Nobody's Fault.

[xiinfaniin]

It's this irresponsibility that sickens me. I long for a leader with the guts to speak the truth. What's wrong with saying to the American people: "The terrorist attacks against us have nothing to do with Islam. They are a response to our policy of supporting Israel and the Arab governments we like, our military presence in the Persian Gulf, and our decision to attack Iraq. I think our objectives are worth the price, but if you disagree, vote against me in the next election." read on.

[Castro]

It's a very complex issue Xiin. That opinion of the writer we find appealing because it echoes our sentiments. Westerners do not relate to us. We are of a different color, culture, race and religion. Their pre-existing prejudices are what politicians are feeding off. We don't relate to them either. We find them to be ignorant of the world, racist, corrupt and immoral. A long way we have to go before these walls are torn down. Of course, there is the greed element and that will never change. Is the prognosis for the future depressing and grim? Sure. Has it always been like this? Yes. What can any one person do? Damned if I know.

[NGONGE]

xiinfaniin,

 

But these attacks have EVERYTHING to do with Islam. The people that commit them, do so in the name of Islam. The people that support them, do so in the name of Islam. Some of the people that sympathise with such acts, do so in the name of Islam.

 

Many Muslims reject such acts and call those behind them Khwaraj! Yet, because of their rejection of the Iraq occupation, they lose sight of what’s important and find themselves (albeit unintentionally) sharing the same bed with these Khwaraj.

 

The Iraq war is a physical, tangible and real war. It’s one where we all can see who the occupier is, where his soldiers are and what exactly is he up to. It’s one that Iraqis (and Muslims should they choose to) can take part in and fight.

 

This other war, is not so visible. It’s clandestine, hidden and wicked. The face of it is Osama Bin Laden yet nobody knows where his army resides. Nobody knows why they almost always choose to blow up civilians (in Iraq, London, Egypt, etc)! These cowardly Khwaraj are slowly grinding down our faith and taking many disgruntled, emotional and very angry Muslims with them. When one is faced with such a threat, one becomes less concerned with Bush and Blair and more worried for Islam itself.

 

I’m afraid that the writer of the article you’ve quoted is not interested nor will look at things from that angle, saaxib.

[Viking]

NGONGE,

In your recent posts, you seem irate over non-state terrorism and at the same time seem to somehow condone (or at least entertain) state terrorism. Would it be better if these terrorists had a seat, a leader, an army and a state-like structure? You seem to be under the illusion that those who perpetrate state-terrorism can somehow be held accountable for their actions (Iraqis, Afghans, Chechens, Palestinains etc probably would beg to differ).

[Haddad]

The author concludes with a question:

 

Do we have the brains and guts to preserve our country and its institutions and to demand accountability from our politicians?

 

In a country where democracy functions, the answer is yes. In a country where mass protests change the unwise policies of the government, the answer is yes. In a country where cooking polls to show public support isn't allowed, the answer is yes. In a country where average John Smith, not British Petroleum, has influence on the government's policies, the answer is yes. Unfortunately, democracy in the West is defined by and practiced as: Government by the corporates, exercised either directly or through lobbyists. So, the answer to the author's question is: Unlikely.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Viking:

NGONGE,

In your recent posts, you seem irate over non-state terrorism and at the same time seem to somehow condone (or at least entertain) state terrorism. Would it be better if these terrorists had a seat, a leader, an army and a state-like structure? You seem to be under the illusion that those who perpetrate state-terrorism can somehow be held accountable for their actions (Iraqis, Afghans, Chechens, Palestinains etc probably would beg to differ).

Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars.

 

There are 250,000 American soldiers in Iraq and those Iraqis that are opposed to the occupation can and do fight them. The Chechens are doing the same (apart from the wicked men that kill school children). The Palestinians are forever firing rockets and fighting Israeli soldiers. The Afghanis fought and still fight. Of course there is propaganda, lies and deceit. However, the soldiers are still there to be shot at (should one desire). Playing with words and calling it state-terrorism, therefore equating it to the hidden people that blow up trains in London, holiday resorts in Egypt and markets in Iraq is silly and very offensive to those that actually stand up and fight.

 

I oppose the occupation of Iraq. I opposed the Iraq war and thought it an imperialistic war to further the interests of the United States. However, my opposition to that war, my anger at the treatment of the Iraqis and my total fury at the impotence of the Islamic world shall not cloud my judgment and lead me to compromise my own principles, saaxib.

 

When Bush and Blair were trying to sell the invasion of Iraq to their own electorate, many people came out in marches and demonstration in opposition to this war. Many of them showed their total disgust and revulsion of the evilness and opportunism of Bush and Blair. NOT IN MY NAME, they shouted! Most of these people were not Muslim. They were not arguing from an Islamic point of view. They were applying their own moral standards to this case and they came up with the conclusion that it was an unfair war. Even if many of them were atheists, it’s still probable that their moral standards are of Christian origins. Invading other countries for no good reason? NOT IN MY NAME.

 

Well, I’m a Muslim, saaxib. I see wicked groups blow up innocent civilians in the name of Islam! I see the same Iraqis that I was worried for from American guns and bombs, being killed now by these hidden groups! I see fellow Muslims excusing the actions of Bin Laden and his followers for no convincing reasons whatsoever! And I too I’m forced to shout NOT IN MY NAME. Never in my name.

 

Iraq will be liberated one of those days. Palestine will too. And Chechnya and Afghanistan and Kashmir, etc. But, when will Islam be? Instead of trying to explain meanings of words and who they apply to, try and look at the big picture and the bigger losses, saaxib. If you’re in support of the actions of these undercover groups, try and sell us their logic or at least explain it. If you’re not, be CLEAR in your condemnation and do not play the Bush and Blair game of adjusting morality to fit in with their goals. NOT IN MY NAME, is it in yours?

[xiinfaniin]

Although you make a lot of sense in your analysis (a series of them, not just this one), the premise of your argument is quite erroneous. Since the suicide bombers are Muslims fighting for Islamic cause and supported by fellow Muslims, the problem of terrorism, or so your argument goes, has everything to do with Islam (as a religion). The center of the debate, it follows, must be about how to expose this deviated lot, identify them and separate them from the rest of the community. You seem to be convinced that if Muslims (those who do) do away the tacit support they indirectly give to these bombers it would substantially lessen the efficiency of their operations and help illuminate our much cherished morals and values. To do that it with authority, it would require embarking on a reform within the house of Islam, you think. It does not appeal to your reason to confuse the two wars; imperialistic war waged by known entity with well defined goals and targets and sporadic and terrorist one waged, aimlessly, by un-appointed mullahs with no tangible objectives. The former, you lectured us, is conventional war (you didn’t support it and thought it unjust war) and as such has rules of engagement. The latter, you noted, is not a war as we can’t say for sure who’s a waging it as an entity, no return address so to say, and its methods wicked and unpredictable, and its targets random and indiscriminate. You plead for your fellow Muslims to make their stand clear and appose these Khwarij, as you put. If not, you demanded from them, to present their logic and explain how their acts could not contradict with the basic teachings of Islam. That, I think, sums up the gist of your argument, saaxiib. Correct me if my comprehension fails me as it often does.

 

Well, the problem of today’s terrorism is deeply rooted in politics, as it always has been. Religion has nothing to do with it (I really believe this). The suicide bombers are politically motivated more than any thing else. Their operations and its timings are politically calculated and are synchronized. Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Iraq are theaters of their activities. Terrorism may not always be the weapon of the weak but it sure is the prize of hegemony. History, is full of entities whose methods of struggle were debased but whose causes were right and just (Algeria comes to mind). These are people who are angry at the policies of the western powers. They have and eloquently articulate legitimate grievances. Although their messages are decorated with religious references, if you listen between lines you could easily see how politics shape their thinking. They are fighting against corrupt regimes in the Arab world and attack the backbone of state economy, tourism in Egypt for instance. They are fighting against occupations in Iraq and Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir. And now the chicken, as it were, came to roost. The battle ground is no longer in Baghdad and Groznyy; it’s, so to say, in your backyard. The consequences are direr and reality of war have hit home. The brutality of war and its injustices are closer to home and we are having a feel of it more than we ever have been. And for that reason, it seems to me, we are injecting our emotions in to the debate and consequently loose the fact the nature of this war has not changed (political in nature) but its theaters slightly shifted.

 

Yes they are all Muslims, but what would that signify? Spanish terrorists are Christians. And so were Irish terrorists! I failed to comprehend the logic behind this preposition of Muslims terrorism has some thing to do with religion while the other terrorism can be explained in different light. Your insistence on this is unrecognizable and out of character of you. You seem to be singing the popular songs of the western politicians and repeat their rehearsed lines. I understand your frustrations with these folks whose unwise and criminal actions affect the lives of millions of Muslims. But for you to think that theirs is Islamic in nature is just a failing grade.

 

 

 

The solutions can not be found in reforming particular religion, imams, or Madrasas. It really lies in resolving these grievances, the ones whose significance seems to elude you. Pressuring Musharaf won’t do the trick. Meeting with Muslims community in the west and urging them to cooperate won’t do the trick. As wicked as these acts seem, they represent a politically motivated struggle whose legitimacy can’t e eclipsed by cheap dismissals. Now don’t shelf me in the wrong drawer and pull your usual card of litmus test on me, saaxiib. I do not condone terrorism and think is unjust method and essentially immoral. I don’t, how ever, differentiate between the one committed by tomahawk missile and the one triggered by suicide bomber; the effect is same to its subject.

[OLOL]

a preview of the so-called war within Islam.... !!

 

We heard so many times from "The West" that Muslim moderates have to speak up against those few "fanatics" hijacking their beautiful religion.. and there you have my brother, Ngonge as a Muslim apologist heeding to that call! what a trap!!

 

Well, it is good to debate and enagage each other in this subject... you all seem to have some points and we are all here to learn and see who is right and who is not.

 

I want also to see Ngonge's emotions on this (below)? is it geneocide? state-sponsored terrorism? or just a conventional war? what is your definition on Terrorism? and on what premises can we justify it? Bush & Blair are "good-doers" who are fighting the "evil-doers" in their own turf!

 

I feel sorry for the Alis or Aishas being bombed from 3000 feet above in Baghdad and elsewhere .....No one cries for them and their death doesn't count and invoke such emotions from our avant-grade "apologists" Their killers " young Anglo-Saxon pilots " are definitely not terrorists!

 

 

Thanks Xiinfiniin! U said it eloquently for all of us! we don't differentiate terror!

 

 

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

“Change the channelâ€

- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

[NYT 12th April 2004]

[Haddad]

Originally posted by OLOL:

and there you have my brother, Ngonge as a Muslim apologist heeding to that call! what a trap!!

Mr. OLOL, perhaps you meant a Western apologist by a Muslim apologist.

[N.O.R.F]

I oppose the occupation of Iraq. I opposed the Iraq war and thought it an imperialistic war to further the interests of the United States. However, my opposition to that war, my anger at the treatment of the Iraqis and my total fury at the impotence of the Islamic world shall not cloud my judgment and lead me to compromise my own principles,

:cool:

[STOIC]

Xiin, the generalizing of Islam from the action of few is not new neither is the disregard of similar act commited by other religions new!.One needs to look on the selective editorial and media outlet headlines to witness iconoclasm and histrionics of western media.They purposefuly join all the muslims in one central nervous system.We can say that the terorist are grundyist who do not conform to the teaching of Islam.But still the violence perpetrated by groups with names like party of god conjures up the image of religion with terrorism.When groups quote the Holy Quraan to justify their terorist actions we have the right to be concerned as muslims(as Ngonge put it Not in My Name).

I agree with you it is insipid in taste to blame Islam here since the main problem is politics.Islamic candidates in muslim countries like Algeria and turkey have fed the feared hearts of those country rulers.Places like Egypt where Muslim brotherhood have gain support are being harrased by the government.There is an identity struggle in this countries.Will it be right for us as muslims to blame the problem on this political instabilities when zealots are blowing themselves in the name of your god and my god?.The zeitgeist of this terorism actions will always be viewed from both the Islamic and western view.

[Viking]

Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars.

NGONGE,

It isn't that straighforward mate! The population of Iraq was starved for a decade (through sanctions) before the invasion. Even the UN acknowledged that these sanctions were targetting civilians and not Saddam's regime and cost over a million lives (mostly children). The term state-terrorism is used to described the terror perpetrated by states, this might seem as straightforward conventional war as you (and the govts perpetraing these atrocities) would like to call it but is terrorism nonetheless.

 

First of all, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind supported the bombings of London, but, they aren't fooled by the govts of USA and GB who are doing their best to reject (and conceal) any connections between the blasts and their agressive, opressive and hegemonic foreign policies.

 

If those who are attacking these govts (the terrorists) had access to nukes, stealth bombers, F16's, flight-carriers, Abraham tanks etc, then they would use them just as the state-terrorists do. Then what we would have is what you seem to be asking for, a conentional war. But, they are not as equipped as their opponents and are left with very few targets. Look at the ring (Green Zone) the American soldiers have created in Iraq, it is virtually impossible for the ill-equipped insurgents to penetrate; that is why they target those who assist them and unfortunately (using your language here) collateral damage is inevitable!

 

If you think that the problem is with Islam (the religion itself), come out and say it clearly point by point where you think the ills lie. If you (like most of the Muslims) believe that there are a few Muslims who have a skewed interpretation of Islam are responsible for the (i.e. London) bombings (and that many more sympathise with them out of helplessness), then be clear about the way you express yourself.

[NGONGE]

Xiin

 

It is Islam, saaxib. Let us not reinvent the wheel here. Do not the Imams of most Muslim mosques preach about the destruction of Israel. The liberation of Kashmir. The sovereignty of Chechnya?

If I follow your logic, I’ll end up thinking that these Imams are not following an Islamic idea but merely being political! Could Islam be easily tossed about in such a way?

 

Let us start from the beginning; do you accept that there is a conflict between Islam and the western world? Do you agree that most people in the Muslim world (Mullah’s and all) believe we're being oppressed and exploited by the west (directly or through bad rulers)?

 

I’m hoping that your replies will be in the affirmative. Because I personally can not remember a time when Muslims did not have a problem with the West and were not calling for one sort of Jihad or another. Now, with the recent invasion of Iraq, our problems are even bigger and our opposition to the occupation louder (and rightly so). Even the calls for Jihad can’t be faulted or argued against. However, here is where the opportunistic killers wearing the cloak of Islam can muddy the water and hijack the cause.

Have they done so? One need only look at the number of suicide bombers killing civilians and innocent people in Iraq to confirm this! Has the Muslim world noticed the difference? Well, some did and opposed it loudly (and as a result got accused of being American collaborators), while others shrugged and thought of the damage these attacks are causing the Americans!

 

Xiin, when one wants to check the pulse of Islam, where should one go? How could one make an educated guess about what Muslims think? Is it the Islamic media? (Many of those, a lot of people would argue, are controlled by despotic dictators and do not represent pure Islamic views).

Should one go to mosques? Will here be the place to find a collective Islamic view? Again, here the Mullahs (not all of them admittedly) call for the destruction of Israel and the saving of Muslim lands.

 

When Masood, Hikmatyar, Rabbani and Mullah Omer were fighting the Soviets (along with Bin Laden and whoever followed him) the entire Muslim world called them heroes and Mujahidin. We were asked to pray for them at the end of every Friday prayer! Men walked around collecting donations for the gallant Mujahidin. They were fighting infidel Russia and defending the honour of Muslim lands (that America was helping them was beside the point). We cheered them on. We cheered on the fighters in Palestine (and still do). We cheered on those in Bosnia and Chechnya! Now, don’t misinterpret my words here; I’m not at all saying that we should not have supported them and cheered them on. Of course we should, these are our Muslim brothers after all. But, we did not do that because they were merely Muslim, we did it because we knew they were fighting a just fight and using just methods (or at least one hopes that was the case).

 

Now we have these people that kill civilians. Saaxib, you can talk about it being in London all you want and darkly hint at the spinelessness of those that strongly oppose such acts, it will still not change the nature of those acts or the need to address them. For now, the topic is about London (we could easily make it about Egypt or Iraq), and as such the London bombings are what we’re discussing. Those bombings as I stated in previous threads, were evil, wicked and utterly pointless.

 

I’ve read many replies here trying to compare these cowards to groups such as the IRA and other resistance movements around the world. Some even spoke about Blair (as did the article above) and how he accuses such bombers of wanting to change the whole Western way of life. They call it propaganda, but is it really?

 

What do these killers of civilians want? Don’t they want to establish an Islamic state (like many other Muslims do)? Don’t they want to liberate every Muslim land, remove every Muslim dictator and institute their warped version of Sharia law? As I know and you know, these ideas are not Blair’s, they’re the Talibani, Muslim Brotherhood and Bin Laden’s ideas. Can Blair negotiate with them? Can he reach a settlement like he did with the IRA? Will they leave him alone if he withdrew from Iraq? What should Egypt do? What should Turkey do? What should Saudi Arabia do? Who should they approach to start these negotiations? Is there a political wing for these terrorists? Where? Is there a goal other than introducing a crazy version of Islamic law with the most trivial of rules (such as being forced to have a certain length beard)? Is there actually a point in negotiating with the deliberate killers of civilians? Is there a reason that we should excuse them at all or down play their wrongdoing?

But ah! Hang on a second, you will say that the cause is good but the method is wrong. With one swoop and one sentence you’ll render the whole argument irrelevant! The cause being good is not a point of contention, saaxib. Everyone has a right to fight against transgressions and oppression (Muslims do not have a monopoly on that). However, what Muslims have a monopoly on (at least according to our beliefs) is righteousness! We’re not hypocrites (allegedly), we don’t condone murder (with no ifs and buts) and we don’t compromise because of political necessities. I could try and quote sayings and verses from the Koran in support of these points, but I’m sure you already know them all off by heart. I needn't remind you that one of our favourite (and most virtuous) quotes from the Koran is the sentence about ‘ordering good and dissuading from evil’ (I’m of course paraphrasing here). Is it any good watching one’s faith transformed into a reactionary belief that is applied and adjusted according to the intensity of our anger?

 

 

You say Islam is not behind these acts. I agree with you. But, you’re not saying it loud enough, even though you realise that many Muslims believe this to be acceptable and just under Islam! There are many out there that even started to use Ibn Taymiya’s fatwas to explain the legitimacy of killing civilians, saaxib. There are many that hear this and start wondering if this is not a fair fight after all. They kill our civilians, we kill theirs, is the logic used. An eye for an eye is an ancient principle after all. Then there are those that KNOW this is wrong but still get satisfaction from it! Let them taste some of what they been feeding the world for years, they say! They also say: It is wrong and I know it is wrong, but I’m going to take a neutral position here and say that this is between two bad groups of people and it does not concern me at all! I’ll bury my head under the sand and turn a blind eye to any transgressions by these so-called Islamic fundamentalists (because I’m not one and need not be involved in this)! However, and this is the important bit, I am a Muslim and I usually try to remind my brothers of good and dissuade them from evil (but not in this case, this is politics you see).

 

Do you realise how confusing all this can be?

 

President Bush drew the battle lines in 2001 by saying “you’re either with us or against usâ€. These bombers of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey and London are obliging him with a similar cry of “you’re either with us, or you’re deadâ€! Now, it would be a real shame that while one is desperately trying to distance oneself from Bush, one finds oneself sharing the same bed (albeit involuntarily) as this group of terrorists, wouldn’t you say? You can refuse to be with Bush and at the same time loudly condemn these murderers, saaxib. The language of state-terrorism and good cause bad method arguments, curiously smacks of intellectual indecision and evasiveness. I suggest you continue reflecting on these issues, saaxib.

 

 

OLOL,

 

Your grief for the Alis and Aishas of Iraq seems to have completely disabled your senses and cut of the oxygen to your head, saaxib. What nonsense are you speaking now?

 

If it pleases you to label me as an apologist, I’m happy to accept the label and brandish it around with pride. But, where do you stand in all of this? I note how you put the word fanatics in quotation marks! Are you saying they’re not? Could you be the first person on SOL with the courage and balls to argue these “fanatics’†case?

 

Please spare me the Haddad like cowardice of darting in with a comment or two without following it up with a justification when challenged, saaxib. I’m looking forward to reading a well thought out defence of your ambiguous position, saaxib. I hope you’ll be kind enough to oblige me.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Viking:

quote:

Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars.

NGONGE,

It isn't that straighforward mate! The population of Iraq was starved for a decade (through sanctions) before the invasion. Even the UN acknowledged that these sanctions were targetting civilians and not Saddam's regime and cost over

a million lives

(mostly children). The term state-terrorism is used to described the terror perpetrated by states, this might seem as

straightforward conventional war

as you (and the govts perpetraing these atrocities) would like to call it but is terrorism nonetheless.

 

First of all, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind supported the bombings of London, but, they aren't fooled by the govts of USA and GB who are doing their best to reject (and conceal) any connections between the blasts and their agressive, opressive and hegemonic foreign policies.

 

If those who are attacking these govts (the terrorists) had access to nukes, stealth bombers, F16's, flight-carriers, Abraham tanks etc, then they would use them just as the state-terrorists do. Then what we would have is what you seem to be asking for, a

conentional war

. But, they are not as equipped as their opponents and are left with very few targets. Look at the ring (Green Zone) the American soldiers have created in Iraq, it is virtually impossible for the ill-equipped insurgents to penetrate; that is why they target those who

assist

them and unfortunately (using your language here) collateral damage is inevitable!

 

If you think that the problem is with Islam (the religion itself), come out and say it clearly point by point where you think the ills lie. If you (like most of the Muslims) believe that there are a few Muslims who have a skewed interpretation of Islam are responsible for the (i.e. London) bombings (and that many more sympathise with them out of helplessness), then be clear about the way you express yourself.

Viking, you’re being obtuse now. If I thought there was a problem with Islam (the faith) I wouldn’t be a Muslim, would I now? We’ve been over all of this already, saaxib. Let us not play the game of words again. Talking of the game of words, I shall sidestep your little rant about the UN, sanctions and the ‘state-terrorism’ argument. In fact, I’ll even concede it (because it still makes no great difference to the discussion).

 

What makes a difference to the discussion is the rest of the ill-thought argument you’re trying to get away with here, saaxib. The point I’m making (and been making for weeks) is about Islam and how people’s emotions are eroding the faith and creating new innovations about what is right and what is wrong. I reject the argument that what happened in London is a fair consequence to what has been happening in Iraq. I reject it on intellectual and moral grounds and have shown CLEARLY why and how.

 

You Viking, are twisting and turning. In fact, I’ll go as far as calling your argument dishonest. In your defence though, I’ll say that I don’t think you realise the duplicity of your argument. This is after all the prevalent view. It is duplicitous to try to apply the term collateral damage to deliberate blowing up of civilians and innocent people. Collateral damage implies a main target that is attacked with civilians being a lesser and unavoidable consequence of such an attack. Collateral damage is ALWAYS regrettable and undesirable by those that cause it. What some of the “insurgents†in Iraq are doing is not collateral damage. They deliberately choose to kill those civilians. It is duplicitous to suggest that because these insurgents lack real firepower, they should be excused for their transgressions. It’s duplicitous to imply that helplessness negates choosing a correct moral position on these issues.

 

I have been very clear on whom I spoke about, why and the reasons for my opposition. I sincerely wish that you would choose a moral stance and stick to it, saaxib. This position of condemning these actions, yet accepting how the insurgents having no big nuclear weapons and how they can’t penetrate the Green Zone would lead to collateral damage, is bent saaxib. The application of words like "sympathy out of helplessness†is also misleading and implies a implicit tolerance of such cases. Still, you did say that it’s a small number of people that commit such acts. You also didn’t specify how many ‘sympathise’! I suppose I can’t completely tar you with the brush of duplicity just yet. Maybe, like me, you need to also be very clear with your words.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Viking:

If those who are attacking these govts (the terrorists) had access to nukes, stealth bombers, F16's, flight-carriers, Abraham tanks etc, then they would use them just as the state-terrorists do.

If the West lifts arms/weapons embargoes against terrorists and unfreezes their assets, you can bet terrorists will have no need for extreme or desperate measures/methods. The terrorists didn't need extreme or desperate measures/methods when they were fighting the Soviet empire; they had access to conventional arms/weapons. And they helped in distmantling the Evil empire. Do you remember the furor of the US and the West when the Zionist state nabbed a ship with arms/weapons for Arafat? What the West is trying against terrorists is akin to manmade attempts to subdue a mount Vesuvius eruption. The West is doomed to fail.