Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Our enemy is not terrorism
eplzaft    5/14/2004 12:18:46 AM
'Our Enemy Is Not Terrorism' The former Secretary of the Navy and current member of the Kean Commission investigating the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States (center) addressed the U.S. Naval Institute 130th Annual Meeting and Annapolis Naval History Symposium on 31 March. Following is an edited version of his remarks “We are at a juncture today that really is more of a threshold, even more of a watershed, than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in 1941. We are currently in a war, but it is not a war on terrorism. In fact, that has been a great confusion, and the sooner we drop that term, the better. This would be like President Franklin Roosevelt saying in World War II, "We are engaged in a war against kamikazes and blitzkrieg." Like them, terrorism is a method, a tool, a weapon that has been used against us. And part of the reason we suffered such a horrific attack is that we were not prepared. Let's not kid ourselves. Some very smart people defeated every single defense this country had, and defeated them easily, with confidence and arrogance. There are many lessons we must learn from this. We were not prepared intellectually. Those of us in the national security field still carried the baggage of the Cold War. We thought in concepts of coalition warfare and the Warsaw Pact. When we thought of terrorism, we thought only of state-sponsored terrorism, which is why the immediate reaction of many in our government agencies after 9/11 was: Which state did it? Saddam, it must have been Saddam. We had failed to grasp, for a variety of reasons, the new phenomenon that had emerged in the world. This was not state-sponsored terrorism. This was religious war. This was the emergence of a transnational enemy driven by religious fervor and fanaticism. Our enemy is not terrorism. Our enemy is violent, Islamic fundamentalism. None of our government institutions was set up with receptors, or even vocabulary, to deal with this. So we left ourselves completely vulnerable to a concerted attack. Where are we today? I'd like to say we have fixed these problems, but we haven't. We have very real vulnerabilities. We have not diminished in any way the fervor and ideology of our enemy. We are fighting them in many areas of the world, and I must say with much better awareness of the issues and their nature. We're fighting with better tools. But I cannot say we are now safe from the kind of attack we saw on 9/11. I think we are much safer than we were on 9/11; the ability of our enemies to launch a concerted, sophisticated attack is much less than it was then. Still, we're totally vulnerable to the kinds of attacks we've seen in Madrid, for instance. We face a very sophisticated and intelligent enemy who has been trained, in many cases, in our universities and gone to school on our methods, learned from their mistakes, and continued to use the very nature of our free society and its aversion to intrusion in privacy and discrimination to their benefit. For example, today it is still a prohibited offense for an airline to have two people of the same ethnic background interviewed at one time, because that is discrimination. Our airline security is still full of holes. Our ability to carry out covert operations abroad is only marginally better than it was at the time of 9/11. A huge amount of fundamental cultural and institutional change must be carried out in the United States before we can effectively deal with the nature of the threat. Today, probably 50 or more states have schools that are teaching jihad, preaching, recruiting, and training. We have absolutely no successful programs even begun to remediate against those efforts. It's very important that people understand the complexity of this threat. We have had to institute new approaches to protecting our civil liberties—the way we authorize surveillance, the way we conduct our immigration and naturalization policies, and the way we issue passports. That's only the beginning. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize the problem, to recognize that for every jihadist we kill or capture—as we carry out an aggressive and positive policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere—another 50 are being trained in schools and mosques around the world. This problem goes back a long way. We have been asleep. Just by chance about six months ago, I picked up a book by V. S. Naipaul, one of the great English prose writers. I love to read his short stories and travelogues. The book was titled Among the Believers (New York: Vintage, 1982) and was an account of his travels in Indonesia, where he found that Saudi-funded schools and mosques were transforming Indonesian society from a very relaxed, syncretist Islam to a jihadist fundamentalist fanatical society, all paid for with Saudi Arabian funding. Nobody paid attention. Presidents in four administrations put their arms around Saudi ambassadors, ignored the Wahhabi jihadism, and said these are our eternal frie
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
ilpars    RE: Salman Rushdie - OnWatch    5/26/2004 4:32:13 AM
I like many Hindus. First of all Ghandi. I like Hindu scientists who founded many great innovations. Whý I do not like Salamn Rushdie got nothing to do with his religion. In fact I do not like many muslims also. Unlike you, I do not value men by their religions. I value them for their own traits. And what Salman Rushdie saying is not questions. They are statements which have formed as questions to have more effect. They are not original either. As I am not one who he is referring to (I am on anti-fundementalist side if you could not figure out yet), I do not know why fundementalists do these. I can make assumptions, guesses but can not know for sure. I can ask some other questions though. Why war's first innocent Arab casualty was an Arab Muslim who was a volunteer to help at WTC event and you do not remember him? Why even when it is obvious that a war in China and Balkans was ethnic, you think it as religious if 1 side is Muslim? Why other fundementalists think that they do not have a know-how of WTC attack when? Does not this shows the inferiority complex they have? Why do you think that every Muslim is fundementalist when it is obvious that they are not? Why do you think that I am an Islamo-apologist when it is obvious that I am not? A fundementalist terrorist bomb has exploded 400 meters away from me. Am I not also their target? I have shown many proofs that Turkey is much more dedicated enemy of fundementalism than any other country, why do you keep ignoring them? Why do you believe every anti-Islamist propaganda before doing at least a small research? I am waiting your answer if you have any.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses    5/26/2004 6:33:57 AM
" He wrote the book on base of a myth. He never gave a single hard proof in the entire book. " True, but not the point. He said it was a novel, a work of fiction. He never claimed it was factual in any way. He based the book on myth- and there are many such books, we call them "stories". Compare this with the "Da VInci Code"- while a work of fiction, the author strongly suggests its a stroy about fact, and the facts are highly upsetting to established Christian churches. (Christ had children??) But no Fatwas, and no Death Threats- if there are Death Threats, they will come from deranged individuals and will have no popular support at all behind them. Contrast this with the large number of people who believe Rushdie should die.
 
Quote    Reply

ilpars    RE:Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses - SGTObvious   5/26/2004 6:44:51 AM
The judgement day will also come for the idiots, who think their ass so holy that they can give fatwas.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    Fatwas, Ilpars   5/26/2004 8:55:45 AM
It's not enough that the day comes for the Fatwa-givers. The problem is that so many people believe that some people can give Fatwas. This has to change. The scope of the change is so big that when it is over, whatever survives might not be recognizable. Here is the problem: You might not be a violent person or a religious fanatic. I know plenty of Pakistanis and Guyanese who are not all violent or fundmentalist. I even knew an Arab who was fundamentalist, but extremely non-violent. But Islam as a whole is slanted towards hatred, intolerance and violence. Before you go nuts, I said "Islam" and not "Muslims" and there is a difference. How do we know that Islam is so slanted? Hear me out before you get upset, please. Well, the obvious: If Islam was not so slanted, then it would be easy for moderate non-fundamentalists to show their fanatic co-religionists the error of their ways. There are plenty of Christian criminals who "Found Christ" and gave up violence after peole taught them about the bible. But this does not work with Muslim Fundamentalists. You cannot sit down with a Jehadi and quote the Quran to him and convince him that his ways are not-Islamic. He will match you quote for quote, and he will know his religion every bit as well as you know yours, maybe better. So, the moderate muslims tell us, its a question of interpretation. Is it? "Peace and Tolerance" and "Conquest, Glory, Death to Enemies" are two very different concepts. They are not merely different interpretations. Yes, I know words can change between languages. "Jehad" can translate as "Struggle" in English, and Struggle, in Spanish "Lucha" can be interpreted as "Wrestle" (And in fact it usually is). But we know that the Jehadis are not the Arabian Olympic Wrestling Team. Something is very, very wrong, when a lot of people can take a document, supposedly a clearly understandable document (Does not the Quran say it is clearly understandable?) and get two opposing interpretations of War and Peace. We have to look at the possibilities: 1) Islam is about Peace, and the Jehadis, despite all their learning, all their study in all those Madrassas, are not reading it right. 2) Islam is about War, and all the moderates do not understand it. 3) Islam is just a muddled, rambling, mix, and you get out of it only what you bring into it. And if #3 is the case, then what does it mean to be "Muslim"? What lessons does Islam really have, other than "what you seek, you will find"? If you say it teaches Peace, you must admit, it is a poor teacher. Or are Arabs poor learners? How much of it is merely a reflection of values and customs of the Arab tribes long before Mohammed? Yes, you can find good things in Islamic- but the reality is this. The good you find there is not "islamic", it is universal. So maybe the answer is this, Ilpars. You are not Muslim, and neither are many of the people who think they are Muslim. Instead, you beleive in certain ethical principles which existed long before Mohamed. You beleive in One God, so maybe you are Deist. http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm Maybe your Deist beliefs have incorporated many Islamic traditions, but that's OK, as American Deists have incorporated many Judeo-Christian traditions. And older traditions. "Easter" and "Halloween" are much older than Christianity.
 
Quote    Reply

ilpars    Turks and Islam   5/26/2004 9:51:25 AM
I admit that Turkish version of Islam is affected by shamanist Tengri religion traditions of Ancient Turks. And I am not a hard core Muslim who knows Qur'an by heart. So I do not know how much of my belief system is from Islam, how much is from Turkish traditions. I have been teached in Islam by my Grandfather who is a very good hearted and respectful men. My historical knowledge is very good and because of this knowledge I have a distrust to religious caste of all religions. They are the cause of all religious wars and many enmities and distrusts. I believe that there are many differances that seperate Turkey from many other Muslim countries. 1. Turkey never invaded. On the contrary we won our last great war. So there is no imferiority complex in Turkey. 2. All other Muslim countries were invaded and ruled by Western countries until the end of WW2. There were several atrocities during that time. And people of this countries did not forget that. I believe this is the main reason of their enmity. Reminding them past is generally enough to make them believe Western countries once more trying to end their freedom. 3. Until Turkey Republic is founded, Turks were generally minority in the lands they conquered. So Turks know what is like to be a minority. Arabs did not have the same experience. 4. I have mentioned there is an effect of ancient Tengri religion in Turks. But how much this effected our belief system I have no idea. 5. Turkey believe in itself. In every year we are getting better and better in every subject. Science, art, sports, trade, military, domestic, industry, life style. That makes us believe that we are in the right path. Other modernization attempts in other muslim countries did not witness that kind of success. 6. Turkey is a democracy for a long time. Most of th other muslim countries ruled by dictators or monarchs for a long time. Only few has a democracy background. History shows us that radicalism is much stronger in unliberal countries. 7. Turkey do not have a religious caste. Iran is failed because of their religious caste's revolution. 7. We had Ataturk. His influence in modern Turkey is great.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    RE: Salman Rushdie    5/26/2004 1:09:02 PM
You don't have to like a guy or agree with him, just because you support the idea that he should be able to write his book without fear for his life. For instance: I think Michael Moore is a piece of s**t and full of it, that doesn't mean that I want him dead or that I'm willing pay $1000000 for it. Or that I want his publishers or translators dead.
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE: Salman Rushdie - illpars    5/26/2004 1:26:21 PM
Turk, re: your "China and the Balkans" dodge, belay the smoke screen! Further, you respond to posted questions with hot air questions, and glaringly fail to answer Rushdie's pertinent questions, which are fundamental to the thread, ie, Former SecNav Lehman's address to the Naval Institue - "Our enemies are not terrorists". Now Hear this once again illpard: The Civilized Worlds enemy is ISLaM as written, and as practiced world-wide today! You seem to think that because you wrap a turkish towel around the Islamist ENEMY. every lil thing will be just hunky dory! MANURE! As I've said to you before Pal, when ISLAM has an epiphany on par with the Catholic reformation and condemns violence as a means to export their religion of hate - then - and only then will that religion be entitled to a modicum of respect. Till then, IT, and all of it's practitioners will considered as suspects to a conspiracy to murder Americans and all other innocents who stand in opposition to it's dream of Global Dominion. As for the bombs bursting in your Baliwick perhaps it has more to do with beating the soles of your Kurdish prisoners feet till their bloody has something to do with it! On Watch -- Let's Roll
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    Michael Moore, FJV   5/26/2004 1:49:15 PM
"I think Michael Moore is a piece of s**t and full of it, that doesn't mean that I want him dead or that I'm willing pay $1000000 for it." I almost agree. You see, a piece of s**t is useful in some ways, for instance, you could use it to fertilize a plant. But, I still would not kill him or pay to kill him. On the other hand, if he was in urgent need of a blood transfusion and I was the only available donor, I'm sure I would have much more important things to do first, like cleaning my floor or arranging all my socks in length order.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    RE:Turks and Islam, a discussion with Ilpars   5/26/2004 2:00:35 PM
"I admit that Turkish version of Islam is affected by shamanist Tengri religion traditions of Ancient Turks." That is good! So maybe we can give the Turkish religion a new name? You really should not say "muslims" because it is not the whole story, right? Sihks, Druze, and Bahais all have religions with Muslim roots, changed and added to over the years. Maybe Turks need something like them? "And I am not a hard core Muslim who knows Qur'an by heart." Thank God! And I mean that, exactly, thank God! "So I do not know how much of my belief system is from Islam, how much is from Turkish traditions." Does it matter? Which is more important to you, your own sense of right and wrong or the words in an Arabic book that you admit you do not know by heart? If the Quran told you to do something you know is wrong, would you do it? Right and Wrong are universal principles and should not be confused with religion. "I have been teached in Islam by my Grandfather who is a very good hearted and respectful men." Then, I claim, your grandfather also taught you Good. It is not the same thing, although it may overlap in places. "My historical knowledge is very good and because of this knowledge I have a distrust to religious caste of all religions. They are the cause of all religious wars and many enmities and distrusts." So, in your heart, you are a Deist, not a Muslim. It is a good thing you don't live in Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, because for what you just said, they would kill you. "I believe that there are many differances that seperate Turkey from many other Muslim countries." Again, Thank God!
 
Quote    Reply

ilpars    RE: Salman Rushdie - FJV    5/27/2004 2:31:17 AM
My exact opinion. Thank you.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics