Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HAMAS wins?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HAMAS wins?

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ion/index.html

    Now that Hamas will be in power in Palestine, what will the US do? We consider them a terrorist organization. Invasion? Lots of covert action? Plenty of military funding to Israel? Sit on our hands as we continue on in Iraq?
    [squadl]
    "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

  • #2
    Re: So, what are we going to do?

    Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
    Sit on our hands as we continue on in Iraq?
    Yes, option 3.

    Maybe I am being naive, I don't really think this is that big of a deal. From what I've heard and read so far in the news, Hamas is talking and acting more and more like a political organization. As far as it's history and track record, it's not a whole lot different than the PLO under Yasser Arafat, who, at least in its early days publicly denounced the state of Israel and vowed to bring about its destruction.

    With all this talk of spreading freedom and democracy, it needs to be understood that democracies can be narrow-minded, war mongering, and borderline criminal enterprises. They are representatives of the people - and the Palestinian people are pretty ticked off right now - have been for years and years.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: So, what are we going to do?

      Up until Al-Quada became a household name Hamas was, in my mind, the seemingly biggest terrorist organization around for the past 10 years in the Middle East. They were the ones constantly being reported in the news. As much as I cringed when I heard the news this morning, I think option 3 might be the best way to go at the moment. Wait it out and give the situation enough time to evaluate whether they're going to play a little nicer or cause more trouble. If it's the former, than that's a great first step in their early democracy and proves they can be worked with. If it's the latter....well....then we stick to our guns about dealing with terrorists.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: So, what are we going to do?

        Hmm... perhaps I should have clarified a bit. I didn't mean "what do you think we should do?", but more of, "So, what do you think the government will do?" While I'm not for war, I think it'd be pretty interesting watching the powers that be explain and dance around why we're not invading a country run by a terrorist organization during our great war on terror.
        [squadl]
        "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

        Comment


        • #5
          HAMAS wins?

          I was just wondering if this shocks anyone. How will this effect Israel?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: So, what are we going to do?

            Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
            While I'm not for war, I think it'd be pretty interesting watching the powers that be explain and dance around why we're not invading a country run by a terrorist organization during our great war on terror.
            I think that we'll take Hamas off of our list of terrorist organizations and support their budding democracy. If the screw up somehow, all bets are off, though.
            Become a supporting member!
            Buy a Tactical Duck!
            Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
            TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: So, what are we going to do?

              Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
              While I'm not for war, I think it'd be pretty interesting watching the powers that be explain and dance around why we're not invading a country run by a terrorist organization during our great war on terror.
              Yup. Just add this to the growing list of reasons why Bush's ad campaign for the 'war on terror' is a bad idea. Then again, what difference does it make. The political future for him and his administration has an expiration date coming up (3 years from now).

              Again, it is impossible to wage a 'war' against terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic - and terrorists are not a unified army of some kind that you can just go out and fight. Bu****es would answer 'yes, but that's exactly why the war on terror is unlike any war we have ever fought.' And I would answer 'no, it's just like quite a few wars we have fought before - unwinnable.'

              My prediction that the American government/Bush admin will continue to back Israel, who will no doubt have a lot of friction with the new Palenstinian government. I'm willing to bet that Bush never again refers to Hamas as a terrorist regime (which he has in the past, in fact going as far to use Hussein's relations with them as a reason to invade Iraq). I would imagine that Bush simply says that this is democracy at work, and time will tell if the Palestinians have made a wise choice.

              The bigger question is whether or not Iraq will go down the same path. The U.S. is desparately trying to make sure that does not happen (but we most certainly are not nation-building!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: So, what are we going to do?

                Please help me understand how you'd suggest addressing the events of 9/11 and providing for national security with regard to terrorist attacks?

                I agree that we'll hope like hell that Hamas straightens up and flies right, and prepare for something less than that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: So, what are we going to do?

                  Originally posted by leejo
                  Please help me understand how you'd suggest addressing the events of 9/11 and providing for national security with regard to terrorist attacks?
                  The rational point of view is not to declare war on a political tactic, but on the individuals that prosecuted the events of 9/11.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: HAMAS Win's?

                    I didn't find this particularly surprising. The win could have a number of positive consequences, in that it might force Israel to take the Palestinians more seriously, and could accelerate the peace process. Alternatively, it may take Israel's attention away from Iran, relieving that particular build-up of tension.

                    One Israeli official said "[The Hamas victory is the] direct result of the...Palestinian realisation that terror and violence is the way to achieve political gains", and I guess that it's a response to Israel's hardline stance.

                    [conduct][volun][drill][sg-c1][tpf-c1]
                    |TG-2nd|munchkin
                    Nec aspera terrent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: So, what are we going to do?

                      True. But when political or diplomatic considerations force you to accomodate iffy allies rather than further alienate them, you wind up with goofy "wars on terror" instead of wars on Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, etc., all at the same time.

                      We may still wind up with that. My question is, what else would you have done? How would you have played your hand differently if you have a number of governments who generally play ball but have large segments of their population who are hostile to you? Do you play footsie with matters and create a war on terror but *not* radical islam with the hope that you'll democratize the region faster than they can make it more radical? Or do you dive into the deep end of the pool and truly hold these governments accountable for their populations' actions?

                      Or do you blame the other side of the aisle and do nothing?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: So, what are we going to do?

                        Originally posted by TG_Mateo
                        The rational point of view is not to declare war on a political tactic, but on the individuals that prosecuted the events of 9/11.
                        If you listen to what bin Laden and his ilk are saying, all "True Believers" are brothers who must rise up against "the Zionists" and "the Jews" and "the Americans" and "the other Western regimes." Individuals fighting for that cause are all part of the same group, even though certain of them weren't actually present for the 9/11 bombing. Don't you think that ALL "True Believers" would have been there on 9/11 if they could have been, instead of just a few?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: So, what are we going to do?

                          Originally posted by leejo
                          True. But when political or diplomatic considerations force you to accomodate iffy allies rather than further alienate them, you wind up with goofy "wars on terror" instead of wars on Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, etc., all at the same time.

                          We may still wind up with that. My question is, what else would you have done? How would you have played your hand differently if you have a number of governments who generally play ball but have large segments of their population who are hostile to you? Do you play footsie with matters and create a war on terror but *not* radical islam with the hope that you'll democratize the region faster than they can make it more radical? Or do you dive into the deep end of the pool and truly hold these governments accountable for their populations' actions?

                          Or do you blame the other side of the aisle and do nothing?
                          War on ideas, like the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terrorism", the "War on Poverty" are great from a PR standpoint: you can get the lay person behind them pretty quick.

                          "You aren't for drugs/terrorism/poverty are ya?"

                          A more prudent tactic, however, would be: Declare War on Al-Queda. In the prosecution of that war, you expand the conflict to include those sympathizers, supporters, bankrollers, and affiliates, in effect backing into a broadscale war against radical islamist terrorist groups.

                          You get the following as a result: defined enemies, goals, and milestones in the war, all of which are key to retaining popular support for the war, and troop morale.

                          Declaring a War on Terrorism has no definable end state: a world without terrorism is not actually possible, since it is a political tool.

                          Keep in mind, we had ample reason to go into Iraq, even without the phonied up WMD: we could have just said "we are enforcing the litany of directives levelled at the regime in Iraq" or "Due to our ongoing commitment to bring in the perprators of genocide throughout the world, we require the surrender and extradition of Saddam Hussien".

                          We could do the same throughout the region. Syria? Jordan? Just ask Israel: both known to turn a blind eye to and even aid radical islamic groups, including Al-Queda, Hamas, etc..

                          Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest bankrollers of terrorism throughout the world. The only reason we don't go after the Fauds directly is because they have extensive political connections in the West, and are major land/stock/debt holders in the US.

                          You can end up democratizing the entire region, legitimately, simply by going after the terrorists and their networks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: So, what are we going to do?

                            Originally posted by Strag
                            If you listen to what bin Laden and his ilk are saying, all "True Believers" are brothers who must rise up against "the Zionists" and "the Jews" and "the Americans" and "the other Western regimes." Individuals fighting for that cause are all part of the same group, even though certain of them weren't actually present for the 9/11 bombing. Don't you think that ALL "True Believers" would have been there on 9/11 if they could have been, instead of just a few?
                            "True Believers?" The definition of that is: "People who believe in our vision of Islam and the methods we use to achieve our religious and political goals."

                            That includes all of Al-Queda, it's affiliate groups and cells, financial and political supporters, etc., but it is a small, but definable, group.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: HAMAS Win's?

                              There's some more discussion on this topic here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...-going-do.html

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X