How about ending US-sponsored terrorism before talking about completely ending terrorism?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
deanec wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Professor X wrote:
malagh wrote:
When will this crap come to an end??
When will terrorism end? Never. You thought it would? LOL
That was and is the problem all along. The arrogant, neoconservative asswipes and their supporters actually believed they could stomp out terrorism for good because they are in control. And they got masses of uninformed idiots to follow behind and support them.
Don’t you know that’s how it works in the movies? Which is where they got their gameplan from anyway. The “good guys” come in and stomp out the “bad guys” and then they ride off into the sunset, because, as we all know, the villians have been defeated. Their limited, short-sighted, egotistical mindset knows no bounds.
And your solution to the problem of terrorism is…?
Please, spare me the sarcastic quips. You and I both know that if I had that answer, I’d be the most revered person in the world and I wouldn’t be wasting my time reponding to you on this board. It is that kind of short sighted concept of an absolute solution that got us into this mess to begin with.
However, I know what could have helped us for the long term is better planning and less John Wayne cowboy tactics. I know the later appeals to many “shoot them all and let God sort them out later” people on this board and in this country, but it is not good for long term success.
Obviously by your post you are either playing devil’s advocate or you bought into the party line and feel a need to lash out at someone who doesn’t buy into it like you do. Either way, it is a sad thing.[/quote]
This reply is almost unbelievable! It is a legitimate question posed to get your and others who disagree with the current course of action thoughts on a solution. The fact that you construed it as “lashing out” indicates you are more interested in simply bashing people and things you don’t like then adding something positive to the discussion.
What makes people believe that our withdrawal of support for Israel will cause cessation of terrorism against American interests or anyone else? Those who carry out these attacks will not stop there, they will only move the line. Militant Islam says convert or die. It is not a matter of just live and let live. What should our foreign policy look like?
Although this is a seperate issue that was not among the rational for the war, we seem to forget it wasn’t exactly a rose garden for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq under their former regimes either. Women’s rights were non-existent; political enemies exterminated by the thousands; standards of living that for most were far below our poorest. Is it any more just to allow these things to occur if it is within our power to do something about it? A question I have struggled with myself. Even if you don’t approve of the war, certainly some ancillary good has been done. You can have all the declarations of human rights you want but words on paper are meaningless without a method to achieve the aims. The UN has done nothing but write words on paper. What would you do?
[quote]deanec wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
deanec wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Professor X wrote:
malagh wrote:
When will this crap come to an end??
When will terrorism end? Never. You thought it would? LOL
That was and is the problem all along. The arrogant, neoconservative asswipes and their supporters actually believed they could stomp out terrorism for good because they are in control. And they got masses of uninformed idiots to follow behind and support them.
Don’t you know that’s how it works in the movies? Which is where they got their gameplan from anyway. The “good guys” come in and stomp out the “bad guys” and then they ride off into the sunset, because, as we all know, the villians have been defeated. Their limited, short-sighted, egotistical mindset knows no bounds.
And your solution to the problem of terrorism is…?
Please, spare me the sarcastic quips. You and I both know that if I had that answer, I’d be the most revered person in the world and I wouldn’t be wasting my time reponding to you on this board. It is that kind of short sighted concept of an absolute solution that got us into this mess to begin with.
However, I know what could have helped us for the long term is better planning and less John Wayne cowboy tactics. I know the later appeals to many “shoot them all and let God sort them out later” people on this board and in this country, but it is not good for long term success.
Obviously by your post you are either playing devil’s advocate or you bought into the party line and feel a need to lash out at someone who doesn’t buy into it like you do. Either way, it is a sad thing.
This reply is almost unbelievable! It is a legitimate question posed to get your and others who disagree with the current course of action thoughts on a solution. The fact that you construed it as “lashing out” indicates you are more interested in simply bashing people and things you don’t like then adding something positive to the discussion.
What makes you believe that our withdrawal of support for Israel will cause cessation of terrorism against American interests or anyone else? Those who carry out these attacks will not stop there, they will only move the line. Militant Islam says convert or die. It is not a matter of just live and let live. What should our foreign policy look like?
Although this is a seperate issue that was not among the rational for the war, we seem to forget it wasn’t exactly a rose garden for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq under their former regimes either. Women’s rights were non-existent; political enemies exterminated by the thousands; standards of living that for most were far below our poorest. Is it any more just to allow these things to occur if it is within our power to do something about it? A question I have struggled with myself. Even if you don’t approve of the war, certainly some ancillary good has been done. You can have all the declarations of human rights you want but words on paper are meaningless without a method to achieve the aims. The UN has done nothing but write words on paper. What would you do?[/quote]
If this was a true question, then maybe if you phrased it differently (i.e. not “And your solution to the problem of terrorism is…?”), then it might not have been viewed as an attack. I wasn’t looking to bash you, but you have to admit, your statement did not look like a real question. It looked very much like what I get from others on this board that are just looking for a fight. I apologize for throwing you in there with them.
I’m not arguing that things in the Middle East are a picnic, they aren’t. However, much of our influence there has done more harm than good. Remember, we have had an influence in that region as far back as the 1950’s. They didn’t like us then and it has gotten worse over time. All my point was is that we should have had a better plan than what we had to go there.
By your own words “You can have all the declarations of human rights you want but words on paper are meaningless without a method to achieve the aims. The UN has done nothing but write words on paper.” We don’t have any UN support because of rushing into this action has alienated the rest of the world from anything we do. That was the first thing we should have done is get their support. I know that there are people on here that will talk about how crooked and corrupt the UN is and we don’t need them anyway. But how are we to fight a Global war on terror when the majority of the Globe hates us? Crooked or not, terrorism affects every country on the planet and I think that if we had approached it better, the world would have thrown more support to this cause. Terrorism is bad business and affects the bottom line for all countries. They can get behind that if we weren’t playing the arrogant “we can take on the world” attitude.
I know this is not a solution, but it would have been a better start than what we did.
deanec,
You “convert or die” militant Islam argument is overly simplistic.
If this was just the Islam equivalent of the Christian crusades, they would spread from their base outward. Where are the attacks in India, China, even Russia? All of these are heavily populated non-Islamic countries that are nearby and easier to attack.
If you want to argue that they are attacking Christianity, why no attacks in Mexico, Brazil, or the rest of South America? These are all Christian dominated populations, and again easier to attack.
What the terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are attacking is western culture(the religion of Money), and the spread of that.
So, unless we change internally the attacks will continue. If they don’t come from the Middle East, they’ll come from the next Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazinski.
Hahahahaha! Have you actually flown anywhere lately?
Do you think it could possibly be made more secure by particularly harassing people that appear to be Islamic in some way?
Ahahahahahaha. Damn. They make you walk through a detector, then they wand you down, they x-ray everything you carry, make you take off various outer garments and put through your electronics (laptop) all alone for a better look.
Yes, I can see that political correctness has caused a lot of lives in the airports so far. Uh-huh. Maybe you should try not to knee-jerk around airports and think about the damned porosity of your borders.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
deanec,
You “convert or die” militant Islam argument is overly simplistic.
If this was just the Islam equivalent of the Christian crusades, they would spread from their base outward. Where are the attacks in India, China, even Russia? All of these are heavily populated non-Islamic countries that are nearby and easier to attack.
If you want to argue that they are attacking Christianity, why no attacks in Mexico, Brazil, or the rest of South America? These are all Christian dominated populations, and again easier to attack.
What the terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are attacking is western culture(the religion of Money), and the spread of that.
So, unless we change internally the attacks will continue. If they don’t come from the Middle East, they’ll come from the next Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazinski.
[/quote]
AZ, normally I would let this go, but the attacks that are addressed in this post happened in India. But I do agree, why no attacks in heavily Catholic South America? Because there is no South American culture presence in the Middle East.
I think you have to take a realistic view of what the UN is ever going to be able to achieve. The resolutions regarding on Iraq that the UN approved were clear, but as I stated before, they were only words on paper. When it came to actually enforcing them, the body would not do so. It appears the reason countries like France, Russia and Germany balked is because they were playing footsie with Saddam. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the institution. When countries like Syria have place on the human rights commission, it calls into serious question the legitimate aims of the body. The UN is a political body and not immune from cronyism and corruption. It’s primary purpose of late has been to bash US interests and extort money. Not surprising, they are merely acting in their own best interests. I would rather retain sovereignty then acquiese to a body of do-nothings.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
deanec,
You “convert or die” militant Islam argument is overly simplistic.
If this was just the Islam equivalent of the Christian crusades, they would spread from their base outward. Where are the attacks in India, China, even Russia? All of these are heavily populated non-Islamic countries that are nearby and easier to attack.
If you want to argue that they are attacking Christianity, why no attacks in Mexico, Brazil, or the rest of South America? These are all Christian dominated populations, and again easier to attack.
What the terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are attacking is western culture(the religion of Money), and the spread of that.
So, unless we change internally the attacks will continue. If they don’t come from the Middle East, they’ll come from the next Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazinski.
[/quote]
Simplistic, perhaps, but true anyway. I did not bring religion into this because you don’t have to; as you stated yourself, western culture is the issue. That doesn’t change my point; there would have to be an impetus of change, and logically that would be conversion to the tenants of Islam. What other internal changes can be made to the same effect?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I do believe we have let political correctness get in the way of some of our efforts, particularly airport security.
Hahahahaha! Have you actually flown anywhere lately?
Do you think it could possibly be made more secure by particularly harassing people that appear to be Islamic in some way?
Ahahahahahaha. Damn. They make you walk through a detector, then they wand you down, they x-ray everything you carry, make you take off various outer garments and put through your electronics (laptop) all alone for a better look.
Yes, I can see that political correctness has caused a lot of lives in the airports so far. Uh-huh. Maybe you should try not to knee-jerk around airports and think about the damned porosity of your borders.[/quote]
Hi Vroom, I don’t think we have ever formally met. My name is Dean; nice to meet you.
I have been on these boards for awhile, read just about everything on them, and have an interest in politics. I have followed your posting career with some interest of late. You seem to be a lot more combative and provocative with little constructive to offer than you used to be. I am usually a pretty easy guy to get along with, even if I don’t agree with you politically. You have certainly demonstrated yourself intelligent enough to know that you will never change anybody’s mind by acting like an idiot, yet lately that is all you seem to do. What is going on?
I used to enjoy reading what you had to say, but now most of the time when I read your posts I feel like putting the smackdown on you. Lighten up!
[quote]vroom wrote:
I do believe we have let political correctness get in the way of some of our efforts, particularly airport security.
Hahahahaha! Have you actually flown anywhere lately?
Do you think it could possibly be made more secure by particularly harassing people that appear to be Islamic in some way?
Ahahahahahaha. Damn. They make you walk through a detector, then they wand you down, they x-ray everything you carry, make you take off various outer garments and put through your electronics (laptop) all alone for a better look.
Yes, I can see that political correctness has caused a lot of lives in the airports so far. Uh-huh. Maybe you should try not to knee-jerk around airports and think about the damned porosity of your borders.[/quote]
I have been searched while Arabic appearing young men have breezed through.
I have seen old ladies and girls that look 14 years old searched.
According to an article that was recently posted here by AlDurr:
"Much blame for these procedures can be assigned to two entities: the Transportation Department and the ACLU. Incredibly, the Transportation Department forbids searches of more than two male Arabs per flight; to search more would be “discriminatory.” This rule is strictly enforced by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who, just ten days after Arab hijackers used jets to murder 3,000 Americans, reminded all U.S. airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion. To make sure they got the message, Mineta subsequently directed his department to file discrimination complaints against Continental, United Airlines, and American Airlines. (United and American settled their cases for $1.5 million each; Continental, for $500,000.)
In June 2002, the ACLU got into the act, joining forces with the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to launch a number of lawsuits over cases of men being removed from jets. The ACLU has also filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, claming, among other things, that the “no-fly list” violates passengers’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The airlines are now working hard to avoid discriminating against anyone else, apparently by allowing unlimited numbers of Middle Eastern men carrying expired visas and mysterious packages to board jets and engage in conduct that terrifies the passengers and crew. “The airlines” fear of being accused of racial profiling could very well lead us to stand around and wonder, “How did we let 9/11 happen again?” Jacobsen writes. "
This is PC run amok, pure and simple.
Since Canada lets in some sketchy characters, you are certainly correct about the porosity of our borders. Perhaps you can help us in this regard by urging your government to keep suspected terrorists out?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
… Where are the attacks in India, China, even Russia? …[/quote]
India and Russia are the target of countless acts of terror by militant Islam. The get hit far more often than we do.
[quote]deanec wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
deanec,
You “convert or die” militant Islam argument is overly simplistic.
If this was just the Islam equivalent of the Christian crusades, they would spread from their base outward. Where are the attacks in India, China, even Russia? All of these are heavily populated non-Islamic countries that are nearby and easier to attack.
If you want to argue that they are attacking Christianity, why no attacks in Mexico, Brazil, or the rest of South America? These are all Christian dominated populations, and again easier to attack.
What the terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are attacking is western culture(the religion of Money), and the spread of that.
So, unless we change internally the attacks will continue. If they don’t come from the Middle East, they’ll come from the next Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazinski.
Simplistic, perhaps, but true anyway. I did not bring religion into this because you don’t have to; as you stated yourself, western culture is the issue. That doesn’t change my point; there would have to be an impetus of change, and logically that would be conversion to the tenants of Islam. What other internal changes can be made to the same effect?[/quote]
Maybe we could start by not invading every country with a political system we disagree with. If the population is unhappy enough with their government they will revolt, a la the American revolution. Then, if they ask for our help, great.
Otherwise we’re perceived as imposing our values on others. Those who don’t share the same values are bound to resist. The American way of life may be the best in the world, but it’s not for everybody. Values are different around the globe. Some cultures value things other than money and endless consumption. Let them.
One more thing. Remember that terror is a tactic, nothing else. We’re conditioned now to think only of Islam when we think of terror, but it is the preferred method of small resistance groups everywhere because it gets the most “bang for the buck” and often sows the seeds of popular revolution(think Boston tea party). Our war on terror may, if we’re extremely lucky, take out the Al Queda organization, but terror the technique will go on forever, because it works.
Islam extremist today, anti-abortion tomorrow, animal rights the next day, and so on… It crosses all ethnic, political, and religious lines.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
I do believe we have let political correctness get in the way of some of our efforts, particularly airport security.
Hahahahaha! Have you actually flown anywhere lately?
Do you think it could possibly be made more secure by particularly harassing people that appear to be Islamic in some way?
Ahahahahahaha. Damn. They make you walk through a detector, then they wand you down, they x-ray everything you carry, make you take off various outer garments and put through your electronics (laptop) all alone for a better look.
Yes, I can see that political correctness has caused a lot of lives in the airports so far. Uh-huh. Maybe you should try not to knee-jerk around airports and think about the damned porosity of your borders.
I have been searched while Arabic appearing young men have breezed through.
I have seen old ladies and girls that look 14 years old searched.
According to an article that was recently posted here by AlDurr:
"Much blame for these procedures can be assigned to two entities: the Transportation Department and the ACLU. Incredibly, the Transportation Department forbids searches of more than two male Arabs per flight; to search more would be “discriminatory.” This rule is strictly enforced by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who, just ten days after Arab hijackers used jets to murder 3,000 Americans, reminded all U.S. airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion. To make sure they got the message, Mineta subsequently directed his department to file discrimination complaints against Continental, United Airlines, and American Airlines. (United and American settled their cases for $1.5 million each; Continental, for $500,000.)
In June 2002, the ACLU got into the act, joining forces with the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to launch a number of lawsuits over cases of men being removed from jets. The ACLU has also filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, claming, among other things, that the “no-fly list” violates passengers’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The airlines are now working hard to avoid discriminating against anyone else, apparently by allowing unlimited numbers of Middle Eastern men carrying expired visas and mysterious packages to board jets and engage in conduct that terrifies the passengers and crew. “The airlines” fear of being accused of racial profiling could very well lead us to stand around and wonder, “How did we let 9/11 happen again?” Jacobsen writes. "
This is PC run amok, pure and simple.
Since Canada lets in some sketchy characters, you are certainly correct about the porosity of our borders. Perhaps you can help us in this regard by urging your government to keep suspected terrorists out?[/quote]
And as I said before, political correctness is ok, but not at the expense of the safety of others.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Islam extremist today, anti-abortion tomorrow, animal rights the next day, and so on… It crosses all ethnic, political, and religious lines.[/quote]
Animal rights activists and anti-abortion activists scare the crap out of me. They have done as much damage to the US as many of the terrorist groups out there. Not on the scale of 9/11, but if you tally up the incidences that they are responsible for, you will find a larger number than you realize. However, they are allowed to grow and florish. They have been behind many things: Blowing up abortion clinics, destroying laboratories that do animal testing, threatening people associated with these activities with violence etc. People will argue that it is the fringe members that do these things, but it is usually the fringe that does most crazy things.
Aldurr,
Thanks for the correction on the India thing. I guess I should have read the article:)
I’ll try not to backpedal too much here, but…
Those situations, and the the ones in Russia as well, are a bit different. The India attacks, many argue, are orchestrated by Pakistan, or at least conducted by Pakistani trained groups. Although in the second most populous country in the world, they could be from anywhere. Local muslims report being disenfranchised because of their beliefs and retaliate out of frustration more than anything else. Not that this makes it okay, but it is different than a jihad.
In Russia, the attacks seem to be coming from Chechnya, or those aligned with it. Their’s is a civil war for independence from Mother Russia. Again, a little different, but still terror.
All of this actually helps prove my point about how many shapes and colors terror comes in.
How can we effectively fight it if we don’t know where it’ll come from next?
Shit, if we keep winning the Stanley Cup, it might come from Canada:)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…The pertinent question, though, is: Where is he leading us?
He is leading us on an ambitious effort to marginalize radical Islam by changing the face of the middle east.
Believe it is possible or not, that is your choice.
The rest of the blather is just political bullshit.[/quote]
But…Iraq wasn’t radical. in fact, compared to the countries surrounding it, it was barely Islamic.
Isn’t it possible that answer is a nit political, as well?
[quote]fahd wrote:
How about ending US-sponsored terrorism before talking about completely ending terrorism?[/quote]
This is probably the smartest comment in this thread.
That’s why it’s ignored.
But let me give you the official reply.
We in the US (I’m not really in the US, but bear with me). We in the US, don’t promote terrorism. We reserve the right to conduct our own foreign policy as we please however.
Ok, now it’s me again.
You know what. I was shocked when I saw the 9/11 attacks on TV. I couldn’t grasp what had happened.
But the next day, I was sure of one thing. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the global powerplay had to change. With nobody safe, nobody could afford to mess with anybody.
Little did I know that several world leaders didn’t have half a brain.
[quote]
Maybe we could start by not invading every country with a political system we disagree with. If the population is unhappy enough with their government they will revolt, a la the American revolution. Then, if they ask for our help, great.
Otherwise we’re perceived as imposing our values on others. Those who don’t share the same values are bound to resist. The American way of life may be the best in the world, but it’s not for everybody. Values are different around the globe. Some cultures value things other than money and endless consumption. Let them.
One more thing. Remember that terror is a tactic, nothing else. We’re conditioned now to think only of Islam when we think of terror, but it is the preferred method of small resistance groups everywhere because it gets the most “bang for the buck” and often sows the seeds of popular revolution(think Boston tea party). Our war on terror may, if we’re extremely lucky, take out the Al Queda organization, but terror the technique will go on forever, because it works.
Islam extremist today, anti-abortion tomorrow, animal rights the next day, and so on… It crosses all ethnic, political, and religious lines.[/quote]
We invade every country we don’t agree with? Hardly. Pretty short list actually. As far as a modeling the American revolution today, you know as well as I that it is much easier to put down a revolt now( and as Hussein did after the first Gulf war, while we stood by like idiots and did nothing, I might add) due to many factors, including much more advanced weaponry (WMD anyone?) transportation, etc. The American revolution would be very difficult to pull off today.
Which country were we invading when the towers were attacked the first (or second) time, or when the Cole was attacked, or -insert list here-?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
fahd wrote:
How about ending US-sponsored terrorism before talking about completely ending terrorism?
This is probably the smartest comment in this thread.
That’s why it’s ignored.
But let me give you the official reply.
We in the US (I’m not really in the US, but bear with me). We in the US, don’t promote terrorism. We reserve the right to conduct our own foreign policy as we please however.
Ok, now it’s me again.
You know what. I was shocked when I saw the 9/11 attacks on TV. I couldn’t grasp what had happened.
But the next day, I was sure of one thing. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the global powerplay had to change. With nobody safe, nobody could afford to mess with anybody.
Little did I know that several world leaders didn’t have half a brain.[/quote]
What US sponsored terrorism are we talking about?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Aldurr,
Thanks for the correction on the India thing. I guess I should have read the article:)
I’ll try not to backpedal too much here, but…
Those situations, and the the ones in Russia as well, are a bit different. The India attacks, many argue, are orchestrated by Pakistan, or at least conducted by Pakistani trained groups. Although in the second most populous country in the world, they could be from anywhere. Local muslims report being disenfranchised because of their beliefs and retaliate out of frustration more than anything else. Not that this makes it okay, but it is different than a jihad.
In Russia, the attacks seem to be coming from Chechnya, or those aligned with it. Their’s is a civil war for independence from Mother Russia. Again, a little different, but still terror.
All of this actually helps prove my point about how many shapes and colors terror comes in.
How can we effectively fight it if we don’t know where it’ll come from next?
Shit, if we keep winning the Stanley Cup, it might come from Canada:)
[/quote]
I beg to differ. Terrorism in any shape or form in ANY part of the world is exactly that: TERRORISM. If it happens in our backyard in the US or anywhere else for that matter, it shouldn’t be treated different. Prosecuting one country while letting the other get away scot free is not the solution. Just like a few bad fish can make the pond go bad, one rogue nation can mess with the whole world.
And these bastards do not belong to a religion other than terrorism. I’m sure, if and when the need arises, they will not hesitate in slaying their own muslim brethren as we see in Iraq.
In fact in India, which is the largest democracy today, the two most powerful positions in the country are held by minorities: the President is muslim while the Prime Minister is Sikh.
And contrary to your claims, the terrorists do claim that what they’re doing is indeed jihad!