Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
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!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Toilet Paper

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

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
How to handle terrorists
    #2320947 - 02/10/04 12:28 PM (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: silversoul7]
    #2321317 - 02/10/04 03:37 PM (16 years, 9 months 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: 16 years, 7 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321328 - 02/10/04 03:38 PM (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xochitl]
    #2321400 - 02/10/04 03:59 PM (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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: 5 years, 5 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2321581 - 02/10/04 04:48 PM (16 years, 9 months 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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2321652 - 02/10/04 05:11 PM (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2321812 - 02/10/04 09:37 PM (16 years, 9 months 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...


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2323065 - 02/11/04 02:00 AM (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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 (16 years, 9 months 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: 4 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323265 - 02/11/04 07:33 AM (16 years, 9 months 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: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2323287 - 02/11/04 07:52 AM (16 years, 9 months 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
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2323534 - 02/11/04 11:18 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

isn't the whole chechnyan seperatist movent a muslim
fundamentalist issue as well?


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: afoaf]
    #2323815 - 02/11/04 12:56 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Yes, but I didn't mention it because pinky was referring specifically to the Soviet Union, and not to present-day Russia.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2324722 - 02/11/04 04:57 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

And please, let's not rehash past American foreign policy....Osama and the boys

Rehashing helps you learn.

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France),

Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*



Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?


Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense!
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: silversoul7]
    #2328136 - 02/12/04 09:09 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

No, the proper response to 9/11 would have been to search for the man behind it, not wage war on a nation.

Osama and his band of Merry Pranksters were known to be operating from Afghanistan, with the help of the head Taliban dude whose name escapes me at the moment.

The Taliban not only refused to hand over bin Laden, they refused to step aside and let Americans go in and get him. Their response was "If one armed American sets foot on Afghani soil, we will wage war on America."

So please explain to us, silversoul7, just exactly how America was supposed to search for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Look, this kind of thing drives me nuts! Don't you people have memories? This was all covered pretty thoroughly less than three years ago in all the media. If the Taliban had co-operated, they would have been left alone to fight it out with the various warlords in their own country.

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.

Ahem. May I once again ask that you use your memory? The military operation in Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned event. Many countries were involved in it, and many countries still have troops stationed there.

pinky


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2328164 - 02/12/04 09:22 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Evolving writes:

First off, those who perpetrated it DIED - it was a suicide mission.

I guess that let's off all the Mafia bosses who hire hitmen, and husbands who hire a pro to bump off their wives, then.

The term "co-conspirator" is applicable here if we treat a terrorist attack as a legal issue (a la John Kerry) and "commander in chief" is applicable if we treat it as a military issue. Either way, the guys who planned and instigated the attacks are as culpable (arguably more so) as the shlubs conned into taking the 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.

Yet the actions you listed omitted any mention of action to be taken against them. It was a thorough and thoughtful list. I therefore presumed you had therefore listed all the steps you felt to be necessary. My bad.

I await additions to the list.

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.

Agreed. Hence my qualifying phrase -- and even to some which ARE (Turkey and Israel to name two)

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

Same comment as above. Absent any actions to capture the ringleaders, is one to rely solely on appeasement to prevent further attacks?

pinky


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2328184 - 02/12/04 09:29 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

pinksharkmark originally wrote:

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.




pinky


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


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]
    #2328821 - 02/13/04 01:01 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Yet the actions you listed omitted any mention of action to be taken against them. It was a thorough and thoughtful list. I therefore presumed you had therefore listed all the steps you felt to be necessary.



I guess you missed this statement, "I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these."

Quote:

Absent any actions to capture the ringleaders, is one to rely solely on appeasement to prevent further attacks?



Are you under the impression that I am against apprehending any ringleaders of 9/11? Do you think the things I listed constitute appeasement? My statements started with, "I think that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world if..." and ended with,"... an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these. The U.S. does not have an intelligent threat reduction strategy." The things I listed are basic libertarian, non-interventionist foreign policy suggestions. I am not addressing retaliation in my remarks, but policy changes that could address the fundamental problems which led up to people hating the U.S.

Please answer the following questions,

1) Do you think having that U.S. troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries can be conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

2) Do you think the U.S. giving monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people is conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

3) Would you say that by the U.S. giving monetary support and selling arms to Israel that we are more likely to make friends or enemies among the Muslim and non-Jewish Semitic peoples?

4) Do you think that by the U.S. giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' aid which is used to destroy the livelihood of impoverished people in 2nd & 3rd world countries, prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

5) Do you think having agents of the U.S. federal government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

6) Do you think that having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas with us taxpayer subsidies is a good idea, taking into consideration that these business are seen by some non-U.S. people as a threat to their culture, their businesses and their way of life?

7) Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?

8) Do you think that bombs dropped on civilians by U.S. armed forces are more likely to lead to the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon the U.S. as a friend or an enemy?

9) Is it better to avoid making enemies, or is it better to conduct yourself in a manner which will make enemies who will attack innocent people and then spend huge sums of money fighting the enemies you've made while losing additional lives in the process?


--------------------
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
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2328949 - 02/13/04 01:29 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Excellent questions, all. I don't know how pinky's going to respond, but the stock response of people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz would probably be:

It doesn't matter how many enemies we make as long as we do what is RIGHT. What is "right", you ask? Well, anything the United States does is, by definition, RIGHT. Even if doing what is "right" (which is, after all, anything we care to do) pits us alone against the entire rest of the world, so be it. We're the United States of America after all. (Those last two sentences are an actual quote from Bush, by the way.)

Even if we have to go it alone, no need to fear. US military capacity (and the pockets of the taxpayers who prop it up) is damn near infinite. Either you're for us or against us. And if you're against us, it doesn't matter how many of you there are, we can kill you all.
*******

The view expressed above is NOT an exaggeration. It is drawn from public and written views expressed by George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, David Frum, and others.

I think it safe to say that the view above is, prima facie, insane. Anybody who doesn't see that is also, by definition, insane.


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2330203 - 02/13/04 12:19 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Evolving writes:

I guess you missed this statement, "I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these."

As it happens, I am in favor of the US taking all those steps. You have been here long enough to know that I have advocated most of them myself in past posts.

But I was hoping to see from you something which addressed some of the questions I had asked afoaf --

Quote:

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.




Perhaps if the US had behaved impeccably in the past, and never instituted any of the points you mentioned in your list, then bin Laden would not have attacked. But as you yourself have argued in this forum, absent a time machine, there is no way to undo the past.

My question was not "why do terrorists do what they do," it was, "how do we deal with them?"

Your response implied that part of the way to deal with them was to withdraw from the global stage (a view I have advocated here myself, as previously noted), in the hopes that they will turn their attentions elsewhere. That's all well and good. But do you believe there no other steps which should prudently be taken?

1) Do you think having that U.S. troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries can be conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

Of course it can.

Do you think having those troops in those countries can be conducive to making allies? With the exceptions of Iraq and Iran and Cuba, I'm having a hard time thinking which of those garrisons are there contrary to the wishes of those countries.

2) Do you think the U.S. giving monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people is conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

Certainly. Do you believe "enemy" is equivalent to "terrorist"?

Do you believe if the US were to stop giving such support to said countries terrorists would leave the US alone?

3) Would you say that by the U.S. giving monetary support and selling arms to Israel that we are more likely to make friends or enemies among the Muslim and non-Jewish Semitic peoples?

More likely to make enemies.

Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?

4) Do you think that by the U.S. giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' aid which is used to destroy the livelihood of impoverished people in 2nd & 3rd world countries, prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

I imagine those who grow the coca and the poppies consider the US their enemy. Which of those people are terrorists?

Do you believe that if the US were to were to cease handing out money to countries to destroy the crops, terrorists would leave the US alone?

5) Do you think having agents of the U.S. federal government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

Since this appears to be an extension of the last question, same answer.

6) Do you think that having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas with us taxpayer subsidies is a good idea, taking into consideration that these business are seen by some non-U.S. people as a threat to their culture, their businesses and their way of life?

Is it a good idea? No. You know already the only uses I consider legitimate for taxpayer money.

Do you believe that if only US private companies (as opposed to US government) could advertise their goods, terrorists would leave the US alone? Do you believe that the other countries which engage in exactly the same practices are inciting terrorists to act against them? If not, why not?

Do those who lose a sale to a US product become terrorists?

7) Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?

Probably. Is such a person likely to become a terrorist? How many American workers who have lost their jobs due to protectionist policies by countries such as Japan have committed acts of terror against Japan?

Do you believe that if the US were to drop all tariffs, terrorists would leave the US alone?

8) Do you think that bombs dropped on civilians by U.S. armed forces are more likely to lead to the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon the U.S. as a friend or an enemy?

Depends. How many bombs were dropped by US armed forces on France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Japan? Do the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors in those countries see the US as a friend or an enemy? Does the Iraqi family who had seven relatives "disappear" during Hussein's reign consider the US a friend or an enemy?

9) Is it better to avoid making enemies...

If possible, it is better to avoid making enemies. Which dealings with other countries can we know to a certainty won't piss off some people at some point down the road? As just one example, in retrospect, no one should have helped the Afghanis repel the Soviets.

And how about economic dealings? As an example, there are one hell of a lot of countries pissed off at the ship-building subsidies engaged in by the Scandinavian countries. When can we expect a terrorist attack on Norway?

Be realistic. In a world where any country in the world has the potential to trade with any other country in the world, some action taken sometime by someone will piss off somebody else. It's inevitable.

...or is it better to conduct yourself in a manner which will make enemies who will attack innocent people and then spend huge sums of money fighting the enemies you've made while losing additional lives in the process?

So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason ally itself with another?

Do you believe that if the US were to renounce all military alliances, terrorists would leave the US alone?

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]
    #2330338 - 02/13/04 12:48 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors
both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason
ally itself with another?


where did he make that assertion?

I think there's a difference between strategic alliances and
imperialistic expansionism.

I also think that most people can tell the difference.

This isn't an either/or situation.

It is not a question of isolationism or unilateral interventionism.

Surely there is a balance that can be struck between the two
that would both behoove american economic, politial and
military interests while also not perpetuating the image of
America as a global conquerer.


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: afoaf]
    #2330444 - 02/13/04 01:14 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

afoaf writes:

where did he make that assertion?

It's implied. Think it through.

Hint -- think Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, aid to Afghani resistance groups, etc.

I think there's a difference between strategic alliances and
imperialistic expansionism.


Sure there is.

Which country has the US added to its "empire" lately?

The thing is a strategic alliance by its very nature means that you are associated in some way (in the minds of some) with the actions of whomever one is allied with. For example, no one claims the US deprived Palestinians of their rights. No one says the US is repressing Saudi Arabian residents.

I also think that most people can tell the difference.

Apparently, many of those who can't choose to become terrorists.

This isn't an either/or situation.

Unfortunately, it is. Who could have predicted that the very people the US assisted in overthrowing their oppressors (bin Laden and the boys) would a few decades later decide to repay that assistance with the most spectacular terrorist attack in history?

If it can happen once, it can happen again.

For example, many people were calling for the US to intervene in the Balkans to put an end to the ethnic cleansing going on there. The US did so. What if two decades down the road, some of the Balkan Muslims saved from death by the US decide to stage a terrorist attack on the US? Does that mean the ones who called for the US to intervene were responsible?

One can ask the same question about Liberia, or judging from today's news, Haiti as well.

The only way to avoid "blowback" from alliances is to make no alliances. That's not my opinion, that's the historical record.

It is not a question of isolationism or unilateral interventionism.

No?

Please tell us, then -- who is it safe to ally with?

Surely there is a balance that can be struck between the two
that would both behoove american economic, politial and
military interests...


I'm keenly interested in hearing your detailed and specific description of that balance.

...while also not perpetuating the image of
America as a global conquerer.


Who believes America is a "global conqueror"? Which country has America conquered in the last century?

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]
    #2330802 - 02/13/04 02:26 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Do you believe if the US were to stop giving such support to said countries terrorists would leave the US alone?



Not all, but most would. If you mind your own business, it becomes rather difficult to convince someone to blow themselves up to fight you.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?



Again, not all, but most. And without having forces stretched out across the globe, we could devote more resources to intelligence gathering, thus helping us prevent more future terrorist attacks.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US were to were to cease handing out money to countries to destroy the crops, terrorists would leave the US alone?



Not all, but...well, you get the point.


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


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


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]
    #2331275 - 02/13/04 04:11 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

afoaf: where did he make that assertion*?

*So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors
both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason
ally itself with another?

pinky: It's implied. Think it through.

Hint -- think Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, aid to Afghani resistance groups, etc.


that wasn't what was implied at all. we don't need to break alliances with ALL countries, just the ones that would tend to create more enemies for us.

hint - think Israel, Saudi Arabia.


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]
    #2331595 - 02/13/04 06:05 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

pinksharkdude, explain your extreme ignorance on the world outside the US, and why you choose to use that igonrance to debate your point.


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

Aldous Huxley


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: muhurgle]
    #2331653 - 02/13/04 06:31 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

muhurgle said:
pinksharkdude, explain your extreme ignorance on the world outside the US, and why you choose to use that igonrance to debate your point.




/me pulls up a chair


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: muhurgle]
    #2333619 - 02/14/04 07:06 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Ignorance of the world outside the US?

I don't live in the United States. I have never lived in the United States. I've visited in various places in the US here and there over the years, but I was born and raised in Canada, studied and worked in Canada, and I've lived and worked in the Dominican Republic for the last sixteen years. I once spent a few weeks in Germany.

Tell you what, why don't you explain your extreme ignorance of the world including the United States and why you use that ignorance to avoid addressing a single point raised by anyone in this thread?

pinky


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2333623 - 02/14/04 07:22 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

we don't need to break alliances with ALL countries, just the ones that would tend to create more enemies for us.

You ignore my point. How can one know, decades in advance, which alliances of today won't produce enemies decades down the road? How can we know which allies tend to create more enemies for us?

The most obvious example of all being the guy responsible for 9-11, Osama bin Laden. At the time the US assisted him and his homies (the mujahadeen) he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders. You of course remember that the US was not alone in providing aid to the mujahadeen.

Or is your point that we are to make alliances but renounce them at some unspecified point in time where we (who do you mean by "we" in this case anyway? Whoever happens to be president at the time?) suspect there may be someone out there who disapproves of our ally?

If that's your meaning, then I can't argue that. However, why bother even to make the alliance in the first place if it is to be broken (with inevitable embarassment and finger-pointing and "told you so" accusations accompanying the breakage) down the road anyway? See Iraq as a prime example.

Hence my point -- the only way to avoid being perceived by some as sharing responsibility for the actions of our allies is to have none.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2333761 - 02/14/04 10:25 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders.

Close...but then why was the aid started before the country was invaded?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2333789 - 02/14/04 11:02 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

At the time the US assisted him and his homies (the mujahadeen) he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders.

Nice dodge but it really won't wash. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Afghanistan in the 80's will have been aware of how difficult it would be to describe the fundamentalist fanatics that would go on to form the Northern Alliance and Taliban as "freedom fighters".

Only the most outrageously insane of neocon lunatics would have considered it a sensible act to arm and fund these maniacs.

BTW, remember the arming and support for the nightmarish Northern Alliance in Afghanistan a couple of years ago? Here's a little resume of those sweethearts:

"But it remains a fact that from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance was a symbol of massacre, systematic rape and pillage. Which is why we - and I include the US State Department - welcomed the Taliban when they arrived in Kabul. The Northern Alliance left the city in 1996 with 50,000 dead behind it. Now its members are our foot soldiers. Better than Mr bin Laden, to be sure. But what - in God's name- are they going to do in our name?"

The Independent (UK), November 14, 2001

The U.S. and its allies were supporting the policies that helped foster Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban. Today they are sharpening the dagger of the 'Northern Alliance.' So many of those now involved in what has come to be called the Northern Alliance have the blood of our beloved people on their hands, as of course do the Taliban. Their sustained atrocities have been well documented by independent international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and others. From 1992 to 1996 in particular, these forces waged a brutal war against women, using rape, torture, abduction and forced marriage as their weapons. Many women committed suicide during this period as their only escape. Any initiative to establish a broad-based government must exclude all Taliban and other criminal Jehadi factions, unless and until a specific faction or person has been absolved of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, the people will again be plunged into the living hell that engulfed our country from 1992 to 1996"

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111501.htm


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2333795 - 02/14/04 11:06 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Close...but then why was the aid started before the country was invaded?

...pulls up chair.. :smile2:


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2335661 - 02/14/04 11:12 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Trendal writes:

Close...but then why was the aid started before the country was invaded?

Perhaps because the US got wind of the invasion plans before it occurred, or perhaps because the US at the time thought it a good idea to be friendly with those Afghanis opposed to the Soviet-installed puppet regime in Afghanistan.

Remember that at that time (Cold War) the Soviets were doing exactly the same thing in countries they considered to be run by US-installed puppet regimes.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2335671 - 02/14/04 11:18 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Remember that at that time (Cold War) the Soviets were doing exactly the same thing in countries they considered to be run by US-installed puppet regimes.

I never said they weren't...

However I do find it interesting that the United States was supporting, both financially and logistically, activities that can only be considered "terrorist" in nature.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave 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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2335742 - 02/14/04 11:46 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

trendal writes:

However I do find it interesting that the United States was supporting, both financially and logistically, activities that can only be considered "terrorist" in nature.

Were the mujahadeen fighting the Soviet-backed puppet government killing innocent civilians as well as government and military? That's a serious question, by the way. I don't recall reading at the time that they were targeting non-combatants, but it may have come to light later and I missed it.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336390 - 02/15/04 04:33 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Remember these were the same people who went on to form the Taliban and Northern Alliance, renowned for mass torture, murder and brutal repression of women. It's a little difficult to believe they were once "freedom fighting" angels who had many principles about not attacking "non-combatants".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2336573 - 02/15/04 06:37 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Can you show anything to substantiate your belief?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2336628 - 02/15/04 08:59 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

What "belief" are you talking about?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336637 - 02/15/04 09:11 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Yes there were uncountable instances of civillian deaths at the hands of the mujahideen during the period that the US funded them. One of the most aggressive factions of the mujahideen, which was given the most support by the CIA, was known for going around throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear the veil. Their leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was a known woman-hater. Car bombings were also quite common, as the CIA was training the mujahideen in the art of urban combat as well as feeding them supplies for such activities.

In fact...much of what the mujahideen was responsible for can be compared to what the "Iraqi resistance" is now doing in Iraq...and you won't hear them called "freedom fighters".


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave 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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336650 - 02/15/04 09:29 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Oops. In the post this one is replying to, I had asked a question of Evolving in response to his point # 7 --

Quote:

Evolving -- 7) Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?

pinky -- Probably. Is such a person likely to become a terrorist? How many American workers who have lost their jobs due to protectionist policies by countries such as Japan have committed acts of terror against Japan?



Well, it seems that even though we know of no American workers who have become anti-Japanese terrorists yet, Japan managed to do something to piss off Al Qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/15/japan.alqaeda.ap/index.html

According to the article, the attack was planned, but not carried out because (apparently unlike the US) Japan had no network of Al Qaeda support cells.

Let's ask ourselves some questions --

1) Are Japanese troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries?

2) Does Japan give monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people?

3) Does Japan give monetary support and sell arms to Israel?

4) Does Japan give military aid to other countries for the purpose of 'fighting the drug war' ?

5) Does Japan have agents of their government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population?

6) Does the Japanese government promote Japanese-based businesses overseas with taxpayer subsidies?

7) Do Japanese tariffs cause the demise of foreign businesses?

8) Did bombs dropped on civilians by Japanese armed forces lead the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon Japan as an enemy?

I don't know how the rest of the readers of this thread would answer the above, but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say "no" to all except 6) and 7) and 8). I will say that I judge it unlikely any Al Qaeda member has lost a job due to a Japanese company putting the company he once worked for out of business, but I certainly can't say it is impossible.

I'm guessing it's more likely that some of the Asian members of Al Qaeda had ancestors killed by Japanese, and presumably the influence of the Asian Al Qaeda caucus pulls enough weight with the Al Qaeda leadership to make an attack on Japan seem reasonable.

pinky


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


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2336660 - 02/15/04 09:38 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

trendal writes:

Yes there were uncountable instances of civillian deaths at the hands of the mujahideen during the period that the US funded them.

If this is the case, all the more reason for not making any alliances, or assisting anyone involved in any struggle against oppression. It would have been better to let Afghanistan become another republic of the USSR. It would have been better to let the various subdivisions of what was once known as Yugoslavia to proceed with their ethnic cleansing on their own, etc. It certainly would have been better to let the USSR conquer Hitler's Europe on their own.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336671 - 02/15/04 09:46 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Oh come now, I never said any of that and I think you know that I wouldn't say any of that.

The US was not aiding the mujahideen with the best intentions of the afghani people in their hearts...they aided the mujahideen because they wanted the Soviets to experience a humiliating defeat as the US had in Vietnam. On top of that, they hoped to create and stir up as many groups of Islamic fundamentalists as they could within the Soviet Union with the hopes of bringing down the whole Union.

I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes. However I don't agree with using this as an excuse to further the self-interests of another country.

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place. Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn't use the term "freedom fighters" for a group who is known to violently oppress women...


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336672 - 02/15/04 09:48 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Try and compare like with like.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2336680 - 02/15/04 09:52 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place. Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

And of course Russia has had enormous influence over Afghanistan for decades anyway. A puppet government was nothing out of the ordinary. Just like America propped up dictators throughout South America.

Perhaps if America was really so concerned about freedom they could have attended to their own maniacs like Pinochet first.

I suppose what this really boils down to is in the neocons childish and limited belief system. If America slaughters people by definition that can only be done in the name of "freedom" or "defending the world from tyranny" and can therefore be defended. If anyone the americans don't approve of slaughters people that is by definition "tyranny"


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: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2340601 - 02/16/04 12:29 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

trendal writes:

Oh come now, I never said any of that and I think you know that I wouldn't say any of that.

I know. *I* am saying it. If it is true that terrorists attack because of the alliances a country once had, then it makes sense to have no alliances. This is perfectly logical -- if one's goal is to have terrorists leave one alone.

The US was not aiding the mujahideen with the best intentions of the afghani people in their hearts...

Well, duh! And how is this wrong?

...they aided the mujahideen because they wanted the Soviets to experience a humiliating defeat as the US had in Vietnam.

No, they aided them because they didn't want the Soviets to gain another province.

On top of that, they hoped to create...

"Create"? Nope.

... and stir up as many groups of Islamic fundamentalists as they could within the Soviet Union with the hopes of bringing down the whole Union.

The Soviet marched into a muslim country. They did so of their own volition. The US had no need to do anything other than assist the Afghanis. Nothing the US could do would get muslims pissed off at the Sovs more than they were already.

The US was of course hoping that those they assisted would be grateful. Turns out they weren't. Hence -- alliances are a bad idea.

I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes.

You supported the coalition's deposition of Hussein? I'm a bit surprised to hear that.

However I don't agree with using this as an excuse to further the self-interests of another country.

Countries will further their self-interests no matter what. Might as well kill two birds with one stone. Are you saying you may not assist others unless there is no possible benefit to yourself?

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yeah, right. All those other countries (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia and a dozen others) just happened to invade themselves using Soviet troops. The Soviets weren't "goaded" into invading them at all, oh no.

Look, the well-documented imperialist acts of the ex-USSR, while fascinating, are not the issue here. Time to stop the derailment and get back on topic.

Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

If true, so what? The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own volition. They got whupped. It still has nothing to do with the fact that alliances are a bad idea.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn't use the term "freedom fighters" for a group who is known to violently oppress women...

Letr me get this straight. Only those of impeccable moral rectitude may repel invaders? If China invades the US, the pimps, Hell's Angels, wife-beaters, queer-bashers and all get to sit it out?

If this is the case, it bolsters my argument even more firmly, since there is no country anywhere free from assholes. If the only time it is right to ally yourself with another country is if none of the residents are assholes, then it is never correct to ally yourself with any country.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2340622 - 02/16/04 12:38 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes.

You supported the coalition's deposition of Hussein? I'm a bit surprised to hear that.





No read it again. Pay attention to the "support of freedom" part.

And for "coalition" read "The solomon islands" and the Federated Islands of Micronesia  :smile2:

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own volition. They got whupped

But only because the US supported Bin Laden and the boys.

Only those of impeccable moral rectitude may repel invaders?

Repelling invaders is fine. Funding maniacs who murder, torture and rape and install their own savage dictatorship is the thing we're having trouble with.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2340656 - 02/16/04 12:47 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

No read it again. Pay attention to the "support of freedom" part.

it's been less than a year. we'll see what happens.

And for "coalition" read "The solomon islands" and the Federated Islands of Micronesia.

or the UK, australia, spain, portugal, the netherlands, italy, japan, poland, denmark, ukraine...

But only because the US supported Bin Laden and the boys.

we've gone over this before alex. the soviets were aiding the PDPA takeover of afghanistan before the US was involved.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: ]
    #2341284 - 02/16/04 03:25 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

it's been less than a year. we'll see what happens.

Lets just say it sure as hell ain't looking good.

or the UK, australia, spain, portugal, the netherlands, italy, japan, poland, denmark, ukraine...

Didn't send too many troops tho. Over 90% are either US or UK. Not exactly a coalition to brag about is it.

And as far as "support" goes, the UK had the biggest demonstration in it's history against the war. I don't think the people of Spain were exactly keen either. And those were the two "strongest" members of the coalition. How many of the others believed in Bush and how many do you think were bought?

the soviets were aiding the PDPA takeover of afghanistan before the US was involved.

And the US was agitating terrorists to destabilise Afghanistan. 6 of one, half of dozen of the other.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2341409 - 02/16/04 03:47 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Lets just say it sure as hell ain't looking good.

what makes you say that?

Didn't send too many troops tho. Over 90% are either US or UK. Not exactly a coalition to brag about is it.

my point was that the coalition includes more than just micronesia and the solomon islands. many nations (including most of europe) voiced support for the invasion, even if they could not send troops. more nations voiced support for the war than dissent.

And the US was agitating terrorists to destabilise Afghanistan. 6 of one, half of dozen of the other.

how and when?

the soviets helped the PDP topple the afghani president in 1978 and then helped prop up the new soviet-allied government against popular resistance. the CIA started covertly aiding that resistance in 1979. when the resistance started to gain too much ground, the soviets invaded. we've covered this before.

when did the US start attempting to "destabilize" afghanistan? before or after the soviet-assisted coup of the US-friendly president?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: ]
    #2341515 - 02/16/04 04:06 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

what makes you say that?

You think Iraqs looking good now?

my point was that the coalition includes more than just micronesia and others

Don't you think it's kind of pathetic when the UN utterly reject you and you have to buy countries like the Federated Islands of Micronesia into your "coalition"? I think someone rang Micronesia and asked them what they thought of being in the coalition and they said "Are we?" :lol:

the soviets helped the PDP topple the afghani president in 1978

You mean like Daoud toppled the monarchy 5 years earlier? What goes around generally comes around with dictators. Whether the Russians helped anymore than the Americans were helping Daoud and trying to influence and control him is questionable.

against popular resistance

Are you serious? "popular resistance?"  :rolleyes:

when the resistance started to gain too much ground, the soviets invaded

No, it's a lot more involved than that. For the real story read here:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2341727 - 02/16/04 04:48 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

You think Iraqs looking good now?

i honestly don't know, and neither do you. our only real picture of life in iraq before and after the invasion comes through the media, and right now, it really cannot provide us with a clear picture. i do believe that the future iraq will be better than it was under hussein. i don't see why it can't be. time will tell.

Don't you think it's kind of pathetic when the UN utterly reject you and you have to buy countries like the Federated Islands of Micronesia into your "coalition"? I think someone rang Micronesia and asked them what they thought of being in the coalition and they said "Are we?"

my point is that the coalition also includes nations like the UK, australia, japan, spain, portugal, and the netherlands, just to name a few.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2342536 - 02/16/04 07:36 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Well it appears our views differ on this one, pinksharkmark, and I'll leave it at that :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


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]
    #2348221 - 02/18/04 01:31 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
But I was hoping to see from you something which addressed some of the questions I had asked afoaf --



I made a one paragraph statement, it was saying that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies if it followed some rational foreign policy ideas. Terrorists are a subset of enemies. To assume (which your responses imply) that I think that everything I stated would make terrorists out of everybody who disapproves of the U.S. government's behavior is ridiculous. Try to pay attention to my specific wording.

Quote:

Should those who are attacked by terrorists make no response?



I personally would have no qualms slicing off Osama Bin Laden's head and shitting down his throat. Happy Now?

Quote:

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 think that is silly.

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 agree.

Quote:

My question was not "why do terrorists do what they do," it was, "how do we deal with them?"



It is never too late to institute a rational foreign policy to help treat the causes which lead to people becoming terrorists. This is not the same as saying that retaliatory measures should not be taken.

Quote:

Your response implied that part of the way to deal with them was to withdraw from the global stage (a view I have advocated here myself, as previously noted), in the hopes that they will turn their attentions elsewhere.



Implied, imshmied. I stated specifically what I meant. By refraining from actions that make enemies, we lower the chances of creating new terrorists (terrorists being a subset of all enemies). The current terrorists that exist (in a large part because of our foreign policy) should be dealt with brutally.

Quote:

That's all well and good. But do you believe there no other steps which should prudently be taken?



Yes, hunt down and violently deal with any people who are known to be involved. However, this is not the same as bombing innocent people or invading countries which have not been shown to harbor terrorists.

Quote:

Do you think having those troops in those countries can be conducive to making allies?



Maybe allies among the ruling elite. Having troops stationed in other countries at the behest of governments is essentially welfare for foreign governments. They are relieved of some of the burden of providing for their own defense and have more resources available to suppress or harass their own people. Furthermore, a rational foreign policy would involve no permanent alliances.

Quote:

With the exceptions of Iraq and Iran and Cuba, I'm having a hard time thinking which of those garrisons are there contrary to the wishes of those countries.



First of all, countries do not have wishes. The rulers of countries have wishes such as kick backs from U.S. firms, and the previously mentioned free ride from the U.S. military for defense. Do you think that the families and friends of children raped by U.S. troops welcome the U.S. presence? (hint, this happened in Asia)

Quote:

Do you believe "enemy" is equivalent to "terrorist"?



A terrorist is a certain kind of enemy, distinguished by the tactics employed.

Quote:

Do you believe if the US were to stop giving such support to said countries terrorists would leave the US alone?



Over time there would be less and less reasons for terrorists to be targeting U.S. civilians. Do you think the U.S. should continue its policies which terrorists themselves have stated as their reasons for hating the U.S.?

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?



Over time this would prove to be a positive step (there are other steps which should be taken as well). Things would not change immediately. Some people have very long memories about the terror that has been visited upon them and theirs by the U.S., so I'm sure it would take some years.

Quote:

I imagine those who grow the coca and the poppies consider the US their enemy. Which of those people are terrorists?



I don't know, but I do know that there have been terrorist acts in South American countries related to the coca trade. Let's be clear because you seem to have ignored the specific wording of my paragraph and appear to think that when I refer to the U.S. making enemies that somehow I think that everyone who hates the U.S. is somehow a terrorist. I did not say this, nor did I imply this.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US were to were to cease handing out money to countries to destroy the crops, terrorists would leave the US alone?



I said, and I believe that the U.S. would be making a lot fewer enemies.

Quote:

Do you believe that if only US private companies (as opposed to US government) could advertise their goods, terrorists would leave the US alone? (etc., etc., etc... )



I said, the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world. This was my point, why does it seem elude you?

Quote:

How many bombs were dropped by US armed forces on France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Japan? Do the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors in those countries see the US as a friend or an enemy?



Obviously some do see the U.S. as an enemy (if you paid attention to the world news, you would recognize this). One also needs to take into account cultural and historical differences between Europeans and bombings in World War II vs. the Muslims and what is seen as blatant aggression and imperialism on the part of the U.S. (apples to oranges, pinky)

Quote:

Does the Iraqi family who had seven relatives "disappear" during Hussein's reign consider the US a friend or an enemy?



Some see both Hussein and the U.S. as enemies.

Quote:

And how about economic dealings? As an example, there are one hell of a lot of countries pissed off at the ship-building subsidies engaged in by the Scandinavian countries. When can we expect a terrorist attack on Norway?



Again, you are being ridiculous and ignoring the statements as I worded them.

Quote:

So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason ally itself with another?



No, I did not say that, nor did I imply that.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US were to renounce all military alliances, terrorists would leave the US alone?



As I replied above, over time this would prove to be a positive step (there are other steps which should be taken as well). It is foolish to expect people to suddenly forget what has happened to their friends, families and nations overnight.

Quote:

Japan managed to do something to piss off Al Qaeda.



Yes, Japan has troops in Iraq and is a U.S. ally. This is reason enough. You brought up my points which were meant to provide examples of some things which the U.S. could do to have a lot fewer enemies in the world. I did not say that all of these which were addressed will create terrorists, my statements were quite clear, I did not say, "I think there would be no terrorists in the world if..." Re-read my original statements, any implications you have read into them are entirely a product of your own imagination.


--------------------
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
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2348857 - 02/18/04 06:54 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Evolving writes:

I made a one paragraph statement, it was saying that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies if it followed some rational foreign policy ideas.

To which I replied that I was in agreement.

Terrorists are a subset of enemies. To assume (which your responses imply) that I think that everything I stated would make terrorists out of everybody who disapproves of the U.S. government's behavior is ridiculous. Try to pay attention to my specific wording.

Seems we both are guilty of that. When I start a thread whose title is "How to handle terrorists?" I automatically assume that the replies from conscientious readers will address the point -- terrorists, not any old enemy.

I personally would have no qualms slicing off Osama Bin Laden's head and shitting down his throat. Happy Now?

Yes.

However, this is not the same as bombing innocent people or invading countries which have not been shown to harbor terrorists.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq harbored terrorists. Which other countries were invaded?

Having troops stationed in other countries at the behest of governments is essentially welfare for foreign governments. They are relieved of some of the burden of providing for their own defense and have more resources available to suppress or harass their own people.

Correct. As it happens (largely for the same reasons you mention), I personally agree there should be no US troops permanently stationed in foreign countries. We disagree over whether such stationing necessarily in and of itself produces terrorists -- or even enemies -- in the countries involved.

Do you think the U.S. should continue its policies which terrorists themselves have stated as their reasons for hating the U.S.?

Me personally? Nope. But that is because I personally don't believe in foreign aid to any country. However, I do realize that many reasonable people disagree with me on that. If foreign aid is to be an acceptable practice (and apparently it is, since so many Western nations do it) then to let terrorists blackmail a country into ceasing foreign aid to an ally is a mistake.

Quote:

pinky: Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?



Evolving: Over time this would prove to be a positive step (there are other steps which should be taken as well). Things would not change immediately. Some people have very long memories about the terror that has been visited upon them and theirs by the U.S., so I'm sure it would take some years.

Visited on them by the US? I thought these things were being visited on them by Israel.

I said, the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world. This was my point, why does it seem elude you?

I recognize the distinction between enemies and a subset of enemies. However, the topic of the post was terrorists, not enemies. My questions were an effort to persuade you to deal more thoroughly with the topic at hand. In this post, you have done so. Thank you.

Again, you are being ridiculous and ignoring the statements as I worded them.

Oh?

Quote:

Evolving: Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?



If you had written -- "Do you think if Norwegian-imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards Norway?" -- would that be being ridiculous and ignoring the statements as written? What's the substantive difference?

Quote:

pinky: So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason ally itself with another?



Evolving: No, I did not say that, nor did I imply that.

So temporary alliances are acceptable? May I point out the decades-delayed results of a temporary alliance with the Afghani mujahadeen?

Yes, Japan has troops in Iraq and is a U.S. ally. This is reason enough.

Actually, the troops Japan sent arrived in Iraq just a few months ago. I know this because they arrived at the same time our brave Dominican Republic troops (all sixty or so of them) did. Japan certainly had no troops stationed in the Middle East at the time Al Qaeda was planning the 2002 attack on the World Cup soccer event.

As for Japan being a US ally -- again we have the tenuous rationale exhibited by the Islamists: it's not only an outrage to be an ally of Israel, it's an outrage to be an ally of an ally of Israel. Does it ever stop? Trace the chain far enough and sooner or later every country (except possibly Switzerland) is "guilty" in the eyes of the Jihadists.

pinky


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


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]
    #2352302 - 02/18/04 10:48 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
I automatically assume that the replies from conscientious readers will address the point -- terrorists, not any old enemy.



It's quite common in these forums to make statements that are related to the topic at hand without keeping the focus narrowly on the original post. If that is unacceptable based on the forum guidelines, please tell me.

Quote:

Both Afghanistan and Iraq harbored terrorists. Which other countries were invaded?



Please provide proof that the government of Iraq harbored terrorists who struck the U.S. I'm not referring to U.S. propaganda (which has been shown to be extremely weak). Now if you say this because some people in Iraq have been sympathetic and have offered material and moral support to some terrorists, by the same reasoning it could be said that Saudi Arabia and the United States both harbor terrorists as well. What you seem to be ignoring (along with the neo-cons) is that the battle against terrorists is not a war of nation states against each other. It is not a 20th century style conflict, but a war of the very weak, de-centralized and dispersed all over the globe, against very powerful highly centralized nations. These terrorists are not engaged in a conflict for their nation, but for their ideology, their religion and the people they see as being victims of U.S. and it's ally Israel. I have not seen any proof that attacking Iraq has done anything to stop terrorists. One could more rationally make the case that the US's perceived imperialism in Iraq has added fuel to the fire which ignites the terrorist spirit.

Quote:

If foreign aid is to be an acceptable practice (and apparently it is, since so many Western nations do it) then to let terrorists blackmail a country into ceasing foreign aid to an ally is a mistake.



Foreign aid should be stopped as a matter of principle. Should we continue what is arguably immoral behavior, merely because we don't want it to appear that we are appeasing people or being blackmailed? Actions should be taken or ceased because doing so is the right thing to do.

Quote:

Visited on them by the US? I thought these things were being visited on them by Israel.



By Israel and the U.S. The U.S. dropped bombs on innocent people. The U.S. supports the Saudi regime and the U.S. stationed troops in the Muslim holy lands. The biggest recipient of U.S. aid is Israel.

Quote:

.. would that be being ridiculous and ignoring the statements as written? What's the substantive difference?



"When can we expect a terrorist attack on Norway?" For shipbuilding subsidies? Come on Pinky, get real. I've already addressed this numerous times and have attempted to explain what I plainly stated the first time. Forget it.

Quote:

So temporary alliances are acceptable?



Yes, when it is for national defense.

Quote:

May I point out the decades-delayed results of a temporary alliance with the Afghani mujahadeen?



Are you saying that this temporary alliance was the source of the animosity that resulted in the acts of 9/11? Would the lives and property of those within the United States have been in jeopardy from the designs of the Soviet Union if the U.S. would have refrained from entering into this alliance?

Quote:

As for Japan being a US ally -- again we have the tenuous rationale exhibited by the Islamists: it's not only an outrage to be an ally of Israel, it's an outrage to be an ally of an ally of Israel. Does it ever stop? Trace the chain far enough and sooner or later every country (except possibly Switzerland) is "guilty" in the eyes of the Jihadists.



Perhaps. All the more reason for the people of the U.S. to take to heart the counsel of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.


--------------------
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
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xochitl]
    #2360670 - 02/20/04 08:21 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Xochitl said:
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.
Quote:


Where did you get this from? I'd like to see their list of grievances.  I'm sure that what it truely boils down to is that these people have been forced to live in a land where the rich are a small ruling majority and the rest of the nation lives in poverty conditions. The rich own the media and control the religious figures in their nation, and they realize that the people in their oppressive regimes will be angry at the low standard of living and lack of personal freedoms that come with Islamic tyranny. So, they blame Israel and the USA. It's scapegoating, plain and simple.
Quote:


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.




I think that being the lone superpower gives the tyrants an excellent entity to portray as the causal factor for their people's low living conditions.  When they focus their peoples hatred on the Zionists/Americans, they are really blinding their people as to who the true oppressors are.
Quote:


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?




Because the whacko islamacistst that want their own nation and want to dominate the world have their own section of the world already. When Hitler was in charge, Nazism was much more common.  I'd go on a limb here and say that the world hasn't seen the end of the white separatist movement tho :-)
Quote:


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.




"if"? 
Quote:


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)?




If black people acted like that, their wouldn't be a problem. However, they haven't acted like that in the past few thousand years, and they aren't looking as if they are going to bei n the next few thousand.
Quote:


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?"




The "I" isnt' representative of a group as whole.  I think that if a person is looking at specific blacks to make a "point" with racism, they are a fool.
Quote:


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




So we are justified in attacking Palestine, Jordan, Iran, Syria, and the beat goes on.... right?
Quote:


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.




The "Zionist regime" that allows Arabs into work in their land? The "morally bankrupt" people that have nuclear weapons and haven't made their enemies disappear in a flash of bright, blinding light? The same ones that allowed Saddy to launch attacks on them without retaliation in the Gulf War?  Pull your head out :smile:


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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Toilet Paper

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
spacedragon 7,572 148 06/21/04 08:26 AM
by st0nedphucker
* Terrorists want Bush Vvellum 606 14 06/23/04 11:34 AM
by grib
* Terrorists get free ride in the UK Phred 928 12 05/22/06 10:15 AM
by GazzBut
* Muslim women, children shield terrorists in Thailand lonestar2004 807 7 09/24/05 09:12 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist? Los_Pepes 523 2 01/10/06 04:00 PM
by Tao
* Muslims are terrorists.
( 1 2 all )
looner2 2,923 20 12/12/05 07:37 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Infidels had Bali coming wingnutx 393 2 08/14/03 07:13 PM
by Cornholio
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 8,107 80 07/01/05 03:22 PM
by Ancalagon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,170 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
North Spore
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.197 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.