Reply With Quote
I was joking about him fighting terrorists.
Pure drivel, though.
Huh?
Wrong. The point is to be vigilant and not let it happen again.
I was joking about him fighting terrorists.
Pure drivel, though.
He's saying and I could be wrong that by us acting on behalf of the innocent victims in the past we're cheating the innocent of the future out of a better more reformed life by continuing to propogate destruction in the name of terror.
Again I could be wrong.
What we should have done was grieved.
What country did you want the US to invade after the Oklahoma City bombing?
How about the Atlanta Olympics?
We have been in Afghanistan for seven years, and in that time the Taliban has become more popular than before we got there, we have killed thousands of innocent people in our aerial bombing raids, left an uncountable number of unexploded ordinance around the country which have become de facto landminds, and lost hundreds of good soldiers along the way. None of this even begins to discuss the cost of being there.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are some horrible things that happen in this world, but sometimes its just better to stop and think before we jump to the conclusion that there is some great way to get revenge.
Look, the people that orchestrated September 11th they're all dead; they all died on the planes.
What exactly did we accomplish by over reacting the way we did? Yes I said it, we overreacted. Nothing that has happened in the past 7 years has brought any of the 3,000 innocent Americans that were killed that day back to life.
The trouble with terrorism is, you lose once you become afraid. In 2004 farmers in Nebraska cared more about Terrorism than any other issue. No self respecting terrorist would take the time to kill some nice guy on a tractor in Nebraska...what the is scary about that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what though, I wouldn't mind staying in Afghanistan if they change a few things. It would cost half the money for the US to set up a legal licensing operation for the production of Afghani oppium (which happens to be the only cash crop that can be harvested in that country) as it does to do 10 bomber raids. This would help combat the world wide morphine shortage, and allow poor farmers to stop share cropping for the Taliban. The Taliban has been running a successful drug smuggling and sex trafficking ring since we got there.
Do that and get some of the mines we laid during the 80s out of the ground and I wouldn't mind, I have a feeling the Afghanis would appreciate it to.
yeah you got it, maybe I shouldn't have used the word eyes--i could see why my statement could have been slightly confusing.
Yes, the vast majority of Muslims do live in oppressive societies. Some of them are more oppressed economically than politically, but if you were to take a look at the map of the most densely populated Muslim areas you will find poverty and oppression.
Just off hand, which of these countries would you like to live in?
Sudan
Pakistan
Somalia
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Egypt
Libya
Lebanon
Indonesia
Nigeria
Syria
West Bank/Gaza
Algeria
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 12-09-2008 at 11:10 PM.
A short video for you.
I've listened to Brigitte Gabriel both on TV and inverviews on the radio. I have meant to buy her books sometime as well. She is an expert on the subject or terrorism. Here are some more available clips:
Apparently there are a lot of "experts" on terrorism these days. Didn't notice too many of them before September 11th, and I'm not really sure what one has to do to become an expert in terrorism anyway--perhaps take a class on molatov tails 101.
The people who are really experts at terrorism are the ones that deal with it criminally instead of militarily, collateral damage never helps an anti-terrorism effort.
And those videos of Ms. Gabrielle you posted are the perfect example of naivety on the part of our political structure.
There is no military solution to radical Islam. Radical Islam isn't all that radical anyway--it's not so much that these people are incredibly devote Muslims. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are poor and uneducated, and any education they do have would come in the form of religion. That means that most Muslims would believe in the kind of orthodoxy that scares the living daylights out of everyone.
Radical Islam is really just a violent backlash against a system of economic and political realities that make day to day living an incredible burden in most of the world. If people would stop listening to the religious rhetoric of these terrorists and start listening to political rhetoric--they are denouncing the west's opulence while the rest of the world suffers.
If your expert on terrorism ever met an actual terrorist, or ever set foot in you average middle eastern slum, she wouldn't pretend that we can stop it. If you want to know what the average terrorist looks like, think of a young looking boy, age 17-25, kind of skinny, probably a little quiet, and very poor.
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 12-10-2008 at 09:34 AM.
Yeah, a good point. Anyone here been to Europe in the past few years?
Well, if you thought Muslims in Europe got a raw deal before 9/11 and the new at ude that overt bigotry was socially acceptable, you should see the place now!
What do you think all that mess was about in Paris a few years ago? British Muslims are just like French Muslims, with one or two more token success stories.
These people can't get good jobs, they can't integrate into societies that make no secret of the fact that they don't want immigrants around, and they can't go back to a home country that doesn't have the slightest promise of economic opportunity available.
You wonder why they're bitter?
I didn't quite get across what I was thinking. My impression from what I have heard and read is that many of these terrorists come from the more educated parts of their societies. Generally, more educated corresponds to less oppressed, not "most oppressed". Also, I'll repeat that these terrorists aren't interested in eliminating oppression, just oppressing the other guys as well as women and non-Muslims in general.
Poverty leads to terrorism . . . bull . There are a lot of poor countries in the world. Why is it that international terrorism seems to be significant issue only with the Muslimworld? That's the question.
We've overreacted and exacted vengeance . . . bull . Don't tell me the guys who attacked us all died on the planes on 9/11. Are you really that dense?
There are many reasons to use force: punishment/deterrence, national defense, prevention, preemption, and, yes, revenge. Don't you think that maybe--just maybe--we went in to Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, thereby deterring other countries from doing the same. Maybe we went in to disrupt Al Qaeda's pending operations, thereby acting in national defense. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Throw our hands up? Not be scared and hope for the best? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to do nothing?
Agree or disagree with what we've done, that's your right. But you can't just say that we've been looking for vengeance. It makes you sound like an asshole.
Poverty, IMO, does lead to terrorism. Terrorism is not a solely Muslim problem, either.
The poor, jobless, uneducated and perople with no hope of having it any better do not always become religious zealots and terrorists.
But there is a portion of the Muslim faith that gives the millions of uneducated, jobless poor someone to blame and a war to wage in the name of their plight.
Someone used OBL as an example. Really...OBL. Dude lived the privelaged life. If he's so damn badass, why hasnt he strapped a dynamite vest on? Or hijacked a plane? Or whatever?
Because he isnt stupid. He isnt uneducated. He isnt jobless or poor. He has millions of potential recruits, dumb enough and desperate enough to do that for him.
Agreed. But I dont think thats what he was saying.We've overreacted and exacted vengeance . . . bull . Don't tell me the guys who attacked us all died on the planes on 9/11. Are you really that dense?
IMO, Afghanistan = Good responseThere are many reasons to use force: punishment/deterrence, national defense, prevention, preemption, and, yes, revenge. Don't you think that maybe--just maybe--we went in to Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, thereby deterring other countries from doing the same. Maybe we went in to disrupt Al Qaeda's pending operations, thereby acting in national defense. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Throw our hands up? Not be scared and hope for the best? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to do nothing?
Iraq = Worst response.
"Not be scared and hope for the best?" How about, not be chicken- suburbanites more afraid to fly than ever, changing our daily lives and capitulating to our government in attempt to make us safe from a marginal threat.
Were we attacked? Yes. What is the likelihood it will happen again? I dont know, but I'll be the pessimist and say "likely". Should I change my life or infringe my rights in an attempt to stave off said attack? Only if youre a ing coward who is afraid of your own shadow.
9/11 was a tragedy, yes. It was horrible. But its not a reason to change anything for besides tighter airport security and increased border security. Going into Afghanistan is/was fine. Iraq was daddy-revenge, nothing more.
And if the ever-changing definition of this "War on Terror" starts to spread into other nations, middle east or otherwise, what is it then?Agree or disagree with what we've done, that's your right. But you can't just say that we've been looking for vengeance. It makes you sound like an asshole.
Its either revenge or preventative war, an invention of Hitler.
Either way, its the wrong approach on every level of intelligence.
Hmm.In her first book Gabriel discusses her experiences as a Maronite Christian living in Lebanon during the civil war between Lebanese Christians and Muslims in the 1970s. She describes the story of her family and her childhood, hiding in a bomb shelter. She details her opinions that her country's inherent multicultural acceptance of all faiths and cultures including the then dominant Lebanese Christians, led to Lebanon's ruin by the continuous attacks from indigenous Muslims and immigrant Palestinians, determined to destroy the infidel (Christian) communities.
I will say that from everything I have seen, modern Arab culture in general tends to have a pretty strong racist streak.
One only has to look to the way they treat the immigrant workers in their countries to see this. Don't just look to their conditions, but look to any quotes from the natives "on the street" about the guest workers. Shameful on both counts.
Yes there are certainly educated terrorists out there. They usually aren't the type to blow themselves up though. I suppose if that's the image you have of terrorism, you had better ask yourself if there is anyway to wage a serious war against educated, intelligent, people that have such religious zealotry they are willing to kill themselves for their beliefs.
Just out of curiosity, did you know that educated Marxists used to use terrorism all around Europe for most of the past century in an attempt to change capitalism?
How about fascist terrorist, they exist too.
But if you seriously think that most terrorists are educated, you are sadly mistaken. Most acts of terrorism happen in far away countries, and you probably never hear about them. Do you know how many bombs go off every day in Kashmir? Quite a few.
Sounding like an asshole is always a risk when it comes to telling the truth, but yes, that is exactly what happened. Americans woke up on September 12, 2001 and they were angry. They ran to their local Wal Mart, got some flag paraphernalia, and waited for the government to tell them who to hate.We've overreacted and exacted vengeance . . . bull . Don't tell me the guys who attacked us all died on the planes on 9/11. Are you really that dense?
There are many reasons to use force: punishment/deterrence, national defense, prevention, preemption, and, yes, revenge. Don't you think that maybe--just maybe--we went in to Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, thereby deterring other countries from doing the same. Maybe we went in to disrupt Al Qaeda's pending operations, thereby acting in national defense. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Throw our hands up? Not be scared and hope for the best? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to do nothing?
Agree or disagree with what we've done, that's your right. But you can't just say that we've been looking for vengeance. It makes you sound like an asshole.
I think the problem here is that people don't realize what Afghanistan was. It was a failed state, it's government (if you consider the Taliban an actual government) wasn't recognized by any other state.
Do you think Al Qaeda is a monolithic en y? Some master fortress where terrorists are trained and secret meetings are held about how to destroy the western world? Of course you don't, and neither does anyone else. But Al Qaeda is a nice word to focus on, it's a nice visual image of something to fight.
Do you think the US invading Afghanistan is going to stop a failed state like Somalia from harboring terrorists? Maybe, but I think the problem is these places don't have the type of mechanisms in place to stop or arrest terrorists against their own government.
Afghanistan was a mission constructed to fail. I'm not saying the world should have let poor Afghani's suffer, but there's no point in waging a war there. If simple steps are taken to improve the quality of life for average people, peace and order will begin to take shape organically, and terrorist camps will move elsewhere.IMO, Afghanistan = Good response
Iraq = Worst response.
I can tell you there will most certainly be another terrorist attack. Will there ever be one as big as September 11th? Well that was a fairly spectacular event in terms of world history, so there is no way to know the answer to that question.Were we attacked? Yes. What is the likelihood it will happen again? I dont know, but I'll be the pessimist and say "likely". Should I change my life or infringe my rights in an attempt to stave off said attack? Only if youre a ing coward who is afraid of your own shadow.
9/11 was a tragedy, yes. It was horrible. But its not a reason to change anything for besides tighter airport security and increased border security. Going into Afghanistan is/was fine. Iraq was daddy-revenge, nothing more.
But you have the right at ude here. Terrorists can only be in one place at one time. They have to chose symbols that have strong meaning to be effective. The best response is always to recognize the symbolic nature of terrorism and reject the emotional response terrorists are seeking to provoke.
Yes and this woman is clearly an example of a person who has an ax to grind against a community she feels wronged her. I'm not passing judgement on her, but she is a merely a journalist with some personal experiences that shape her outlook on an entire region and population.
Arabs can be fairly racist. Darfur is a potent example.
Arabs also took more slaves from African than Europeans, unfortunately few of those 13 million people appear to have survived.
I think this comes from their status as a venerated people within the Muslim community, it seems to have shaped a psychological superiority complex of vast proportions. But, it could also be a result of years of oppression by the Turks, who are also fairly racist.
But , how much of the world isn't racist?
You keep saying over and over again that terrorists are motivated because they are "oppressed" or they are somehow disenfranshised (<--- a favorite term of liberals). Don't you realize that a lot of terrorists are highly educated engineers, doctors, etc.?
THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY A TWISTED VERSION OF ISLAM!!!
Get that through your progressive little head.
Mohammed Atta studied engineering and architecture. His father was a lawyer.
Ziad Jarrah was from a wealthy family. He was studying aerospace engineering in Hamburg where he met Atta.
The men who bombed London were physicians!
Is there something you're not understanding?
For every name you can recite of an educated terrorist i can provide 50 poor, helpless people.
I think the point you're missing is that the people you hate so much are only able to do what they do because they feed on feelings of helplessness. There may be anomalies along the way, but there are always individual reasons for resorting to violence.
Stop thinking about the guy the CIA tells you is a terrorist overlord and start thinking about the guy that blows himself up.
Osama bin Laden or Mohammad Atta or whomever else you care to mention, these people are nothing more than high ranking members of an organized crime family. They are incapable of causing any trouble on their own, because they are not willing to risk their own lives to do so.
Organized by educated terrorists.
I accept your challenge. I named two educated terrorists that "martyred" themselves on 911. You now have to name 100 "oppressed" terrorists.
Considering Terrorists implemented one of the most oppressive regimes I've seen in Afghanistan, I wouldn't necessarily call them freedom fighters.
It's oppressive in our eyes. To them, it's the "correct" way to live.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the muslim women living under the Taliban thought it was oppressive as well. Just saying.
And there's a whole buttload of oppressed Muslim women terrorists.
There were 121 suicide bombings in Israel between 2001-03. Based on the median education and income levels in the Palestinian refugee camps, I feel comfortable in concluding these people most likely thought of themselves as oppressed.
This site lists the number of attacks in Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aksagraph.html
Neither would I. Terrorism is a nonsensical act and it is best understood in terms of backlash. The act of blowing up a building doesn't actually accomplish anything, but it is a powerful expression of anger and frustration that reaches a large audience.
When it comes to the Taliban, you can contextualize them in a number of ways, but they were never terrorists. The Taliban was either trained by the Pakistani ISI (the organization that I believe is hiding Osama bin Laden. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn they had a big hand in 9/11) in order to stabilize Afghanistan or an organic response to the chaotic rule of the Mujaheddin warlords left over from the Soviet invasion.
Originally they even enjoyed some popularity based on the stability they brought to Afghanistan.
Honestly I think people are missing the Forrest for the trees here.
It doesn't matter if you think terrorists are oppressed or not. What you have to understand is that terrorists think they are.
That's the whole point of terrorism. Even or own domestic terrorists think like that, the militia movement and Timothy Mcvay, whatever the name of that Appalachian anarchist group that was responsible for Atlanta, etc.
I mean these people don't actually think they're going to come to power based on blowing up a subway station. They know that's not going to actually destroy society. It's delivering a message.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions