NationStates Jolt Archive

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naream
douse it help you sleep at night to know you can classify the world so easly into groups of good and evil?

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something. Or England over some 100 year old grievance in Pakistan.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.

Of course, I agree with you. Sadly, this is the way things are going, and they aren't going to change for the better, it seems.

You're right. In fact, let's enact a final solution to the Muslim problem.

Now, let this malformed abortion of thread die.

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something. Or England over some 100 year old grievance in Pakistan.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.


:D :D :D

Someone needs to pay attention to the outside world: Madrid and London ring any bells....sorry, I know I shouldn't rise to a troll but sometimes it makes me laugh just too much not post....

You should also be aware that the Goverment of America is right now and has in the past acted as a terrorist Goverment.

You should also be aware that the Goverment of America is right now and has in the past acted as a terrorist Goverment.

Yeah everyone forgets the IRA bombings.

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

When did he ever say they had justification for committing 9-11? Sounds to me like just a criticism of a black and white view of the world to me.

So its cowardly not to invade a vastly weaker country under your logic or maybe to just sign your freedoms away for a tiny threat?

America really does scare me sometimes…

*pulls up a chair, makes popcorn, passes out drinks*

*pulls up a chair, makes popcorn, passes out drinks*

Haven't your last like 30 posts been just like this one.

Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!

*pulls up a chair, makes popcorn, passes out drinks*

I'll take one of those thank you.
*sits down as well and starts to throw paper balls at people*
Get the head and you score 10 points.

Haven't your last like 30 posts been just like this one.

I don't know.

*hands Pyotr a drink*

You must also consider the fact that the towers were not taken down by planes so in reality the party you want to so badly blame this event on would have infact if not aided by other elements would have done almost no damage by compairson to what happened, and thats if you even knew what party to blame in the first place you are so gunna hate yourself if you ever wake up from the propaganda.

I'll take one of those thank you.
*sits down as well and starts to throw paper balls at people*
Get the head and you score 10 points.

How long 'til this gets ugly, do you think?

*throws a paper ball at New Grenada, misses*

How long 'til this gets ugly, do you think?

*throws a paper ball at New Grenada, misses*

Dunno depends how long it takes till MTAE gets a wind of it.

*throws and just gets New Granada on the arse*

How long 'til this gets ugly, do you think?

*throws a paper ball at New Grenada, misses*

Well, we can always hope that the people who come into the thread will just point at the OP and laugh. Probably won't happen, but we can hope.;)

Well, we can always hope that the people who come into the thread will just point at the OP and laugh. Probably won't happen, but we can hope.;)

We sure can.

In the meantime...

*throws a paper ball at The Nazz*

Yeah everyone forgets the IRA bombings.

???

We sure can.

In the meantime...

*throws a paper ball at The Nazz*

Well, if I'm gonna be in here instead of grading papers, I might as well have some popcorn.

*hits paper ball back with a tennis racket*

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

It amazes me how people like you can so egregiously equivocate on "justification" and not notice it, however often they are called on it.

Stating that al-Qaeda had a reason is not the same thing as saying that the attacks were jusitified.

Well, if I'm gonna be in here instead of grading papers, I might as well have some popcorn.

*hits paper ball back with a tennis racket*

*ducks, throws a bag of popcorn at The Nazz*

But, back on topic.

Soheran makes an excellent point.

It amazes me how people like you can so egregiously equivocate on "justification" and not notice it, however often they are called on it.

Stating that al-Qaeda had a reason is not the same thing as saying that the attacks were jusitified.

I think the point he was making (or at least as far as I understood him) is that some people do equivocate reason with justification. They, in their own lives, think that if they have a reason, then they have justification, and they have applied the same to al Qaeda.

It amazes me how people like you can so egregiously equivocate on "justification" and not notice it, however often they are called on it.

Stating that al-Qaeda had a reason is not the same thing as saying that the attacks were jusitified.

And just like that Soheran completely throws this idiot of an OP in the trash.....

As always I bow down in absolute jealousy at your ability with language; to be so concise and well-spoken and have the utter committment to not suffer fools gladly:

*looks over enviously and hopes that OP/MTAE replies so he can laugh a little more*

Well, if I'm gonna be in here instead of grading papers, I might as well have some popcorn.

*hits paper ball back with a tennis racket*

Yeah, I spent most of yesterday marking exams. Hand over some popcorn. Thanks.

*munches distractedly on a paper ball*

Yeah, I spent most of yesterday marking exams. Hand over some popcorn. Thanks.

*munches distractedly on a paper ball*

*passes Ariddia a bag*

You're a teacher? What do you teach?

Hey, I just found some golf balls, these should be more fun and I put some beer down somewhere round here.

*searches for beer*

They, in their own lives, think that if they have a reason, then they have justification, and they have applied the same to al Qaeda.

Really? Who?

I've read a whole lot of leftist writing on 9/11/01... Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Monsour Hekmat, Howard Zinn... even Ward Churchill, IIRC, didn't really maintain that the attacks were justified.

Really? Who?

I've read a whole lot of leftist writing on 9/11/01... Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Monsour Hekmat, Howard Zinn... even Ward Churchill, IIRC, didn't really maintain that the attacks were justified.

Oh, of course they don't say it. That would ruin them. Whether or not they hold that the attacks were justified or not, I don't know. But I do know that your average person on the street who idolizes these people apply their own experience ("Everything's relative. What I want is right for me.") to the statements about the reasons for the attack as well as all the negative publicity for this administration (warranted or not) and come to the conclusion that the US must have done something to justify the actions of the attackers. After all, they had reasons.

This is my own experience with people.

Really? Who?

I've read a whole lot of leftist writing on 9/11/01... Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Monsour Hekmat, Howard Zinn... even Ward Churchill, IIRC, didn't really maintain that the attacks were justified.

Churchill did, however, call the victims "little Eichmanns."

It amazes me how people like you can so egregiously equivocate on "justification" and not notice it, however often they are called on it.

Stating that al-Qaeda had a reason is not the same thing as saying that the attacks were jusitified.

I think this is one of the few times the retort "same difference" actually applies.

There may be a semantic difference, but by even terming something a "reason" without a caveat you grant some sanity to the action.

We had a guy in New York in the 80s who said he shot women in the head because his neighbor's dog Sam told him to. I guess he had a reason? Moszt people just thought he was dangerously insane.

Also -- "Reason" (other definition) is disgusting anywhere near the murderous acts of fanatic lunatics.

<snip>

Oh please....

Even to this day, jihadis sponsored by American allies are still engaged in terrorism. And every time we take it up to you, you (not you personally, the rhetorical you - the govt of US) tells us we have to "show restraint and be understanding blah blah"...

When the US does what it tells others to do, you can start pontificating.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Terrorist is just a silly hype word used by the US to separate themselves from those attacking them for whatever reason, somehow no logic then applies to these individuals, and they just 'wanna kill americans'. The truth is far more complicated, and comes down to failed US foreign policy engendering these so-called 'terrorists'.

Were not the American revolutionaries considered to be nothing but killers and terrorists by the British (Yes they had ideals but so do Islamists), and indeed all they did was kill Britons.

I think this is one of the few times the retort "same difference" actually applies.

There may be a semantic difference, but by even terming something a "reason" without a caveat you grant some sanity to the action.

We had a guy in New York in the 80s who said he shot women in the head because his neighbor's dog Sam told him to. I guess he had a reason? Moszt people just thought he was dangerously insane.

Also -- "Reason" (other definition) is disgusting anywhere near the murderous acts of fanatic lunatics.

And there it is...:D :D :D :D :D

You must also consider the fact that the towers were not taken down by planes so in reality the party you want to so badly blame this event on would have infact if not aided by other elements would have done almost no damage by compairson to what happened, and thats if you even knew what party to blame in the first place you are so gunna hate yourself if you ever wake up from the propaganda.

Thanks for the laugh. You're right, it was probably the aliens.

I forget that some of the people I was pissed at in my original post are just delusional anyway.

Hey, I just found some golf balls, these should be more fun and I put some beer down somewhere round here.

*searches for beer*

Keg's in the corner--Anchor Steam beer. Have a glass.

*picks up golf ball and hits it with tennis racket*

*snip*

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive. Anyone who commits acts of terror, for whatever reason, is a terrorist. Period. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is bullshit. A terrorist fighting for freedom is just as great a terrorist as a terrorist fighting for tyranny.

:D :D :D

Someone needs to pay attention to the outside world: Madrid and London ring any bells......

London and Madrid were tragedies, albeit not on the scale of 9-11.

Do you think the English and Spanish people and governments reacted in the right fashion to those cowardly attacks by suicidal lunatics? Or did they encourage the tactic by, perhaps, to some observers, appearing to be cowed by terrorism? (e.g.: Spanish elections).

This is my own experience with people.

And how much experience do you have with those people? Because from my own experience, as one of those people and someone who spends a lot of time talking to those people, your view of their opinions is completely unwarranted.

I think this is one of the few times the retort "same difference" actually applies.

There may be a semantic difference, but by even terming something a "reason" without a caveat you grant some sanity to the action.

So? Al-Qaeda may be sane; that does not mean it is justified.

We had a guy in New York in the 80s who said he shot women in the head because his neighbor's dog Sam told him to. I guess he had a reason?

Perhaps, but that is a reason divorced from all reality and pointless to consider.

Also -- "Reason" (other definition) is disgusting anywhere near the murderous acts of fanatic lunatics.

That is a stupid and dangerous assumption.

well mebey actully letting go of the easy point of view of just following whatever the folks in power tell you is just to scary as actully thinking for yourself is hard for some folks and can be a big change witch is scary for most.


Aliens, how mature of you.

Keg's in the corner--Anchor Steam beer. Have a glass.

*picks up golf ball and hits it with tennis racket*

This is very cute. We used to call it forum masturbation.

Keg's in the corner--Anchor Steam beer. Have a glass.

*picks up golf ball and hits it with tennis racket*

Ordinarily I do not respond to social-thread spam, but I have to give a +1 to anchor steam.

And how much experience do you have with those people? Because from my own experience, as one of those people and someone who spends a lot of time talking to those people, your view of their opinions is completely unwarranted.

My mother's entire family.

I have spoken with them (there's never a time when I see them and don't have a political debate), and that is their logic. And it is the same as many people here on my campus.

So? Al-Qaeda may be sane; that does not mean it is justified. Perhaps, but that is a reason divorced from all reality and pointless to consider.

Really? Is murderous direction from a live dog more sane than mass murderer due to guidance from "god" in order to go to "heaven"?

This is very cute. We used to call it forum masturbation.
This is less sticky.
Ordinarily I do not respond to social-thread spam, but I have to give a +1 to anchor steam.
It's a beautiful beer and an even more beautiful place to work. If I didn't love teaching so much, I might go back to it.

Really? Is murderous direction from a live dog more sane than mass murderer due to guidance from "god" in order to go to "heaven"?

Yes, because the latter actually has a goal in mind, and a plan to accomplish said goal. Both of them are not justifications, and both are disgusting.

Really? Is murderous direction from a live dog more sane than mass murderer due to guidance from "god" in order to go to "heaven"?

That is not the only factor behind terrorism. There are plenty of religious fundamentalists who do not resort to terrorism, and plenty of terrorists who are not religious fundamentalists.

London and Madrid were tragedies, albeit not on the scale of 9-11.

Do you think the English and Spanish people and governments reacted in the right fashion to those cowardly attacks by suicidal lunatics? Or did they encourage the tactic by, perhaps, to some observers, appearing to be cowed by terrorism? (e.g.: Spanish elections).

I will reply to you with two conditions

1) I will only answer this question as I don't care for this thread

AND

2) You must be sure not to say something I consider to be bullshit:

As a Londoner who lives five minutes away from one of the tube stations attacked I find it fairly insulting that you talk about tragic scales. You are merely placing American lives above British and Spanish lives: yes 3,000 is a bigger number than 70 odd people but the outcome is the same: a few desperate individuals slaughter innocents, in the process taking their own lives. I pity those people that died in London, New York and Madrid equally. I also pity those men that feel - inexplicably - that their whole existence boils down to taking the lives of others. Yes they are "terrorists" but how can one hope to understand what must be happening in their minds for them to carry out these attacks?

As to your point: yes the Spanish people did the right thing. The actions of their government in taking part in an unjustified war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives made Madrid a target and the people reacted justly by removing the men who put a bullseye on their capital city. As to London: we reacted as Londoners, by showing our anger at Tony Blair for turning members of our community into terrorists - his party took massive losses in the 2006 local elections.

Hope that clears that up...

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something. Or England over some 100 year old grievance in Pakistan.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.

You know, Britain, Spain, already got attacked?

My mother's entire family.

I have spoken with them (there's never a time when I see them and don't have a political debate), and that is their logic. And it is the same as many people here on my campus.

Be more specific. What exactly do they say? (If not direct quotes, at least try for a close paraphrase.)

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive. Anyone who commits acts of terror, for whatever reason, is a terrorist. Period. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is bullshit. A terrorist fighting for freedom is just as great a terrorist as a terrorist fighting for tyranny.

Islamists are fighting against US imperialism, which if you want my opinion is a worthy cause. I mean was starting a terrorist war that would kill thousands because a few old guys didnt want to pay taxes justified, I dont think so.

If contradictions in US foreign policy were strawberries, I would be drinking smoothies right now.

Their fight is every bit as justified as yours was, 'war on terrorism' and all that garbage is just rhetoric against an enemy, I am not saying the US is not entitled to distribute false propanganda against their enemy, just dont expect non-ignorant people to buy it.

You know their is more to blame for terrorism than the perpetrators themselves, for one the failed foreign policy that created these terrorists might come a close second. Contradictions in politics exist everywhere my friend, things are never black and white and if you think they are your the perfect ignorant citizen for Dubya and co.

Islamists are fighting against US imperialism, which if you want my opinion is a worthy cause. I mean was starting a terrorist war that would kill thousands because a few old guys didnt want to pay taxes justified, I dont think so.

If contradictions in US foreign policy were strawberries, I would be drinking smoothies right now.

Their fight is every bit as justified as yours was, 'war on terrorism' and all that garbage is just rhetoric against an enemy, I am not saying the US is not entitled to distribute false propanganda against their enemy, just dont expect non-ignorant people to buy it.

You know their is more to blame for terrorism than the perpetrators themselves, for one the failed foreign policy that created these terrorists might come a close second. Contradictions in politics exist everywhere my friend, things are never black and white and if you think they are your the perfect ignorant citizen for Dubya and co.

Don't get me wrong, I consider most - if not all - of the Bush Administration's foreign policy decisions as "terrorism."

Don't get me wrong, I consider most - if not all - of the Bush Administration's foreign policy decisions as "terrorism."

Have a beer--you're getting involved. :p Don't make me bean you with a golf ball hit by a tennis racket.

Be more specific. What exactly do they say? (If not direct quotes, at least try for a close paraphrase.)

I did paraphrase. They say that the most intelligent people they know of (Chomsky and the others) know that the United States is in the wrong with all these horrible conservatives in power. They say that what they feel is right is right. Not in so many words: they use all that stuff no objective truth and that morality is relative. And they also say they know about the fanatics reasons (the virgins in heaven and all that). Therefore, the fanatics (they say) were justified in their attacks. Some (mostly from my mom's family) also think we are justified in retaliating, but they believe terrorist attacks are justified.

Islamists are fighting against US imperialism, which if you want my opinion is a worthy cause.

Does that justify the means?

I mean was starting a terrorist war that would kill thousands because a few old guys didnt want to pay taxes justified, I dont think so.

Assuming there was a question there, the war, perhaps. The means, perhaps.

If contradictions in US foreign policy were strawberries, I would be drinking smoothies right now.

They are strawberries. Bush likes his smoothies. This explains all.

Their fight is every bit as justified as yours was, 'war on terrorism' and all that garbage is just rhetoric against an enemy, I am not saying the US is not entitled to distribute false propanganda against their enemy, just dont expect non-ignorant people to buy it.

So, responding to an attack (talking about Afghanistan here, not Iraq) wasn't justified?

You know their is more to blame for terrorism than the perpetrators themselves, for one the failed foreign policy that created these terrorists might come a close second. Contradictions in politics exist everywhere my friend, things are never black and white and if you think they are your the perfect ignorant citizen for Dubya and co.

On the other hand, the culture that says it's okay to blow yourself and small children up to prove a point must take some responsibility (note, not talking about mainstream Islam here)

Do you think the English and Spanish people and governments reacted in the right fashion to those cowardly attacks by suicidal lunatics?

'Cowardly'. 'Suicidal'. Anybody else here suffering from cognitive closure here?

'Cowardly'. 'Suicidal'. Anybody else here suffering from cognitive closure here?

Cognitive closure = pretty alliteration...

Yes.

I did paraphrase. They say that the most intelligent people they know of (Chomsky and the others) know that the United States is in the wrong with all these horrible conservatives in power.

And there, they are very much right. What does it have to do with the justification for 9/11?

They say that what they feel is right is right. Not in so many words: they use all that stuff no objective truth and that morality is relative.

That does not at all equate to "what they feel is right is right"... not without substantial broadening of the meaning of "feel" anyway, to the point where essentially all moral positions amount to "what they feel is right is right."

Out of curiosity, do you have any better basis but feeling for your moral standards?

And they also say they know about the fanatics reasons (the virgins in heaven and all that). Therefore, the fanatics (they say) were justified in their attacks. Some (mostly from my mom's family) also think we are justified in retaliating, but they believe terrorist attacks are justified.

Most likely they subscribe to the idea that since there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, the fanatics, from the fanatics' point of view, were justified, and the retaliation, from our point of view, is not.

This is a perfectly coherent and very much defensible position, and does not at all equate to the position that the attacks were justified - "justification" in its common sense meaning that the attacks were justified by our standards.

That is not the only factor behind terrorism. There are plenty of religious fundamentalists who do not resort to terrorism, and plenty of terrorists who are not religious fundamentalists.

Non-Islamic suicide terrorists? I'd be interested to hear some recent examples. Not saying there aren't, I'd just be curious as to the cases.

It's not a small point...it is much easier to slaughter masses of people when you are willing to give up your own life (for a better afterlife in this example).

Non-Islamic suicide terrorists? I'd be interested to hear some recent examples. Not saying there aren't, I'd just be curious as to the cases.


I believe the Liberation Tigers of Tamil eelam use suicide bombers.

The LTTE has frequently used suicide bombers as a tactic. They pioneered the use of concealed suicide bomb vests, which are now used by many other organisations worldwide. The tactic of deploying suicide bombers was used to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed in 1991 using a prototype suicide vest, and Ranasinghe Premadasa, assassinated in 1993.[34][35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_tigers#Suicide_bombers

Yes, because the latter actually has a goal in mind, and a plan to accomplish said goal.

I don't believe clever, premeditated, suicidal murder of masses is less insane than a lone gunman. Is that basically what you are saying? It was sane because it was planned out?

Non-Islamic suicide terrorists? I'd be interested to hear some recent examples. Not saying there aren't, I'd just be curious as to the cases.


I believe the Liberation Tigers of Tamil eelam use suicide bombers.

The LTTE has frequently used suicide bombers as a tactic. They pioneered the use of concealed suicide bomb vests, which are now used by many other organisations worldwide. The tactic of deploying suicide bombers was used to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed in 1991 using a prototype suicide vest, and Ranasinghe Premadasa, assassinated in 1993.[34][35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_t...uicide_bombers

Non-Islamic suicide terrorists? I'd be interested to hear some recent examples. Not saying there aren't, I'd just be curious as to the cases.

Tamil Tigers.

It's not a small point...it is much easier to slaughter masses of people when you are willing to give up your own life (for a better afterlife in this example).

But it still doesn't provide a reason... more of a framework.

And why attack the US, as opposed to any other non-Muslim country on Earth?

And there, they are very much right. What does it have to do with the justification for 9/11?

I didn't say it had anything to do with it.

That does not at all equate to "what they feel is right is right"... not without substantial broadening of the meaning of "feel" anyway, to the point where essentially all moral positions amount to "what they feel is right is right."

Out of curiosity, do you have any better basis but feeling for your moral standards?

I'm sorry, my "they's" are confusing. Starting here, I'm referring to my family again.

My morality is based on faith (which is not quite the same as mere feelings).

Most likely they subscribe to the idea that since there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, the fanatics, from the fanatics' point of view, were justified, and the retaliation, from our point of view, is not.

Of course, which is bunk.

EDIT: For those of us who believe that there is a definite right/wrong, this idea that anything wrong can be justified is ridiculous. Anything can be explained (reasons given for it or an explanation of why they feel justified), but justification itself is false.

I don't believe clever, premeditated, suicidal murder of masses is less insane than a lone gunman. Is that basically what you are saying? It was sane because it was planned out?

Never said it was sane, I just said that it had a reason, sanity was never discussed.

I believe the Liberation Tigers of Tamil eelam use suicide bombers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_tigers#Suicide_bombers

So did the Viet Cong.

Of course, which is bunk.

that's bold.

I As a Londoner who lives five minutes away from one of the tube stations attacked I find it fairly insulting that you talk about tragic scales. You are merely placing American lives above British and Spanish lives: yes 3,000 is a bigger number than 70 odd people but the outcome is the same: a few desperate individuals slaughter innocents, in the process taking their own lives. I pity those people that died in London, New York and Madrid equally. I also pity those men that feel - inexplicably - that their whole existence boils down to taking the lives of others. Yes they are "terrorists" but how can one hope to understand what must be happening in their minds for them to carry out these attacks?

Putting aside some quibbles I basically agree with this and apologize it you thought I valued one victim over another.

As to your point: yes the Spanish people did the right thing. The actions of their government in taking part in an unjustified war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives made Madrid a target and the people reacted justly by removing the men who put a bullseye on their capital city. As to London: we reacted as Londoners, by showing our anger at Tony Blair for turning members of our community into terrorists - his party took massive losses in the 2006 local elections.

Would you understand if a country's reaction to terrorist attacks therefore spurs future attacks? Perhaps by other insane people with whom you are not in agreement? Would it be implausible for a nutjob to decide that the English or Spanish people are susceptible to such tactics in their political stances?

Isn't reacting positively to suicidal mass murders' desires tantamount to negotiating with terrorists, or perhaps even tacitly condoning their actions ?

So did the Viet Cong.

And the Japanese during WWII.

EDIT: For those of us who believe that there is a definite right/wrong, this idea that anything wrong can be justified is ridiculous. Anything can be explained (reasons given for it or an explanation of why they feel justified), but justification itself is false.

this argument falls flat when the same people who say this then go on to attempt to justify such things as the iraq war.

My morality is based on faith (which is not quite the same as mere feelings).

No, it is indistinguishable. It is the intuition that x is true... as are "moral feelings."

So did the Viet Cong.

I never heard anything about that...

this argument falls flat when the same people who say this then go on to attempt to justify such things as the iraq war.

We thought that Sadaam had WMDs (I am not yet convinced that he didn't). So we went to war. We were justified. We did what was right based on what we knew. Did it turn out that our information was wrong? That's what it looks like. Now we are justified for not turning them loose to hatefully destroy each other.

Were we wrong for going to war in the first place? I would say that we were in error, not sin, though we were wrong (if there truly were no WMDs). You can be justified when in error, but not when in sin.

No, it is indistinguishable. It is the intuition that x is true... as are "moral feelings."

No, not really. It's not so much "I think this is right." It's "I know this is right."

You'll never know the difference until you experience both.

Putting aside some quibbles I basically agree with this and apologize it you thought I valued one victim over another.

Well I'm glad that you agree that you feel pity for the terrorists - but am secretly worried that you agree with me on anything: I must be getting soft.

Would you understand if a country's reaction to terrorist attacks therefore spurs future attacks? Perhaps by other insane people with whom you are not in agreement? Would it be implausible for a nutjob to decide that the English or Spanish people are susceptible to such tactics in their political stances?

No. Because the only big (foiled) terrorist plot of late has been the ridiculous one with the gatorade and the i-pods on the planes. An attack organised by British people against....AMERICA. Oh dear. Does that mean that the administration's reaction has made your country more susceptible to attacks? It may well mean just that. There has been no sense of it happening again in Spain but I'm absolutely positive that it will happen again in Britain as we continue to occupt Iraq not because we're some kind of soft touch for terrorists as you seem to think.

Isn't reacting positively to suicidal mass murders' desires tantamount to negotiating with terrorists, or perhaps even tacitly condoning their actions

How exactly is using your democratic rights to punish your government, as the Spanish did, for effectively playing a part in helping the attacks in Madrid to happen a 'positive' reaction?

What the hell is wrong with negotiating with terrorists? It might actually save (have saved) some damn lives in many parts of the world: Israel, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Spain (it actually has as the government open up dialogue with ETA) etc

Please stop accusing people who aren't baying for "Islamist terrorist" blood of condoning terrorism - we don't, we just understand A) why it happens and B) think there are other causes rather than the "insanity" that you think causes it.

<snippage>

that was rather predictable of you.

Well I'm glad that you agree that you feel pity for the terrorists - but am secretly worried that you agree with me on anything: I must be getting soft.

lol...witty. No sympathy here for the dead terrorists.

No. Because the only big (foiled) terrorist plot of late has been the ridiculous one with the gatorade and the i-pods on the planes.

Was it "ridiculous* because it was technically flawed? Seems like the experts certainly paid attention.

There has been no sense of it happening again in Spain but I'm absolutely positive that it will happen again in Britain as we continue to occupt Iraq not because we're some kind of soft touch for terrorists as you seem to think.

Maybe it will happen because Britain votes for somethinbg in the Un supporting Israel. Or closes a radical mosque. Or imprisons some local mullah. Or has a state visit with a Saudi Prince. Or 50 other reasons to get into heaven with those virgins.

How exactly is using your democratic rights to punish your government, as the Spanish did, for effectively playing a part in helping the attacks in Madrid to happen a 'positive' reaction?

You'll have to rephrase this I don't follow.

What the hell is wrong with negotiating with terrorists? It might actually save (have saved) some damn lives in many parts of the world: Israel, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Spain (it actually has as the government open up dialogue with ETA) etc

It encourages the tactic. Obviously.

that was rather predictable of you.

What did you snip? I can't know what I'm preidictable in if I can't see what you're commenting on.

We thought that Sadaam had WMDs (I am not yet convinced that he didn't).

I'm so tired by this debate. Saddam made WMDs. He used WMDs against Iran. He used WMDs against the Kurds. He got his butt kicked in Kuwait and agreed to UN inspectors so he could keep turning oxygen into CO. He broke virtually every tenet of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, including firing hundreds of missiles at British and American plannes. He ignored 19 UN resolutions. Then he tossed out the UN WMD inspectors.

The threat of WMDs was more than the "Great Satan" was willing to risk. Done. Time to stop his clock. I look forward to the hanging. Hope he enjoys the virgins. Personally I find virgins a pain in the ass.

I'm so tired by this debate. Saddam got WMDs from America. He used WMDs against Iran. He used WMDs against the Kurds. He got his butt kicked in Kuwait and agreed to UN inspectors so he could keep turning oxygen into CO. He broke virtually every tenet of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, including firing hundreds of missiles at British and American plannes. He ignored 19 UN resolutions. Then he tossed out the UN WMD inspectors.


Fixed.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation - not that you're being MTAE about anything, you're actually talking rather than shouting which is nice but I think some of you're rhetoric is just that: Islamophobic rhetoric but anyway:

lol...witty. No sympathy here for the dead terrorists.

Therein lies the reason that they want to kill you.

Was it "ridiculous* because it was technically flawed? Seems like the experts certainly paid attention.

I found it funny that the bastion of Consumerist unregulated free-market Capitalism was going to be attacked with i-pods and gatorade and I can call it ridiculous because it didn't work: my point, however, was that it was British Muslims attacking America, mate, in the war on terror, what does that tell you about how successful the war on terror is?

Maybe it will happen because Britain votes for somethinbg in the Un supporting Israel. Or closes a radical mosque. Or imprisons some local mullah. Or has a state visit with a Saudi Prince. Or 50 other reasons to get into heaven with those virgins.

Don't talk about any tenets of Islam until you learn about it. I would protest (peacefully) loudly about any state visit with a Saudi Prince. What on earth is a radical mosque: there is a mosque two minutes from my house. Is it radical if they paint it a cool colour or if everyone in it is a terrorist? Bizarre idea.

You'll have to rephrase this I don't follow.

You said that the British/Spanish people reacted "positively" to terrorism. I said they didn't but that the Spanish reacted correctly by removing a government whose position put them under attack.

It encourages the tactic. Obviously.

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there. Don't make sweeping statements and don't be Islamophobic and we can have proper conversation.

I hate it when the people who commit these horrible acts call themselves religious. A holy war is an oxymoron. Just remember, religion tears apart but faith brings together. :)

No, not really. It's not so much "I think this is right." It's "I know this is right."

Yes, and exactly the same is true of the genuine moral convictions held by moral relativists like me.

But they are still intuitions. It still boils down to "I know this is right because I feel strongly that it is right" - much like logic. The only difference is that I do not pretend that my position encompasses truth.

You'll never know the difference until you experience both.

I have.

Yes, and exactly the same is true of the genuine moral convictions held by moral relativists like me.

But they are still intuitions. It still boils down to "I know this is right because I feel strongly that it is right" - much like logic. The only difference is that I do not pretend that my position encompasses truth.

Well, I disagree.

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there.

Unfortunately, people choose to ignore the times when negotiating with terrorist groups has actually worked. In almost every case it has led to a significant decrease in violence from said group, if not an outright ceasefire.

Furthermore, terrorist groups normally don't follow beliefs that are exclusively their own. By negotiating with terrorists, you're allowing the groups that they speak for to have a voice without it being corrupted by constant killings.

Unfortunately, people choose to ignore the times when negotiating with terrorist groups has actually worked. In almost every case it has led to a significant decrease in violence from said group, if not an outright ceasefire.

Furthermore, terrorist groups normally don't follow beliefs that are exclusively their own. By negotiating with terrorists, you're allowing the groups that they speak for to have a voice without it being corrupted by constant killings.

Very well put if I may say so. Have a couple of cookies.

:D

I can't believe I'm having this conversation - not that you're being MTAE about anything, you're actually talking rather than shouting which is nice but I think some of you're rhetoric is just that: Islamophobic rhetoric but anyway:

I don't know what MTAE means.

I found it funny that the bastion of Consumerist unregulated free-market Capitalism was going to be attacked with i-pods and gatorade and I can call it ridiculous because it didn't work: my point, however, was that it was British Muslims attacking America, mate, in the war on terror, what does that tell you about how successful the war on terror is?

I disagree with ryour characterization of ridiculous as you haven't shown it wasn't technically feasible. Or something therefore that should be ridiculed.

As to British Muslims, they clearly consider themselves Muslims and not British. That is something Britain and all of Europe will have to face if current population trends play out.

Don't talk about any tenets of Islam until you learn about it. I would protest (peacefully) loudly about any state visit with a Saudi Prince. What on earth is a radical mosque: there is a mosque two minutes from my house. Is it radical if they paint it a cool colour or if everyone in it is a terrorist? Bizarre idea.

It is radical if it preaches violence. Actually the characterization is immaterial, it is the threat of violence by Muslims to a hypothetical police action against a mosque.

You said that the British/Spanish people reacted "positively" to terrorism. I said they didn't but that the Spanish reacted correctly by removing a government whose position put them under attack.

What were they attacked for? Iraq?

There was an narrowly aborted attack in the 1980s by Muslims to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. What was their motivation?

How about the Cole and the embassies? That was before Iraq.

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there. Don't make sweeping statements and don't be Islamophobic and we can have proper conversation.

Negotiating with terrorists makes the terrorism tactic work. that is patently obvious -- human beings will employ tactics that produce results and discard tactics that don't (unless perhaps those tactics get them to heaven/virgins).You just showed that. Would Britain have negotiated with the IRA without terrorism? There were bombs and now there aren't?

Mass murdering terrorists are either criminals or insane and should be killed or incarcerated. You don't negotiate with Son of Sam's dog.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation - not that you're being MTAE about anything, you're actually talking rather than shouting which is nice but I think some of you're rhetoric is just that: Islamophobic rhetoric but anyway:

I don't know what MTAE means.

I found it funny that the bastion of Consumerist unregulated free-market Capitalism was going to be attacked with i-pods and gatorade and I can call it ridiculous because it didn't work: my point, however, was that it was British Muslims attacking America, mate, in the war on terror, what does that tell you about how successful the war on terror is?

I disagree with ryour characterization of ridiculous as you haven't shown it wasn't technically feasible. Or something therefore that should be ridiculed.

As to British Muslims, they clearly consider themselves Muslims and not British. That is something Britain and all of Europe will have to face if current population trends play out.

Don't talk about any tenets of Islam until you learn about it. I would protest (peacefully) loudly about any state visit with a Saudi Prince. What on earth is a radical mosque: there is a mosque two minutes from my house. Is it radical if they paint it a cool colour or if everyone in it is a terrorist? Bizarre idea.

It is radical if it preaches violence. Actually the characterization is immaterial, it is the threat of violence by Muslims to a hypothetical police action against a mosque.

You said that the British/Spanish people reacted "positively" to terrorism. I said they didn't but that the Spanish reacted correctly by removing a government whose position put them under attack.

What were they attacked for? Iraq?

There was an narrowly aborted attack in the 1980s by Muslims to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. What was their motivation?

How about the Cole and the embassies? That was before Iraq.

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there. Don't make sweeping statements and don't be Islamophobic and we can have proper conversation.

Negotiating with terrorists makes the terrorism tactic work. that is patently obvious -- human beings will employ tactics that produce results and discard tactics that don't (unless perhaps those tactics get them to heaven/virgins).You just showed that. Would Britain have negotiated with the IRA without terrorism? There were bombs and now there aren't?

Mass murdering terrorists are either criminals or insane and should be killed or incarcerated. You don't negotiate with Son of Sam's dog.

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again.

By the way, just caught this. Take a hike, I'm not censoring my opinions for you.

Unfortunately, people choose to ignore the times when negotiating with terrorist groups has actually worked.

Terrorists don't.

As to British Muslims, they clearly consider themselves Muslims and not British. That is something Britain and all of Europe will have to face if current population trends play out.


It's interesting that you freely describe terrorists as Arabic or Middle Eastern, but when they get a little closer to home, perhaps when they start coming from an allied country, you suddenly decide that nationality doesn't apply to them.
No matter.


It is radical if it preaches violence.


Mass murdering terrorists are either criminals or insane and should be killed or incarcerated.


Are you a radical terrorist?

Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there. Don't make sweeping statements and don't be Islamophobic and we can have proper conversation.

Well, that's all well and good, but when we have these radical Islamics that want nothing but death for America and the West, well, what the hell are we supposed to do? I can see the negotiation table now...

"We know you want to kill us all, but let's try to reach an agreement here. We'll let you kill half of us, and we won't interfere with you ever again. OK?
"NO. WE WANT TO KILL YOU ALL!"
"OK, um, how about 3/4 of us?"
"NO. WE'RE GOING TO KILL YOU ALL!"

Sarcasm, of course, but only a little.

Seriously now, how are we supposed to negotiate with someone who wants to kill us? If someone walks up to you on a lonely, abandoned alley with a gun pointed at you, do you pull out your gun and shoot to ensure your safety, or do you stop and ask "are you going to shoot me?"

Same deal with those Islamic extremists. When we let them strike first, we get tragedies like 9/11 (the Madrid and London bombings were responses).

It's interesting that you freely describe terrorists as Arabic or Middle Eastern, but when they get a little closer to home, perhaps when they start coming from an allied country, you suddenly decide that nationality doesn't apply to them.
No matter.




Are you a radical terrorist?

Saint-Newly you speak sense. You talk to OP from now; I have wasted words on it.

Same deal with those Islamic extremists. When we let them strike first, we get tragedies like 9/11 (the Madrid and London bombings were responses).

Not according to the terrorists. The London Bombers left records stating that they wanted British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nothing to do with "hating the west". They were Westerners. They lived Western lifestyles, for the most part.

Saint-Newly you speak sense. You talk to OP from now; I have wasted words on it.

I know the feeling well :)

This thread is silly.

This thread is silly.

:D More silly than a cow whose arse has been sown shut and yet said cow has been fed and fed and fed and fed and fed until it explodes? I don't think so....

Not according to the terrorists. The London Bombers left records stating that they wanted British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nothing to do with "hating the west". They were Westerners. They lived Western lifestyles, for the most part.

But what is the point? Taken in a microcsm, if someone were against the election of a political candidate, if they go and slaughter ten people at town hall, do you then give then a sit down and remove that candidate? What happens with the next guy with a grievance?

The nature of the grievance, right or wrong, should have nothing to do with the validiation of the act of mass murder.

The nature of the grievance, right or wrong, should have nothing to do with the validiation of the act of mass murder.

No, but ignoring a threat to one's country simply in order to avoid the taboo of negotiation is a massively irresponsible act. Even if you ignore the reasons for terrorism, any action that can be taken to prevent it without infringing on human rights is a good one.

We thought that Sadaam had WMDs (I am not yet convinced that he didn't). So we went to war. We were justified.

America has WMDs. So does Britain. So does most of the western world. would you say an attack on America for having WMDs is justified?

Well, that's all well and good, but when we have these radical Islamics that want nothing but death for America and the West, well, what the hell are we supposed to do? I can see the negotiation table now...

"We know you want to kill us all, but let's try to reach an agreement here. We'll let you kill half of us, and we won't interfere with you ever again. OK?
"NO. WE WANT TO KILL YOU ALL!"
"OK, um, how about 3/4 of us?"
"NO. WE'RE GOING TO KILL YOU ALL!"

Sarcasm, of course, but only a little.

Seriously now, how are we supposed to negotiate with someone who wants to kill us? If someone walks up to you on a lonely, abandoned alley with a gun pointed at you, do you pull out your gun and shoot to ensure your safety, or do you stop and ask "are you going to shoot me?"

Same deal with those Islamic extremists. When we let them strike first, we get tragedies like 9/11 (the Madrid and London bombings were responses).

so we need to "strike first?" is that what youre insinuating?

theres no way to attack terrorism or terrorists first.

America has WMDs. So does Britain. So does most of the western world. would you say an attack on America for having WMDs is justified?

iran has wmds. russia has wmds. north korea has wmds. south korea has american-imported wmds. there are so many countries that have wmds that stating that Western civilizations should be attacked simply for having wmds is a moot point.

furthermore, it is near impossible for iraq to not have wmds. WE gave them nerve toxins in the Iran Contra scandal (weapons for refugees, remember?), so how is it, after only 20 years, those weapons have seemingly evaporated?

hmm...

America has WMDs. So does Britain. So does most of the western world. would you say an attack on America for having WMDs is justified?

I think the focus was more on who controlled the weapons rather than their existance.

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.
So you would have no problem with me proclaiming that the US military is led by evil people (the fact that they are not religious fanatics doesn't matter) - they kill enough innocent people.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification.
An attack like 9/11 could never be justified, but it is possible to analyse the motives to prevent further atrocities. That's what police do.

That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.
No, it's rejecting and working to prevent future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.
So we should be brave and submit to America's plans? Europe is fighting terrorism in its own way, which has been proven to work.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets.
It will be, and you won't.

Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.
There have been a number of attacks in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something.
That's rubbish, most attacks have been due to recent policies*, in addition to the fanatics' blind racism or anti-Christian/anti-secular bigotry.

*Like the Iraq war, support for various totalitarians in the Middle East, etc.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.
Isn't that exactly what you're doing now?

Europe is a much safer place than the US. And we don't panic like the US still do after 5 years to no avail.
Because of US policies the US is a less safe place than 5 years ago.
Because of US policies Afghanistan is a less safe place than 5 years ago.
Because of US policies Iraq is a less safe place than 5 years ago.
Because of US policies the world is a less safe place than 5 years ago.

No, but ignoring a threat to one's country simply in order to avoid the taboo of negotiation is a massively irresponsible act. Even if you ignore the reasons for terrorism, any action that can be taken to prevent it without infringing on human rights is a good one.

You just described the Vichy Government. Kissing Nazi ass. Congratulations.

So you would have no problem with me proclaiming that the US military is led by evil people (the fact that they are not religious fanatics doesn't matter) - they kill enough innocent people.

I'd have no problem with you proclaiming it -- morons proclaiming inanities is useful in society identifying them.

The US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even when it leads to our soldiers peril or death. Civilian casualties are the whole reason for terrorism. I'm sure you won't be able to catch that distinction.

An attack like 9/11 could never be justified, but it is possible to analyse the motives to prevent further atrocities. That's what police do.

Perhaps. The motives were crazy Islam training camps and schools and mullahs preaching hatred. We are cleaning them out of Afghanistan. We are helping install a free society where media and communication will erode medieval lunatic mullahs.

If you thought the answer was cutting of the hands of suspected thieves in Time Square and publicly raping women accused of adultery, no, we are not going to accede to demands for worldwide Islamic law.

So we should be brave and submit to America's plans? Europe is fighting terrorism in its own way, which has been proven to work.

Yes, the white belly stratagem. Impressive.

There have been a number of attacks in Europe.

Hmmmm...What about the "proven to work?

Europe is a much safer place than the US. And we don't panic like the US still do after 5 years to no avail.

Can't speak to that. Although London and Madrid may feel less safe. But I'm sure in your mind that is America's fault rather than the suicidal religious mass murderers. That must be comforting for you, putting a human face on insanity. Much easier to sleep at night.

Because of US policies the US is a less safe place than 5 years ago.

Five years ago was 9-11. No terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11.

Because of US policies Afghanistan is a less safe place than 5 years ago.

Suicidal religious Islamic mass murderers deposed and free society at least possible. Do you think a woman in a pants suit thinks Afghanistan is less safe than it was 5 years ago? Or a woman driving a car? Or reading a book?

Because of US policies Iraq is a less safe place than 5 years ago.

If you weren't a dissident hgetting thrown into wa wododchipper with your family watching, maybe. Iraq has a shot at a free democracy, more than it had under one of the greatest lunatic mass murderers in history. Although, of course, Europe has a soften spot for coddling lunatic mass murderers, doesn't it?

Because of US policies the world is a less safe place than 5 years ago.

If you go hide under your bed you are more safe. Actually I'm guessing that is your lifestyle. If you come out to fight the evil it gets dangerous. <yells last under bed>

You just described the Vichy Government. Kissing Nazi ass. Congratulations.

Invoking the Nazis because someone disagrees with you?
Invoking the Nazis erroneously because someone disagrees with you?

My guess is you use velcro rather than laces on your shoes. Come on.

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive. Anyone who commits acts of terror, for whatever reason, is a terrorist. Period. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is bullshit. A terrorist fighting for freedom is just as great a terrorist as a terrorist fighting for tyranny.

Let me ask you this: Waht are your thoughts on Reagan?

Let me ask you this: Waht are your thoughts on Reagan?

I don't know what CK thinks about him, but I have to say, Reagan sure loves his jellybeans.

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something. Or England over some 100 year old grievance in Pakistan.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.

This is why you cannot defeat your enemy: You refuse to understand him, you demonize him and claim his actions to be insane and illogical.

There are explanations for their actions. They claim to have justification, whether we accept those claims or not. We must know our enemy to properly combat him.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Oh God, I just read this bit again. I hate the way that people forget that Europe's suffered terrorist bombings for the best part of two centuries. Anarchists, the IRA, ETA, to be honest, it's normally us bombing ourselves.

Conservatiana, I know this may be a tough pill to swallow, but the US isn't special. They aren't the only target of terrorism, and they certainly haven't suffered the worst of it.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation - not that you're being MTAE about anything, you're actually talking rather than shouting which is nice but I think some of you're rhetoric is just that: Islamophobic rhetoric but anyway:



Therein lies the reason that they want to kill you.

.

I found it funny that the bastion of Consumerist unregulated free-market Capitalism was going to be attacked with i-pods and gatorade and I can call it ridiculous because it didn't work: my point, however, was that it was British Muslims attacking America, mate, in the war on terror, what does that tell you about how successful the war on terror is?



Don't talk about any tenets of Islam until you learn about it. I would protest (peacefully) loudly about any state visit with a Saudi Prince. What on earth is a radical mosque: there is a mosque two minutes from my house. Is it radical if they paint it a cool colour or if everyone in it is a terrorist? Bizarre idea.



You said that the British/Spanish people reacted "positively" to terrorism. I said they didn't but that the Spanish reacted correctly by removing a government whose position put them under attack.



Bullshit. Thats 1, don't let me catch you again. The IRA were negotiated with and progress has been made. ETA were negotiated with and progress has been made. No more bombs there. Don't make sweeping statements and don't be Islamophobic and we can have proper conversation.

It is quite hard to negotiate with the terroists if they have killed themselves in the attack.

It is quite hard to negotiate with the terroists if they have killed themselves in the attack.

The organization tends to remain...

This is why you cannot defeat your enemy: You refuse to understand him, you demonize him and claim his actions to be insane and illogical.

There are explanations for their actions. They claim to have justification, whether we accept those claims or not. We must know our enemy to properly combat him.

Indeed. This is the very basic idea of warfare. You must first understand the motivation for why people fight before you can ever dream of victory. The problem is, most wars fought by the west entail for only a few, empirical reasons. Land, money, power, these are largely the reasons for western warfare, especially the Americas(Really, not a single war in American history has ever been fought for any other reason). Now, we face an enemy that truly wants none of these, and we seemed confused on how to fight them. To defeat an enemy, you must defeat the purpose why they fight. They fight for land? Defend that land with everything you have. Money? Bleed them dry, make it cost them dearly. Power? Show them greater power.

The problem is, we are fighting this war like every war of the past. Many seem to believe that we can win with the same tactics. However, when fighting a war over ideals, it is difficult, even nigh impossible, to defeat that ideal by physical means. However, it seems that some believe otherwise. If you do not understand why the enemy fights, you cannot properly fight that enemy.

It is quite hard to negotiate with the terroists if they have killed themselves in the attack.

They have leaders, they have those that tell them what to do. These terrorists don't often do these things because they got the idea in their head one day, it has been hammered into them and they follow what they are told to do. In any war, you don't negotiate with the individual soldier, but with the leader behind them.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.


I agree the attacks were unjustified.
Then again, so was the response.

Terrorism kills about 500 people a year.
How many does "the war on terror" kill ? And who exactly does the war on terror hurt ?
I'll give you a hint on the last one: not the terrorists.

This is why you cannot defeat your enemy: You refuse to understand him, you demonize him and claim his actions to be insane and illogical.

There are explanations for their actions. They claim to have justification, whether we accept those claims or not. We must know our enemy to properly combat him.

they surely had "reasons" and "motives". the problem is their logic is different than the western logic.
if the enemy claim to take over your countrey or kill you and your nation, how can you understand it?
if they want the destruction of israel and any nation in the world which think different than them, why not demonize it?
their speaches are against any values we based on. their actions target most of the world. what there is to talk about?

Hitler had logic and reasons, bu they were destructive to the world. why nobody tried to understood HIS logic?

they surely had "reasons" and "motives". the problem is their logic is different than the western logic.

True. That does however not make it bad logic.

if the enemy claim to take over your countrey or kill you and your nation, how can you understand it?

Western nations have done that too you know. THAT part is easy to understand.

Hitler had logic and reasons, bu they were destructive to the world. why nobody tried to understood HIS logic?
I did. Most intelligent people did. We just understood and disagreed.

True. That does however not make it bad logic.maybe not, but it make the fight neccesery.



Western nations have done that too you know. THAT part is easy to understand.understand, yes. but it only force us to fight harder.


I did. Most intelligent people did. We just understood and disagreed.

as I said, understanding is important part. the problem is many see understing as acceptnace of this logic as start position in negotiation.
"war in terror" mean you can't accept this logic, so you fight back.

as I said, understanding is important part. the problem is many see understing as acceptnace of this logic as start position in negotiation.
"war in terror" mean you can't accept this logic, so you fight back.

Which in practice makes you the bigger criminal. The motives of the "warriors against terror" may be nobler than those of the terrorists, but the results of their actions are much, much worse.

Which in practice makes you the bigger criminal. The motives of the "warriors against terror" may be nobler than those of the terrorists, but the results of their actions are much, much worse.
first, I talked about the idea and not the way it happened.
second, your logic is absurd. killing in purpose citizens, is much worse than colleteral damage (which most of countries trying to reduce as possible).

if someone will shot at you rockets when citizens willingly give him "human shield", they are no innocents. if they will hurt in the counter attack they are more responsible to that, than the defending side.
saying anything else is 100% justifing shooting on civilian populace while using "human shield", which is war crime by the international law.

if you condemn the idea of "war against terror", feel free to suggest other effective ways. otherwise, you only justified the terrorists acts ("human shields" as example).

Yeah everyone forgets the IRA bombings.
No, the US government didn't fund them.

They mostly funded terrorism in Latin America

http://www.soaw.org/

I think the point he was making (or at least as far as I understood him) is that some people do equivocate reason with justification.
People like the OP, obviously, but they are wrong.

You must also consider the fact that the towers were not taken down by planes so in reality the party you want to so badly blame this event on would have infact if not aided by other elements would have done almost no damage by compairson to what happened, and thats if you even knew what party to blame in the first place you are so gunna hate yourself if you ever wake up from the propaganda.

Right, so all the passengers that were supposedly on these imaginary planes just suddenly disappeared. People who think that planes did not actually hit the towers are either insane and need to be put in an insane asylum, or they are apologists for Islam.

No, the US government didn't fund them.
*coughs*

Actually, I'm pretty sure they did.

*coughs*

Actually, I'm pretty sure they did.

A few details would be nice.

*coughs*

Actually, I'm pretty sure they did.

Yeah, but with their own money, rather than directly using taxpayers'.

A few details would be nice.
Yep - there was a trial involving several American businessmen and when they claimed that the CIA authorised the shipment, there was no counter-statement, but they were all aquitted. For some strange reason...

Sounds like state support to me.

Yep - there was a trial involving several American businessmen and when they claimed that the CIA authorised the shipment, there was no counter-statement, but they were all aquitted. For some strange reason...

Sounds like state support to me.

Thing is..had the US been supporting the RA (and I can't imagine why) there would have been far more cash, clout and firepower than there was. Stinger missiles, for instance. More m-16s than aks...It just doesnt fit with what they had.

so we need to "strike first?" is that what youre insinuating?

theres no way to attack terrorism or terrorists first.

Think before you say stupid things.Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan are gone. No attacks in America for five years.

and:

MOHAMMED ATEF, Egyptian, military chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED, Kuwaiti, suspected mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.

ABU ZUBAYDAH, Palestinian-Saudi, terrorist coordinator: Captured.

ABD AL-RAHIM AL-NASHIRI, Saudi, Persian Gulf operations chief: Captured.

QAED SALIM SINAN AL-HARETHI, Yemeni, Yemen operations chief: Killed in U.S. airstrike.

OMAR AL-FAROUQ, Kuwaiti, Southeast Asia operations chief: Captured.

IBN AL-SHAYKH AL-LIBI, Libyan, training camp commander: Captured.

TARIQ ANWAR AL-SAYYID AHMAD, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.

MOHAMMED SALAH, Egyptian, operational planner: Killed in U.S. airstrike.

ABD AL-HADI AL-IRAQI, training camp commander: Captured.

ABU ZUBAIR AL-HAILI, Saudi, operational planner: Captured.

HAMZA AL-QATARI, financier: Killed.

ABU SALAH AL-YEMENI: logistics, Killed.

ABU JAFAR AL-JAZIRI, aide to Abu Zubyadah: Killed.

RAMZI BINALSHIBH, Yemeni, planner and organizer of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, charged as conspirator with Sept. 11 hijackers: Captured.

No attacks in America for five years.


Because America's all that matters, right?

KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED, Kuwaiti, suspected mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.

RAMZI BINALSHIBH, Yemeni, planner and organizer of Sept. 11 attacks: Captured.

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, charged as conspirator with Sept. 11 hijackers: Captured.

Exactly how is this a pre-emptive strike? In case you didn't notice, September 11th 2001 already happened.

first, I talked about the idea and not the way it happened.
second, your logic is absurd. killing in purpose citizens, is much worse than colleteral damage (which most of countries trying to reduce as possible).


The problem is, How do we know whether or not the "damage"(killing) is collateral?

Israel could bomb anyone they want, as long as they claim that the people they kill are human shields, then it gets written off as "collateral damage"

Because America's all that matters, right?

No, but maybe we can serve as a model to some of the western countries frozen in the headlights.

I don't like Bush much, but I like something he said "you are either with us or with the terrorists."

Now, that was said and was more applicable to the aftermath of 9-11 and the invasion of afghanistan, not Iraq.

But the premise is there. And really, some of the countries who are most complacent may be the next ones attacked. Al Qaeda seems prone to attacking easy targets, and Europe is right next door.

Exactly how is this a pre-emptive strike? In case you didn't notice, September 11th 2001 already happened.

What, do you believe they had retired? Obviously they were they planning bigger and better cataclysms.

Killing any terrorist is preventive.

I never heard anything about that...

They used kidnapped children as suicide bombers all the time.

Although, of course, Europe has a soften spot for coddling lunatic mass murderers, doesn't it?

Oh, and we don't? *laughs*

Let me ask you this: Waht are your thoughts on Reagan?

Can't stand the man.

On a related note (related in that Reagan supported the Contras), contrary to the Sandinista-loving left and Contra-loving right's propaganda, both the Sandinistas and Contras were inhuman terrorists.

You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter.

I think any fight back against US imperialism across the globe is a worthy fight, but particularly in the ME. A corporate imperialism with predator drones and economic warfare, where civilians are murdered just as indescriminately as the freedom fighters do. Contradictions exist everywhere in politics, the judgement ignorance and objectivity marks the moral calibre of the individual. The US administration is no victim to attacks, but the people are, the ones who pay in blood for their governments imperialist foreign policy.

This is the US' New Middle East make no mistake.
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/files/maddow/images/beirut%20explosions.jpg

I condone freedom fighting against any oppression, do I justify it, that's a different matter.

You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter.

I think any fight back against US imperialism across the globe is a worthy fight, but particularly in the ME. A corporate imperialism with predator drones and economic warfare, where civilians are murdered just as indescriminately as the freedom fighters do. Contradictions exist everywhere in politics, the judgement ignorance and objectivity marks the moral calibre of the individual. The US administration is no victim to attacks, but the people are, the ones who pay in blood for their governments imperialist foreign policy.

This is the US' New Middle East make no mistake.
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/files/maddow/images/beirut%20explosions.jpg


I condone freedom fighting against any oppression, do I justify it, that's a different matter.

It can be condoned so long as those resisting the oppression don't deliberately target civilians - which, sadly, most "freedom fighters" are unwilling to do.

The problem is, How do we know whether or not the "damage"(killing) is collateral?

Israel could bomb anyone they want, as long as they claim that the people they kill are human shields, then it gets written off as "collateral damage"

if we would tried to kill them, why most of the time, we were used special forces against the terrorists, (and not, destroy all the city, for example)?

israel had better things to do with our weaponary, than bomb houses with no reasons.
palastinians used human shields and celebrate when some israeli civilians dies. we trying to avoid civilian death.

we trying to avoid civilian death.doesn't look that way from here.

israel had better things to do with our weaponary, than bomb houses with no reasons.
.

Nobody said there was no reason. Just not very good ones. The pro-hezbollah lecturer in Lebanon, for instance.

They used kidnapped children as suicide bombers all the time.

Who do?

Nobody said there was no reason. Just not very good ones. The pro-hezbollah lecturer in Lebanon, for instance.what about him? if israel wanted him they could file an extradition request and then put him on trial. civilized countries don't just bombard everything in the vicinity. but israel is surely not civilized. jews never got along with anybody, so why would israel behave any better.

doesn't look that way from here.

where are you from?
most of the countries in the world would strike harder if they will be in our situation, or even less dangerous one. compare it to any other conflict or occuption in the last century, and israel will be in the top of the humanic countries.
we do made mistakes and accidents and there were surely unnecessery killing, but on the morality scale we are in very good position.

Nobody said there was no reason. Just not very good ones. The pro-hezbollah lecturer in Lebanon, for instance.

I don't remembered it, but if he from hizbullah I won't feel sorry for him.

Somebody sound the Neo-Con alarm.:D

where are you from?...europe

...and israel will be in the top of the humanic countries. no way

we do made mistakes and accidents and there were surely unnecessery killing, but on the morality scale we are in very good position.no you aren't, you are worse than your opponents

I don't remembered it, but if he from hizbullah I won't feel sorry for him.


The point being that he had stated that he supported Hezbollah and because of this his house was targeted and he and his family killed. Now if that happened to an Israeli....

what about him? if israel wanted him they could file an extradition request and then put him on trial. civilized countries don't just bombard everything in the vicinity. but israel is surely not civilized. jews never got along with anybody, so why would israel behave any better.and they said anti-zionism as nothing to do with anti-semitism.
still, you make me laugh. lebanon wouldn't hand us terrorists or criminals, so we could put them in trial. nor does the palastinians. if we wanted him, we had to kill him or go with special forces inside lebanon and take him. in both cases YOU will condemn us, so cut the bullshit.
what do you know about civilized countries? europe bombared anything in the vicinity any time they fought on greaer scale and for worse reasons than israel. don't try to moralize us. this is nothing but double-standarts hypocricy
europeI shuld've guess it

no way

no you aren't, you are worse than your opponentsyou full with propoganda. search for the stats. check your european history. check our enemies history as well. relatively, we had higher morality base than most of those states (not to mention the terrorists, which only your hypocricy make you think they ady any morality ground at all).

The point being that he had stated that he supported Hezbollah and because of this his house was targeted and he and his family killed. Now if that happened to an Israeli....
I would like to say link for it. I don't familiar with the case, but if he was important for the hizbulla, we should've do it (although I not sure about the way).
if he was unimportant and non-militant, I casn't understood why we bothered with him, anyway.
anyway, israeli shouldn't said he supported something in order to get killed by the terrorists. they killed many leftists, israeli arabs and foriegn laborers.

Think before you say stupid things.Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan are gone. No attacks in America for five years.
I am skeptical of this, given that the legitimate Afghan government has very little control outside Kabul. Many other camps merely moved over the border to Pakistan's NWFP, and Musharraf is too weak to get rid of them.

Yes, there have been no attacks on America. As far as you know American border and homeland security services could be entirely responsible for that. In Britain, at least, M15 knows of dozens of Islamist plots.

There have also been many more attacks in both the West, and against targets throughout the Middle East and Asia.

No, but maybe we can serve as a model to some of the western countries frozen in the headlights.
It's the western countries that are most aping America that are getting to be targets. (Spain, UK, Australia)

On a related note (related in that Reagan supported the Contras), contrary to the Sandinista-loving left and Contra-loving right's propaganda, both the Sandinistas and Contras were inhuman terrorists.
True. I find it sickly strange that Reagan so often relied on Christian political support, despite the fact that priests and nuns were among the primary targets of his terrorists.

but israel is surely not civilized. jews never got along with anybody, so why would israel behave any better.
I had better warn you before a mod does. They don't like racism here.

bump

if he was unimportant and non-militant, I casn't understood why we bothered with him, anyway.
anyway, israeli shouldn't said he supported something in order to get killed by the terrorists. they killed many leftists, israeli arabs and foriegn laborers.

I may have confused the fact that a Hamas activist who was a lecturer in some universitry was killed with 7 of his family in Gaza while Israel was invading Lebanon, so I'll say no more on the matter.

When it comes to cowardly mass murder of civilians by religious fanatics, that is exactly how simple it is.

It amazes me how people de facto condone 9-11 by trying to say these lunatic mass murdering terrorists had some sort of justification. That is condoning and encouraging future attacks.

And it also amazes me that many of our historical allies are such cowards.

Maybe next time it won't be the US. Maybe we'll tighten up our borders so much that they'll look for easier targets. Somewhere they have millions of Muslims already. Like Islam's traditional enemy, the infidels next door in Europe.

Don't think these lunatics have some logical pattern. Maybe they'll nuke Paris because France sent a Crusade Legion in 1071 or something. Or England over some 100 year old grievance in Pakistan.

You can bet then that America won't be telling Europe they had it coming and not to make any more enemies.

I'd hate to break it to you, but 9-11 is an example of why we must reject your eye-for-an-eye morality. Terrorists conducted 9-11 because of US condoned and created atrocities in the middle east.

Who do?

The VC did.

I'd hate to break it to you, but 9-11 is an example of why we must reject your eye-for-an-eye morality. Terrorists conducted 9-11 because of US condoned and created atrocities in the middle east.this should be repeated.