Privacy and the State

[scottycelt]

(a) Countries not party to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have not been targeted by terrorists. But perhaps this is mere coincidence.
(b) Let's have a bit less of the "extreme Islamist" talk. Invariably the reasons given for attacks from the "Muslim world" on the West are couched in political and not primarily religious terms, and centre on the various imperialistic incursions made by Western countries in the middle East and elsewhere, and on the West's role in Israel's oppression of Palestinians. This fact of course is downplayed by politicians because it isn't in their interests (see my earlier post quoting Foley on the economics of war) to admit that the solution to the problem lies in stopping the military aggression.
(c) There are many arguments for an immediate pullout from Afghanistan, quite apart from the prevention-of-terrorism one. People are dying there (and in neighbouring Pakistan) all the time as a direct result of the US-led occupation. Is it such a bad idea that this killing should stop?

I don't share your confidence that terrorist activities and deaths will somehow miraculously cease if the UN-sanctioned operation in Afghanistan is brought to a halt. That will almost certainly lead to more deaths as the country will be plunged into an even greater civil war which would then almost certainly spill into neighbouring countries like Pakistan, involving more neighbours in turn.

So now you don't like the term 'extreme Islamist'?. Well, I don't exactly go a bundle on 'devout Catholic' or 'peace-loving Socialist', but I'm sure that, whether we like it or not, such types actually do exist.

[Richard Barrett]

the country will be plunged into an even greater civil war which would then almost certainly spill into neighbouring countries like Pakistan, involving more neighbours in turn

And what grounds do you have for believing that?

Don't forget that in Afghanistan there was no internal conflict before the US Army moved in ostensibly to seek and destroy al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular; there was of course the repressive Taliban régime, although a few years earlier these had been hailed (and aided and abetted) by the West as heroic freedom fighter against the Soviet occupation. A still longer view of history seems to show, correct me if I'm wrong, that trying to occupy and subdue Afghanistan never works out.

I am not objecting to the term "extreme Islamist" in itself - even the most cursory reading of my post will reveal that my point was to do with the aims of the terrorist attacks we're talking about being political rather than religious, so that therefore the religion of the people concerned is neither here nor there, but indeed is cited as a distraction from the political issues that would obviously need somehow to be addressed if our rulers had any will to actually stop terrorism from happening. Peace with the IRA was only brought about when terrorist hysteria was toned down in favour of addressing the political concerned of the republicans.

[MrGongGong]

Surely you understand that the security measures at airports will not "catch terrorists" because they are designed to deter them from attempting to board an aircraft with, for example, the Stanley knives used by the 9/11 gang, as well as, of course, any other material or equipment that could endanger an aircraft. There have not been any such attacks for a number of years now thank goodness- or rather thank those security measures..

That is what I mean by an act of faith
It might be because of these things
or something else that we don't see at all ?
how do we know ?
which is the point really that many people (myself included) are less inclined to believe that major acts of terrorism have been averted by the prompt actions of the security services when we have been lied to
which is NOT (even a mere clarinetist would understand !) to say that there aren't dangerous people in the world who want to do horrible things.
more that some of the dangerous people are in positions of power rather than living in tents in the desert

[Bryn]

And what grounds do you have for believing that?

Don't forget that in Afghanistan there was no internal conflict before the US Army moved in ostensibly to seek and destroy al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular ...

Really? And what of Ahmed Shah Massoud and his followers, etc. ? Did their activities not constitute internal conflict? Is is not widely held that Massoud's assassination in 2001 was the work of al-Qaeda at the behest of the Taliban government? Let's not pretend the Taliban went unchallenged within Afghanistan.

[Serial_Apologist]

Let's not pretend the Taliban went unchallenged within Afghanistan.

But I think "within Afghanistan", as opposed to by consequence of Western (or other) interference, is the main point being made here. Though of course we shall never forget the brave role of John Simpson and his band of cameramen...

[Bryn]

But I think "within Afghanistan", as opposed to by consequence of Western (or other) interference, is the main point being made here. Though of course we shall never forget the brave role of John Simpson and his band of cameramen...

That would be fair enough were the Taliban themselves not largely a response to foreign interference in the country (very much including that by the Pakistan ruling elite). Historically, Afghanistan has not been some Shangri la. Tensions and conflict between the various fiefdoms have characterised much of the history of the country. None of which was any excuse for the invasion. The nearest thing to 'legitimate targets' were the al Qaeda training camps, surely?

[Thropplenoggin]

That would be fair enough were the Taliban themselves not largely a response to foreign interference in the country (very much including that by the Pakistan ruling elite). Historically, Afghanistan has not been some Shangri la. Tensions and conflict between the various fiefdoms have characterised much of the history of the country. None of which was any excuse for the invasion. The nearest thing to 'legitimate targets' were the al Qaeda training camps, surely?

I expect you've read Dalrymple's book, Return of a King. It should be mandatory reading for our political masters, but then it was probably old Etonians waging war back then, too. (I know, Bliar started it, but this lot haven't been quick to end it.)

[Richard Barrett]

Historically, Afghanistan has not been some Shangri la.

Indeed not. But the point is that no foreign invasion of Afghanistan has really engaged with the kinds of internal issues you mention (nor has been intended to do so) except in so far as it serves the occupier's own interests.

[Mr Pee]

On the other hand there have been no terrorist attacks at all during 2013 in Germany, which like most EU countries has extensive data-protection laws. Does this justify the lack of surveillance? or is it perhaps because Germany isn't a terrorist target, having not carried out any invasions or military threats?

Perhaps you would like to take a look at this list of attempted and succesful Islamist terror attacks since 1970 and highlight for us which countries were terrorist targets under your definition and which were not:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

It is quite right that there has so far in 2013 been no terrorist attack in Germany, barely six months into the year as we are. However there was one in 2011, and a foiled plot to bomb trains there in 2006. And for your information, there are approximately 5,000 German troops in Afghanistan, which I'm sure is more than enough of an excuse for some Islamist fanatic to carry out a terror attack on German soil. :sadface:

[Beef Oven]

Perhaps you would like to take a look at this list of attempted and succesful Islamist terror attacks since 1970 and highlight for us which countries were terrorist targets under your definition and which were not:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

It is quite right that there has so far in 2013 been no terrorist attack in Germany, barely six months into the year as we are. However there was one in 2011, and a foiled plot to bomb trains there in 2006. And for your information, there are approximately 5,000 German troops in Afghanistan, which I'm sure is more than enough of an excuse for some Islamist fanatic to carry out a terror attack on German soil. :sadface:

:ok: Well done Pee, this is the crux of the biscuit :biggrin:

[Richard Barrett]

for your information, there are approximately 5,000 German troops in Afghanistan

True, that was a rather bad example. (The number is 4 135 to be precise) Although the event of 2011 involved the shooting of two Americans, and is so far the only "Islamist terrorist" attack to have taken place in Germany; the restrictions on snooping in place in that country seem not to have been much of a disadvantage.

[MrGongGong]

:ok: Well done Pee, this is the crux of the biscuit :biggrin:

Er , no it's not
because mrPee assumes that everyone who does something bad (and these are really terrible things don't get me wrong) and says it's in the name of Islam is somehow part of a global conspiracy to overthrow the West. Which some folk want , but others are just deranged and delusional.

[amateur51]

But I think "within Afghanistan", as opposed to by consequence of Western (or other) interference, is the main point being made here. Though of course we shall never forget the brave role of John Simpson and his band of cameramen...

:laugh:

[amateur51]

I expect you've read Dalrymple's book, Return of a King. It should be mandatory reading for our political masters, but then it was probably old Etonians waging war back then, too. (I know, Bliar started it, but this lot haven't been quick to end it.)

Jason Burke writes regular report and think-pieces for the Guardian and Observer and has published three important books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jason-Burke/e/B001JSCIMU/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1371155702&sr=1-2-ent

[Mr Pee]

Er , no it's not
because mrPee assumes that everyone who does something bad (and these are really terrible things don't get me wrong) and says it's in the name of Islam is somehow part of a global conspiracy to overthrow the West. Which some folk want , but others are just deranged and delusional.

So what? http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/thin..._smiley_07.gif

Whether they are deranged and delusional, or wish to impose Sharia law on the West- which one might say amounts to the same thing- makes no difference at all to the point; namely that it is wholly wrong to to suggest that Islamist terrorists somehow discriminate in their choice of target based on any particular country's Foreign policy. They do not. That fiction gives them a convenient excuse for their murderous attacks, an excuse which some in the West seem happy to indulge. :sadface:

That is the "crux of the biscuit" as Beef Oven so delightfully put it.