Home | Community | Message Board


Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
How to handle terrorists
    #2320947 - 02/10/04 12:28 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

I ran across some comments by afoaf in another thread --

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...sb=5&o=&fpart=3

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen the same type of sentiments expressed in this forum since the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Penatagon.

Rather than derail the thread, I thought I'd cut and paste them here, add a few observations of my own, and see how the other readers here react.

Quote:

Let's say we completely wiped out Al Queda without addressing the root problem, who is the next Osama and where will he strike?



As long as there are radical Islamists, there will be radical Islamist organizations. As long as there are radical Islamist organizations, there will be more of bin Laden and his ilk. That is the "root problem" of today's terrorist situation.

Quote:

you can't fight an effective war on terror without getting to the root of the problem.



The 800 pound gorilla picking his nose in the corner of the room who is steadfastly ignored by the politically correct types is radical Islamism. Note that I do not use the word "Islam", but "Islamists" and "Islamism". Not every member of the Muslim faith is an Islamist, just as not every member of the Jewish faith is a Zionist, nor every member of the Christian faith an Inquisitor.

Unfortunately, I can think of no way a secular West can eliminate Islamism. I believe only Muslims have any chance of doing that, and even that chance is slim to none.

Quote:

Continuing the bully on the block act will do nothing more but spawn more terrorist organizations.



Unsupported allegation which mischaracterizes facts in evidence.

You have no way of knowing whether eliminating terrorists produces more. There is no evidence either way.

But assuming it does, what's the answer? Should those who are attacked by terrorists make no response? If the American government had sat on their hands post 9-11, would there have been no more terrorist attacks? Bali would not have happened, for example?

To say that striking back at terrorist organizations produces more of them is to say that to striking back at thieves, murderers and rapists produces more.

And so sorry but responding to an attack is not "bullying". Would America have gone chasing bin Laden in Afghanistan if there had been no attack on the WTC and Pentagon? Nope.

Quote:

rarely is the question asked is our children causing more terrorism by perpetuating the foreign policies that got us here in the first place?




And these policies would be?

Note that bin Laden's rationale for the September 11 attacks was that "the infidel" was defiling the sanctity of the Holy Places by their very presence. By garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia (not in Mecca or Medina or any other special place, by the way -- just inside the borders of the current political entity where Mohammed once wandered over a millenium ago) at the request of the internationally recognized government of Saudi Arabia after that country had been threatened by one of its neighbors, America left itself open for attack.

This was a foreign policy screw-up?

And please, let's not rehash past American foreign policy in South and Central America, or Viet Nam or even Korea. It is not Chilean terrorists or Viet Namese terrorists or Korean terrorists who are the problem, it is Middle Eastern ones. Osama and the boys don't give two shits about the peasants in Guatemala or Viet Nam.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321072 - 02/10/04 02:19 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Sure, there will always be people out there who hate us, but they won't be able to recruit as many followers if we mind our own business and stop pissing people off. If the people of the Middle East aren't pissed off at us, then people like Bin Laden are rendered virtually impotent in their recruiting power.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321138 - 02/10/04 02:43 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Three major complaints of Al Queda was the US support of Israel, having mass amounts of troops in Saudi Arabia, and the US being friendly with the Saudi royalty.

Arrogantly continuing such policies doesnt necessarily "breed or create terrorists" (the decision to become an Islamist or a terrorist is strictly in the hands of the individual) but it certainly feeds into their propaganda which, in turn, encourages poor & desparate individuals to get more intertwined in such propaganda.

There is a reason that the US is the main target, otherwise why wouldnt Sweden be a target? Surely, most of Sweden are white Christians with "infidel" morals and life-styles, no? Whats the difference? I think it has to do with being the lone superpower with military bases and operations all over the damn globe.

Lets talk about another wacko-extremist segment of the world population: the neo-nazi/white power/white separtist movement. Why arent these people more influential or as seemingly popular as the Islamists? Surely their ideas and core values are on the same level, correct? Whats the difference?

I think if the black population increasingly started to mirror the exact behavior that the white-power people exclaim in their propaganda (raping white women, being inherently criminal/immoral, lazy welfare bums, etc.), more and more disenfranchised and alienated white people would start to pay more attention to what the white-power voices would have to say. And such voices are filled with more than mere complaints; ideology and agendas follow the propaganda.

Now, is it the fault of black people if white-power people happen to hate them? Of course not, but if you wish to keep such ideas marginalized, wouldnt it be wise to try to be a good, decent, moral individual (or in other words, the opposite of racist stereotypes)? What better way to buck racist misconceptions than to respond with: "I have a job - in fact, I am a successful small business owner. I am dedicated to my wife and children. I am not a drug addict. I am college-educated. Who's the idiot now?"

Contrast this method with solely going around and beating neo-nazis up.

However, if these neo-nazis are committing murder, then I think it is justified to attack (but without sacrificing your uprightness).

All in all, I think if the US quit sucking up to the Saudi royalty and quit bankrolling the morally-bankrupt Zionist regime in Israel, and pulled back the troops from...umm....everywhere....the US would have far, far less problems with international terrorism.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xochitl]
    #2321176 - 02/10/04 02:56 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

I grew up mostly in urban environments - sometimes some pretty rough places. I learned that the best way to avoid trouble from the bullies that would pop up here or there was to simply mind my own business and to take care of my own shit. I learned not to stick out and annoy people. But if "sticking-out" was unavoidable (as was often the case), I learned how important it was to have friends and allies so that if something ever did happen, I would not have to be alone. When people have your back, it goes a long way.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: silversoul7]
    #2321317 - 02/10/04 03:37 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Sure, there will always be people out there who hate us, but they won't be able to recruit as many followers if we mind our own business and stop pissing people off.

Apart from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia (no longer the case anymore now) and providing aid to Egypt and Israel, what US policies piss off the Islamists?

Do you believe then that the way to stop international terrorism is for the US to stop giving aid to its allies in the Middle East?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321328 - 02/10/04 03:38 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Hiya pinky. What's the mood over there with the problems in Haiti? I hope it doesn't spill over.

Quote:

The 800 pound gorilla picking his nose in the corner of the room who is steadfastly ignored by the politically correct types is radical Islamism. Note that I do not use the word "Islam", but "Islamists" and "Islamism". Not every member of the Muslim faith is an Islamist, just as not every member of the Jewish faith is a Zionist, nor every member of the Christian faith an Inquisitor.




If we consider the 800 pound gorilla more closely, we'll see that he is no different genetically than the peaceful one that sits in a Rwandan rainforest eating leaves. (Gorillas are actually very peaceful animals, far less dangerous than a chimpanzee. Anyway--)

If the gorilla is radical Islamism, we should ask what causes radical Islamism. Religious radicalism doesn't emerge from a vacuum. As you mentioned once, tribalism plays a big part in terrorism. I've thought about that, and I see where you're coming from. What part does it play in radical Islamism?

I do agree with you though, that religion--and apparently Islam in particular--is quite a catalyst in an already tribalistic world.

Quote:

I believe only Muslims have any chance of doing that, and even that chance is slim to none.




I agree, and I think a big part of the reason the chance is slim to none can be explained in terms of tribalism, at least as clearly as in terms of religion.

Quote:

Note that bin Laden's rationale for the September 11 attacks was that "the infidel" was defiling the sanctity of the Holy Places by their very presence.




Radical Islamist religionist language aside, how would it be different if China stationed troops and did training maneuvers in India?

Quote:

By garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia (not in Mecca or Medina or any other special place, by the way -- just inside the borders of the current political entity where Mohammed once wandered over a millenium ago)




Yeah, it is a pretty flimsy arguement. Their public speakers should call a spade a spade and focus on the military presence of a foreign power and other examples of interventionism.

Quote:

at the request of the internationally recognized government of Saudi Arabia after that country had been threatened by one of its neighbors, America left itself open for attack.




So what if it was requested? It's still a matter of foreign policy if we garrison our troops in another country. Besides, Do you agree with the U.S. government that the it be garrisoning U.S. troops all over the place? You might have different reasons for disagreeing, but I see where afoaf is coming from that the presence--the result of the policy--contributes to the problem.

Anyway, just some thoughts

hongomon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321344 - 02/10/04 03:42 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Apart from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia (no longer the case anymore now) and providing aid to Egypt and Israel, what US policies piss off the Islamists?



Well, our recent invasion of Iraq certainly didn't help. But I wouldn't underestimate the importance of our military aid to Israel. When someone sees their family shot dead by a soldier holding a gun that says "Made in America," it kind of leaves a sour taste. As for Saudi Arabia, the fact that we have troops stationed there is only part of it. I think it's mostly because of our long-standing support for the corrupt, oppressive, and widely hated regime there.

Quote:

Do you believe then that the way to stop international terrorism is for the US to stop giving aid to its allies in the Middle East?



Possibly. I'm not necessarily an isolationist, but I would certainly feel safer under isolationism than under our current foreign policy.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xochitl]
    #2321400 - 02/10/04 03:59 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Xochitl writes:

Three major complaints of Al Queda was the US support of Israel...

Incorrect. It was only very late in the game that bin Laden's manifestos even referred to Israel in passing. He is much less concerned with Israel than with the current Saudi rulers. That's his own pet project.

It is true that most of the other terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of their ilk) have dedicated themselves to the destruction of Israel, but it is a side-issue at best for Al Qaeda.

Arrogantly continuing such policies...

Which policies? There are no longer troops in Saudi. The US is hardly alone in maintaining friendly relations with S.A. (although there are increasing signs of strain there these days). Seeing as how they sit atop the single largest known cache of sweet crude in the world, there isn't a country who buys OPEC oil who wishes to piss off the Saudis.

That leaves the US aid to Israel.

Is it your belief that should Israel finally be exterminated by her enemies, Islamist terrorists will then resign their positions as fighting men and get on with their lives?

There is a reason that the US is the main target, otherwise why wouldnt Sweden be a target?

Because Sweden is the farthest thing from a free capitalist nation you can find outside of the ex-USSR, while the US is the closest nation to it.

The Islamist fundamentalists rail against the excesses of the godless infidels -- the "Capitalists". You can accuse Swedes of several things, but not of love of money. There are no rich Swedes to speak of.

I think it has to do with being the lone superpower with military bases and operations all over the damn globe.

Interesting how the Islamists lacked the courage to do much agitating against the godless Communists -- the other superpower -- when they too had military bases and operations all over the globe. Is it perhaps because they realized the Soviets had no compunctions about striking back ruthlessly while America had (note the use of the past tense) a well-deserved reputation of appeasement?

Lets talk about another wacko-extremist segment of the world population: the neo-nazi/white power/white separtist movement.

Why? The issue under discussion is how best to handle terrorists, not whackos. Let's not derail the thread.

All in all, I think if the US quit sucking up to the Saudi royalty and quit bankrolling the morally-bankrupt Zionist regime in Israel, and pulled back the troops from...umm....everywhere....the US would have far, far less problems with international terrorism.

So you're of the same opinion as silversoul7? That the US has brought this all on itself by supporting Israel and by not denouncing the Saudis.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321452 - 02/10/04 04:17 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

As long as there are radical Islamists, there will be
radical Islamist organizations. As long as there are
radical Islamist organizations, there will be more of
bin Laden and his ilk. That is the "root problem" of
today's terrorist situation.


Radical Islamism is just like any other fundamentalist
doctrine enjoyed by any number of other religious sects
scattered around the globe. The question then becomes
why does this particular one want to hurt America,
Americans and American interests?

The answer to that question is the 'root problem'

Unfortunately, I can think of no way a secular West can
eliminate Islamism. I believe only Muslims have any
chance of doing that, and even that chance is slim to none.


I don't think elimination is the goal, you can never eliminate
religious fundamentalism from the face of the globe.

what we need to strive for is cohabitation.

But assuming it does, what's the answer? Should those
who are attacked by terrorists make no response? If the
American government had sat on their hands post 9-11,
would there have been no more terrorist attacks? Bali
would not have happened, for example?

To say that striking back at terrorist organizations produces
more of them is to say that to striking back at thieves,
murderers and rapists produces more.

And so sorry but responding to an attack is not "bullying".
Would America have gone chasing bin Laden in Afghanistan
if there had been no attack on the WTC and Pentagon? Nope.


I never said we shouldn't bomb something or blow
someone up. I'm all for that shit.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should strike our
enemies with all available force.

The claim isn't simply that we should take it on the chin
and hope they get it out of their system. Not at all. The
point is that nobody seems to be addressing the main
reasons groups like al Queda are targeting americans...

global occupation and bankrolling the jews

in fact, we seem to instead to be ever-broadening our
reach, digging in on their holy land and setting the tone
for israel to continue bulldozing palestinians.

And these policies would be?

Propping up and then abonding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan

Playing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war

Funding and Arming Israel

Propping up the Saudi Royal Family

Comparing murders, thieves and rapists to terrorists is a
little like apples and oranges to me.

You may not ever be able to entirely control the conditions
that foment murder and rape.

You can counsel and educate people, but there will always
be the emotional and psychological variable that you can
neither predict or wholly prevent.

While this may be true to some degree in our current situation,
there may always be that small fringe group who has it out
for the United States, we're currently dealing with a large,
mobile organization. An organization who's grievances rise
from our action on the world stage.

This is a mitigatable force.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321458 - 02/10/04 04:18 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Pinky,

I think that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world if we didn't have troops stationed all over the globe (I've read estimates that range from 120 to about 160 countries), if we stopped supporting regimes which suppress and torture their own people, if we stopped meddling in conflicts between other nations, if we stopped giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' if we brought Federal agents home from foreign countries who are there under the pretense of 'fighting the drug war,' if we stopped policies of having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas, if we stopped using tariffs to protect U.S. industries (and hence harm foreign industries), and lastly if we stopped bombing foreign people and invading foreign nations who have not attacked U.S. territories and are not a threat to the security of U.S. citizens at home. I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these. The U.S. does not have an intelligent threat reduction strategy.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2321581 - 02/10/04 04:48 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Evolving said:
Pinky,

I think that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world if we didn't have troops stationed all over the globe (I've read estimates that range from 120 to about 160 countries), if we stopped supporting regimes which suppress and torture their own people, if we stopped meddling in conflicts between other nations, if we stopped giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' if we brought Federal agents home from foreign countries who are there under the pretense of 'fighting the drug war,' if we stopped policies of having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas, if we stopped using tariffs to protect U.S. industries (and hence harm foreign industries), and lastly if we stopped bombing foreign people and invading foreign nations who have not attacked U.S. territories and are not a threat to the security of U.S. citizens at home. I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these. The U.S. does not have an intelligent threat reduction strategy.




Excellent, excellent points. Only thing I might add is that when we do go into a country, we attempt at all costs to go in at least with the appearance of multilateralism. When we go in with u.s. uniforms rather than u.n. uniforms, it gives the striking appearance of imperialism, regardless of whether it is or not.

i really like evolving's point about the drug war (though it won't be heard legitimately in any near future i can see). i mean, if we reduced/eliminated our dependency upon oil, specifically foreign oil, and we removed drugs from the black market by regulating it, where would they get all their money? seriously, where would they? such a policy would cut their legs out from underneath them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2321652 - 02/10/04 05:11 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Evolving writes:

I think that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world if we didn't have troops stationed all over the globe (I've read estimates that range from 120 to about 160 countries), if we stopped supporting regimes which suppress and torture their own people, if we stopped meddling in conflicts between other nations, if we stopped giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' if we brought Federal agents home from foreign countries who are there under the pretense of 'fighting the drug war,' if we stopped policies of having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas, if we stopped using tariffs to protect U.S. industries (and hence harm foreign industries), and lastly if we stopped bombing foreign people and invading foreign nations who have not attacked U.S. territories and are not a threat to the security of U.S. citizens at home.

Okay. So the proper response to the September 11 attacks was not to try to capture those who perpetrated it, but to

1) Withdraw all troops stationed outside the US.

2) Cease all foreign aid to any countries not considered to be democracies, and even to some which are (Turkey and Israel to name two)

3) Cease aid to those democratic countries which produce cocaine, marijuana, and opium

4) Pull all DEA agents from foreign soil

5) Stop the federal government from making efforts to have foreigners buy US goods

6) Adopt free trade

7) Wait for Afghanistan to cough up bin Laden and Iraq to cough up Abu Nidal and others

8) Shrug, say, "Okay, we had that one coming. You get a freebie. But as you can see we are now doing nothing to piss you off. If there's anything we might have missed, let us know and we'll get right on it"

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321697 - 02/10/04 05:25 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

No, the proper response to 9/11 would have been to search for the man behind it, not wage war on a nation. We had the support of practically the whole world after 9/11, and if Bush & Co. hadn't fucked that up, I'm sure many nations would be much more willing to help us capture Bin Laden.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321710 - 02/10/04 05:28 PM (13 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Okay. So the proper response to the September 11 attacks was not to try to capture those who perpetrated it...



First off, those who perpetrated it DIED - it was a suicide mission. Secondly, no where did I state nor did I imply that those who had offered material and logistical support to the suicide operation should be given a free pass.

Quote:

1) Withdraw all troops stationed outside the US.



Now you're getting it.

Quote:

2) Cease all foreign aid to any countries not considered to be democracies, and even to some which are (Turkey and Israel to name two)



Whether or not a country is a democracy is irrelevant, it's how the man on the street is treated and whether or not he perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the U.S. is supporting a government which mistreats it's own citizens.

Quote:

3) Cease aid to those democratic countries which produce cocaine, marijuana, and opium



More specifically, cease 'aid' designed to 'fight the drug war.'

Quote:

4) Pull all DEA agents from foreign soil



Yes.

Quote:

5) Stop the federal government from making efforts to have foreigners buy US goods



Yes.

Quote:

6) Adopt free trade



TRUE free trade, unencumbered by governments. What is called 'free trade' by the political establishment, is actually managed trade.

Quote:

7) Wait for Afghanistan to cough up bin Laden and Iraq to cough up Abu Nidal and others



I did not state that, nor did I imply it.

Quote:

8) Shrug, say, "Okay, we had that one coming. You get a freebie. But as you can see we are now doing nothing to piss you off. If there's anything we might have missed, let us know and we'll get right on it"



I did not state that, nor did I imply it.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,439
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321812 - 02/10/04 09:37 PM (13 years, 18 days ago)

Just a couple comments on your post. I have not yet read the whole thread, so if some of this has already been said forgive me for rehashing it :smirk:

Quote:

Should those who are attacked by terrorists make no response? If the American government had sat on their hands post 9-11, would there have been no more terrorist attacks? Bali would not have happened, for example?




Well I don't think that striking back at terrorists is a wrong thing to do...but the way in which it has been done, and the pretense for it, are both wrong in this case. First of all, the US directly (though covertly) supported the creation and rise of these terrorist organizations. In fact "radical Islamism" was not a big deal until the US began stoking the fire in Afghanistan 25 years ago. Now the US has struck back at the terrorists...under the guise of an "innocent" country which did nothing to provoke the attacks. It's understandible why the US gov has carried it's public image this way - because they do not want to be linked in any way to the fermentation of Islamic Fundamentalism and hence Islamic terrorists. However in denying any part in it, I suspect they are only adding fuel to the fire.

Quote:

To say that striking back at terrorist organizations produces more of them is to say that to striking back at thieves, murderers and rapists produces more.




I would say the two are entirely different - again because of the US's involvement in the beginnings of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist organizations.

Quote:

And please, let's not rehash past American foreign policy in South and Central America, or Viet Nam or even Korea. It is not Chilean terrorists or Viet Namese terrorists or Korean terrorists who are the problem, it is Middle Eastern ones. Osama and the boys don't give two shits about the peasants in Guatemala or Viet Nam.




Ok then...let's talk about past American foreign policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East...


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2323065 - 02/11/04 02:00 AM (13 years, 18 days ago)

These are all excellent points. I take my hat off to you , sir.

Unfortunately, the stock US response to all problems is to declare war on them. The idea is that an overwhelming show of force and a full frontal assault will make the problem go away. "Show them who's boss," "Teach them a lesson," "Beat them until they learn," etc. But of course that doesn't work with drug dealers and doesn't work with terrorists either.

Yet if you even utter words like "threat reduction strategy" you'll be accused of being an appeaser, an accomodationist, or just simply a pussy. It's all about machismo in the end.

One more suggestion I would add is that the US really needs to improve its human intelligence. We have the best electronic and satellite intelligence in the world, but when it comes to actually infiltrating the enemy's circles with people who know or belong to the culture and language we're a total wreck, far behind the French in fact.

But of course we'll have trouble recruiting those people who know the culture and language if our policies infuriate and insult that entire region of the world, which leads us right back to your original points.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323150 - 02/11/04 02:23 AM (13 years, 18 days ago)

The 800 pound gorilla picking his nose in the corner of the room who is steadfastly ignored by the politically correct types is radical Islamism. Note that I do not use the word "Islam", but "Islamists" and "Islamism". Not every member of the Muslim faith is an Islamist, just as not every member of the Jewish faith is a Zionist, nor every member of the Christian faith an Inquisitor.

nobody dislikes fundamentalism and dogma more than I do.
and yes, Islamic fundamentalism is a root problem,
which is exactly why we must invade Iraq :thumbup:
sounds like a brilliant plan to me :rolleyes:



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemuhurgle
Turtles all theway down

Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323197 - 02/11/04 05:51 AM (13 years, 18 days ago)

Sweden is the farthest thing from a free capitalist nation you can find outside of the ex-USSR, while the US is the closest nation to it.

What utter bullshit. Do you have even the faintest idea of what you're talking about?

Let me give you the real reasons for the absence of terrorist attacks in Sweden:

1) They're a very small country
2) They're neutral, and not a member of NATO (ie. not affiliated as strongly with the US as most other western nations)
3) They're not run by panting zionists which kiss US ass
4) Their inhabitants are not arrogant fuckwits which believe every god damn line of propaganda fed to them (unlike some others)


--------------------
"To make this mundane world sublime
Take half a gram of phanerothyme."

Aldous Huxley


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323265 - 02/11/04 07:33 AM (13 years, 18 days ago)

Palestinians that were born in refugee camps and have no hope that they'll ever return to their land are good candidates for terrorists so taking a fair position in Israel - Palestine conflict would certainly help. One thing is to protect Israel but why is USA supporting its extremist politics?

I'm not aware of any successful military intervention against terrorism. It seems that it always fails.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323287 - 02/11/04 07:52 AM (13 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:


Because Sweden is the farthest thing from a free capitalist nation you can find outside of the ex-USSR, while the US is the closest nation to it.

The Islamist fundamentalists rail against the excesses of the godless infidels -- the "Capitalists". You can accuse Swedes of several things, but not of love of money. There are no rich Swedes to speak of.

I think it has to do with being the lone superpower with military bases and operations all over the damn globe.

Interesting how the Islamists lacked the courage to do much agitating against the godless Communists -- the other superpower -- when they too had military bases and operations all over the globe. Is it perhaps because they realized the Soviets had no compunctions about striking back ruthlessly while America had (note the use of the past tense) a well-deserved reputation of appeasement?






Just to clear up two egregious errors of fact:

First:

Five of the billionaires in the Forbes 500 list of the world's richest people are Swedes. They also produce world-famous brands such as Ikea, Volvo, Saab, and H&M, among others. Not bad for a nation of only nine million people.

They're capitalist alright, in the sense that they know how to make money and are quite well off. They just balance that with social values light years ahead of the US.

Second:

Islamicists, in the form of the Mujahadeen, gave the Soviet Union quite a drubbing for an entire decade in Afghanistan.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Israel-US Approved Ethnic Cleansing
( 1 2 all )
headphone 3,310 20 09/03/01 10:05 PM
by zetek
* Hersh: US and Israel Preplanned Lebanese Attacks Vvellum 1,378 16 08/14/06 04:34 PM
by zappaisgod
* Israel states that killing Arafat is "an option".
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Snobrdr311 5,474 163 10/01/03 06:47 PM
by Phred
* Gruesome photos surfacing from Lebanon/ My Israel vs Arabs Megathread.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
The_Red_Crayon 3,861 63 07/18/06 03:46 PM
by Redstorm
* Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction FrankieJustTrypt 1,492 11 12/13/04 06:00 PM
by afoaf
* Anti-Israel Propaganda, take the quiz
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 2,982 27 09/23/06 07:00 PM
by Redstorm
* Israel
( 1 2 3 all )
mm. 4,631 58 12/17/01 01:04 PM
by MAIA
* Iran president "Israel will be Destroyed"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 4,737 62 10/30/05 06:22 PM
by Redstorm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
4,232 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.168 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.