NationStates Jolt Archive

Listen, I genuinely want to know how most posters would read the response by poster B. It has resulted in a great deal of angst and I wish to see if people here read it the same way that the people who are being contested do. Just give your honest opinion on what you read poster B to be saying.

If you happened to witness the actual debate please don't insert the names of the posters here. I really have no wish for this to become flamebait or worse. Thanks.

A little context - they were discussing how a significant portion of the insurgents in Iraq are Al Queda (please I don't want to debate this point here, this is just what they were talking about) whether these foreign operatives were motivated by the threat of attacks on their homelands due to aggressive US actions in Iraq (again don't want to debate this point, just pointing out what was being discussed at the time)

Originally Posted by Poster A
More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade. This is not and never has been about the US occupation of Iraq no matter how much you want it to be. Ignore the evidence all you like. Me, I like to actually use evidence to draw conclusions rather than just my dislike for a particular person, government or action.

EDIT: And some of the people disagree. Al Queda is hardly representative of the general populace of Saudi Arabia or even a significant percentage of it.

Response by Poster B
Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

EDIT: Let me add the point since some people are explaining the first post or the first part of the second point. Is Poster B stating his/her belief, the beliefs of Al Queda or both?

The question does not surround whether poster B was flaming, flamebaiting, threatening or attacking A in any way. I don't think either A or B viewed this as an vicious or illegal post. A read the post one way and responded in a way that offended B and it escalated from there. I think people's opinions on what this post could mean in terms of the beliefs of poster A would help both posters see it through the eyes of the other.

If you happened to witness the actual debate please don't insert the names of the posters here. I really have no wish for this to become flamebait or worse. Thanks.

It would be an idea to remove it from your sig, then.

EDIT - Good. :)

Um...no biggee...Poster B posted their opinion, and there you have it. It's not flamey, not mean, and you can agree or not...so what's the deal?

Yeah, it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

OH ... MY ... GOD!!!!


Someone said something vaguely true that implies the US is less than holy and that not all of our enemies are demonic. How dare they!!!

Honestly, although I don't think I wholly agree with poster B, it is not accurate to take isolated incidents that A lumps together and not consider them in the context of other events in the Middle East at the time or in the past.

Poster B makes sense.

Terrorists do not.

I wish more terrorists were like poster B.

I don't see anything anything wrong with B.

apart from me suggesting that you just asked person B what s/he meant..

i think the following:

person A denies the claim that has apparently been made before that the attacks mentioned were but a reaction of the saudis etc to the occupation of their countries. he backs this denial of his up with the hint that such attacks have taken place way before the US occupation even began.

person B seems to adhere to the first claim that has to have been made in the thread, the one saying that the saudi attacks were a retaliation for occupation of the arabic countries. he points at the fact that arabic countries have been occupied/interfered with even well before the saudi attacks as well, therewith rendering the last argument of person a void.

so, i'm not sure whether this is what you wanted to know.
i honestly don't see how you can see this post as a threat or anything? :confused:
all he's saying is that terrorists don't act out of the blue but out of revenge. so what?

OH ... MY ... GOD!!!!


Someone said something vaguely true that implies the US is less than holy and that not all of our enemies are demonic. How dare they!!!

Honestly, although I don't think I wholly agree with poster B, it is not accurate to take isolated incidents that A lumps together and not consider them in the context of other events in the Middle East at the time or in the past.

I'll give you a little more of the point. Poster A later actually points out that s/he agrees that there were other actions that related into these actions against the US. The question is more along the lines is Poster B saying what s/he believes to be true or what Al Queda believes to be true or both?

Nothing more than a difference of opinion. I don't agree with Poster B 100%, but his points are at least valid, and I don't see any hostile attitude in the post. Poster A can relax.

I'll give you a little more of the point. Poster A later actually points out that s/he agrees that there were other actions that related into these actions against the US. The question is more along the lines is Poster B saying what s/he believes to be true or what Al Queda believes to be true or both?
I lean toward both. It seems to me that poster B beleives that the terrorists/insurgents are reacting to what they percieve as a new collonization and partitioning of their land based on previous experience with British, Ottoman, and French conquests of the region or parts of the region. I think he also beleives that Al Quaeda's motivations stem from the same perception.

Jocabia...is this thread really going to resolve anything for you?

i have not followed the debate, therefore i may have missed hints you have not posted here.
but only judging from this post: i cannot see ANY evidence suggesting him/her talking on behalf of al-quaida?!??! where do you get this impression from?!

in fact, i can only see something contradicting that suggestion:
which is how they see it (emphasis added)

"they" referring to the al-quaida and/or the terrorists. shouldn't it be "us" were s/he talking on behalf of al-quaida?


seems to me, from what i've been presented so far, that there is some serious paranoia going on as soon as somebody voices the opinion that western interference in the arabic area may have had its part in getting these attacks to happen as well.

I'll give you a little more of the point. Poster A later actually points out that s/he agrees that there were other actions that related into these actions against the US. The question is more along the lines is Poster B saying what s/he believes to be true or what Al Queda believes to be true or both?
Does it matter?

I lean toward both. It seems to me that poster B beleives that the terrorists/insurgents are reacting to what they percieve as a new collonization and partitioning of their land based on previous experience with British, Ottoman, and French conquests of the region or parts of the region. I think he also beleives that Al Quaeda's motivations stem from the same perception.

Most importantly, nothing he has said can be seen as justifying the particular method Al Qaeda takes to defend itself.

Is that what you were looking for, Jocabia?

Jocabia...is this thread really going to resolve anything for you?

I, honestly, hope so. I don't like personal wars and I think seeing how most people would read such a post will be enlightening to both posters, assuming the respondants do as asked and judge the post on what it seems to say rather than considering their personal feelings on the subject (as was happening in the other thread), i.e. I think A was right in the argument so I agree with how A reads the post and I agree with B's side of the discussion so I agree with how B said any reasonable person would read the post.

Does it matter?

Yes. It's the heart of the debate actually. The debate that followed was on whether Poster A reacted to a reasonable reading of the post or not.

Most importantly, nothing he has said can be seen as justifying the particular method Al Qaeda takes to defend itself.

Is that what you were looking for, Jocabia?

Actually, no, but this may have been the most helpful post I've seen.

you might want to say more clearly what exactly it is that you are looking for, then. if, as you say, you want to know if A's answer/reaction to B's statement was based on correct perception of his/her answer, you ought to post that answer as welll...

*is really trying to help here but is sightly at loss trying to figure out what is wanted*

you might want to say more clearly what exactly it is that you are looking for, then. if, as you say, you want to know if A's answer/reaction to B's statement was based on correct perception of his/her answer, you ought to post that answer as welll...

*is really trying to help here but is sightly at loss trying to figure out what is wanted*
Yeah, like he said. Please give us more of the exchange.

you might want to say more clearly what exactly it is that you are looking for, then. if, as you say, you want to know if A's answer/reaction to B's statement was based on correct perception of his/her answer, you ought to post that answer as welll...

*is really trying to help here but is sightly at loss trying to figure out what is wanted*

Basically Poster A reacted as if Poster B intended to express both his/her views and the views of Al Queda. Basically, Poster A reacted as if Poster B found the reasoning of Al Queda to be valid but didn't make it entirely clear that s/he read it this way. Poster B responded the text of that post, most likely not realizing that s/he'd been misunderstood. And by the time they realized they weren't talking about the same thing it had escalated. Both posters claimed that the post couldn't be read the other reads it, etc. How else do arguments start?

Most importantly, nothing he has said can be seen as justifying the particular method Al Qaeda takes to defend itself.
Except that it is impossible to "defend oneself" by killing/injuring people other than your direct attacker.

To say that they "are" defending themselves with any action other that actions taken against an agressor is lending credence and justification to the idea that one can defend oneself by injuring/killing innocents.

Definitionally, Defensive actions/methods need to be taken against an attacker and only an attacker. Any other action cannot be defined or described as "defensive".

Except that it is impossible to "defend oneself" by killing/injuring people other than your direct attacker.

To say that they "are" defending themselves with any action other that actions taken against an agressor is lending credence and justification to the idea that one can defend oneself by injuring/killing innocents.

Definitionally, Defensive actions/methods need to be taken against an attacker and only an attacker. Any other action cannot be defined or described as "defensive".

Well, to be fair, Osama puts it that since the American government is of the people, by the people and for the people that all Americans are complicit. I don't agree with this, but Osama actually views you and I and our families and our friends AS the attackers.

Well, to be fair, Osama puts it that since the American government is of the people, by the people and for the people that all Americans are complicit. I don't agree with this, but Osama actually views you and I and our families and our friends AS the attackers.
True, but that still doesn't explain the killing of Iraqi innocents...

Yeah, like he said. Please give us more of the exchange.

it's "she". :)

and well..now i think i understand. and my point of view is that B's post did not give reason to believe he's justifying whatever al-quaida did/does. all i feel he's done is share his ideas on what al-quaida might think/see as reason to attack.
i personaly feel that B has sufficiently distanced himself from al-quaida thoughts in his post.

Response by Poster B
Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.


i read this response as being the opinion of poster B (anything other than defending themselves takes an enormous stretch of logic)

and of what B assumes about the insurgents (which is how they see it)

is that what you were wondering?

i read this response as being the opinion of poster B (anything other than defending themselves takes an enormous stretch of logic)

and of what B assumes about the insurgents (which is how they see it)

is that what you were wondering?

yes, that is the question. And thank you for the explanation.

i have no idea :confused:

True, but that still doesn't explain the killing of Iraqi innocents...Politicians and Generals can always "explain" stuff :rolleyes:
Nothing can ever justify the Killing of Iraqi, US, Afghan, Palestinean, Israeli, Japanese innocents...

Yet Wars always kill hundreds or Thousands of innocents...

There is a War going on rite now (War on Terror)

That war cannot be won by either side...It can go on for generations... until Argammedon finally ends it.
Its the ultimate "Greek Fire".

we(the human race) should try to pool all our humanity to stop that fire...before it burns us all.

Ok hi. First I want to say that I think, in response to the initial post on this topic: both.

Second - One of the posts in this topic said something about 'not attacking your direct attacker' (paraphrase) being unreasonable. Which I assume is a way of saying the 'Terrorists' are behaving unreasonably. To you I say: "Do some research into world war 2." BOTH SIDES blitzed each other's cities. Just as the Nazis attacked London, Coventry, etc with no obvious military targets in mind, the Allies attacked multiple German cities with no obvious military targets in mind. In fact we knew exactly where to strike to end the war without it going on for the 6 years that it eventually lasted but instead of attacking those targets WE (by 'we' i mean the allied forces, as I am English) attacked civilian targets. This is a very common tactic, used by all sides in almost every war in human history (and I am sure that the Coalition is using it in this war on terrorism but keeping very quiet about it) and is refered to as a 'War on Morale' (which basically means 'make the people beg the government to give up').

IF ANYONE WANTS TO DEBATE/DISCUSS MY SECOND POINT START A NEW THREAD TO DO SO!!!!!!!!!!