None, other than the top of my head. Seemd slightly relevant to the conversation though.

I'm starting to think saying we are at war with only Islamic fundalmentalist terrorists and not Islam is akin to saying we are at war with kamikazes but not the Japanese.

• Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
• Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
• Ahyaul Turaz al-Islami
• al Assirat al Moustaquim
• Al Barq
• Al Gama’a al Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
• Al Ittihad al Islami (AIAI)
• Al Jama’a al Islamiyyah al Muqatilah bi Libya
• Al Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
• Al Qa'nun
• Al Qaida
• Al Tawhid
• Al-Badhr Mujahidin (al-Badr)
• Allied Democratic Forces (ADF)
• Ansar al Islam
• Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
• Asbat al Ansar
• Asif Raza Commandoes
• Brotherhood of al-Ma’unah
• East Turkestan Islamic Movement
• Free Aceh Movement
• Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C)
• HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
• Harakat ul Jihad I Islami (HUJI) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
• Harakat ul Jihad I Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B) (Movement of Islamic Holy War)
• Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM) (Movement of Holy Warriors)
• Harkat ul Ansar
• Hezb e Islami
• Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami
• Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
• Hizballah (Party of God)
• Islami Inquilabi Mahaz
• Islami Jamaat e Tulba
• Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites
• Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
• Islamic Front
• Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB)
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
• Islamic Party of Turkestan
• Islamic Students League
• Jaish e Mohammed E Tanzeem(JEM)
• Jamaat I Islami
• Jamaat ul Mujahideen
• Jamiat ul Mujahideen (JUM)
• Jammu and Kashmir Freedom Force
• Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
• Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM)
• Lashkar e Tayyiba (LT)
• Liberation Party
• Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
• Moro Islamic Liberation Front
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
• Movement for the Struggle of the Jordanian Islamic Resistance
• Mujahedeen Kompak
• Mujahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
• New People’s Army (NPA)
• Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
• People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD)
• Return Party
• Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
• Salifiya Jihadiya
• Sipah I Sahaba/Pakistan
• Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)
• Taliban
• Tehreek e Jaferia Pakistan (TJP)
• Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Mohammadi (TNSM)
• Tehrik e Jehad e Islami
• Tunisian Combatant Group (TCG)
• Tunisian Islamic Front
• Turkish Hizballah
http://www.terrorism.com/index.php

I'm with you NDD !!!

I just saw a piece on the rise of religion, specifically Christianity, in the US. Media coverage of religious themes is up 300% in the last 10 years and religious article sales, not including movies, is an $8 billion business now. Cardinal Mahoney was interviewed and said that in his opinion more than anything else 9/11 and the ongoing terrorist attacks are the reason for the rediscovery of Christianity. People are scared.

Polarization?

You see, what the good people at terrorism.com fail to point out is that that list of groups is actually onlt 6 guys running around causing trouble. Their names are Phil, Steve, Tom, Fred, Albert, and Akhmed.

LOL - yeah right. Do I need to deprogram you for Stockholm Syndrome?

Fag Car Racing...???
 

NDD, Oh great one. I was going along reading this for me education and had to come back to this comment, You don't mean NASCAR too do you? (trying to hold back tears now) Bill

Mr. Harsey,
Out of respect to you, I will refrain from further comment regarding the mind-numbing "sport" of going 'round and 'round in circles in a car painted like a clown mobile.

LOL! Your right!

Blair on Iraq
 

Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq
The Observer ^ | Sunday April 11, 2004 | Tony Blair

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more
than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not,
it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope
of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out.
Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant.
Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that
the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set
back in bitter disappointment. If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a
sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the
wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their
oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human
rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the
extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate
all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their
gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the
true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men
prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can.
Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is
worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to
Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter
reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They
threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of
Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only
for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings
about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it
as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path
toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they
use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the
retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do
far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation
and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced
with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of
Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly
replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This
is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is
undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has
not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis
reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that
their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to
al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric,
Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia
opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence.
He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much
more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an
Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the
personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western
reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved
assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to
follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant
despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist
who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship
which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the
rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who
dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to
Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi
government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen.
People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just
survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard;
people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent,
forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that
'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they,
too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But
they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the
mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for
democracy.

The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the
coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There
is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of
neglect is slowly being repaired.

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar,
but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening
up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent
the next.

The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in
circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or
quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been
imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where
they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them
how awful the Americans are.

The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut.
Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the
new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly
visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education
system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these
standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce
al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the
answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West
left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to
democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility.
They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the
terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?

I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None
of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an
agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about
pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively
remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the
Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle
East; dialogue between main religions.

I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our
values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others;
the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that
prosperity on pointless feuding and war.

But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is
our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic
extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11
September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they
seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists,
to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on
their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq,
they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to
withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows?
But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they
have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are,
the more they will come after us.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism
and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to
tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we
in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern
existence, we are in grave danger.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it
is happening now in Iraq.

That was a great article, thanks Jimbo.

In comparison to other modern wars, how much do you think the media will figure in the end result in Iraq?

Thank you,

Solid

Great article Jimbo.

Solid, IMHO the media always has and always will try to affect the outcome of many things including the GWOT with their own personal bias or spin (most not all..) The constant comparison to Vietnam for example...it makes me ill. I watched a special last night after Band of Brothers on THC, about the Screaming Eagles, and one COL (I apologize I missed his name) said...We did not lose, we left. (referring to the pull out from the region) This is NOT Vietnam...

The spin on words, tone of reporting etc feeds too many people that cannot or will not chose to employ critical thinking skills or educate themselves on any number of issues. The media intentionally (I believe) chooses sound bites to back up their spin, give coverage to all the negativity instead of reporting many positive things going on esp. as it relates to the WOT and I believe they give aid to the BG in their zeal to "report the truth" and malign the current Administration. (Yes I realize good news "doesn't sell" but that doesn't make it right)

That said, I believe We the People can and should hold them to responsible reporting. Think about the hollyweird types that denounce our Country as the Great Satan and reap the backlash from those that vehemently disagree with their politics...boohoo for them...citizens spoke out. Refusing to buy their music, read their books, go pay top dollar for their movies. The same can be done to the Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings of the world. I know I'm not the only one to have contacted some of the cable news stations regarding their obvious bias. Maybe one person cannot make a difference...but I know I am not alone in thinking this way and if enough people write/call etc and demand integrity and personal accountability in reporting...we might just get it.

Just my .02

Edited to add: Most important....I believe we in America MUST continue to support our Military in their actions. Our will needs to remain strong in support of the brave Men and Women fighting to defeat the terrorists and not back down ever, despite the reporting that takes place.

Any comments ?
 

From a book that I am currently reading.....

"Of greater concern to the governments of the region (ASEAN)is growing popular antipathy for the United States. Already the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe the war on terror is really a war on Islam. Second, they are infuriated with the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, as the United States embarked on a diplomatic course of action against North Korea. As Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohammed remarked:"The fact that North Korea's open admission that it has weapons of mass destruction has met with only mild admonishment by the West seems to prove that indeed it is a war against Muslims and not against the fear of possession of weapons of mass destruction by the so-called rogue countries." He warned that the "attack against Iraq will simply anger more Muslims who see this as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror." As prone to rhetoric at Mahathir is, he was accurately reflecting the sentiments of the majority of Southeast Asians. "

from Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Crucible of Terror by Zachary Abuza


Comments ?

Re: Any comments ?
 

I can't say much for Muslims. I can say something for Southeast Asians. Just plain bullshit. To claim those were the sentiments of the majority of Southeast Asians is just purely rhetoric. Few Southeast Asians see North Korea as a threat, but a rather large percentage have reasons (with Bali, events in Southern Thailand, and events in the Phillipines as illustration) to believe that terrorism is a threat.

the future
 

There is no war that can match another. Every day is another advancment. From the mounted horseman to Kevlar.

As a medic, I look at some of the crap we can do to keep people alive and it almost worries me. I think that just fading out in the sand might be a bit easier than some of that crap that people have to fight for just to stay alive.

We cannot measure any war against another, our understanding of what war is is different: Body counts, Land controlled, Women won?

Even Afganistan and Iraq are different, Warlords vs Oppressed groups. Buildup was different because of Kuwait. Iraq had a higher military budget.

When we go into Iran or Syria, it will be another list of differences.