states in this argument, that says that Britain was wrong in the way it handled the IRA, wheras the US would have been right in the exact same circumstances.

 

MarkB

You said exactly what I was trying to say...thanks.

 

And it's working so wonderfully well for them.

 

it hasn't worked that well, they have only cut down on deaths from terrorist by about 25% in the last 3 years if it were working well you would think they would have taken care of all of them.

 

But I wonder how well it would work for them if they weren't worried about how the US would view it? We don't "allow" them to follow those completely by use of our influence. They want at least one ally... I suspect they have been somewhat restrained over the years compared to what they are capable (and no doubt willing) to do. But it might appear to be genocide if they ever un-leashed... Plus I suspect what is not helping them is that they are occupiers of someone else's land. They are in reality dealing with pratical and apocalyptic terrorists at the same time. What do you suppose it would be like in Isreal if they acted more like us or the French in regards to handling terrorists?

 

That's the hard reality that people in this country refuse to see. Don't misunderstand, in many ways I admire the Israelis, and they've certainly done far, far more with that miserable plot of land than the Arabs would have, but the bottom line is that they took it away from the people who were already there. The ethics and morals that define "civilized" behavior have evolved over the centuries, and after about 1918 that no longer meets the definition.
I firmly believe that the Israelis have already signed their death warrant. WMD's, including nukes, are too easy to make and sometime in the next 20 years Hamas or a similar group will get enough of them to launch a large scale attack that will wipe the country out. It's a horrible thing to contemplate, but when Begin authorized settlements in the West Bank that was the road he put the country on.

 

And none of those mean anything against a guy with a nuke in the back of his van at the corner of 33rd and 5th.

 

Sadly, in our support of them we have brought some of the same hatred on ourselves. I don't know what we should have done differently and hindsight is always good. The saddest part is that even at this point if they gave back the West Bank (et al) it probably wouldn't make much difference...

This is another reason I have no desire to be in politics...

 

So, you're in favor of the government of the United States of America giving the Amerinds all their land back?

 

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc are pragmatic enough to understand who would prevail in an exchange of WMDs. Even a serious attempt to obtain them would result in their instant annihilation (along with tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians).

 

Give the Mid east as far as India back to Rome.

ps Rossi not Biaggi

 

The Israelis are NOT living on someone else's land. The land they possess was won in war. A war they did not start, but a war that they won.

That's how it works. You start a war and get your ass kicked, you lose the territory you lost in battle. Politely asking to have it back, after you attacked the country who now owns it, is bad form at best. Or more like Fantasy Land.

The Palestinians didn't want the land Israel was founded upon until after the Israelis cultivated the land and made it actually worth something. At that point, it's not hard to understand that they were a bit unwilling to give it up. Especially considering that the world was less than a decade from the Holocaust, when six million of their fellow Jews had been exterminated. When Israel wouldn't give it up peacefully, they were attacked. Israel responded by laying down an ass-kicking and expanding its borders with some newly-won territory.

Yes, maybe Israel has signed it's own death warrant with their policies towards terrorism and radical Islam. However, if Israel goes down, I'm willing to wager that there won't be anything left of the side that destroys them either. The Israelis are pretty serious about that "Never Again" thing and history has shown that they're not a force to be toyed with.

 

Good post, mtk. I don't think most of us disagree. It is just that it is the rallying cry of many of the terrorists. Where did the land that Israel orginally started with come from? It's not like it was theirs before that, wasn't it a British colony or something? I'm real hazy on that, but before WWII there was not an Israel...

You are correct that anyone that takes them down would go down themselves. Israel does not have the luxury to fool around like we seem to... It is truly life or death. The ass-poundings they dispense is proof of their resolve.

 

The core of the State of Israel was not won in a war, it was created by British in what was then a British Colony.

Details at http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/Israel.htm

 

Yes, the core of Israel was established by the UN, I believe, after WWII. It wasn't exactly a desirable bit of dirt at that point either.

However, Israel has expanded in size once or twice as a result of military action. I believe that's how the "West Bank" came to be under their control.

 

Sorry, but this post shows that you don't have the slightest knowledge of the Middle East's history. Start with "The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Wars" by Ovendale and then try "A Peace to End All Peace" by Fromkin.

 

Not really advocating anybody giving back land, just pointing out that the Palestinians have a legitimate beef. And that the accepted definition of legitimate has evolved over time.
Actually, let me rephrase that. I certainly don't think Israel should cease to exist. I DO think that the Israeli's trying to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza is a huge mistake. All they've done is radicalize 2 generations of Arabs, to the point that families are proud to have their children chosen to blow themselves up. They couldn't have done more harm to their long range survival prospects if they'd tried. What's so sad is that it was obvious that this was going to be the outcome. I remember talking with friends about it when the settlements started, back in the late 70's. We all realized that Begin's aim was to get enough Jews into those areas that it would be politically impossible for any subsequent government, Likud or Labor, to abandon them. And we knew that it would lead to constant war. In retrospect it's clear that Israel's leaders at the time, who were largely European, made the same sort of mistakes in judging the Arabs that the British and French had made 50-100 years earlier.

 

Talk about the slightest knowledge of "Middle East History" You might start by reading history back beyond the discovery of lead and gunpowder, If you apply the logic you accept to legitimize the Palestinian claim against the land of Israel now, the Palestinians have NO claim. If you look further into what Palestinians seek, it is NOT the land taken in modern wars, it is ALL of Israel, in fact it is the total elimination of Israel.

The Palestinians approach this with the subtlety of a street thug with a knife, intimating that what they want is “just a little of your money”, surely you can "spare" 10 bucks, just open your wallet, it is a small amount. The true nature of their intention is to clean your wallet out and gut you for dead in the street.

 

Just deterrent

For fanatical terrorist this does not go far enough, “an eye for and eye” the scope and scale of their fanaticism means death is no deterrent nor is it significant punishment in their minds.

“regardless of legal conditions, Kill terrorists on the spot and all of their direct and associated relatives. Kill them in the most vial and violating manor to their beliefs or cause without discretion.”