Sri Lanka bombings

Oct 2015
1,138
India
I dont see how removing Saddam helped in the war on terror.. Au contraire it led to all kinds of stronger terror groups, chief of all ISIS....

The Taliban seem stronger than anytime since the US invasion toppled their regime... and there are now negotiations with them.... when you negotiate with terrorists its not a sign that you are winning
Hi @tomar : In military & foreign policy actions there are always unintended consequences which need to be dealt with. These were managed by US consistently and determinedly, which I will try to explain:

1. Saddam & Iraq:

1.1 Assume US had not challenged Saddam's conquest of Kuwait what would he have done next? People like Saddam are ambitious & not status-quo powers like India. Saddam's next target would have been Saudi which is a weak military state. If Saddam succeeded in this, then world's major oil resources would be under control of Saddam giving him the capacity to disrupt world economy. (Remember the 1973 oil shock? Oil price tripled in few months and then doubled in next couple of years. Inflation rate in India touched 25% per year). Moreover Saudi is an ally of USA.

1.2 The unintended consequence of Saddam's departure was that the vacuum was filled by ISIS. So as the next step, US enlisted help of Kurds and Syrian to tackle ISIS. I suppose lots of dollars were spent. ISIS is now not a territorial power.

1.3 Though War on Saddam was named as 'War on Terror' but it was more than that. A balloon was floated that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction'. We need to differentiate rhetoric from realpolitik. The aims of Iraq war are explained above.

2. Taliban & Afghaanistan:

2.1 The main thrust of US policy in Afghanistan was to evict the Russian occupation of that country. This was achieved in 1990 by enlisting decade long support of Pakistan. US objective in Afghanistan was fully achieved by 1990.

2.2 Problem for US came when at time of withdrawing from that country. It tried to install a democratically elected government so that Russians do not re-enter.

2.3 Such government was not sustainable because (i) Pakistan started playing a foul game wanting to destabilize Afg. and (ii) Islamic terror groups had become powerful in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and were not fully under control of anyone. This was an unintended consequence of Russian expulsion. So what next?

3.3 US attempted to involve India asking us to send troops to Afghanistan to fight Taliban. We did not take the bait but has continued developmental work there (building roads etc).

3.4 Finally, accepting the ground reality, US has taken a pragmatic decision. Reversing its earlier stand, it has begun talks with 'Taliban' to domesticate it - so that when it withdraws, old allies of US in Afg are not massacred.

I guess we should take this discussion elsewhere or close it.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
News trickling out of China suggests that the country is engaged in a major dry-cleaning operation so that radical side of Islam does not take root.


They seem to have an issue with this minority. If there is one thing I envy bout China, it is that country's ability to take effective action which is today its defining characteristic.
True. China and Israel, they both can.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
I dont see how removing Saddam helped in the war on terror.. Au contraire it led to all kinds of stronger terror groups, chief of all ISIS....

The Taliban seem stronger than anytime since the US invasion toppled their regime... and there are now negotiations with them.... when you negotiate with terrorists its not a sign that you are winning
Of course it didn’t.

Of all Islamic Midleastern states, Iran was the most secular. And Saddham, horrible as he was, was holding own people in check. He had nothing to do with 9-11. There was a reason why GW’s father let him remain in power after the Gulf War. In his own words, “And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is, not that damned many”.

I am not going to even guess why the Iraqi invasion was that important, but it was a horrible blunder. I foresaw that the country would be left to own tribal war, but I could not foresee ISIS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angelica

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Hi @tomar : In military & foreign policy actions there are always unintended consequences which need to be dealt with. These were managed by US consistently and determinedly, which I will try to explain:

1. Saddam & Iraq:

1.1 Assume US had not challenged Saddam's conquest of Kuwait what would he have done next? People like Saddam are ambitious & not status-quo powers like India. Saddam's next target would have been Saudi which is a weak military state. If Saddam succeeded in this, then world's major oil resources would be under control of Saddam giving him the capacity to disrupt world economy. (Remember the 1973 oil shock? Oil price tripled in few months and then doubled in next couple of years. Inflation rate in India touched 25% per year). Moreover Saudi is an ally of USA.

1.2 The unintended consequence of Saddam's departure was that the vacuum was filled by ISIS. So as the next step, US enlisted help of Kurds and Syrian to tackle ISIS. I suppose lots of dollars were spent. ISIS is now not a territorial power.

1.3 Though War on Saddam was named as 'War on Terror' but it was more than that. A balloon was floated that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction'. We need to differentiate rhetoric from realpolitik. The aims of Iraq war are explained above.

2. Taliban & Afghaanistan:

2.1 The main thrust of US policy in Afghanistan was to evict the Russian occupation of that country. This was achieved in 1990 by enlisting decade long support of Pakistan. US objective in Afghanistan was fully achieved by 1990.

2.2 Problem for US came when at time of withdrawing from that country. It tried to install a democratically elected government so that Russians do not re-enter.

2.3 Such government was not sustainable because (i) Pakistan started playing a foul game wanting to destabilize Afg. and (ii) Islamic terror groups had become powerful in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and were not fully under control of anyone. This was an unintended consequence of Russian expulsion. So what next?

3.3 US attempted to involve India asking us to send troops to Afghanistan to fight Taliban. We did not take the bait but has continued developmental work there (building roads etc).

3.4 Finally, accepting the ground reality, US has taken a pragmatic decision. Reversing its earlier stand, it has begun talks with 'Taliban' to domesticate it - so that when it withdraws, old allies of US in Afg are not massacred.

I guess we should take this discussion elsewhere or close it.
Really?

You have to lay one entire country of twenty million people to virtually complete waste, just to destroy one man whom you do not like?

Come on. There is only one word for that. BS.
 
Jul 2016
1,338
Dengie Peninsula
Sri Lanka. Today , you cannot cover your face , Not unreasonable methinks, in view of the recent past and ongoing threats. I suppose some religions who want their people to be covered will be upset, but, tough. Sri lanka wants to save lives.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Sensible move. My condolences to the close family, relatives & friends of the victims.

On one hand, I would be the first to give moral backing to those fighting righteously, honourably & courageously to defend their land from foreign intervention, aggression, invasion & occupation, whatever their creed or colour.

But OTOH, I have neither sympathy nor respect for guys idiotic enough & insane enough to blow themselves up in order to indiscriminately destroy many others of a different faith or leaning, just because their brain is too weedy & too dysfunctional to resist being persuaded by someone else that doing that guarantees them an express ticket to their own imagined 'paradise'.

Governments everywhere, please by all means do everything you have to do to thwart & eliminate this kind of guys, as well as the masterminds, organisers, sponsors, backers etc. behind them. Without necessarily abusing your own power, might, influence etc., for example to arbitrarily label people (including possibly also your own citizens), countries, organisations etc. whom you do not like as 'terrorist', 'terrorist organisation', 'terrorist state' etc. pursuant to your own agenda.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,217
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I'd hate to be a ski mask and motorbike helmet salesman in Sri Lanka right now.
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
Today IS has issued a tri-lingual statement in India and Bangladesh that that they will commit terror attacks in West Bengal (a province in east India) and Bangladesh.

So My view is that to understand "Islamism" (Radical Islam) one needs a global focus as country focus is not enough.

Of course, most Indian muslims are different and do not fall prey to radicalization. However, it is not impossible that a handful could get radicalized.

Under the circumstances, if there is any act of terror, the perpetrators along with their collaborators will be neutralized. But in the process other things happen. First is some innocents who are in suspects list will suffer as will their families. Muslims will get bad name as their religion would get further identified with terror attacks. Their economic welfare will also suffer as non-Muslims will keep them at a distance.