Germany (catch all, incl. terrorism)

[Tacitus]

Btw, did you miss that the 9/11 pilots learned to fly in Florida?

Why some flight students were so interested in learning to fly a jet airplane, but unconcerned with how to land it, ought to have caused somebody down there in Florida to wonder just WHAT kind of pilot they were training to be. Since the demand for Kamikaze pilots dried up on September 2, 1945, this sort of pilot training has gone out of fashion, I believe.

I'm just saying that if an Al Qaeda sleeper agent pulled off some big 9/11 style attack on Canada tomorrow, and it turns out he was organizing the thing out of a farmhouse in Indiana, the fact that he decided to attack elsewhere wouldn't make me feel any safer or immune from whatever this terrorist group might pull next. I am pretty sure most Americans would feel the same. But maybe we are a unique nation for feeling that way.

Where Americans differ amongst themselves is this Iraq thing. Some think this Iraq democracy project is "the central front in the war on terror".

Others, perhaps thinking that the mere idea of a front applied to a terrorist group is a strange metaphor to begin with, are skeptical of this.

I'll tell you in November which political leader of these respective groups will have the most say in what happens next.

[Fuchs]

I'm just saying that if an Al Qaeda sleeper agent pulled off some big 9/11 style attack on Canada tomorrow, and it turns out he was organizing the thing out of a farmhouse in Indiana, the fact that he decided to attack elsewhere wouldn't make me feel any safer or immune from whatever this terrorist group might pull next.

The reason why Germans don't feel as being really threatened by AQ is more that we didn't piss the Arabs off for 25 years (well, just a little bit - about twice since 2002; OEF and Mohammed caricature re-prints).

[Ken White]

The reason why Germans don't feel as being really threatened by AQ is more that we didn't piss the Arabs off for 25 years (well, just a little bit - about twice since 2002; OEF and Mohammed caricature re-prints).

far longer than that...

[Tacitus]

far longer than that...

Amen to that, Ken.

You could trace the USA's conflict with violent, Islamic elements all the way back to 1784, when the ink was barely dry on the peace treaty with Britain. The Barbary Pirates, anyone?

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

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

Citing the Koran as a justification to kill, rob, and/or enslave American infidels was well chronicled in history long before Nixon or Carter occupied the White House. U.S. Marines singing about fighting "to the shores of Tripoli", doesn't have anything to do with Colonel Khadaffi.

[davidbfpo]

Excellent thread, especially Fuchs comments.

I do wonder, nay ask, whether the FRG has not changed its counter-terrorism laws and techniques as they are quite adequate to the threat? There are some, on both sides of the Atlantic, that feel many of the legislation passed since 9/11 has been more "spin" than substance.

Inidentally it was important in the UK to make illegal private possession of nuclear material, an important gap in our laws.

davidbfpo

[Fuchs]

Thanks, Davidbfpo.
The CT changes of laws have mostly increased the ability of the state to spy on and find (in population databases) extremists in Germany. Attempts to establish a domestic CT role of the Bundeswehr have been repelled.

One problem with the new competencies is that their success is often reported as marginal, but greater success is probably simply kept as secret.
I personally believe that many new competencies have become useless against all but the dumbest wannabe-terrorists simply because these competencies have become publicly known and suspects can adapt to the new situation.

Classic example: A Muslim terrorist might book a flight and order a pork meal, but simply doesn't eat the pork. The competence to look at databases for specific behaviours (like to not order the pork meal because you're probably Muslim) to add suspicion points could easily be fooled like this. With up to several years of intense discussion on the law changes you can bet that the suspects have adapted even before the new laws were in force. What's left? Our state moved some steps towards police state for probably no real benefit.


Tacitus, Ken White;
I believe the today really relevant conflicts with Arabs began in 1973 when the USA attempted to save Israel. It had a rather low profile till then. I believe that older conflicts are quite irrelevant and were not of greater scope than conflicts with Europeans (which remained much less troublesome than 9/11 except of course the Algerian war of independence).

The U.S. conflict with Persians might date back due to the support (or establishment?) of the Shah regime, but concerning the Arabs I'd say 25 years = since 1973.

[Ken White]

...I believe the today really relevant conflicts with Arabs began in 1973 when the USA attempted to save Israel. It had a rather low profile till then. I believe that older conflicts are quite irrelevant and were not of greater scope than conflicts with Europeans (which remained much less troublesome than 9/11 except of course the Algerian war of independence).

The U.S. conflict with Persians might date back due to the support (or establishment?) of the Shah regime, but concerning the Arabs I'd say 25 years = since 1973.

but our intrusion into the area with the British during WW II started the trend; immediate post war efforts by us alone aimed at eclipsing the British and French made us the focus of concern (and predictably aroused the ire of those two western Nations but that's another thread).

Placing Mohammed Reza on the Peacock throne and then colluding with the British to keep him there in 1953 did not help. That was all survivable but Lyndon Johnson's massive support of Israel in 1967 -- it had really been sort of tepid prior to that -- tilted the balance. The support in 1973 just went further in reinforcing that downward trend.

Add to that the intrusion of despised western (but mostly American) 'culture' from 1945 forward with acceleration due to better global communication in the post 1960 era and we are correctly and widely seen as having far more than our nose under the tent.

Couple all that with inappropriate responses to the to be expected lashing out at the Great Satan from folks in the ME and we have a classic example of unthinking and unsophisticated intrusion coupled with an ignorance bred response to the utterly predictable strikes which merely exacerbated the problem.

We haven't done much in the ME very well and we've been doing that for a good many years...

[Sarajevo071]

Tacitus, Ken White;
I believe the today really relevant conflicts with Arabs began in 1973 when the USA attempted to save Israel. It had a rather low profile till then. I believe that older conflicts are quite irrelevant and were not of greater scope than conflicts with Europeans (which remained much less troublesome than 9/11 except of course the Algerian war of independence).

The U.S. conflict with Persians might date back due to the support (or establishment?) of the Shah regime, but concerning the Arabs I'd say 25 years = since 1973.

If I may to inject myself into this with a litle comment, I would agree and say that is 100% on point with regards to U.S. Until then main fight was against UK & French imperialism.

Also, I would like to remind everyone when talking about Germany (in particular) and Europe (in general) that one can not talk about Muslim anger, and reasons for action of some individuals, without to mention hostility of EU against Turkey and they membership (purely based on history, hate and xenophobia), and West inaction in Bosnia. That was main rally call of "Hamburg group", right?

[Surferbeetle]

Thanks, Davidbfpo.

I believe the today really relevant conflicts with Arabs began in 1973 when the USA attempted to save Israel. It had a rather low profile till then. I believe that older conflicts are quite irrelevant and were not of greater scope than conflicts with Europeans (which remained much less troublesome than 9/11 except of course the Algerian war of independence).

The U.S. conflict with Persians might date back due to the support (or establishment?) of the Shah regime, but concerning the Arabs I'd say 25 years = since 1973.

Fuchs,

During my year in Iraq I was amazed to find that people really and truly cared about Sunni-Shia split in 632 and what the Ottoman Turks did in Iraq 1831.

Herr Uhrlau of the BND has an interesting take on things...

Uhrlau: We mustn't fool ourselves. From the standpoint of the sponsors of terrorism and their accomplices, we belong to the "crusaders." German soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan, and the German navy is patrolling the waters off the Horn of Africa and in the Mediterranean off the Lebanese coast. From the perspective of the terrorists, we have adopted a clear position in this conflict -- they see us as being on the side of the attackers.

Do you see Otto von Bismarck's alliance with the Ottoman Turks as a positive and how does that square with the EU's current stance on the accession of Turkey?

Regards,

Steve

[selil]

I'm just saying that if an Al Qaeda sleeper agent pulled off some big 9/11 style attack on Canada tomorrow, and it turns out he was organizing the thing out of a farmhouse in Indiana, the fact that he decided to attack elsewhere wouldn't make me feel any safer or immune from whatever this terrorist group might pull next.

There are terrorists in Indiana!!!??? I bet they are hiding in the corn... I'll get my gun.