Jordanian Bombings

[Tiger's Eye]

This is truly terrible, or rather, as someone had well put it, "a logistical nightmare". Does anyone else feel like this is a repeat of the bombings that took place in Egypt? Deja-vu? Geez...But at least now, the Jordanians are speaking out and protesting against Al-Qaeda. To say that they're pissed would be an understatement. Ugh. I just hope things don't take a turn to even worse events. What are your thoughts on the situation?

 

I put some article links down here about the situation right now in Jordan in case anyone was interested.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_explosion_68;_ylt=AvNjhXMBqual7iMC8oCRbH1YU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (Jordanians Mourn, Protest After Bombings)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_analysis_2;_ylt=Aro4tm.R8LeGbFZJ.EoTHYpYU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (America's Arab Allies Under Attack)

 

Tiger

[LazerFazer]

Interesting comparisons there. I too wonder about the relevance of both Jordan and Egypt being strong supporters of the United States. It does seem like US allies are being targeted, but as Tiger's Eye acknowledged, Jordanian youths are protesting against the attacks. Could this be the beginning of the end of AlQaeda? Also, this further prooves a statement that I made in a different thread about Islam not being a religion of intolerance and militarism. It IS a religion of peace, something that collectively we all want.

 

Another thing... Not only is this a "logistical nightmare" in terms of the dead and injured, but also the long-term effects of these bombings. Living in Egypt, we see first-hand the economic effects of terrorist bombings, and I tell you they're not pleasent. Firstly Jordan has closed its land borders, so theres already a drop in trade with other nations. Then the tourism industry is going to suffer a major decline due to security fears. Much like the airline industry declined after September 11, so will the tourism industry in Jordan. It's a good thing Jordan has other means of foreign income, unlike Egypt which relies heavily on tourism income. Overall, I think this plan is initially going to get AlQaeda what they want (Foreigners leaving the region), but then it's going to turn back and haunt them. Who knows, maybe the world will finally realize that uniting is the only way to eradicate this foe.

 

Now one thing that I noticed is that the policies of AlQaeda and that of the US government are similar ideologically. AlQaeda has basically declared a war against non-Muslims, while the US government has declared war on Muslims. If they work together, who knows, they might be able to destroy the entire world. Wonder who would be happy then.

 

LazerFazer

[Pangloss]

Actually Al Qaeda has declared war on Muslims as well, and the US Government hasn't declared war on Muslims at all -- they're at war against terrorists who happen to be Muslims.

 

And if there's one thing that's certain about these bombings in Jordan, it's that this fact has now been graphically demonstrated to an Arab world that was not previously very interested in the anti-terrorism side of the argument.

[Douglas]

If you assume that Zarqawi isn't stupid (and I do), you have to wonder what his stategy is.

[Skye]

Divide and conquer, I suppose.

[LazerFazer]

@ Pangloss

 

Actually Al Qaeda has declared war on Muslims as well' date=' and the US Government hasn't declared war on Muslims at all -- they're at war against terrorists who happen to be Muslims.

[/quote']

 

Yes, its now seems that AlQaeda is prepared to do achieve their goals through any means. Even if that means the destruction of what they are fighting for. As for the US, can you really say they are only at war with terrorists? Perhaps thats true, but it seems to me that they have yet to make a distinction between terrorists and Muslims. Do you see them going after North Korea? NO. They go after Iraq instead, when there was absolutely no threat from Saddam Husseins regime. You have to question the motives of the 'Coalition of the Willing'. But I'm actually pleased by the success of US-Jordanian and US-Egyptian relations. Over the years they've strengthened, and hopefully the general population can realise that.

 

And if there's one thing that's certain about these bombings in Jordan' date=' it's that this fact has now been graphically demonstrated to an Arab world that was not previously very interested in the anti-terrorism side of the argument.

[/quote']

 

Yup, and that brings back the point that this could quite well be the beginning of the end for AlQaeda. Seriously, what were they thinking. Do they want the entire Arab world to collapse economically? Because it sure seems that way.

 

@Douglas

If you assume that Zarqawi isn't stupid (and I do)' date=' you have to wonder what his stategy is.

[/quote']

 

Well, it seems like his aim at least is to get all the foreigners out of there no matter what. Strategy... Not so clear.

 

@Skye

Care to clarify please?

 

LazerFazer

[Pangloss]

As for the US' date=' can you really say they are only at war with terrorists? Perhaps thats true, but it seems to me that they have yet to make a distinction between terrorists and Muslims. Do you see them going after North Korea? NO. They go after Iraq instead, when there was absolutely no threat from Saddam Husseins regime. You have to question the motives of the 'Coalition of the Willing'. But I'm actually pleased by the success of US-Jordanian and US-Egyptian relations. Over the years they've strengthened, and hopefully the general population can realise that.

[/quote']

 

Well let me be clear that I have no problem with you having an opinion of that kind, and I don't think it makes you a radical or whatnot. But I do disagree with it. I do agree with you regarding Jordan, and I think you can make a valid case for the position that we're being selective in the "war on terror". But I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing, or that it is evidence of ulterior motives.

 

I don't see how you can say that there was no threat from Saddam. If you just mean there was no existing or immediate threat, I agree. But he was rogue, and the UN should have taken him down based solely on the non-compliance issue. Not doing so declared to the world how unwilling the UN is to enforce its own decisions, and created the opportunity that Iran and North Korea are presently taking advantage of to complete their nuclear weapons programs.

 

(IMO the US should have stood back and let the world discover its mistake. It's called "picking your battles carefully". We don't seem to be very good at it, but we're going to need to learn, and learn fast.)

 

 

Yup, and that brings back the point that this could quite well be the beginning of the end for AlQaeda. Seriously, what were they thinking. Do they want the entire Arab world to collapse economically? Because it sure seems that way.

 

Well put. I hope the arab world figures that out.

[LazerFazer]

I do agree with you regarding Jordan' date=' and I think you can make a valid case for the position that we're being selective in the "war on terror". But I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing, or that it is evidence of ulterior motives.

[/quote']

 

Well, if you're going to be selective, that shows evidence of double standards. Then people get the idea of ulterior motives. It isn't really an issue whether there ARE ulterior motives or not, but rather whethere the PERCEPTION of ulterior motives is there. If the world THINKS you have a hidden agenda, it doesn't really matter if they're right or wrong, they're still going to second guess you.

 

I don't see how you can say that there was no threat from Saddam. If you just mean there was no existing or immediate threat' date=' I agree. But he was rogue, and the UN should have taken him down based solely on the non-compliance issue.

[/quote']

 

Well, I was talking about the immediate threat that the US and its allies presented as evidence for the need to remove him from power. Obviously there was no immediate threat, but even if he was a 'rogue', since there was no threat, the international community should have just left him alone. There was no evidence that he was, at that time, comitting crimes against humanity, and thus there was no reason for the international community to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation.

 

Not doing so declared to the world how unwilling the UN is to enforce its own decisions

 

I'm a little unclear on how not attacking Iraq portrayed the UN in that manner. Could you please clarify that? Thanks

 

(IMO the US should have stood back and let the world discover its mistake. It's called "picking your battles carefully". We don't seem to be very good at it' date=' but we're going to need to learn, and learn fast.)

[/quote']

 

Good point. yes, they need to learn when to keep their noses out of things, and when to intervene. If its a matter of internal security, as long as there's no evidence of a breach of the Geneva Convention or other human rights conventions, then the country in question should be allowed to deal with it themselves. Unless of course they appeal for military aid, then its a different question.

 

Well put. I hope the arab world figures that out.

 

Thanks. I hope so too. And it seems like they are figuring it out, slowly but surely.

 

LazerFazer

[Skye]

@Skye

Care to clarify please?

I meant that al Qaeda could well intend to create a tension between Muslims that accept al Qaeda's view of Islam and how Islamic states should be, and Muslims that don't accept that view. The tension would lead to more violence and perhaps ending the rule of the Islamic governments that oppose al Qaeda and ally themselves with the US.

[Pangloss]

Well, if you're going to be selective, that shows evidence of double standards. Then people get the idea of ulterior motives. It isn't really an issue whether there ARE ulterior motives or not, but rather whethere the PERCEPTION of ulterior motives is there. If the world THINKS you have a hidden agenda, it doesn't really matter if they're right or wrong, they're still going to second guess you.

 

Sure. But policy should be based on more than what people think. Opinion can certainly affect policy, but it shouldn't set it. It matters not one bit to me that half of Europe is peeved at the US for invading Iraq. It matters a great deal to me that we've placed ourselves in the crosshairs without a specific local gain. IMO the US should take a more mercenary, self-centered approach to foreign policy. After all, that, apparently, is what "being a member of the community of nations" means in this day and age.

 

 

Well, I was talking about the immediate threat that the US and its allies presented as evidence for the need to remove him from power. Obviously there was no immediate threat, but even if he was a 'rogue', since there was no threat, the international community should have just left him alone. There was no evidence that he was, at that time, comitting crimes against humanity, and thus there was no reason for the international community to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation.

 

Ok, I understand you now, and I respect that opinion. I also disagree -- in my view there was a very good reason for the international community to interfere in the affairs of Iraq. That reason was "because that's what it said it was going to do". The UN showed its true nature, and the results is a less united world, not because the United States invaded Iraq, but because the world (minus 50-some-odd nations) refused to stand behind its words and agreements and promises.

 

In terms of the UN acting on its resolutions, it doesn't matter that Iraq had no WMDs. The UN people said Iraq was in non-compliance, and that was following a terminal resolution to enforce. That's it. That's the end of it. There's no argument, no debate, no discussion, that's it.

 

Bear witness: If the UN cannot act on non-compliance after a terminal resolution to enforce, then it will never be able to enforce anything. The monster has no teeth.