The American war on terror has "lead to more global terrorism", according to "numbers from the Terrorism Center Research". Writes Dagbladet, under the headline More terror with Bush:

Terrorist attacks since the American war on terror began have been more extensive and more violent than at any time since World War 2. Apart from the US, terrorist attacks have spread by an increasing intensity in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. If we look at the statistics, the war on terror is a bleak picture. From September 11 to today, there have been more than 46 attacks with more than 25 killed, which the Terrorism Center Research characterizes as terrorism. That is the same number of attacks with similar losses of life there were in the 40 years from July 1946 to November 1987.

I hate to have to educate Mentz Tor Amundsen in basic logic and reading skills, but 1) I can find no internet presence of a "Terrorism Center Research", as he refers to it twice. There is a Terrorism Research Center, but blaming the increase in global terrorism on Bush does not appear to be on their agenda. Perhaps the numbers are theirs, and the conclusion Mentz Tor Amundsen's? And 2) Correlation is not causation. If there are more terrorist attacks after the war on terror began than before, that does not mean that the war on terror is the cause of this.

There are actually four possible explanations for the relationship between the war on terror and the increase in terrorism:

1 - Terrorism would have increased this much anyway, and the war on terror has had no effect.
2 - Terrorism would have increased more without the war on terror.
3 - Terrorism has increased in the short term because of the war on terror, but will decrease in the long term.
4 - Terrorism will increase in short term and long term because of the war on terror.

They're all compatible with the numbers. So which is it? I honestly don't know. I believe it was right to launch the war on terror. I believe the war on Iraq was detrimental to the war on terror in the short term, but that it was right for reasons of its own, and that it could be beneficial in the long term. What is actually happening here is anyone's guess.

It's dangerous to confuse morality with success. Many people conclude that because they agree with Bush, Bush is successful. Amundsen concludes that because he disagrees with Bush, Bush has been unsuccessful.

None of it stands up to logic. Ask yourself: Can something be right even if there's a less than 100% chance of success? Can something be wrong even if there's more than 0% chance of a positive outcome? Of course it can. That means you should be prepared to accept that something that was right to do didn't work out the way you hoped it would, or that something that was wrong to do worked out better than you hoped.

Or, as in this case, that we just don't know yet which it is, and shouldn't pretend that we do.

And of course, as Amundsen himself points out, there has been no increase in terrorist attacks on American soil. This does not prove anything either - attacks were pretty rare before 9/11 too - but why does Amundsen confuse causation and correlation when it supports his case, ("More terror with Bush"), but manage to keep them apart when it doesn't?

(Update: Willy Gjøsund comments.)

And here I just thought a study was released that said terrorism was down to about 20K worldwide, the lowest it's been in awhile.

But they're using attacks, not people killed.

Guess it depends what point you want to make.

But not to point out the other side, well, that would make one CBS.

Hello. I never posted here before, but here goes:
Amundsen apparently thinks the frequency of terrorist attacks follows a linear path. If, in a couple of years‘ time, the frequency dwindles to nothing, look for an article by him under the heading “Bush eradicates terrorism”. Not.

If fighting terrorism indeed creates more terrorists, does it then follow that police create more criminals? This argument is absurd.

Regards, T. Hazlewood

Some other websites related to terrorism studies and research:

The Religion of Peace

Site Institute

Counterterrorism Studies

International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism

Internet Haganah

And of course, daily updated news about Islamic terrorism on Jihad Watch.

Thomas Hazlewood: "If fighting terrorism indeed creates more terrorists, does it then follow that police create more criminals? This argument is absurd."

No, it's not absurd. It could be that the way terrorism is fought creates more terrorism. I'm not saying it does, but if there are many ways to fight terrorism, like there are many ways to fight crime, then it's not absurd to say that some of the methods available to us are counterproductive.

Sandy P: "And here I just thought a study was released that said terrorism was down to about 20K worldwide, the lowest it's been in awhile."

Which study was that?

I have to say that even if a war against terrorism is being fought correctly, it can still temporarily increase the number of terrorists.
Often groups of individuals with a paranoid ideology will work harder when under real threat from outside forces---even if their actions were responsible for inducing the threat against themselves.
Muslim terrorists are clearly paranoid. Paranoid in the classical, psychiatric sense of the word.

Of course muslim terrorists must be paranoid, they are being chased(rightfully) by most of the civilised world. On the other hand, I would argue about many of the people who are afraid of islam taking over the world is paranoid as well. Clearly one cannot see that discussing islam because of the connection with terrorism will help to make more people muslim. Anyways, I think Bjørn is entirely correct about his interpretation of the numbers that Dagbladet presents. It IS a biased, quite stupid(and dangerous) way of interpretation that this journalist has done. I was reacting as well when I read the article.

IN MEMORY OF...

Friends, Russians, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the children, not to praise them.
The evil that suicide bombers do lives after them;
While the good in the innocent young is trapped in their bones;
So let it be with these dead children. The noble mullahs
Have told you the dead were killed not by the killers,
But by the just grievances which drove the killers.
If it were so, it surely was a great grievance,
And grievously have the children of Beslan paid for it.
Here I come, not yet threatened by the priests and their fatwas
For a mullah is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men --
Come I to speak in the children’s funeral.

These were children like those I know, innocent and good,
Murdered by men who shouted "God is great" as they shot
And stabbed and blew up children.
But the mullah says his faith is a religion of peace;
And the mullah is an honourable man.
The children went to school;
Did this seem evil?
When the children were shot in the back as they fled, they cried...
Evil should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet the mullah says that the killers’ faith is a religion of peace;
And the mullah is an honourable man.

I speak not to disprove what the mullahs have said,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all have loved people like these children, or these children themselves;
What cause keeps you then, from mourning for them?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the bodybag there with that dead child,
And I must pause till it comes back to me.

But yesterday the word of that child might
Have stood against the world; now lies he there in his bodybag.
O grieving parents, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do the mullahs wrong, and the oil princes wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men:
I will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.

But here's a transcript of a mullah’s sermon to the faithful:
Let but the common people hear this speech --
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read--
Lest people would accuse me of lying.

Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It is not well you should know how the mullahs hate you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And, being men, bearing the memories of those dead children,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad:
'Tis good you know not what the mullahs think;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
I fear I wrong the honourable men
Whose sermons guided the men who shot and blew up the children.

I will not read the speech; you may find the transcripts
At www.memri.org.

Do you remember the children?
How they screamed and bled and fled?
And before that, men and women who fell to their death
Or were crushed underneath toppling towers
Or were burned alive.

Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To a sudden flood of mutiny.
They who called for these deeds are honourable:
What private grievances they have, I know not,
That made them encourage it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal your hearts:
I am no orator, as the mullah is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
who loves good people.
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, nor power
To stir men's blood;
I tell you that which you already know;
I show you the children's wounds, poor dumb mouths,
And ask them to speak for me.
But if I were the mullah,
And the mullah myself, then there would be a preacher
Who would ruffle up your spirits and put a voice
In every wound of the children to move
The peoples of the world to rise against terror’s tyranny.

In Beslan was a school full of children – will there be another?

-------
(c)A.R.Yngve 2004. This work of fiction is a pastiche of Marc Anthony's speech in the play JULIUS CAESAR, by William Shakespeare. Its intent is satirical.

Indeed, the mullahs are honorable men. Well said, and a just oratory on the religion of peace and its deeds.
Coming to a city near you, any day now.

Jihadist group: Denmark is next terror target

"Terrorist attacks since the craven response of "Old Europe" to the war on terror have been more extensive and more violent than at any time since World War 2. Apart from the US, terrorist attacks have spread by an increasing intensity in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. If we look at the statistics, the weak NATO response to the war on terror is a bleak picture. From September 11 to today, there have been more than 46 attacks with more than 25 killed, which the Terrorism Center Research characterizes as terrorism. That is the same number of attacks with similar losses of life there were in the 40 years from July 1946 to November 1987."

Ahhhhh. It's all very clear now.....

Bjørn:

I don't know what research Sandy meant, but this article from BBC tells us about two reports from the US State Department saying different things.

Global terror attacks are on the rise, says the US State Department, admitting an earlier report - which had claimed attacks were tailing off - was wrong. The State Department reported in April that there were fewer terror attacks in 2003 than in any year since 1969.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said data in that report was misleading - but said this was an "honest" error. Bush administration officials had cited the April report as proof that the US was winning its "war on terror".

Generally speaking I think it can be a bit misleading to talk about global trends in this regard. While there are similarities between them I do not think the suicide bombers of Sri Lanka and those in Israel represent the same trend. Neither am I convinced that the war on terror matters at all in either of those two cases, not only because I consider the methods used to be wrong, but also because the war is being fought on other fronts.

Swedish state agency subsidizes Palestinian terror conference

Link in Swedish: Immigrants in crime statistics

Youth robberies in Swedish cities of Malmø and Stockholm: 90% of perpetrators were immigrants, 71% of victims were ethnic Swedes. Most of these immigrants, at least in Malmø, are Muslims. The numbers are from 1999, and may very well be even worse now.

Ali:

Why are you posting lots of links with no relevance to the discussion?

While I would love to tear your doubtful use of statistics to pieces (pointing out - as one of your links do - that social circumstances and not ethnic background - is the number one factor), I can see the relevance this has to do with a debate about the war on terror, or with a debate about Dagbladets logic or lack thereof.

I do understand that you want to use every possibility to smear Islam and Muslims, and maybe you are even truly concerned about the future of Malmø. The youth robbers in the lovely Swedish city are, however, criminals and not terrorists.

Øyvind

I agree with Øyvind. I think the war solution is a downward spiral towards destruction. I was watching two very emotional documentaries about the WTC/Pentagon attacks on 11 September 2001 in New York and Washington, USA, today. And as I watched them I couldn't help thinking that the horrific stories apply equally well to Iraq or Chechnya or Ex-Yugoslavia or Darfur or Tokyo/Nagasaki 1945 or (the list could potentially become VERY long). My assertion is: Violence begets violence.

I suppose the main problem is, as Mr. AWOL pointed out, we cannot win the war on neo-terrorism. But violence and oppression is surely NOT the answer. I would join the local militia in a heartbeat if someone invaded my country. And I guess I wouldn't care how many I killed, they would just be statistics anyway. Would I care about collateral damage? of course not, the cause takes precedence.

BS is certainly right in the assertion: Can something be right even if there's a less than 100% chance of success? Can something be wrong even if there's more than 0% chance of a positive outcome? But as always, right and wrong lies in the eye of the beholder and agreeing on a particular action depends how much you stand to lose. Willy Amundsen's piece on the ridicule of American leaders strikes me as a bit strange in this respect. I agree one will not become a better man by ridiculing someone else, but Rummy just does not come across as terribly intelligent does he? Besides does it really matter whether the article of reference was posted on the tri-anniversary of the attacks? Surely not! It’s just as bad on any other day, no? And it didn't seem to be anything but critical towards terrorism per se. It all comes down to what BS refers to in this thread; It's dangerous to confuse morality with success. War is terrible, however, as long as Coulterism looms large on either side decent people will ultimately lose.

And finally BS, correlation and causation is difficult to disentangle. You don't know which way causation runs either, but if there's a correlation between two events, then there might be causation. As such we MAY find that the war on terrorism Granger-Causes terrorism. Assuming of course it is not a spurious relationship.

I am of two thoughts concerning the war on terror. First, the argument that attacking it increases terror and should not be done -- unless of course it is your family or country that has suffered. The argument is a little like saying we should sacrifice someone else to preserve ourselves. Moreover if you are wrong then what? I don’t thin a war on terror can be won if by that one means total eradication, but you can make it so expensive for a terrorist and his supporters that it will eventually become greatly reduced and stop being a matter of course

Ali: This is not an Islam blog. If Islam is the topic, you're free to post URL's to relevant articles. If not, I'd appreciate if you didn't.

My last post was - of course - supposed to say: I can NOT see the relevance.

Passivity also begets violence.

My last post was of course supposed to say: I can NOT see the relevance...

I see a connection between criminal violence directed at non-Muslims by Muslims and terrorist violence directed at non-Muslims by Muslims. In each case, the "other" is considered "fair game" for dehumanization. All of which leads back to the scriptures and sharia law of Islam which teaches Muslims to consider non-Muslims as less than equal (at best) and subhuman (at worst.)I personally know a young man who converted to Islam who told me that it was not a sin in Islam to steal from unbelievers.

There! I've said it. Now have a go with the usual lefty moral equivalence Oyvind.

A must read:

The Warlords of America

On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power".
The joining of hands across America's illusory political divide has a long history. The native Americans were slaughtered, the Philippines laid to waste and Cuba and much of Latin America brought to heel with "bipartisan" backing.

Read the full article here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6874.htm

Oh, I don't know about Sweden, but in Norway immigrant youth gangs are not exactly known for their strict religious views. I suspect they think more about alcohol and drugs than about sharia law or jihad.

"I see a connection between criminal violence directed at non-Muslims by Muslims and terrorist violence directed at non-Muslims by Muslims. In each case, the "other" is considered "fair game" for dehumanization. All of which leads back to the scriptures and sharia law of Islam which teaches Muslims to consider non-Muslims as less than equal (at best) and subhuman (at worst.)I personally know a young man who converted to Islam who told me that it was not a sin in Islam to steal from unbelievers."

My thoughts exactly. But ok, I'll refrain from bringing it up further here.

How about Sweden's national hero ? Zlatan Ibrahimovic ? he is Muslim, why Mr Ali dont enlighten us about this Muslim Swede ?? Ah I see, it does not suit his agenda of hate against Islam.

Oyvind: Their contempt for non-Muslims is nevertheless 100 percent "Made in Mecca." Otherwise why are the majority of people being attacked non-Muslim?

Muhammad himself ran a criminal/pirate gang that attacked numerous non-Muslim-operated cargo caravans for "booty" (even noted Islamo-apologist Karen Armstrong admits this, although she quixotically explains that the criminal pirate attacks were "non-violent"). That's how he supported himself after he was exiled to Medina.

Knowing that history, why wouldn't anyone question whether or not Muslim criminal gangs were simply following the Sunnah of "the world's most perfect human"?

Umm, Ex-Christian, I rather thought that Sweden's "national hero" was Raoul Wallenberg or Queen Christina. Or Ingemar Bergman. Or Ingrid Bergman. But no, the only people whose history really "counts" in the world are Muslims, right?

Ex-C While sort of off the topic you posted a note that said the US authorized an preemptive strike against Iran? So? Rafsanjani(?) has publically stated that once Iran gets nuclear weapons that a nuclear war initiated by Iran is acceptable because there are so many Muslims that Islam would survive. This is the idiocy that you appear to support. Why would anyone wait for such an event.

Ex-C While sort of off the topic you posted a note that said the US authorized an preemptive strike against Iran? So? Rafsanjani(?) has publically stated that once Iran gets nuclear weapons that a nuclear war initiated by Iran is acceptable because there are so many Muslims that Islam would survive. This is the idiocy that you appear to support. Why would anyone wait for such an event.

"or Tokyo/Nagasaki 1945 or (the list could potentially become VERY long). My assertion is: Violence begets violence."

Actually, Hiroshima/Nagasaki (which you probably meant) stopped a murderous Japanese regime in its tracks and transformed a militant society into one of the most peaceful and productive societies in the world.

War works in forcing necessary change on enemies. And often it is more effective than peaceful negotiations, - Yugoslavia being a good, recent example.

Susan: I was not planning to discuss youth crime here, and this will be my last post concerning criminal youth gangs on this thread.

In an article in Dagsavisen crime researcher Elisabeth Næss at Kripos (the Norwegian equivalent of FBI - sort of) says:

The similarities between Norwegian youth gangs and immigrant gangs are much more obvious than the differences. In both groups the spending is high and it's financed through crime. Fights and violence is central, and the honour concept strong.

Næss has conducted research amongst both immigrant and ethnic Norwegian criminal youth gangs. Is ethnic Norwegian youth gangs also influenced by the ideology of Mecca, Susan? If not, where does their ideas, their violence and their contempt come from?

Furthermore, the contempt you'll find amongst immigrant gangs in Oslo is hardly directed towards non-Muslims. It targets other gangs. The two best-known immigrant criminal gangs in Oslo is the A-gang and the B-gang (yeah, that's their actual names). They're both consisted of young men of mostly Pakistani heritage living in Oslo or around. The two groups have about fity members each. Back in 2001 the fifty A-gang members had been reported to the police more than 1100 times (with quite notable effects on statistics). But who are the enemies they most detest? The answer is: Eachother.

Luckily these days both the A-gang and the B-gang is considered to be weakened (the Norwegian police is not that ineffective). Members of the B-gang, however, has become part of what the police often refers to as the "robbery network" (Dagbladet article).

If you have followed Norwegian news you will know that there have been several large-scale and violent robberies in Norway the last few years.

If you study the pictures in the article from Dagbladet you will notice one striking thing: In this 'network' you will find both Norwegian and immigrant criminals and they are cooperating. Contempt towards non-Muslims, you say?

All of this does of course not mean that crime is not a problem, or that it is not connected with immigration. The criminals in Oslo or Malmø is still criminals, not terrorists, and the ethnicity based criminal groups have more in common with the mafia than with al Qa'ida.

Herbie:

Islam taught me so much rationality, I dont share your Amerian doom day hopes, I am not for a clash between the Muslim world and the west, the west is my home after all and I am western convert to Islam, I am proud of my heritage and more proud of my Islam.

I find it very hypocritical the reaction of your government and some EU govenments to Iran's abmitions to acquire nuclear weapons, why is it ok for zionist criminals like the Israelis to have nuclear weapons but not ok for muslims to have the same ?

And before you tell me about the danger of having nukes in the hands of ' muslims ', let me remind you that it was only your ' free civilized ' country which used these weapons against helpless civilians in Japan.

Indeed, why the USA, the UK, France and other countries are allowed to have the nukes but not Muslims ? I truly support acquring nukes by as many muslim states as possible, then no western arrogant leader will dare to invade any muslim land, just look at North Korea, the USA is too scared to go aftet it, why ? because the US knows very well the terrible consequences for such action.

I am very much sure that Muslim nukes will deter terrorist nations such as the USA and Israel from even thinking to attack any muslim state.

Ex - C you say “why is it ok for zionist criminals like the Israelis to have nuclear weapons but not ok for muslims to have the same ? [and] “I truly support acquiring nukes by as many muslim states as possible, then no western arrogant leader will dare to invade any muslim land. . . .”

Well, first, putting to one side the absurd characterization o Israel as “Zionist criminals”, Israel (to the extent it has them) has not threatened to use such weapons unless they are first attacked with nuclear weapons.

As for your second proposition regarding “western arrogant leaders”, I note that they have not used nuclear weapons, but committed troops on the ground and then only because of a) violations of UN law which were war crimes and b)_in response to an attack on the US.

I, for one, find that your views, a good example of why Islam will not be able to constructively interact with the West.

Muslims believe that Allah created the nuclear weapon to be used. Apocalypse to the greater glory of god. Shahid for everyone in one easy step. People who are that unstable should probably not have access to nuclear weapons.

Herbie:

Muslims can use your same zionist argument, we wont use the nukes until we are attacked first, how about that ?

Lundgren

30 years from now when the oil will run out, you wont be able to use your nukes anymore, you wont be able to fly your F16s and your Apachi, you wont be able to use your abram tanks, we will be back to the age of the sword, I dont think any western army can stand fighting muslims face to face using swords, dont you agree ?

Look what happened to the crusaders and learn some lessons.

30 years from now when the oil will run out, you wont be able to use your nukes anymore, you wont be able to fly your F16s and your Apachi, you wont be able to use your abram tanks, we will be back to the age of the sword, I dont think any western army can stand fighting muslims face to face using swords, dont you agree ?

This is very odd, semi-threatening language from a practitioner of "the religion of peace." I doubt if a 3 year old would be frightened by the juvenile implicit threat. Keep thinking like that, and you'll be taken by a stroke before 30 years is up.

I this is an apt comparison: More Americans were being killed by the Axis powers in 1944 than before Pearl Harbor in 1941. Does this mean that WWII could be called a failure in 1944? No.

When you finally begin to engage the enemy, you're going to suffer more casualties short-term than if you hadn't, with the hope that you'll be much better of long-term. In the short term, the enemy's going to fight back of course. Long term, we anticipate their defeat.

Behind questions like "Is there more or less terrorism now?" and "Are we more or less safe now that Saddam is gone?" is the assumption that the war can only be considered to be going well if there's a constant decrease in terrorism or increase in "safety". But victory may not be possible via a linear route. It may be that the only or best path to victory is over that statistical hump.

I blame the media for asking such simplistic questions and the politicians for supplying answers everybody wants to hear. If a politician were to give a more reasoned answer, the press and the opposition would call "Gotcha! - we're less safe!" This happened with Dean on Saddam, and with Bush just last week. At the candidate level, there can't be any real discussion of these matters.

I think diversity is a good think in a discussion. However, ex C-now muslim , is not actually a person of much diversity. The debates of Aftenposten and VG has been spoiled by people like him, and I find him obnoxious. (Is he a muslim, or is he a provocateur?)
Give him a hiatus!

Herbie said:
"a) violations of UN law which were war crimes and b)_in response to an attack on the US."

Is this the explanation for the attacks on Iraq?
I am not aware of Saddam attacking US? And if it was in violation to UN law, how come Bush was more than happy to discredit and put UN aside in this matter?

kjell: Some of the things that ex-Christian, now muslim is saying is a provocation in the same manner as when Lundgren is stating that "Muslims believe that Allah created the nuclear weapon to be used".. Quite a generalisation in my mind, perhaps we should give more people a 'hiatus'?

Kjell: I think diversity is a good think in a discussion. However, ex C-now muslim , is not actually a person of much diversity. The debates of Aftenposten and VG has been spoiled by people like him, and I find him obnoxious. (Is he a muslim, or is he a provocateur?)
Give him a hiatus!

Is this your website?

If not, leave it to me to decide who can or can't write comments here. Ex-Christian can. This is not up for discussion. If you disagree with Ex-Christian, reply to his arguments - or don't reply at all.

Re myself: Of course, Ex-Christian and everyone else here is free to say anything he likes about Islam .. when Islam is the topic. It is not the topic here.

This is not a blog about Islam. It is a blog that sometimes writes about Islam. Please respect this, and try to stick to the topic of the thread.

Bjørn

I respect your wish, I shall not write about Islam unless someone brought up an Islamic issue.

I advice you to watch Ali Dashti, he always spamm your blog with useless anti muslim hate sites.

Ex-Christian: "I respect your wish, "

You have fascinating way of showing it - by posting several comments about Islam right after I asked you not to. Same for Herbie.

I've moved those comments and many more to the previous thread.

"I shall not write about Islam unless someone brought up an Islamic issue."

No, not even then.

"I advice you to watch Ali Dashti, he always spamm your blog with useless anti muslim hate sites."

Yes, he's been warned about that. Links are okay, though, as long as they're on topic.

Indeed, the battle has been joined at last, and the casualty figures are destined to rise. This is inevitable when a threat is confronted head-on at an advanced stage. Perhaps had this threat been dealt with in the early stages, in the 1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s, the number of deaths would be lower.
I was never so chilled by a news interview as when I heard a Pakistani mullah claim that nuclear weapons were created by God for a purpose, to smite the infidel.

Dear Bjørn. It's your blog, and you -nobody else- got the right to edit it. However, we, the readers, got the right to criticize it. The reason I criticize some of the commenters is that they, IMO, don't contribute to the debate, but with banalities, trolling and ad hominem attacks. Far too many blogs have been destroyed by this. Who takes the usenet serious anymore?
Your blog is a good one, and I have recommended it to many of my friends because it is serious, and your writing is high-class, much better than what goes for commentary in Norwegian MSM, and generally funnier. Your blog is a credible source for information. I don't recommend censorship, but don't let a few extremist spoil the credibility of your blog.
I hope you take this as constructive criticism, and btw I haven't heard from comrade Medvedsky lately?

Sorry, forgot to sign the last post. It,s Kjell, of course.

Kjell: But when you ask for a commenter to be banned, that's an ad hominem in itself, and can lead to an entire debate suddenly becoming about that one person. So if you have views about that, let me know in mail.

And yeah the Islam debate has deteriorated a bit. Now everyone is throwing short, sarcastic comments at each other. Thought people had learned from the Salahudin incident. When there are so many different views in the same place, it's extra important to be polite and factual, just to make it work.

Has the War on Terror increase Terror attacks?

Yes. of course it has. In the same way that confronting a ruthless entity which has been heretofore unopposed and able to inflict violence at will, will increase violence. That enemy today is not "Islam", but a pernicious and nihilistic ideology as ruthless as Nazism... and also as seductive. As is always the way with the ideas of the ruthless, it is compellingly clear eyed when it comes to human nature and thus foments fear and nurtures despair wherever it touches through its brutality. It does this because despair is easily transformed into naked hatred and this can in turn be used to subsume the will of all those ensnared in it. This is a metaphysical fact. Nazism was not German per se ... it was simply what it was in the flavor Germany preferred, and had to be confronted or it would not ever EVER stop until its insatiable nihilism had layed everything to waste. The longer it took to confront it... the more horrendous the confrontation would be... and so it was.

So, is the increase in terror that has come from confronting Islamofascism a bad thing? That depends on whether one is willing to address the question... of whether the ideology espoused by it is worth standing against. The idea that it is not a "clear and present danger" is existentially absurd (and quite frankly, borne of the intellectually artful "nuance" that represents a "different" nascent nihilism that presently sits at the core of many a progressive position today). 9-11-01 established that beyond argument, and if anyone wants to put that in a vacuum, there have been plenty of reminders since. Confronting it does NOT, as Geir suggests, depend on right and wrong lying "in the eye of the beholder and agreeing on a particular action depends how much you stand to lose." Surely it is not this insidious and neat conclusion, strangled by relativism as it is. Geir simply assumes this pervasive "truism", with the intellectual door wide open to the meaningless meanderings of Multiculturalism, before going on to lay out one of the most absurdly amoral and irreponsible and yet ubiquitous "ideas" in the discourse today. That confronting violence with force is de facto wrong because violence merely begets more violence. It is easy to understand then how his argument then rests on the basis that there is no "right and wrong" in a conflict because perception in the moment is as valid as reality... thus cutting off the opportunity for changes in perception in the long run.

Illumination... and redemption it would seem... are not possible in Geirs world. It's a shame really... because as with he, and Øyvind... it sounds like such a ... nice place.

Alas...

I suggest that these juvenile and purely emotive rationales are the very reason so many cannot reason beyond the end of their own ideology (for make no mistake, it IS an ideology) in the European discourse, and why appeasement is reflexive. There is, after very little thinking about it required when you have these assumptions... before you reach the quiet realization... that there is nothing worth standing for.

I think Rummy is quite a bit more "intelligent" in his convictions than any that will come from the meanderings resulting from Geirs foundations.

Geir then says that he would join the "local militia" (curious turn of phrase that) in a "heartbeat".. if someone invaded his country. Surely there is no moral equivalence here? Are the forces who have done the attacking in Iraq, really grassroots organizations Geir. Do you really think that this is a popular uprising? Clearly you have gone beyond in theory, even moral equivalence here. I'm afraid however that one needs the likes of Michael Moore to recast the image of the real world in order to cling to that illusion. Fortunately, we live in a place where the "free" press will accommodate you.

It doesn't change what IS of course... but it allows one to perform some historically impressive feats of ideological raionale, as for example claiming moral superiority while disdaining any meaningful moral tenet. And that is a philosophically high tech trick that took years of insular leftist academia to formulate during the past forty years, so purely as a matter of observing metaphysical phenomenon, it would have been a shame I supose to not have it have its day in the sun.

Of course it would have been better in some sort of dat simulation where there was less chance it would put the very foundations of free society and meaningful human existence in jeopardy... but you can't have everything.

Ex Christian,

I find it unsettling though not very surprising, how both the tone and content of many of your posts "evolved" in these past few threads. It is if anything I'm afraid, evidence for the prosecution that Islamism... as opposed to Islam, is indeed a very powerful meme in the psyche of many Muslims. It inspires outright enthrallment among many Muslims who are victimized by it even as they are subsumed by it; and an array of defensive and seemingly relexive apologists among many others who, in a case of extreme philosophical irony, find themselves resorting to an array of postmodernish multicultural "arguments" in order to justify the unjustifiable. However, staying on thread I would like to address your post regarding the resolution regarding the US position regarding Iran being a principled one that holds hope for actual Iranians, even as it anchors itself in the defense of the US itself.

Iran is presently ruled (ruthlessly), by a regime that can quite accurately be described as a terror sponsoring one. It can also be truthfully described as brutally opppressive, and utterly untrustworthy in any strategic sense in a world as small as this one has become. For the Iranian people, MANY of whom I have come to know and respect, and who harbor nothing but fear and despair over the state of their country, I have great sympathy and high hopes. But the path to their self determination and freedom will not be through a faux "reform" within that regime. Additionally, I support any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from posessing the capability to deliver nuclear weapons. I do this because of a simple fact... the regime is consumed by a hateful ideology and their control of such power is unacceptable in a world with any future at all.

If your position, is that all the forces that have arrayed themselves in opposition to the likes of Iran and Syria and Saddams Iraq ia based on Islamophobia and or a desire to "Colonialize" the Muslim world or possess its oil or whatever other specious absurdity is the leftist "happy thought" of the day... I can only say that you are wrong.

A question for you Ex Chritian. Is there virtue without freedom?

BTW I think the statistic Sandy was referring to, was one from a month or two ago released by the UN (I think) that 2003 had the lowest amount of violent war related deaths on record (In the area of 20000). This included Iraq and Afghanistan of course. I'm not sure what that "proves" actually. But it certainly flies in the face of the idea that the world would explode after Iraq.

On that note... I think the world is actually far less likely to "explode" now that there is clear strife and direct confrontation... though its likelihood is being kept higher than it should by the ruthlessness-enabling, self indulgent opinion making and tyranny-coddling "nuance" of Western high discourse.

But thats another thread.

Kevin McDonnell

In relation to the post that initiated the above comments, I can offer those of you interested the following link to an article by Norman Podhoretz "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win." : http://www.commentary.org/article.asp?aid=11802019_1

--Sandy P: "And here I just thought a study was released that said terrorism was down to about 20K worldwide, the lowest it's been in awhile."

Which study was that?--

Sorry Bjorn, late to the party. Was released last week(?) in the US. I read so much, might want start w/Instapundit.

Sir,

Forgive my tardiness in reply.

"Thomas Hazlewood: "If fighting terrorism indeed creates more terrorists, does it then follow that police create more criminals? This argument is absurd."

No, it's not absurd. It could be that the way terrorism is fought creates more terrorism. I'm not saying it does, but if there are many ways to fight terrorism, like there are many ways to fight crime, then it's not absurd to say that some of the methods available to us are counterproductive."

Point taken, yet, the statement that fighting terrorism merely creates more terrorists is NOT qualified by any such reasoning by those who use it. They generally suppose that fighting terror IS the wrong method, period. We have heard many declare that the ROOT causes for terrorism must be addressed, ie, don't fight terror, understand the terrorist.

Beyond that, I believe you put the cart before the horse. When a terror group pops up, it already has its reasons or cause that it believes justifies its actions.

Regards, T. Hazlewood

Perhaps too late on this board, but, if anyone is still reading, here's an interesting article relating to the subject.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000521.html

You cannot sow love in anyone's spirits by spreading blood-shed around his/her place. No matter how 'right' you are in invading others' country, you would always be looked upon as someone with malicious intentions.

Through the 'war against terror' Mr.George Bush has tried to influence his American voters. Moreover, he tried to send a strong message to rest of the world community about the callousness and "damn care for you" might of US.

But the end result is zero. As today he is seen as a 'world's biggest Dictator' who doesn't care for human lives for personal/political success. His entire 'endeavours' to eradicate terror from the planet have yielded 'flop show'. What did he earned after making the entire Islamist community of the world as America's rival?

In near future, his hollow claims will only be repeated in films like jokes that prove cruel to a few millions on the earth.

Sandeep Datta
Delhi, India
919818761680

Sandeep,

You make a lot of assumptions from which your conclusions then seem to make sense, and I think you would do well to question them before making deductions. I say this because this is how SO MUCH of the assessments, and sophisticated interpretations as to "what Bush has done" and "what Bush's intentions are", are portrayed. Are they simply ... true?

In principle, when you make the statement "You cannot sow love in anyone's spirits by spreading blood-shed around his/her place.", you are stating what might seem to be undeniably true, but it is merely emotive imagery. I WISH that it were true, but its a bit like saying "I think war is wrong." Thats very nice, but what of those who would threaten you with death and repression in order to have power over you. If all the people of good will in the world thought that way, then the ruthless would rule the Earth. Do the math.

I have often said that my deepest hope is that our species will grow, mature and survive to see a day when pacifism is the rule, not because it is enforced, but because it is simply good and true and beautiful, and understood to be so. It wouldn't be "pacifism" then, because it would not need to distinguish itself as an idea from those who would wage War for the lie of absolute power(and it IS a lie). I beleive in this so deeply, that I am willing to FIGHT for that day.

Do you think that this is a contradiction?

In a world that still breeds ruthlessness and murderous hatred based on the desire to FORCE all to conform to ones own tightly woven doctrine... as though this enforcement makes it "true"... it is NOT a contradiction at all. It is in fact, a defense of Hope.

Then you say:
"No matter how 'right' you are in invading others' country, you would always be looked upon as someone with malicious intentions."

Why would you be "looked upon" as someone who is malicious, if indeed the TRUTH is that your intentions are noble (as in 'right'... but without the scare quotes). Are you saying that perception will always be based on some sort of reflexive stupidity or impenetrable ignorance? Why indeed is this perception of malice and even bloodthirsty-ness, the dominant perception, even though it is (perhaps?) simply untrue. Are there not mechanisms and institutions in place in whose interest it is to make such perceptions the "dominant" ones? Does that perception make it "true"? To quote an ancient American Revolutionary..."Forbid it almighty God!"... because that is a world where Truth is disdained and the slavery of imposed imagery is the home of absolute power.

Then you say:
Through the 'war against terror' Mr.George Bush has tried to influence his American voters. Moreover, he tried to send a strong message to rest of the world community about the callousness and "damn care for you" might of US.

There are a lot of assumptions here which from a purely practical perspective, are readily refuted. When the invasion of Iraq was being readied, there is hardly a single advisor in Bush's staff, who regardless of whether they agreed with it, felt that it was anything but a HUGE risk politically. In fact, many made predictions(rightly) about many of these images you have cited, and about how it would be "portrayed" by those who have their own reasons to oppose it... many of them quite disgusting (see the UN Oil for Food scandal).

As for the message that he sent to the world... I reject utterly your spin on it. It has been stated again and again that the objective in Iraq is to plant Liberty, in the belief that this is the only way to undermine the brutal and repressive domination by dictatorship of the entire region because THAT... is where Global Terrorism is rooted. I note for example, that in spite of the many inequalities and injustices that democratic India has struggled and continues to struggle through... and a vast sprawl of abject poverty that still prevails in so many places there... yet the naked nihilism of this "new" kind of terrorism remains an abberation in your countries borders.

There are very clear and obvious reasons for that... and they have everything to do with what the US is fighting for in Iraq.

Then you say:
"But the end result is zero. As today he is seen as a 'world's biggest Dictator' who doesn't care for human lives for personal/political success. His entire 'endeavours' to eradicate terror from the planet have yielded 'flop show'. What did he earned after making the entire Islamist community of the world as America's rival?"

Again you imply that "how he is SEEN", is all that matters. This is heartbreaking and distressingly postmodern. History is not written in real time by those whose interests are served by haveing it be "seen" a certain way. The fact that the "World's Biggest Dictator" icon, has become a reflexive "truism", says MUCH more about the powers behind that twisted and existentially fatuous meme, than about either Bush or America. And I submit that if the ideology behind its elevation to being "as good as true" becomes dominant, then night has well and truly fallen on history.

As an American I can say to you, that if the entire "Islamist" community (as opposed to the Muslim world) has become America's rival, then that is as it should be... who do you favor?

Finally you say:
"In near future, his hollow claims will only be repeated in films like jokes that prove cruel to a few millions on the earth."

Yes... that's possible. It is already yearned for among the kind of people who created the "Bush is Hitler" and "Greatest Dictator" icons. The kind who make films that break records in "free" Europe... but flop in real dictatorships like Iran. Who will the joke be on though if that comes to pass? Who will crow in triumph... for a little while? Arundhati Roy? Noam Chomsky? Osama bin Laden? The Mullahcracy in Iran? REAL dictators and tyrants across the Earth?

Is this what you seek?

Think hard Sandeep.

Cheers,

KM

You;ve got to face the reality folks!

You cannot sow love in anyone's spirits by spreading blood-shed around his/her place. No matter how 'right' you are in invading others' country, you would always be looked upon as someone with malicious intentions.

Through the 'war against terror' Mr.George Bush has tried to influence his American voters. Moreover, he tried to send a strong message to rest of the world community about the callousness and "damn care for you" might of US.

But the end result is zero. As today he is seen as a 'world's biggest Dictator' who doesn't care for human lives for personal/political success. His entire 'endeavours' to eradicate terror from the planet have yielded 'flop show'. What did he earned after making the entire Islamist community of the world as America's rival?

In near future, his hollow claims will only be repeated in films like jokes that prove cruel to a few millions on the earth.

Sandeep Datta
Delhi, India
919818761680

I see.

It's "reality" because it is aligned with the imagery that gives YOU satisfaction.

Perception versus reality then Sandeep? Image over substance?

Is that your answer to my earnest post to you?

I have to tell you... that this is the typical response of the "sophisticated" proponents of "peace" today. Say it again... if its questioned, say it again even louder... if its still questioned say it with even more force.

That kind of mentality has nothing at all to do with either rightness or truth... and it leads somewhere very far from those things indeed. Those who I cited above who would "crow in triumph", I cited in the specific order I did... for a reason. It shows the a slippery slope to the abyss that begins with the idea that standing in an illusion of self righteousness and spouting on about "Pace" while standing "FOR", nothing... is rooted in the same nihilism that the ruthless exploit. Its just not as obvious.

Its more nuanced.

Its just as wrong though...and very sad.

KM

I meant "Peace" of course.

KM

HI Kevin! Dec.24, 2004

I thank you for sparing so much time for my write-up. Well, I hope you also enjoy writing. Though I don't agree to all of your interpretations of my views, I welcome them for discussion's sake.

Step by step here comes my answer....

Well, I didn't write on the basis of mere assumptions, I strongly believe all that. People do not wait long to call spade a spade it is just they need the right platform to be heard attentively. Regardless of any nation the opposition and condemnation of Mr.Bush's actions is no more a secret. And mere a victory in an election in one's country under one's own rule can not negate the world community's concerns.

The only thing about Mr. Bush is that he is astute enough to silence his opponents everywhere by 'take it or leave it' rule. But he is being successful in dictating terms to politicians of rest of the world just because of the stakes/subsidies/grants the US' influence is capable of making. I don't think by making a mockery of UN's rules and regulations he has set a nice precedent for others. The most respected organisation looked toothless just because of the disregard for its esteem shown by Mr. Bush's regime.

When I mentioned about the future perspective of people I made just one mistake. I didn’t write it is a existing reality and outrage of all literate and gentle people. Otherwise, the wide protest that he faced during election campaigns would have never emanated. Even his own countrymen showed that any leader, regardless of his position and power, has no right to slaughter innocent lives. Surely, there was something that perturbed even a large population of America too. But all said and done Mr. Bush succeed in winning his Presidential elections. But the no. of votes that his closest rival John Kerry received did bespeak almost half of US considered Mr.Bush a misfit in representing their idea of bringing the culprits to justice.

You stated the objective : it was to plant liberty to Iraq.

Well, who authorised Mr. Bush for such a 'sacred' action in someone's country. In the name of protecting US citizen's lives he allowed an uninterrupted massacre in Iraq and Afganistan. Surely, taking such an inhuman action he showed that's what every citizen of America intends. Even though you know it is not the truth. His action had other objectives; be it oil, arms and ammunitions'sale, one upmanship and the due PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS at that time.

Had he been serious about Global terrorism he would have never involved military rulers like Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf.
Even if he is just USING THE PAK PRESIDENT GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF for his own cause 'to nab terrorists', it is ethically wrong. I don't think common sayings like--everything is fair in Love and War--suits the rank and profile of US President. Agreed, this temporary friendship and Lolly-pop show benefitted Mr.Bush's strategy but at present isn't it like keeping mum over another homeland of terrorism. How can just by being with "US MISSION" a dictator or strong supporter of terrorists be confided for being a member of WAR AGAINST TERROR. Isn't it unsuitable to Mr. Bush or the ruler of America, the so called powerful nation equipped with so much nuclear capability?

History is not written in real time by those whose interests are served by having it be " seen" a certain way.

Well, I agree . The most brutal killer always finds more popularity than the ones being killed due to his acts. And, it is the easiest way to receive a place in the record books of History.

I regret when the time comes, that too often very late, he would not be subjected to the severest 'reward' he deserves. The political will and capability of world’s other nations will take long time to get united and take a strong action not stand against any moody leader.

Showing concern for every infant or women folk butchered under the "wars'like this doesnt' make any individual an emotive soul. I think we, as the member of world community, must protest for our every helpless and tortured creature on earth. If I wrote against the 9/11 brutality, I also condemn the right of any leader to massacre the innocent lives for no direct fault of theirs.

You said: If the entire "Islamist" community has become America's rival then that is as it should be, who do you favour?

Well, I stand with people who speak the language of love and care. I show my full sympathies for those who lost their beloved people, in America or Iraq or Afghanistan. I support humans, not over ambitious and fanatic political leaders for whom general public is meant to used for their personal show of might.

I oppose every injustice even caused by official or unofficial soldier cum terrorist'. I see people not any leader's velocity or psychic desperation to get into the history's record books. I just prey for a better world where there’s no ruler but only ideal human beings.

By:

SANDEEP DATTA, INDIA

Let's prey for them who were lost during 2004!

The plight of the suffered can only be empathised when we loose someone beloved due to no fault of his/her. The situation becomes too harsh to reply to when it is created or supported by those who are responsible directly or indirectly for that loss.

Remember! On this Christmas and New Year they are just not there any more to bring cheer on our faces.

I express my deepest sympathies for every single person died and mattered to you and as a fellow human to me. And especially, for all those whom we lost during kidnapping, physical overpowering, and due to the War Against Terror.

By:

SANDEEP DATTA, sandeepdatta7691@rediffmail.com

Namaste Sandeep/India,

I am somewhat disappointed that you would characterize Mr. Bush as a dictator. I find your choice of word rather callous. Why besmirch the name of a man who is has rid Iraq of one of the most brutal despot on earth. A man who killed , raped and pillaged his own fellow country-women and men is more deserving of the title Dictator - don't you agree. The apologentsias and leftists of the world are crying foul and aligning themselves with the screaming and rabid mobs of islamdom in their rebuke of Mr. Bush while amazingly not condemning Saddam Hussein - a personification of Evil ( something that may well delight the hearts of norwegians of an Øyvinian disposition...but then i might be mistaken..LOL.....) Why the extreme ideologues are aligning themselves with the islamist predators is something that eludes me ! Sandeep, India itself is a rather fragile democracy struggling to hold together myriad cultures, languages, peoples and religion -- a truly kaleidoscopic Bharata...yet in your midst lies your achilles heel... the millions and millions of bedouinized hindus ( MERA DIL YEH PUKHARE' ACCA ....) who owes no allegiance to Bharat but to a stone house in Mekka and to their compatriots next door ( pakistanis = equally arabized hindus who consider themselves members of the vicious Ummah , the cultic motherbrood of Mohammad ). India is no stranger to terrorism of its own.... sikhs, tamils, assamese and various separatist groups...but the larger danger lies in your indigenous muslims who are ever in danger of being radicalized. Even in the ex-patriat community in the US i have observed this growing trend of growing radicalization to the point that i can sense in the air a certain malaise between indian citizens towards each other just on the basis of the hindu-islam divide. The point is that you - a citizen of democratic India should be sympathetic towards the democracy of the United States of America ( praise be upon her :)for her efforts to break the shackles of dictatorship and lift the yoke of cruel despotism from the backs of the people of Iraq !

Jay Bharat Jay !!!
Jay Srimad Bhagavatam !!!!

Namo Tasa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sam Buddhasa !

Mano Pubanggama Dharma
Mano Setta Mano Maya !

Angel of Truth and Justice
ملاك الحقيقة و العدل
真相和正義天使

I want to comment on what susan said about Muhammad (P.B.U.H). She doesn't know any history about him and don't know what she is talking about. It is a request for you that if you don;t know anything don;t talk against it.

Thanks

HELLO BALOCH,
In your post above you stated: " I want to comment on what susan said about Muhammad (P.B.U.H). She doesn't know any history about him and don't know what she is talking about..."

I vigorously disagree with you . Susan certainly knows what she is talking about, everybody knows what islam and mohammad is all about, ...everyone in the whole world knows that islam is hoax and that mohammad the founder was a brigand and psychopath....obviously you have not read the oldest available islamic sources concerning the life and character of mohammad...go read ibn Ishaq and others . These are chronicles from islamic sources, not something invented by zionists or so called enemies of Islam.... your own history books and chronicles are your worst enemies , what is written therein indicts the islamic movement for what it is a Cult of death and destruction, a cult with no redeeming values, a cult masquerading as a religion and begging for a theology and ethics. The whole history of islamdom is written in blood, death, destruction, mayhem and chaos. Even as we write 95 % of the worlds conflict involve islam and mohammedans in one form or another. Whoever becomes tainted by this ideology becomes incapable of loving their neighbours as themselves, they become shut off from the love of God.....theirs become a world of rites and rituals and superstitions and hate and violence and vengeance and more vengeance...verily a world of darkness and foreboding for they propitiate a most violent god . Read the following article to learn how even animals love one another. Even animals are capable of love which is an attribute of the Divine and yet you who purport to worship 'god' feel your heart with violence and hate, you cannot even do the simple thing that an animal is capable of...what hope do you have to enter the kingdom of god which is Love when your hearts are wicked and full of hate ?

Please read this eye opening article :

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41228.htm

shukran,

Angel of Truth and Compassion
ملاك الحقيقة و التّعاطف
真相和慈心天使

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/795