View Full Version : I guess this is a sort of poll...
Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.
If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?
Busyman™
08-09-2006, 11:17 PM
Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.
If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?
Terrorists..that's more like guerilla warfare, so terrorists are guerrillas.
Also what does your question have to do with the first paragraph.
I could just say kill them.
Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.
If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?
Terrorists..that's more like guerilla warfare, so terrorists are guerrillas.
Also what does your question have to do with the first paragraph.
I could just say kill them.
My definition of 'terrorist' may not be yours.
My terrorist is your 'insurgent', or the like.
My question applies only insofar as the respondent agrees that the type exists, whether or not he/she sees them in Iraq, or Lebanon, London, Madrid, or New York.
Anywhere at all, you see?
I guess I should (to clarify things a bit) disqualify any combatant wearing a uniform.
vidcc
08-10-2006, 01:07 AM
I have to ask who doesn't believe that terrorist exist?
I understand that what defines a terrorist could be disputed, but that they may not exist...............
I don't think the uniform is all that relevant. Surely the situation and targets are what define the terrorist. Many acts of terror have been comitted by militia and regular military in uniform around the world.
A person not serving in the military and not in uniform but fighting an invading or occupying force in his / her own country (whoever that occupying force happens to be) is not a terrorist. I will however grant the terrorist tag for that person if they target civilians not connected with that occupation. Collateral damage can only be included if the same standard applies to everyone.
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.
In my opinion a terrorist is someone that purposly targets civilians, not to be confused with accidential deaths caused by going after a military or strategic target. You could even expand that to people who use violence or the threat of violence to terrorise a civilian population.
As to the question of what to do about terrorists...well that is alot tougher. Each situation is prob unique but generaly I think the best bet is to hunt them down and A: kill them if they pose an immediate threat B: arrest and try them if they can be captured alive or C: if the situation allows use them to dismantle their network by either turning them or spying on them.
And yes terrorists do exist just ask the families or survivors of the WTC, the 2 Bali bombings or just yesterday the poor fuckers doing their shoping in a Baghdad market.
GepperRankins
08-10-2006, 12:35 PM
In my opinion a terrorist is someone that purposly targets civilians, not to be confused with accidential deaths caused by going after a military or strategic target. You could even expand that to people who use violence or the threat of violence to terrorise a civilian population.
As to the question of what to do about terrorists...well that is alot tougher. Each situation is prob unique but generaly I think the best bet is to hunt them down and A: kill them if they pose an immediate threat B: arrest and try them if they can be captured alive or C: if the situation allows use them to dismantle their network by either turning them or spying on them.
And yes terrorists do exist just ask the families or survivors of the WTC, the 2 Bali bombings or just yesterday the poor fuckers doing their shoping in a Baghdad market.
agreed. why is j2 trying to confuse us :dabs:
the one thing that makes a terrorist a terrorist is the targeting of civilians.
Confused?
Why?
I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.
This is not difficult, The. :dry:
vidcc
08-10-2006, 08:13 PM
Well it appears that the most effective way of preventing terrorist attacks, Shown yet again today, is an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.
Odd that Bush thought this was wrong in the run up to the election
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."
(audience booing noted)
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree.
official whitehouse transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040320-4.html)
:whistling
All praise and thanks to those involved in thwarting the plot today
GepperRankins
08-10-2006, 08:25 PM
Confused?
Why?
I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.
This is not difficult, The. :dry:
what does government affiliations have to do with anything?
anyway. this extremism and fanaticism is an idea. you can't kill an idea. there are a few mentals, but most terrorists are fighting for a just cause.
lets take isreal and the arab world. if isreal never went for a land grab or tried to create instability and stuff. maybe we could all live happily ever after.
yeah so. the causes of terrorism are ideas and perceptions of injustice. to fight terrorism you have to look at the root cause. bombing doesn't do shit but fuel the ideas behind terrorism.
Well it appears that the most effective way of preventing terrorist attacks, Shown yet again today, is an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.
Odd that Bush thought this was wrong in the run up to the election
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."
(audience booing noted)
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree.
official whitehouse transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040320-4.html)
:whistling
In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:
Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)
Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.
What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.
Please stay on point.
Confused?
Why?
I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.
This is not difficult, The. :dry:
what does government affiliations have to do with anything?
Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.
It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.
vidcc
08-10-2006, 08:58 PM
In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:
Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)
Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.
What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.
Please stay on point.I didn't quote th 1000 other words that came before or after that either... they were irrelevant.
now (remembering Bush's straw man addiction) show where Kerry said "we should haul them into court".... Kerry was not saying "serve them legal papers. He said the most effective way to catch them is intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations and not military operations. So if you want to talk about contex.........:rolleyes:
you have to locate the terrorist to catch the terrorists....
which has been the most effective in preventing actual attacks?
a) intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations.
b) invading Iraq.
Has military action stopped the attacks?
GepperRankins
08-10-2006, 09:09 PM
what does government affiliations have to do with anything?
Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.
It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.
:dabs: the definition of terrorist is someone who attacks civilians for political gain isn't it. nothing more, nothing less.
would the UN ever talk about terrorism? i'd guess everybody would want everyone else to be diplomatic. but thier own enemies would be special cases that need more of a heavy handed talking to. :pinch:
In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:
Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)
Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.
What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.
Please stay on point.I didn't quote th 1000 other words that came before or after that either... they were irrelevant.
now (remembering Bush's straw man addiction) show where Kerry said "we should haul them into court".... Kerry was not saying "serve them legal papers. He said the most effective way to catch them is intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations and not military operations. So if you want to talk about contex.........:rolleyes:
you have to locate the terrorist to catch the terrorists....
which has been the most effective in preventing actual attacks?
a) intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations.
b) invading Iraq.
Has military action stopped the attacks?
You are being evasive.
The point is, you cannot deter terrorism by threat of a court-action, which tactic Kerry was touting on the occasion of his original comment.
No one disputes intelligence as a prime, perhaps the prime tool to fight terrorism; this, though, as differentiated from law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism.
vidcc
08-10-2006, 09:32 PM
You are being evasive.
The point is, you cannot deter terrorism by threat of a court-action, which tactic Kerry was touting on the occasion of his original comment.
No one disputes intelligence as a prime, perhaps the prime tool to fight terrorism; this, though, as differentiated from law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism.
How am i being evasive?, i would suggest you are trying to misrepresent the point.
Where did i say or did kerry say Law enforcement was a deterrent to terrorists? I believe my word is "prevent"
Kerry said intelligence operations are the most effective method and law enforcement agencies are the most effective at carrying this out..... The evedence so far suggest he is correct.
Bush seemed to dispute.
Has militarily invading a country that didn't attack us detered any attacks?
Has it prevented any attacks?.
Is it possible it cause a few?
As to
"law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism."
I suggest you read you own post here (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1414268&postcount=1)
How am i being evasive?, i would suggest you are trying to misrepresent the point.
Where did i say or did kerry say Law enforcement was a deterrent to terrorists? I believe my word is "prevent"
Kerry said intelligence operations are the most effective method and law enforcement agencies are the most effective at carrying this out..... The evedence so far suggest he is correct.
Bush seemed to dispute.
Has militarily invading a country that didn't attack us detered any attacks?
Has it prevented any attacks?.
Is it possible it cause a few?
As to
"law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism."
I suggest you read you own post here (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1414268&postcount=1)
I think you'd best do some further digging.
Kerry's original commentary was along the lines of, 'We have laws with which to address terrorism', as in, cops-n-courts; 'we have merely to make terrorism unlawful, and the problem is solved'.
My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.
I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.
I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.
Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.
It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.
:dabs: the definition of terrorist is someone who attacks civilians for political gain isn't it. nothing more, nothing less.
would the UN ever talk about terrorism? i'd guess everybody would want everyone else to be diplomatic. but thier own enemies would be special cases that need more of a heavy handed talking to. :pinch:
I can't make sense of that last sentence, sorry.
Would you provide some support for your definition of terrorism, please?
It seems to me a bit limited/limiting.
"...nothing more, nothing less."
Indeed. :dry:
vidcc
08-10-2006, 11:40 PM
I think you'd best do some further digging.
Kerry's original commentary was along the lines of, 'We have laws with which to address terrorism', as in, cops-n-courts; 'we have merely to make terrorism unlawful, and the problem is solved'.
I'm sorry but you are just posting the "spinned version". You can disagree with what someone said, but if you are going to do so you should use what he said...not what someone else said he said.
My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.
I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.
I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.
Just who and what do you think those "intelligence agencies" are?
I'm sorry but you are just posting the "spinned version". You can disagree with what someone said, but if you are going to do so you should use what he said...not what someone else said he said.
My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.
I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.
I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.
Just who and what do you think those "intelligence agencies" are?
So, in other words, Kerry says something, Bush says something in response, and only you are capable of sussing what they truly meant?
I see.
See, the thing is, I remember Kerry's comment; he made it relative to the '93 WTC bombing, and he wasn't talking about the CIA, y'know?
Now, if you don't know the difference between, say, the NYPD, and the CIA...:whistling
Also, since the FBI and Scotland Yard, or MI5, or whoever, while not sharing jurisdiction, cooperate on an international basis by way of intelligence/information sharing, with external (ex. CIA) involvement...really-it should be clear even to you. ;)
vidcc
08-11-2006, 01:16 AM
Ok live in your world of spin, I'll stick to reality.
law enforcement agencies are obviously just the local sherrif.:rolleyes:
Ok live in your world of spin, I'll stick to reality.
law enforcement agencies are obviously just the local sherrif.:rolleyes:
Ah.
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.
Ava Estelle
08-12-2006, 07:26 AM
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.
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.
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. ;)
vidcc
08-12-2006, 02:59 PM
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.
To put the full thing with the punishment.
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.
So you think that killing innocent people is justified because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause"?
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
Biggles
08-12-2006, 09:03 PM
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.
Rat Faced
08-13-2006, 12:09 AM
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)
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)
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...:D
Ava Estelle
08-13-2006, 09:24 AM
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 .. :whistling
So you think that killing innocent people is justified because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause"?
Did l say that? l was giving you their point of view, and pointing out that to THEM they are in the right, and that when you punish people who believe they are right you are, to THEM, oppressing them further.
It's OK to kill innocent people because you don't like the fact that your own government allows military bases in your country?
Is it OK for that foreign military to launch attacks against neighbouring countries against the will of the people? And in the case of Saudi Arabia, where there is no legitimate government, just a puppet regime kept in power by the US military, do the people have any rights at all in your eyes?
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.
So which ones do you agree with? And what rights do you grant them? What if their "legitimate grievances" are with the US government, what is legitimate, in your eyes, for them to do?
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.
Rat Faced
08-13-2006, 09:34 AM
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...
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".
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 .. :whistling
So you think that killing innocent people is justified because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause"?
Did l say that? l was giving you their point of view, and pointing out that to THEM they are in the right, and that when you punish people who believe they are right you are, to THEM, oppressing them further.
It's OK to kill innocent people because you don't like the fact that your own government allows military bases in your country?
Is it OK for that foreign military to launch attacks against neighbouring countries against the will of the people? And in the case of Saudi Arabia, where there is no legitimate government, just a puppet regime kept in power by the US military, do the people have any rights at all in your eyes?
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.
So which ones do you agree with? And what rights do you grant them? What if their "legitimate grievances" are with the US government, what is legitimate, in your eyes, for them to do?
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.
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...
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".
So, then-
Apart from those six, if the rest of the world is afflicted with anti-U.S. (and U.K.) sentiment, then we are obviously wrong, eh?
Upon comprehensive self-examination and review, I find that I don't mind, and am further disposed to say the majority suffers a horrible misapprehension.
I daresay Hezbollah has had no interaction whatsoever with 90% of the countries you've mentioned; we, on the other hand, have had, beginning with a little incident back in 1982, which earned them our emnity.
Now, as to today's situation:
You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?
Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?
If you too perceive an agenda in my questioning, I respectfully request you stow that particular impression. :)
vidcc
08-13-2006, 04:44 PM
Did l say that? yes
Originally Posted by Ava Estelle
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.
l was giving you their point of view, and pointing out that to THEM they are in the right, and that when you punish people who believe they are right you are, to THEM, oppressing them further.
just because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause" doesn't mean they are, And even if their cause is right that doesn't justify their tactics. By your logic anyone can justify anything to escape justice. They lose a lot of any genuine grievance when they target civilians (this goes for both sides) or indiscriminately blow up planes as an example, filled with people of all nations, people (including children) that have nothing to do with their grievence.
Is it OK for that foreign military to launch attacks against neighbouring countries against the will of the people?
And in the case of Saudi Arabia, where there is no legitimate government, just a puppet regime kept in power by the US military, do the people have any rights at all in your eyes? Yes the people do have rights, or at least should have. If they don't want US bases in the country they should go after the Saudi regime....not flight *** filled with innocent people.
So which ones do you agree with? And what rights do you grant them? What if their "legitimate grievances" are with the US government, what is legitimate, in your eyes, for them to do?
Protest.
Protest in the streets. Protest in the markets. Protest wherever a voice can be heard. Make their own government realise the will of the people. There are some parts of the world where that is risky, but without a voice sounding how would that change?
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.
I thought I made it clear
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.
In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.
BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT.
You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?
Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?Do you think your own constitution would be so easily changed if, for instance, someone suggested that the Jewish lobby had far too much influence?
Hezbollah as a political party represents a reasonably large section of Lebanese society, although up until recently they had almost no legal status. Imagine what the reaction would be if you suggested that blacks could have no political representation in your own government. A few decades back you would probably have been applauded.
You say Lebanon is constitutionally forestalled from recognizing Hezbollah, yet we see that Hezbollah carries the fight.
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government has an understanding by which it is assured Hezbollah's more aggressive tendencies will be only outward-directed?
Do you suppose the official Lebanese government is functionally subservient to Hezbollah?
Further, do you suppose the official Lebanese government withholds sanction (the constituional aspect, it must be admitted, could be amended easily, yes?) out of some faint hope for their own future, which future they'd prefer not to include Hezbollah, or the tyranny of Syria and Iran?Do you think your own constitution would be so easily changed if, for instance, someone suggested that the Jewish lobby had far too much influence?
Hezbollah as a political party represents a reasonably large section of Lebanese society, although up until recently they had almost no legal status. Imagine what the reaction would be if you suggested that blacks could have no political representation in your own government. A few decades back you would probably have been applauded.
The Jewish lobby has plenty of influence, and nobody has complained too loudly.
Blacks have influence, and are gaining more every day.
I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.
A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?
What fucking planet do you live on, and what fucking blog are you reading now?
The Jewish lobby has plenty of influence, and nobody has complained too loudly.
Blacks have influence, and are gaining more every day.Then why do you complain about a similar effect with regard to Hezbollah in Lebanon?
I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.
A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.
Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.
Ava Estelle
08-14-2006, 06:05 PM
Yes the people do have rights, or at least should have. If they don't want US bases in the country they should go after the Saudi regime....not flight *** filled with innocent people. So are you saying that when a country like the US props up an illegitimate regime, and supplies them with the weapons and intelligence to supress their own people, that the US should remain blameless, just because that same regime invited them? So if you're in a schoolyard protecting the bully, you're not a fault, just the bully?
Protest in the streets. Protest in the markets. Protest wherever a voice can be heard. Make their own government realise the will of the people. There are some parts of the world where that is risky, but without a voice sounding how would that change? Where do you think that would have got the Palestinians? Would it have stopped the West Bank being occupied?
...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. l suggested no such thing. But the fact still remains that ten times the number of innocent civilians were killed in the post 9\11 assault on Afghanistan, how do you think they feel about it? Or the relatives of the 100,000 people killed as a result of Bush's foray into Iraq? They're the ones fighting us. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate what we do to them, and the contempt we show for their lives. How would you like the victims of 9\11 described as 'collateral damage'?
I seriously doubt whether either group would take up arms against another country, unless they were part of our regular forces.Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.
Israel is an ally, however, NOT an agent of the United States of America, and you do not and cannot make your case.
A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.
You used the word 'few'; if you were half paying attention to your own intent, perhaps you might have spent a few extra syllables and used 'several' instead, rather than being so sloppy and loose with your words.
Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.
And your reading of blogs and the like serves you?
Don't make me laugh.
:lol:
Whoops...too late...
vidcc
08-14-2006, 09:46 PM
So are you saying that when a country like the US props up an illegitimate regime, and supplies them with the weapons and intelligence to supress their own people, that the US should remain blameless, just because that same regime invited them? So if you're in a schoolyard protecting the bully, you're not a fault, just the bully?
:rolleyes:
I said we have a bad foriegn policy.
In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.
BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT
Where do you think that would have got the Palestinians? Would it have stopped the West Bank being occupied?
They have spoken with a vote and voted for the party that opposes the occupation. Perhaps those that are now "terrorists" will become a government army.
l suggested no such thing. yes you did . You said we shouldn't punish them because they are right.
But the fact still remains that ten times the number of innocent civilians were killed in the post 9\11 assault on Afghanistan, how do you think they feel about it? Or the relatives of the 100,000 people killed as a result of Bush's foray into Iraq? They're the ones fighting us. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate what we do to them, and the contempt we show for their lives. How would you like the victims of 9\11 described as 'collateral damage'?
:rolleyes:
I feel I need another repeat......in the same post :rolleyes:
In no way do I think we had a good foriegn policy under any other administrations but I think we have an administration now that is making things worse. I think going into Iraq was a huge mistake, is our enemies best recruiting tool and the handling has emboldened our "enemies" because they can see we don't have it under control.
I think we would serve our own interest better if we took a more neutral approach to the Israel situation.
I think Israel has overstepped the mark. But then so has Hezbullah. I think they feed off each other willingly and innocent peole are caught in the middle.
I think our own interest would be better served if we didn't prop up one regime that is as bad as the ones we want to remove or have already removed.
I think there are many things in our foriegn policy that are purely selfish and have no balance between our interests and the interests of those directly targetted.
BUT NONE OF THIS MAKES THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF UNCONNECTED INNOCENT PEOPLE RIGHT
You seem angry, you seem to want to blame someone, anyone, you are ranting and arguing points nobody has has made.
Be careful living with that straw man....they attract rodents and can be a bit of a fire hazard.
Of course you could just be a sad little wind up merchant:rolleyes:
Perhaps not directly, but they've certainly advocated and financed Israel to do just that.
Israel is an ally, however, NOT an agent of the United States of America, and you do not and cannot make your case.
Who said it was, the context was about the Jewish influence and actions. Please don't try to misquote me.
A "few decades back" would put us in the eighties; you think a person proposing 'no representation for blacks' would have garnered applause?We have to use your definition that "a few" equals 2? Or could it mean 5? Or maybe 6 or 7? There were plenty of people around in the fifties who were proposing exactly that.
You used the word 'few'; if you were half paying attention to your own intent, perhaps you might have spent a few extra syllables and used 'several' instead, rather than being so sloppy and loose with your words.
You talk about sloppy posting, yet you try to twist the meaning of every syllable to indicate something other than it's intention. It's pitiful really.
If I had meant the 80's I would have been correct to say a couple of decades. I didn't mean the 80's so I didn't use that term. "Several" can have exactly the same meaning as "a few" (as in a small number) but can also have other meanings. Had I used "several" you would no doubt have nit-picked and claimed I was using another meaning. My use of "a few" was exactly correct, if your think otherwise your understanding of the English language is sadly lacking.
Your policy of reading opinions isn't doing you any favours, since you only seem to take notice of those that reinforce a distorted view of the world.
And your reading of blogs and the like serves you?
Don't make me laugh.
:lol:
Whoops...too late...
Nice try with the blogs thing, but you've never seen me even come near to quoting from them. Seems a little childish to try to use that argument against me when I've already said that I accept that you don't use them. But I suppose it's just another attempt at diversion since the whole basis of your original point about changing their constitution has collapsed.
Let us begin, then, with your own equation, i.e.:
'Hezbollah is to Lebanon as Israel is to the United States'
Make your case.
You have plenty of time, as I'm off to do other things for the evening.
Let us begin, then, with your own equation, i.e.:
'Hezbollah is to Lebanon as Israel is to the United States'
Make your case.
You have plenty of time, as I'm off to do other things for the evening.
Do you need remedial reading lessons too? You are the one making that suggestion, not me. That's your second attempt at misquoting, but typical of your diversionary tactics.
Back up your point that they can easily change their constitution, but you had better include in that reasons why your own constitution should be as easily changed.
Ava Estelle
08-15-2006, 09:29 AM
Be careful living with that straw man....they attract rodents and can be a bit of a fire hazard.
Resorting to insults now? Had enough of mis-quoting me? Maybe a little consistency wouldn't go astray with you.
A person not serving in the military and not in uniform but fighting an invading or occupying force in his / her own country (whoever that occupying force happens to be) is not a terrorist.
So you think that killing innocent people is justified because they "feel they are fighting for a just cause"?
Did l say that? l was giving you their point of view, and pointing out that to THEM they are in the right, and that when you punish people who believe they are right you are, to THEM, oppressing them further.
Is it OK for that foreign military to launch attacks against neighbouring countries against the will of the people?
And in the case of Saudi Arabia, where there is no legitimate government, just a puppet regime kept in power by the US military, do the people have any rights at all in your eyes?
Yes the people do have rights, or at least should have. If they don't want US bases in the country they should go after the Saudi regime....not flight *** filled with innocent people.
So are you saying that when a country like the US props up an illegitimate regime, and supplies them with the weapons and intelligence to suppress their own people, that the US should remain blameless, just because that same regime invited them? So if you're in a schoolyard protecting the bully, you're not a fault, just the bully?
I said we have a bad foriegn policy
l wonder how the world would have reacted had the British military acted the same way against the IRA, and Ireland, the country that housed them, as Israel acts against it's neighbours? How would it have been if they had done to Dublin what Israel did to Beirut? If you can't see the hypocrisy in that you must be blind. So how do you think THEY feel? The West has taken sides, when they should be bringing peace, and every day we bring upon ourselves new enemies.
Let us begin, then, with your own equation, i.e.:
'Hezbollah is to Lebanon as Israel is to the United States'
Make your case.
You have plenty of time, as I'm off to do other things for the evening.
Do you need remedial reading lessons too? You are the one making that suggestion, not me. That's your second attempt at misquoting, but typical of your diversionary tactics.
I will point out that it was you who drew the comparison, not me.
Back up your point that they can easily change their constitution, but you had better include in that reasons why your own constitution should be as easily changed.
What has any of this got to do with our constitiution?
I can tell you that if such a situation existed here, it would beg constitutional action, which would surely follow.
I might ask you why you think, since Lebanon 'allows' Hezbollah absolute free rein, why Hezbollah itself (being ensconsed as it is in government) does not force this issue itself?
On the order of 'inclusion'-favored everywhere, right?-one might think there would be an almighty great rush to get this done...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.