| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2007 02:54:37 PM · #76 |
Hugs and kisses.
To be honest though, you were the one saying that there is no difference in ignorance in saying it and acting it out. Remember?
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 14:56:28.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 04:48:56 PM · #77 |
I see that the vaguely sensible discussion from the early part of the thread has devolved. I don't really care for the silliness - slugging these things out face to face is pretty ridiculous. Doing it in a virtual space is even more pointless.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 04:54:18 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
To be honest though, you were the one saying that there is no difference in ignorance in saying it and acting it out. Remember? |
No, I never said that.
In fact, I was quite emphatic that saying something and doing it are very different things. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 04:58:47 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Iran and Syria huh? I doubt that they will be of much actual "help".
Iran's already "helping" by kidnapping British troops, supplying weapons to the terrorists in Iraq and even conducting cross-border incursions into Iraq. All of which do little more that kill their Muslim "brothers and sisters" and increase their suffering.
And as for Syria, I don't think they're any better, serving as a conduit for terrorists that are "helping" their Muslim "brothers and sisters" by killing them.
That's exactly the kind of "help" the Iraqis don't need. |
I said that the US needs the help of Iraq's neighbours in order to secure Iraq. That means building relations and gaining their assistance in preventing the things that you are complaining about.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:08:41 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
They don't like you because, as an example, you spend thousands of dollars on cameras to take pictures of your overfed and over medicated little kids, while they have a hard time feeding their kids and live day to day in shit. And they've gotten the impression you really don't care. Wether or not they are misguided in their beliefs, these are their beliefs and now a number of them have decided it is time to change the situation.
|
I don't think that this is very accurate. IMO, the dislike is of the state, not the people. The state is disliked for a number of reasons. Key among these is the approach taken to Israel and the occupied territories and more recently the failure to respond to the invasion of Lebanon and the invasion of Iraq. Where Americans are hated, it is largely because they represent the state, rather than because they are comparatively rich.
In my experience, if you were to travel in large parts of the region, as individuals you would generally be welcomed. |
At some point, a State is its people. Each of us actively or passively supports the social and political systems that define 'The West' and are thus, to the enemy, culpable for its 'crimes'.
In my exerpience, people who have a problem with the US have shown they like to attack its citizens. |
Is this really your experience? If you were to meet, say, an Iranian refugee working in your city, would you attack him physically because of his nationality? Would you attack Chinese people because of their communist and dictatorial regime? Would you beat up a Saudi person because that is the country of Osama? I guess that in reality you would eat at a Chinese restaurant and chat to an Iranian cab driver or work with a Saudi businessman without thinking about it twice.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:10:30 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Rights and freedoms have been temporarily curtailed before, this is even noted in the article you posted. While I have to say that I've not felt one bit of my freedoms stepped on (unless there is a right to speedy passage through airport security), I am confident that whatever nefarious stripping of liberties has been put in place will be rolled back by subsequent administrations as the pendulum starts to swing the other way. |
I guess that the article is pointing out the markers, the risks, not arguing that there is an unavoidable conclusion.
PS I cannot think of many modern examples where freedoms have been curtailed in the same way before - I would be interested to hear examples.
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 17:13:29.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:13:08 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
In my exerpience, people who have a problem with the US have shown they like to attack its citizens. |
Is this really your experience? If you were to meet, say, an Iranian refugee working in your city, would you attack him physically because of his nationality? Would you attack Chinese people because of their communist and dictatorial regime? Would you beat up a Saudi person because that is the country of Osama? I guess that in reality you would eat at a Chinese restaurant and chat to an Iranian cab driver or work with a Saudi businessman without thinking about it twice. |
Both domestic and foreign enemies have shown time and again that they will attack American citizens. If you are now referring to 'average joes' of some country, then you have headed off on some tangent. As I recall, we were talking about people tired enough of the West to actively attempt to change/eradicate it. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:13:56 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Iran and Syria huh? I doubt that they will be of much actual "help".
Iran's already "helping" by kidnapping British troops, supplying weapons to the terrorists in Iraq and even conducting cross-border incursions into Iraq. All of which do little more that kill their Muslim "brothers and sisters" and increase their suffering.
And as for Syria, I don't think they're any better, serving as a conduit for terrorists that are "helping" their Muslim "brothers and sisters" by killing them.
That's exactly the kind of "help" the Iraqis don't need. |
I said that the US needs the help of Iraq's neighbours in order to secure Iraq. That means building relations and gaining their assistance in preventing the things that you are complaining about. |
Does one hand not know what the other is doing in both Iran and Syria?
It's not a matter of requiring assistance in stopping these things as it is a matter of the governments of these two countries ceasing to do them altogether.
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 17:14:55. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:30:22 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's not a matter of requiring assistance in stopping these things as it is a matter of the governments of these two countries ceasing to do them altogether. |
This is probably a debate for another thread - I don't see the same evidence that you do that Iran and Syria are governmentally supporting the Iraqi collapse. Iran has a religio-political interest in the survival of the current government. I understand that Syria is already taking extensive steps to better secure its border. The US is already attending talks with these nations - the thawing of that enmity is perhaps itself evidence of the realisation that these neighbours will be critical in getting Iraq sorted out.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:38:58 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Let me clarify my position.
I believe it should be the policy of the United States of America that upon any terrorist attack by Islamics directed from and/or carried out by citizens of Islamic nations to respond in the following manor:
Military response by the US Armed forces upon randomly selected and/or appropriate (if that can be determined) Islamic nations civilian populations such that the goal of such attacks will be to inflict casualties in a ratio of 1,000:1 of that suffered by the United States.
If our government were to make that our policy and mean it, our threat level would drop to near zero. |
Since terrorists do not ally themselves by reference to something convenient like a single nation, it would be impossible to target the civilians related to the terrorists. Targetting a random country for your retribution would be an unprovoked attack. The US would quickly become a pariah state, reviled across the world. Even if your policy of targetting civilians in order to dissuade further attack were defensible (it is abhorrent and it is not), it would not work.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:54:38 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
In my exerpience, people who have a problem with the US have shown they like to attack its citizens. |
Is this really your experience? If you were to meet, say, an Iranian refugee working in your city, would you attack him physically because of his nationality? Would you attack Chinese people because of their communist and dictatorial regime? Would you beat up a Saudi person because that is the country of Osama? I guess that in reality you would eat at a Chinese restaurant and chat to an Iranian cab driver or work with a Saudi businessman without thinking about it twice. |
Both domestic and foreign enemies have shown time and again that they will attack American citizens. If you are now referring to 'average joes' of some country, then you have headed off on some tangent. As I recall, we were talking about people tired enough of the West to actively attempt to change/eradicate it. |
You appeared to be talking more generically - some of your earlier statements don't seem to make much sense if you are only referring to active terrorists.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 06:55:53 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's not a matter of requiring assistance in stopping these things as it is a matter of the governments of these two countries ceasing to do them altogether. |
This is probably a debate for another thread - I don't see the same evidence that you do that Iran and Syria are governmentally supporting the Iraqi collapse. Iran has a religio-political interest in the survival of the current government. I understand that Syria is already taking extensive steps to better secure its border. The US is already attending talks with these nations - the thawing of that enmity is perhaps itself evidence of the realisation that these neighbours will be critical in getting Iraq sorted out. |
//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093747,00.html
//www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html
You're probably right about it being a whole new topic, but it popped up here.
I agree that having a dialog with Iran and Syria about Iraq is a good start, but I'm much more hopeful than confident that either one will take substantial action to stabilize their neighbor.
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 19:03:08. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 08:52:11 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I see that the vaguely sensible discussion from the early part of the thread has devolved. I don't really care for the silliness - slugging these things out face to face is pretty ridiculous. Doing it in a virtual space is even more pointless. |
C'mon. Seven out of your last ten threads posted to are in "rant" and one of the remaining three are in the VA Tech shooting thread where you used the occasion to spread your opinion on gun control. So 80% or more of the time in the forums here you are posting your beliefs and obvious anti-Americanism and yet somehow you expect someone to not be offended and/or, frankly, sick of you?
Why would anyone try to make the effort of having a "sensible" discussion with someone so one sided and closed minded? I find that to be much more pointless than a good ol' virtual slugfest.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 10:39:14 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Since terrorists do not ally themselves by reference to something convenient like a single nation, it would be impossible to target the civilians related to the terrorists. Targetting a random country for your retribution would be an unprovoked attack. The US would quickly become a pariah state, reviled across the world. Even if your policy of targetting civilians in order to dissuade further attack were defensible (it is abhorrent and it is not), it would not work. |
I would bet it would work just fine. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years in keeping the USSR and USA from going at it.
All we ask is to be left alone. It's no more abhorrent than having the WTC attacked or Buses or Subways in London blown up.
Today, Ahmad knows his next door neighbor is a terrorist. He has no incentive to go to the "authorities" in his country to let them in on it. The "authorities" be they in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. have no incentive (nor the backbone) to stop the terrorist either.
By creating a 1,000:1 retaliatory kill policy, they all have a big incentive to stop the terrorists because they may be the ones who die. |
|
|
|
04/30/2007 01:17:59 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Since terrorists do not ally themselves by reference to something convenient like a single nation, it would be impossible to target the civilians related to the terrorists. Targetting a random country for your retribution would be an unprovoked attack. The US would quickly become a pariah state, reviled across the world. Even if your policy of targetting civilians in order to dissuade further attack were defensible (it is abhorrent and it is not), it would not work. |
I would bet it would work just fine. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years in keeping the USSR and USA from going at it.
All we ask is to be left alone. It's no more abhorrent than having the WTC attacked or Buses or Subways in London blown up.
Today, Ahmad knows his next door neighbor is a terrorist. He has no incentive to go to the "authorities" in his country to let them in on it. The "authorities" be they in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. have no incentive (nor the backbone) to stop the terrorist either.
By creating a 1,000:1 retaliatory kill policy, they all have a big incentive to stop the terrorists because they may be the ones who die. |
To stop the terrorists, you're willing to become one?
At that point, you'd be no better than Mohamed Atta and certainly would deserve to be treated no different.
Message edited by author 2007-04-30 01:18:49. |
|
|
|
04/30/2007 10:27:47 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Since terrorists do not ally themselves by reference to something convenient like a single nation, it would be impossible to target the civilians related to the terrorists. Targetting a random country for your retribution would be an unprovoked attack. The US would quickly become a pariah state, reviled across the world. Even if your policy of targetting civilians in order to dissuade further attack were defensible (it is abhorrent and it is not), it would not work. |
I would bet it would work just fine. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years in keeping the USSR and USA from going at it.
All we ask is to be left alone. It's no more abhorrent than having the WTC attacked or Buses or Subways in London blown up.
Today, Ahmad knows his next door neighbor is a terrorist. He has no incentive to go to the "authorities" in his country to let them in on it. The "authorities" be they in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. have no incentive (nor the backbone) to stop the terrorist either.
By creating a 1,000:1 retaliatory kill policy, they all have a big incentive to stop the terrorists because they may be the ones who die. |
Are you willing for other countries to enact the same policy? That is, if a US citizen participated in a terrorist attack, would you be willing to accept that the nation that was attacked could perform a 1000:1 retaliatory kill policy on random targets in the United States, without the US Government or citizens responding further?
If the answer is "yes", then what would you do if your loved one was one of those killed in retaliation?
If the answer is "no", then how do you justify the hypocrisy of your position?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2007 09:35:51 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by paddles:
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Since terrorists do not ally themselves by reference to something convenient like a single nation, it would be impossible to target the civilians related to the terrorists. Targetting a random country for your retribution would be an unprovoked attack. The US would quickly become a pariah state, reviled across the world. Even if your policy of targetting civilians in order to dissuade further attack were defensible (it is abhorrent and it is not), it would not work. |
I would bet it would work just fine. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years in keeping the USSR and USA from going at it.
All we ask is to be left alone. It's no more abhorrent than having the WTC attacked or Buses or Subways in London blown up.
Today, Ahmad knows his next door neighbor is a terrorist. He has no incentive to go to the "authorities" in his country to let them in on it. The "authorities" be they in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. have no incentive (nor the backbone) to stop the terrorist either.
By creating a 1,000:1 retaliatory kill policy, they all have a big incentive to stop the terrorists because they may be the ones who die. |
Are you willing for other countries to enact the same policy? That is, if a US citizen participated in a terrorist attack, would you be willing to accept that the nation that was attacked could perform a 1000:1 retaliatory kill policy on random targets in the United States, without the US Government or citizens responding further?
If the answer is "yes", then what would you do if your loved one was one of those killed in retaliation?
If the answer is "no", then how do you justify the hypocrisy of your position? |
First of all, if I knew that my next door neighbor was involved in a terrorist plot on another country and I called my local FBI office they would investigate. If it turned out to be true, they would act against my neighbor.
Second, name the last American to participate in a terrorist act on foreign soil.
Third, name the last terrorist act carried out on foreign soil that was not propogated by Islamics |
|
|
|
04/30/2007 11:28:08 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Second, name the last American to participate in a terrorist act on foreign soil. |
This guy.
Originally posted by photodude:
Third, name the last terrorist act carried out on foreign soil that was not propogated by Islamics. |
This one. |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 11:31:34 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
Second, name the last American to participate in a terrorist act on foreign soil. |
This guy. |
From the same Wikipedia: "Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants"."
As such, the referenced incident does not qualify as terrorism in the normal sense, since a) it was not intended to create fear, b) was not perpetrated for an ideological goal, and c) the combatant status of the victims was immaterial.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
Third, name the last terrorist act carried out on foreign soil that was not propogated by Islamics. |
This one. |
1) The linked article nowhere describes the actions of either party as acts of "terrorism". Rather the war is described as a military conflict.
2) The linked article uses the "terror-" label only a few time, and in EVERY instance, it is used in reference to Hezbollah or Iranian elements ( both Islamic ).
3) The linked article indicates that: "The conflict began after Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages, diverting attention from another Hezbollah unit that crossed the border, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing three others".
As far as can be determined, Israel's actions in response to the acts of Hezbollah a) were not intended to create fear, b) were not perpetrated for ideological goals, and c) did not deliberately target non-combatant civilians.
Hezbollah's actions, on the other hand, though perhaps not intended to create fear, and arguably not perpetrated for ideological goals, DID , in fact, deliberately target non-combatant civilians.
Hezbollah is described by Wikipedia as "a Shi'a Islamic political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon."
Thus, if any action of the war was "terrorist" in nature at all, it would be those undertaken by Hezbollah, an Islamic entity. |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 03:10:41 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RonB:
etc |
Yes, it's all in the view, my myopic friend. |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 04:36:57 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by paddles:
Are you willing for other countries to enact the same policy? That is, if a US citizen participated in a terrorist attack, would you be willing to accept that the nation that was attacked could perform a 1000:1 retaliatory kill policy on random targets in the United States, without the US Government or citizens responding further?
If the answer is "yes", then what would you do if your loved one was one of those killed in retaliation?
If the answer is "no", then how do you justify the hypocrisy of your position? |
First of all, if I knew that my next door neighbor was involved in a terrorist plot on another country and I called my local FBI office they would investigate. If it turned out to be true, they would act against my neighbor.
Second, name the last American to participate in a terrorist act on foreign soil.
Third, name the last terrorist act carried out on foreign soil that was not propogated by Islamics |
Firstly, you avoided the question. The terrorist might have been in a different state to you - however, under the terms of your policy this would not be a factor in whether you or a loved one may still be killed in the retaliatory attack. Additionally, you ignore the scenario that sometimes people don't know - how many murderers, child molesters etc. lived for years without their neighbours knowing anything was happening?
Secondly, one example is Tristan Jay Amero (killed two in Bolivia, 2006). I'm not sure that's the most recent and it may not be spectacular, but it's an example that I found without having to spend too much time. I deliberately ignored the attacks by "Islamic" groups that included US citizens as members.
Thirdly, the question is "foreign for whom"? Do the ETA (=Basque Homeland and Freedom) bombing of Madrid airport (December 30, 2006) or the so-called Real IRA bombings in Belfast (November 1, 2006) count? How about the Chechen attacks on multiple targets in Nalchik (October 13, 2005)? These are all far more recent than the Aum Shinriyko (sarin gas) attacks of 1995.
So, having established that US citizens can and do participate in terrorist acts abroad, and that even recent terrorism is not wholly attributable to "Islamic" groups, can you answer the questions I asked?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2007 05:12:33 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I see that the vaguely sensible discussion from the early part of the thread has devolved. I don't really care for the silliness - slugging these things out face to face is pretty ridiculous. Doing it in a virtual space is even more pointless. |
C'mon. Seven out of your last ten threads posted to are in "rant" and one of the remaining three are in the VA Tech shooting thread where you used the occasion to spread your opinion on gun control. So 80% or more of the time in the forums here you are posting your beliefs and obvious anti-Americanism and yet somehow you expect someone to not be offended and/or, frankly, sick of you?
Why would anyone try to make the effort of having a "sensible" discussion with someone so one sided and closed minded? I find that to be much more pointless than a good ol' virtual slugfest. |
Ah yes - far better to shout virtual insults at each other than talk about things sensibly. The last bastion of the conceptually challenged.
I don't know why you think that I am anti-American. I enjoy spending time in the States and with Americans. Having an interest in constitutional law, politics and history, I am fascinated by the philosophy and principles upon which the US were founded and what they stand for. However, I don't like the state's foreign policy, I find some of its home policies frightening because they impact so heavily on the rest of the world, and some of them sad because they represent the failure of principles that I hold in such high regard. As a man who seems to be no stranger to conflict, I am amazed that you are so easily offended by a little bit of criticism...
I tend to think that ideas can be quite valuable and that there are times when they are expressed poorly. Please feel free, if you are offended by the views of foreigners, to turn off the machine in the corner that allows the evil ideas to spread into your home...
Message edited by author 2007-05-01 17:13:24.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2007 05:12:50 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
etc |
Yes, it's all in the view, my myopic friend. |
Assuming that you know nothing about my physical eyesight capabilities, I can only conclude that you are attempting to imply that I suffer from the second definition of "myopia" - that being "Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning."
With that conclusion, I would suggest that if either of us is myopic, it isn't me, since I have demonstrated at least some degree of discernment by evaluating who and what actions DO and do NOT meet the definitions of "terrorist" and "terrorism". A degree of discernment that you did not demonstrate, in my opinion.
Not to mention that your rebuttal really isn't.
A rebuttal, that is.
Name calling is really not a legitimate method of debate. In fact, it is usually an attempt to avoid debate - and a weak attempt, at that. |
|
|
|
05/01/2007 05:27:01 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
etc |
Yes, it's all in the view, my myopic friend. |
Assuming that you know nothing about my physical eyesight capabilities, I can only conclude that you are attempting to imply that I suffer from the second definition of "myopia" - that being "Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning."
With that conclusion, I would suggest that if either of us is myopic, it isn't me, since I have demonstrated at least some degree of discernment by evaluating who and what actions DO and do NOT meet the definitions of "terrorist" and "terrorism". A degree of discernment that you did not demonstrate, in my opinion.
Not to mention that your rebuttal really isn't.
A rebuttal, that is.
Name calling is really not a legitimate method of debate. In fact, it is usually an attempt to avoid debate - and a weak attempt, at that. |
If I may interrupt - I thought that the point was made quite well.
Most of your objections could be overcome by considering terrorism in the context of "state sponsored". Debating whether the intention was to knock Lebanon back into the stone age on a weak pretext, or a proportionate rescue attempt, and whether one of those amounts to a terrorist-type attack or not is a little pointless.
The point was that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. By focusing on the status of one war, you are missing the point that it cannot be objectively defined in this way.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2007 11:37:38 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
If I may interrupt - I thought that the point was made quite well.
Most of your objections could be overcome by considering terrorism in the context of "state sponsored". Debating whether the intention was to knock Lebanon back into the stone age on a weak pretext, or a proportionate rescue attempt, and whether one of those amounts to a terrorist-type attack or not is a little pointless.
The point was that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. By focusing on the status of one war, you are missing the point that it cannot be objectively defined in this way. |
Actually, none of my objections could be overcome by considering terrorism in the context of "state sponsored".
1) Just because Steven Dale Green was a soldier in the U.S. Army, in no way implies that his actions were "state sponsored". If they had been, he would not have been charged with rape and murder.
2) The Lebanese Government consistently maintained that it did NOT condone the actions of Hezbollah.
As to your claim that whether a certain action amounts to a "terrorist-type attack or not is a little pointless", - believe it or not, I agree. But don't argue with me, argue with Louis and/or photodude - they're the ones arguing about the relevance of terrorist acts. I'm just pointing out that Louis' examples of terrorist acts are invalid - since neither example satisfies the definitions of terrorism, even if we were to include your expanded elements.
Personally, I don't think we need an example. But if one is provided, it should satisfy the criteria it claims to address.
And, if the point can be made without a valid example, then it should also be able to be made without an invalid example.
One last thing, "I" did not focus on one war. I merely responded to clarify an erroneous post that only referenced one war. Would you have expected me to focus a clarification on elements that were nowhere mentioned? I find that to be a rather difficult if not downright impossible task. |
|
