So much for "war on terror"

[Preechr]

Yes. The Suicide Bombing Regional Tournament in Abu Dabi.

The winning team there goes onto Nationals in February.

It's gonna be very exciting.

[kahljorn]

That's sort of what I was wondering. How is terrorists coming from a place that has probably produced terrorists before and only has more reason now a troubling sign? It was to be expected.

[Preechr]

You say it's a troubling sign for the same reason you hold a flashlight under your chin as you tell a spooky story. Oooh! A Troubling Sign! I told you this would be a troubling business! I am so troubled now! Let's go get some Chai!

[kahljorn]

For some reason i always throught troubling was a progressive thing. You know, like, "it will continue to get worse" not, "it has continued to be just as bad as it always was". I don't know, I think it was just a matter of expectation. I guess for someone who doesn't expect it it could be troubling, but how could you not?

[GAsux]

Its troubling because Iraq WASN'T producing terrorists of this sort before, and made worse by the fact that they're expanding it beyond Iraq.

When an Iraqi citizen goes to another country and blows shit up, they are no longer just insurgents fighting the deadly "occupier". It shows an expanding mission that goes beyond the borders of Iraq.

It's troubling because much like the mujihadeen used Afghanistan to train terrorists from all over the world and sent them back to where they came from to train more people, Iraq could easily become the same.

Suicide bombers obviously don't require much sophistication. However, when you start seeing shaped charges used in roadside bombs and more tactically coordinated attacks in Afghanistan, it indicates that the lessons being learned in Iraq are being exported elsewhere.

[kahljorn]

Iraq has never produced a terrorist before? Than consider me wrong.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think his point is that Iraqis who may not have been galvanized to be a terrorist prior to the invasion now are.

Which would make the critics of this occupation at least seem kind of right.

[GAsux]

Thank you kevin for being clearly more articulate than I am.

[kahljorn]

"I think his point is that Iraqis who may not have been galvanized to be a terrorist prior to the invasion now are.

Which would make the critics of this occupation at least seem kind of right."

Really? Because my understanding of things is that, generally, when you occupy a country you get rebels(Given the situation, I don't really see how it could've gone over without someone disagreeing with it). That's why I found it to be a strange thing to say, because I find it to be entirely unsurprising and expected.

[GAsux]

I can only hope to acheive the levels of foresight that you've clearly obtained. I doubt many, aside from you naturally, would have bet that Iraqi insurgents would be found bombing hotels in Jordan.

The rebellion part is not the issue. The issue is that once again, we're not talking about Iraqis taking up arms to defend their country. No big shock there. Blowing shit up in Jordan and helping train the Taliban is not "normal", and encompasses something larger then fighting to rid Iraq of the evil occupiers.

[kahljorn]

*sigh* You're right, this is different than simple rebellion(when is it ever really simple, though), but the principal emotion lies the same. There's two ways this can go: either they've always wanted to be a terrorist, or the invasion of iraq triggered it. If it was the later, than it is essentially a form of rebellion. So what, they aren't calling themselves "the south", things are different there than you'd normally expect. Disheartened people flowing into an organization internationally reknown for hating america and it's allies isn't exactly some surprising thing, nor is it outside the scope of rebellious actions, especially when said country just got done invading your homeland.
In a place where america wasn't the favorite beforehand, what did you expect to happen?

Regardless, it was a result of poor moral structuring and even poorer morale. To me, that's rebellion, twitching under oppression or just following the voice of God... none of those are unexpected in the circumstance. Act surprised, but that's kind of a ridiculous way to feel. Did you think terrorists would stop being produced because america invaded? If anything, there would be more of them because of the "moral outrage" it represents.
Why do you think a terrorist decides to be a terrorist?

[GAsux]

I guess my point is, taking up arms to defend what could be viewed as "their" country is probably to be expected and not strategically very bothersome as it is locally contained.

Taking those tactics elsewhere indicates that we're not just dealing with people who are pissed that the U.S. is "occupying" their country. You don't send suicide bombers to Jordan to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

That to me indicates that the muslim extremist movement or whatever you wish to call it is continuing to find fertile ground, now to include Iraq.

Prior to the Iraq war you didn't see Iraqis involved in global terror.

[kahljorn]

"Prior to the Iraq war you didn't see Iraqis involved in global terror"

Really?

"Taking those tactics elsewhere indicates that we're not just dealing with people who are pissed that the U.S. is "occupying" their country. You don't send suicide bombers to Jordan to get the U.S. out of Iraq. "

Terrorists have more than one target, has this ever not been the case?
Like I said, the result of low morale and "Injustice" drives people to do all sorts of things; some may rebel, some may join crazy terrorist groups, some may take up a drinking habit, others may start to hate their mommy's. They are all essentially the same emotion, and rebellion exists in more ways than "Defending your country from invaders." That may be the pure form of it, but some people goto other lengths.
Considering the objective of our invasion was to target terrorists, and because even america show themselves to be weak to terrorists and because they are our "True enemy" as a "Democratic free-world", somebody who really wanted to "Rebel" would probably find it wise to do so in that fashion(how many people would fight america head on, with our "Huge army" and such); also, because people from that general area are more than likely to find the moods and qualities represented by the terrorists to be just and righteous. That is why I find it unsuprising and entirely expected, within their scope of life this outcome wasn't exactly a streak of bad luck but an inevitable outcome.

Anyway, if I had to make a summation here I'd say that acting outraged by everything that happens is stupid, and makes you look stupid. I think that's what's wrong with 90% of the people who make(political) posts on this board. "I'm outraged", frothing at mouth, "Something must be done to fix this". "Everything before this was Okay, but now that I'm learning some more of the consequences...".... "...rrrr". If you're going to be political at least keep a cool head about it.

[GAsux]

I don't recall any "outrage" or mouth frothing on my part. Thanks for your insightful analysis of me though.

[kahljorn]

The philosophy and politics forum is full of outrage. That's why there's tons of threads about politics.

I just don't find this topic anything to be surprised or troubled about. Honestly, it was expected to happen and if I were you I wouldn't consider it any form of escalation. Just trying to put your heart at ease.

[GAsux]

Again for some reason you seem to want to make assumptions about me and I'm not clear why. I have expressed no outrage, have indicated no new found awareness of the situation that you have been so brilliantly in tune with all along, etc.

If the problem with 90% of the people who post on this board lies in the fact that they seem outraged, the problem with the other 10%, led by you, is that they like to play internet psychoanalyst and assume that they hold some superior insight into what's happening in the world. Clearly, your way is the right way and the rest of us are struggling to keep up with what you've known all along.

[kahljorn]

'Clearly, your way is the right way and the rest of us are struggling to keep up with what you've known all along.'

Thanks you know I've thought this for a while but it wasn't until now that I really began to accept it. Thanks.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Really? Because my understanding of things is that, generally, when you occupy a country you get rebels(Given the situation, I don't really see how it could've gone over without someone disagreeing with it). That's why I found it to be a strange thing to say, because I find it to be entirely unsurprising and expected.

Resistance had always been expected, and GAsux hasn't implied otherwise.

I think it's a question of options rather than mere "rebellion". Granted, it has become an arbitrary word (arbitrary, am I right!? Good times). Terrorists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have been referred to as "insurgents" and "rebels" in iraq. That has never added up with me.

Anywho, there would of course be native Iraqis who would take up arms and resist us. That was anticipated by everyone across the board, with most disagreements being over who, why, and how many.

The point GA is making is that presumably average iraqi citizens have become so mobilized by the invasion, that they now see Al Qaeda as a viable option for fighting back. It's less nationalistic or patriotic, and more ideological.

I think Muqtada al-Sadr serves as a good example. Immediately following the invasion, he and his militia were rebelling against U.S. forces. But once he began negotiating with us and the Islamic leaders of the nation, they put down their weapons, he started a party, and has essentially become a politician...with guns.

This strikes me as being different than the Iraqi citizen who now sees a common cause against us with a terrorist cell.

[kahljorn]

"It's less nationalistic or patriotic, and more ideological."

That was the point I was making. Especially given the circumstance, and the connection the "Ideal" has with america, and more importantly iraq.
Ideally, which way would be the best way to fight? Against our gigantic army? Or within the ranks of an organized structure that has been fighting our country for a while, and(in some sense) successfully? Personally, I think if i was in their situation I would choose to become a terrorist as well, it's the smartest option.
Besides that, we made our vulnerability to terrorists known when they hit with 9/11, which was the basis of why we attacked iraq(or maybe how is a better word). The association is there.