NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as how I am completely clueless about politics I want your opinions of whether the russian school children hostages will have an effect on our election. I would guess the effects, even if minimal would be in dubya's favor, for fear of similar things happening in the u.s. and people think of bush, as a better defender against terrorists.

No doubt doubleyou will somehow try to exploit this tragedy to his advantage. To further his redneck agenda.

It will turn in Bush's favor. They have confirmed at least some of the terrorists are of Arab lineage after a corpse check.

The Russian terrorists are Chechnyans. They are Muslim.
They want their province to become its own country, but since the Russian government isn't doing so, these bastards have to attack innocent school children to get what they want.
I don't think that this will help Bush or anyone for that matter because, sadly, no one really cares that much about the rest of the world including Russia.

"The world is safer from terrorism. Say what? Shit... Uhhh... We need a leader who is strong on terrorism!" Meh. All politicians are whores anyway, you really can't expect any better of them. Just remember not to call the Chechens Russians to their face.

If the American electorate was smart and/or discerning* then the vote would go to Kerry. Why? The Chechnyan case demonstrates the fact that when you have a group willing to go to extreme lengths then increasing the levels of violence directed towrds them will not reduce their extremism, it will in fact have the opposite effect. The message being, if you keep on shooting and bombing people, they will keep on strapping exlosives to themselves in order to blow you up. You only reduce terrorism through dialogue and compromise, not through 'preemptive strikes'.

* I do not think the American electorate is smart or discerning so i really have no idea how they will react to this.

IT happened outside the US and to non-americans - so it will not have any effect at all. No more than the bombings in Spain are really being considered as an an election issue.

Yeah, it's not really an issue for me. I feel terrible about it and my heart goes out to the children, I can only imagine the horror of having that happen to me but um that's halfway across the world from us and not really the same people who targeted us... nope still voting Kerry.

The Chechnyan case demonstrates the fact that when you have a group willing to go to extreme lengths then increasing the levels of violence directed towrds them will not reduce their extremism, it will in fact have the opposite effect. The message being, if you keep on shooting and bombing people, they will keep on strapping exlosives to themselves in order to blow you up. You only reduce terrorism through dialogue and compromise, not through 'preemptive strikes'.


So whatever activities terrorists use it is always someone else's fault? I am sure, in your opinion, the children that were killed in Russia were such a threat to Chechen independence that they were a legitimate target for their hostilities. People like you make me sick.

If the American electorate was smart and/or discerning* then the vote would go to Kerry. Why? The Chechnyan case demonstrates the fact that when you have a group willing to go to extreme lengths then increasing the levels of violence directed towrds them will not reduce their extremism, it will in fact have the opposite effect. The message being, if you keep on shooting and bombing people, they will keep on strapping exlosives to themselves in order to blow you up. You only reduce terrorism through dialogue and compromise, not through 'preemptive strikes'.

* I do not think the American electorate is smart or discerning so i really have no idea how they will react to this.

So... what you are saying is that we have no hope of defeating terrorists or terrorism. We have no hope of defending ourselves then... so we should just lay down and let them kill us?

How is this being "smart and/or discerning"?

So whatever activities terrorists use it is always someone else's fault? I am sure, in your opinion, the children that were killed in Russia were such a threat to Chechen independence that they were a legitimate target for their hostilities. People like you make me sick.
Please refrain from insulting me. I didnt lay any blame whatsoever, I merely stated that the ongoing Chechnyan conflict has demonstrated the failure of military oriented response to civil and political unrest.

So... what you are saying is that we have no hope of defeating terrorists or terrorism. We have no hope of defending ourselves then... so we should just lay down and let them kill us?

How is this being "smart and/or discerning"?
Note how he mentioned preemptive strikes specifically. He's not saying we should just let terrorists get away with their actions, but we're certainly not helping the situation by, say, invading a sovereign nation without proof of it supporting terrorists, thereby pissing everyone there off and provoking terrorist attacks that likely would not have occurred otherwise (I, personally, don't believe this applies to the Chechens as much as to Iraq, as both sides in that conflict have been going way too far for years. I don't see the fighting there ending any time in the forseeable future).

Note how he mentioned preemptive strikes specifically.

But prior to mentioning preemptive strikes, he said "if you keep on shooting and bombing people... etc." there by implying defending ourselves physically.

And preemptive strikes, based on good reliable intelligence are a good means of combating terrorism. The problem being good reliable intelligence.

Please refrain from insulting me. I didnt lay any blame whatsoever, I merely stated that the ongoing Chechnyan conflict has demonstrated the failure of military oriented response to civil and political unrest.
I didn't insult you, I insulted your insistance that terrorists are beyond blame for anything they do.

there is a difference between defending oneself and acting in aggression. With regards to terrorists this is even more important. Terrorists are by the very nature civilians and to take aggressive action against them you must take aggressive action against civilians. Application of overwhelming military force against a civilian population will never win any friends amongst the civilians being attacked and will ultimately expand the recruiting base of the enemy that you are trying to kill. Seems obvious to me, please explain the bit thats confusing.

I didn't insult you, I insulted your insistance that terrorists are beyond blame for anything they do.
I gratefully accept that apology in the hope that more people round the world will do the same. You should read carefully and note that i didnt say they were not to blame, I merely said that military response was an innappropriate response to the problem.

I gratefully accept that apology in the hope that more people round the world will do the same. You should read carefully and note that i didnt say they were not to blame, I merely said that military response was an innappropriate response to the problem.

I did not apologise for anything. You said that by combating terrorists that they would then "keep on strapping explosives to themselves in order to blow you up". Does that not suggest that you think the terrorists are victims using justified means to counter aggression?

I did not apologise for anything. You said that by combating terrorists that they would then "keep on strapping explosives to themselves in order to blow you up". Does that not suggest that you think the terrorists are victims using justified means to counter aggression?
I am a pacifist, i never condone or justify any form of violence. All I am saying is that bombing or any other form of military action against a civilian population (of which terrorists are always a part of) will only ever lead to there being more terrorists, as has clearly been demonstrated by 10 years of exactly that kind of policy in Chechnya. A more subtle strategy is required.

the chechen and russian people have been murdering each others children for a couple of hundred years, its hard to pick sides though i would have to say the russians have killed more.

there is a difference between defending oneself and acting in aggression. With regards to terrorists this is even more important. Terrorists are by the very nature civilians and to take aggressive action against them you must take aggressive action against civilians. Application of overwhelming military force against a civilian population will never win any friends amongst the civilians being attacked and will ultimately expand the recruiting base of the enemy that you are trying to kill. Seems obvious to me, please explain the bit thats confusing.

Ok, one, terrorists are not civilians, they are terrorists. The fact that they hide among civilians do not make them such.
Two, it is possible to apply "overwhelming military force" against terrorists without applying it to the civilian population. However, it requires a substantial presense of "grunts".
Three, you also seem to be suggesting that if we defend ourselves, we only make them stronger and there for "resistance is futile".

I wont give up. It is heading to a life or death fight. I dont know why people dont recognize that.

the chechen and russian people have been murdering each others children for a couple of hundred years, its hard to pick sides though i would have to say the russians have killed more.
exactly, the problem will never end untill one side renounces violent means because, after all, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Ok, one, terrorists are not civilians, they are terrorists. The fact that they hide among civilians do not make them such.
Two, it is possible to apply "overwhelming military force" against terrorists without applying it to the civilian population. However, it requires a substantial presense of "grunts".
Three, you also seem to be suggesting that if we defend ourselves, we only make them stronger and there for "resistance is futile".

I wont give up. It is heading to a life or death fight. I dont know why people dont recognize that.
One - if terrorists are not civilians then they are indistinguishable from them.
Two - Show me how the presence of 'grunts' in Iraq has made it any easier to detect and isolate terrorists and eliminate them without harming the civilian population at large.
Three - There are other means of defending oneself than by killing other people.

I am a pacifist, i never condone or justify any form of violence. All I am saying is that bombing or any other form of military action against a civilian population (of which terrorists are always a part of) will only ever lead to there being more terrorists, as has clearly been demonstrated by 10 years of exactly that kind of policy in Chechnya. A more subtle strategy is required.

And by extension a more subtle strategy would be required of the terrorists? Or by their very nature are terrorists not judged by you in the same light as those combating them?

And by extension a more subtle strategy would be required of the terrorists? Or by their very nature are terrorists not judged by you in the same light as those combating them?
I dont see how you make that extension. Terrorism is bad, I think we can all agree on that and you can feel free to regard that as my 'judgement' on the activities of terrorists. All I am pointing out is that aggression is a very bad means to reduce terrorism. I think this is about the 4th time i have said this and you should not try and read between the lines because there isnt anything there.

I dont see how you make that extension. Terrorism is bad, I think we can all agree on that and you can feel free to regard that as my 'judgement' on the activities of terrorists. All I am pointing out is that aggression is a very bad means to reduce terrorism. I think this is about the 4th time i have said this and you should not try and read between the lines because there isnt anything there.

You are not answering the question. That is the reason you have been repeating the same lines. I am asking you whether you judge terrorists by the same standards as those combating them. You can say "terrorism is bad" but do you judge terrorists in the same light as those that oppose them, that is the question I asked.

You are not answering the question. That is the reason you have been repeating the same lines. I am asking you whether you judge terrorists by the same standards as those combating them. You can say "terrorism is bad" but do you judge terrorists in the same light as those that oppose them, that is the question I asked.
I judge terrorists in the same light as i judge you. Everyone is entitled to a measure of respect, no matter what they do. I can only assume that you are reasonably peacefull so i wouldnt condem you as i would them. Certain people, such as elected leaders of democratic countries, I judge by a higher standard and i dont see any problem in that as in running for office, one should be prepared to submit to scrutiny.

Bye for now anyway, I sincerely hope that your hate and fear does not consume you.

I judge terrorists in the same light as i judge you. Everyone is entitled to a measure of respect, no matter what they do. I can only assume that you are reasonably peacefull so i wouldnt condem you as i would them. Certain people, such as elected leaders of democratic countries, I judge by a higher standard and i dont see any problem in that as in running for office, one should be prepared to submit to scrutiny.

So you do judge terrorists in a gentler light than those that oppose them. Thank you for finally admitting that. Afterall, thats what I said in the beginning and you denied it.

Bye for now anyway, I sincerely hope that your hate and fear does not consume you.

I do not hate nor fear so rest assured these things will not consume me. What relevance that had escapes me but I replied anyway.