Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Quote: No matter what got you in, and who might have done it, who you might have over thrown... that one point still persists, no matter how the whims of the in-power administration might change, to re-dictate why you are there. Iraq, or Afganistan, be it WMDs, or 9-11, no matter what public opinion might even be, what further truths might be revealed ..... you are fighting them over there, so you don't have to fight them here; that doesn't change.
It doesn't? I am fairly certain that Madrid and London had seen zero foreign terrorist attacks on their soil prior to their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote: Lets say terrorist is from the Islamic world, hence, is in a position to take action against the classic terrorist enemy, Israel. Terrorists might have a vendetta against the rest of the western world because of freedom and bikinis (again, an assumption), but why would a Jihadist (delicious propaganda) wage war on France or Germany when Israel is closer, and requires no intercontinental travel? Hence, Israel is likely to be country most imperiled by terrorism. I think it is a fair assumption, regardless of propaganda.
What's your assumption? That Israel is in the middle-east? Your conclusion that Israel is most likely to fall victim to terrorist attack due to it's proximity to "Islamic world" terrorists is deeply, and fundamentally flawed. You are totally ignoring the 60 years of conflict over that land, and the myriad reasons which might make Israel a more, or a less appealing target, depending on your goals.
Look.. There are too many different factions fighting in the wider Middle-East conflict to just lump them together and simplify their goals. Hezbollah and Hamas; Al-Qaeda, Al-Sadr and Al-Aqsa; the Taliban and the wider Mujahideen.. the list goes on. Hamas and Al-Aqsa are fighting in Israel and Lebanon, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has never attacked Israel in the way they have attacked the US, Britain, Spain, or Pakistan; they are a totally different organization with wildly different aims from Hamas or Hezbollah.
Quote: So, no one seems to want to think about who SPECIFICALLY might benefit from this policy?
No, because I don't agree with your assumption that all terrorists have the same motives and the same enemies.
Quote: Icelander said: Have you ever once bothered to ask yourself why a "terrorist" would want to come over here in the first place?
Yes I have. I think I have an answer. It's because we haven't done just exactly what they want us to do and have done things that they don't want us to do. Just why I should give a fuck what homicidal maniacs want me (or us) to do or not do remains unclear. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
We haven't done what they want? We are stuck in Iraq spending all our fucking money and fucking up our military. Not to mention throwing money left and right. That is how a lot of empires fell... they went "broke" after spending a ton of money during wars due to incompetence.
Oh, I see, they are attacking us because we are doing what they want us to do. How incredibly impressive that you have plumbed the terrorist mind and determined that they want us to keep troops in the Middle East. You are surely much wiser than most.
Once upon a time, Americans lived in fear of the great Communist monolith that was spreading across the globe. The Sino-Soviet Split of the 1960s came as a tremendous shock to them -- evidently self-described Communists can have different motives and inclinations, and weren't necessarily working in Borg-like concert.
Likewise, in discussing this topic a fallacy was engaged in from the very first: lumping all 'terrorists' together as if they were a monolith. They are not. There are some crazies, some terrorists who hate the West and will always hate the West, no matter how much we adhere to their demands, until the day that every westerner submits to Islam. I contend that this breed of terrorist is a rarity. More common, I would wager, are the kind of terrorist that have a latent mistrust of the west, but who would not even consider leaving their hearth and home to travel to some western nation with the hope of achieving martyrdom. Only when the first group of crazies can galvanize this second group by pointing to some clear perceived injustice, the occupation of Muslim territory or the aiding and abetting of Islam's enemies (who are often, in fact, the governments of Muslim nations) being paramount among these, does the second group feel compelled to take action.
When Madeline Albright went on TV and declared that in her opinion the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi children as a result of the embargo on that nation was 'worth it', do you not think this inflamed the Arab street and fed into the propaganda of the crazies? When Achmed in Iraq lived in peace before the 2003 invasion, and lost two brothers and his wife in the years following the invasion, does it not stand to reason that his latent mistrust of America will boil over into vicious enmity?
I leave you with a quote from Canon Sydney Smith, who wrote in early 19th century England:
"For God’s sake, do not drag me into another war! I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself. I am sorry for the Spaniards - I am sorry for the Greeks - I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed, I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people? The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy?"
Why does non-intervention make so little sense?
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
Anybody who thinks that there is any form of unity within the insurgency is a fool. They've even got marxists thrown in the mix as of 2007
-------------------- [quote]Voido said: [quote]drken said: Dont get me wrong he is a funny guy, just not a great actor. Smoke some bud and watch the movie, weed helps me pick out shitty acting. [/quote]
Quote: thedefone said: I am fairly certain that Madrid and London had seen zero foreign terrorist attacks on their soil prior to their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
really? so the IRA is based in england? maybe I should go visit Belfastshire sometime
"United Kingdom, July 26 1994: Israeli Embassy Attack in London and a Jewish charity are car-bombed, wounding 20. Attributed by Britain, Argentina, and Israel to Hezbollah."
"United Kingdom April 30 1980: DRMLA start the Iranian Embassy Siege in London"
"United Kingdom, September 19 1972: The group Black September post a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat."
many others had no group claiming responsibility linked to the event, occasionally several groups claimed responsibility
-------------------- there are 923 words in the english language that do not follow the "I before E"
rule, there are 44 words in the english language that follow the rule. this is
the shit our education funding is paying for and these liberals want more money
for education to keep making students stupid
Quote: No matter what got you in, and who might have done it, who you might have over thrown... that one point still persists, no matter how the whims of the in-power administration might change, to re-dictate why you are there. Iraq, or Afganistan, be it WMDs, or 9-11, no matter what public opinion might even be, what further truths might be revealed ..... you are fighting them over there, so you don't have to fight them here; that doesn't change.
It doesn't? I am fairly certain that Madrid and London had seen zero foreign terrorist attacks on their soil prior to their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote: Lets say terrorist is from the Islamic world, hence, is in a position to take action against the classic terrorist enemy, Israel. Terrorists might have a vendetta against the rest of the western world because of freedom and bikinis (again, an assumption), but why would a Jihadist (delicious propaganda) wage war on France or Germany when Israel is closer, and requires no intercontinental travel? Hence, Israel is likely to be country most imperiled by terrorism. I think it is a fair assumption, regardless of propaganda.
What's your assumption? That Israel is in the middle-east? Your conclusion that Israel is most likely to fall victim to terrorist attack due to it's proximity to "Islamic world" terrorists is deeply, and fundamentally flawed. You are totally ignoring the 60 years of conflict over that land, and the myriad reasons which might make Israel a more, or a less appealing target, depending on your goals.
Look.. There are too many different factions fighting in the wider Middle-East conflict to just lump them together and simplify their goals. Hezbollah and Hamas; Al-Qaeda, Al-Sadr and Al-Aqsa; the Taliban and the wider Mujahideen.. the list goes on. Hamas and Al-Aqsa are fighting in Israel and Lebanon, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has never attacked Israel in the way they have attacked the US, Britain, Spain, or Pakistan; they are a totally different organization with wildly different aims from Hamas or Hezbollah.
Quote: So, no one seems to want to think about who SPECIFICALLY might benefit from this policy?
No, because I don't agree with your assumption that all terrorists have the same motives and the same enemies.
I know that the situation is far more complicated than I described. I'm simply trying to understand the pro-war propaganda, which, it seems to me, requires a simplistic view of the situation. Something maybe to the tune of: We aren't doing what they'd like us to do, so they is killin' us!
My assumptions seem absurd, since they are the only way I can make sense, in my mind, why someone would support the war on the basis of "Fightin' em there, so we don't fight em here."
Quote: thedefone said: I am fairly certain that Madrid and London had seen zero foreign terrorist attacks on their soil prior to their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
really? so the IRA is based in england? maybe I should go visit Belfastshire sometime
"United Kingdom, July 26 1994: Israeli Embassy Attack in London and a Jewish charity are car-bombed, wounding 20. Attributed by Britain, Argentina, and Israel to Hezbollah."
"United Kingdom April 30 1980: DRMLA start the Iranian Embassy Siege in London"
"United Kingdom, September 19 1972: The group Black September post a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat."
many others had no group claiming responsibility linked to the event, occasionally several groups claimed responsibility
I'll rephrase that. London had seen virtually no appreciable foreign attacks on their soil within the last 15 years, until their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll continue to consider IRA attacks as domestic due to the fact that N. Ireland is still a part of Great Britain and any attack coming from the IRA stems directly from British domestic policy. I'll also go on to point out that among the attacks you mention, two are directed at Israel (though taking place on British soil) and the other was related to the Iranian Revolution. None of those attacks were directly related to British foreign policy, as were the 7/7 bus bombings.
Anyway, you see what I'm driving at; my broader point still stands. London and Madrid came under terrorist attack due to British involvement in middle-east conflict, thereby negating the, "fight them there," logic.
a 300 yr old nation trying to oust the occupants of an ancient civilization. These people have something to fight for, its literally embedded in their genes. Be it religious or territorial, it will take a holocaust to kill them all. Because like an earlier person stated, you accidentally kill loved ones and say "its worth it" then you have a whole new host of enemies who loved them. Anyone killed there is a potential martyr to someone else. There is no defined and accounted for rank of soldiers, its the civilization itself we're fighting. Like I said, a holocaust to win. Maybe not all of them, but the vast, vast majority
It'd be the same if they were trying to occupy us. They'd have to kill almost all of us.
-------------------- I would imagine if superman were real he would have either turned into a self serving asshole or killed himself. The point in between is so hard to straddle. What reason is there to do it except for the hope that there’s still someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel, and a lifetime of suffering makes you worth its silent glow. -The Joekenorer
Quote: thedefone said: I'll rephrase that. London had seen virtually no appreciable foreign attacks on their soil within the last 15 years, until their involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll continue to consider IRA attacks as domestic due to the fact that N. Ireland is still a part of Great Britain and any attack coming from the IRA stems directly from British domestic policy.
Sinn Fein is a Gaelic expression meaning "We Ourselves", they are the political arm of the IRA, the IRAs opposition was the illegal occupation by the British and the reunification of Ireland. Sinn Fein was founded based on a desire for freedom from england, again, opposition to englands foreign policy
Quote: London and Madrid came under terrorist attack due to British involvement in middle-east conflict, thereby negating the, "fight them there," logic.
the ETA had killed over 800 people with the same terrorist tactics used by the IRA with bombings in spain, the fact that they teamed up with a french terrorist group, the BRA in 1999
of course as political policies regarding foriegn nations change so will alliances and reasoning for bombing, aswell as the players, if the british decided to invade italy, do you believe the italians would just lay down and take it?
fact of the matter is than most of the bombing throughout europe over the last 80 years have all been due to politics, not just a shift in foriegn policy because when you look at it, ireland is not great brittan it's a country unto it's self with only northern ireland being occupied, seems like foreign policy is responsible for the IRA, in the cases of northern ireland and Iraq it's people that are opposed to the occupation by foreign forces
-------------------- there are 923 words in the english language that do not follow the "I before E"
rule, there are 44 words in the english language that follow the rule. this is
the shit our education funding is paying for and these liberals want more money
for education to keep making students stupid
If you're there and aren't going to leave, is it still foreign policy, or domestic? The land is yours if you don't vacate it, so then maybe its Ireland's foreign policy that Britain doesn't like. Seems like some kind of hybrid...formestic policy.
You heard it here first, folks. . . formestic policy!
-------------------- I would imagine if superman were real he would have either turned into a self serving asshole or killed himself. The point in between is so hard to straddle. What reason is there to do it except for the hope that there’s still someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel, and a lifetime of suffering makes you worth its silent glow. -The Joekenorer
I'll go ahead and ignore everything but the OP, because I'm sure it's 90% bullshit and the remainder are people mentioning how much bullshit is going around.
It's true that drawing terrorist resources to a war in the Middle East region will divert a large amount of personnel, material and other resources, but it does not make the US invincible to attack. Actively pursuing their cells and disrupting communications can effectively limit their organization power, either by making it difficult for cell members to get in contact with each other, or difficult for planners to get in contact with someone who can provide the financial resources to make it happen, but it's not fool proof.
If a couple guys from some hole-in-the-wall country can hijak 4 planes and successfully crash three of them into their targets and inflict massive loss of life and property... we're never completely safe. All the more reason to not underestimate or downplay the threat, in my opinion. For me personally, government comes down to this simple fact- drop all your social programs, and a man can still find himself a job, feed himself, and find a place to stay without much help from anyone. What a man cannot do is form, outfit, and train a paramilitary unit to defend his home from foreign invaders, nuclear attack, or suicide bombers.
-------------------- Captain Cannabis, Guardian of Ganja, Sultan of Shrooms, Giver of Green, Tabbed Tripper, and all around Good Guy.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1 779 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
