en(un)lightened
Ah.Originally Posted by vidcc
Ok live in your world of spin, I'll stick to reality.
law enforcement agencies are obviously just the local sherrif.
The political equivalent of, 'He who smell't it, dealt it' eh?
Or is it, 'I know you are, but what am I?'
No spin-Kerry said it.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Member
Why would you add "...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms."?
Is it to imply that the Israeli armed forces, inflicting terror on the civilian population of Lebanon, can't be considered terrorists because they wear uniforms? Or the uniformed armed forces of North Korea aren't committing terror on their own people? And what of the US soldiers who murdered 24 civilians in Haditha, was that not an act of terror against the civilian population? What if the 9\11 hijackers had been in uniform, would that have meant they weren't terrorists?
Terrorism: Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.
Terrorism is perpetrated by governments all over the world, the reaction to that terrorism, by people and groups powerless to confront their enemies head on, is to resort to methods we label as terrorism. We then resolve to fight that 'terrorism', whilst ignoring, backing, or perpetrating terrorism ourselves.
What do we do with the terrorists? We stop creating situations where 'terrorism' is seen as a people's only hope. Someone mentioned earlier about punishing them; how do you punish someone who is in the right? That's not punishment, you punish someone who has done wrong, when you punish people who feel they are fighting for a just cause you only add to their ranks, and their anger, and their resolve.
The British police have just arrested dozens of British citizens on suspicion of plotting to commit suicide bombings of airplanes. Do you honestly believe these people were recruited because they wanted to destroy our freedoms, as Bush claims? Listen to what they say in their videos, before they 'martyr' themselves; they all claim they are fighting against the injustices committed against Muslims throughout the world, not one has ever claimed anything else.
l was tempted to quote from Robbie Burns, ""O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!", but l think Dylan says it better ...
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you.
en(un)lightened
Usually, one's naivete can be demonstrated in far fewer words than you have used, but, given your past exploits here, I well-understand that you like to stamp the task as having been completed, and utterly, too.
Well done, once again.
BTW-
Dylan also wrote Blowin' in the Wind, which gust has wafted your dainty logic into the far distance.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
To put the full thing with the punishment.
So you think that killing innocent people is justified because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause"?What to do with them?
I suggest that a foriegn policy that doesn't create terrorists may be a start.... But once they decide to commit acts of terror then they must be punished.
Punishing alone will not end terror tactics, we must address the cause, EVEN if we feel that the cause doesn't justify the act of terror.
It's ok to kill say........someone that works in a medical facility that experiments on animals?
It's OK to kill innocent people because you don't like the fact that your own government allows military bases in your country?
You seem to be saying that all terrorists are right. While I agree that some may have legitimate grievances I don't agree that gives them free range to kill innocent people, or that just because they feel it's their "only hope" that it actually is. Our foreign policy is flawed by "only hope" thinking.
As you can see by my original post I agree that we need to address the causes, I do feel we have a bad foriegn policy, I don't think we are innocent, but to suggest that any society just "lay down and take it" when planes are flown into buildings or when pubs are blown up is unacceptable.
We go after the killers. In our case I felt that we were on the right track when we went into Afganistan to get Bin Laden (why we stopped hunting him and went after Iraq is beyond me). Of course they will fight back and probably gain a few replacements along the way, but hey that's life. Where I feel we went wrong was going into Iraq. As far as I am concerned that was not going after the terrorist and we created a whole world of trouble, not just for us but for the Middle east and the world in general. Do I feel we should just let them blow us up and say "hey we deserved that" ?....absolutely not. Do I understand that all nations bring a lot of things on themselves ...absolutely yes.
flame away
make a thing about quoting
Last edited by vidcc; 08-12-2006 at 03:58 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Looking for loopholes
Defining terrorism is not difficult. It is those that use death and destruction, or the threat of death and destruction, to implement a political change in accordance with their idology or interests, which they are powerless to implement by any other means. Such individuals may or may not wear uniforms (many of the S. American groups wear uniforms) and they may well target both civilian and military personnel. What differentiates a terrorist from say an anarchist is that the terrorist has a clear political goal.
In the past, we in the West have been rather sloppy about whom we deem terrorists and whom we deem freedom fighters. During the Cold War we happily turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of gas on the battle field against Iranians or against his own people. Likewise, the behaviour of the Contras attacking Nicargua from across neighbouring borders was less than savoury and frequently terrorised civilians.
In terms of what to do about terrorism, it is on the whole a good thing that we are all now agreed that terrorism (of any sort) is not in anyones long term interests and the fruit of terrorism is simply the next conflict. While we have to interdict those who pursue terrorism we must also ensure that we are also not laying the seeds of the next conflict. Iraq has not been a great success on this front and in the interim we have had to go back to Afghanistan where still a job half done awaits.
However, there is little point in removing one terrorist and recruiting two. We need to win both the policing and political arguments and that will involve addressing the root causes of terrorism. There are many groups around the world who are involved in struggles and whose actions are considered terrorist. Some of these are fighting against oppressive regimes such as in Burma or for self determination, as in Cheyna. Arab terrorism is linked to two key issues, the Palestinian question and absolute rule of certain Royal Families. There has been much rhetoric from both sides about Islam's desire to rule the world but I doubt very much if there would be a Bin Laden problem today if some resolution to these issues had been reached 30 or 40 years ago.
It has been called a "war" against terrorism. I am of the mind that this is not a well conceived concept. We are involved in a struggle both of ideas and the machinery of politics rather than a war. The terrorists argue that they are oppressed and yet we require dictatorships in Pakistan, Eygpt and Saudi Arabia to ensure that we can tell them they are not. The eventual resolution will come when those of a radical and somewhat deranged bent can no longer scratch an itch in these countries. It is worth remembering that most of these terrorists have come from Eygpt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
Broken
Excepting (for country of origin) the ones that are fighting occupation as in Lebanon and Palestine (note: That doesn't mean the whole of the FORMER Palestine, just the stuff outside the 1967 Borders)
Last edited by Rat Faced; 08-13-2006 at 12:11 AM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
en(un)lightened
Just a quick question on that point:
Why doesn't Lebanon just give outright sanction to Hezbollah, claim them as another state militia, and send their army in to augment the Hezbollah fighting force?
Are they afraid to they might ill-effect Hezbollah's free-floating, 'we-don't-answer-to-anybody' ('cept Iran) status?
Sounds like a dispute of ownership, to me...
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Member
Well firstly ... thank you j2k4 for completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what l said. You came into this thread with an agenda, as you normally do, you attempted to draw the lines, as you normally do, you then ridicule anyone you disagree with, as you normally do. You're not a protégé of Ann Coulter by any chance?
There is a wealth of interesting reading buried in time on this forum, j2k4's predictions on the invasion of Iraq, how much safer the world would be without Saddam and his WMD, the legitimacy of Guantanamo Bay, US 'intelligence', l'm surprised you aren't in government, you seem to have all the right credentials ..
Until we drop this attitude that WE are always right, and THEY are always wrong, there will always be conflict in the world, we need to clean up our own back yards before we inflict our 'solutions' on the rest of the world.
This latest episode in Lebanon, with the US refusal to call for a ceasefire, whilst dead women and children are recovered from bombed houses has been a public relations disaster for the US, if only they had the guts to stand up to Israel.
Broken
I believe it would be illegal for the Lebanese Government to do this under their own constitution.. Just because the US/UK Governments have no quelms about breaking the US/UK Laws at will, doesnt mean everyones like that.
I have pointed out that there are strict percentages of ethnic background throughout the Lebanese Government and Military, whereas Hezbollah are purely Shi'ite Muslims.
In the entire world, there are only 6 countries that count Hezbollah as a "Terrorist" organisation.
The USA, Israel and UK are 3 of them (and the UK was a recent addition, but may well change again when Parliament re-convenes).
Every other country recognises it as a legitimate Resistance Organisation..
Guess this is another moment of "we is right and everyone else is wrong".
Last edited by Rat Faced; 08-13-2006 at 09:39 AM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
en(un)lightened
Well firstly ... thank you j2k4 for completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what l said. You came into this thread with an agenda, as you normally do, you attempted to draw the lines, as you normally do, you then ridicule anyone you disagree with, as you normally do. You're not a protégé of Ann Coulter by any chance?
There is a wealth of interesting reading buried in time on this forum, j2k4's predictions on the invasion of Iraq, how much safer the world would be without Saddam and his WMD, the legitimacy of Guantanamo Bay, US 'intelligence', l'm surprised you aren't in government, you seem to have all the right credentials ..
Until we drop this attitude that WE are always right, and THEY are always wrong, there will always be conflict in the world, we need to clean up our own back yards before we inflict our 'solutions' on the rest of the world.
This latest episode in Lebanon, with the US refusal to call for a ceasefire, whilst dead women and children are recovered from bombed houses has been a public relations disaster for the US, if only they had the guts to stand up to Israel.
"Misunderstanding"?
or
"Misrepresenting"?
Which is it, then-they are two different things, you see?
Secondly, I didn't 'come into' this thread, I started it.
I believe that frees me to define it's initial parameters.
Thirdly, I have no agenda, and you (as always) mistake my general stance (which has never been secret) as a precis with which to strong-arm self-indicting postage such as your own.
Given you felt free to post in opposition to my "agenda" how can you claim I attempt to steer these threads?
You would do well to drop your presumptions; the only 'agenda' here is your own.
BTW-
I stand by my post-Bob Dylan may be the original musician/political poet, but his 'words' have no place in political debate.
If you feel he deserves a hearing, perhaps you could persuade him to attend here in defense of your malaprop use of his lyric.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks