How to handle terrorists - Political Discussion

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please 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:

Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 [ show all ]

Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village

Re: How to handle terrorists

[Re: Phred]
#2348221 - 02/17/04 11:31 PM (19 years, 1 month 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.

Extras:

Top

Phred
Fred's son

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months

Re: How to handle terrorists

[Re: Evolving]
#2348857 - 02/18/04 04:54 AM (19 years, 1 month 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

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

Extras:

Top

Evolving
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 08:48 PM (19 years, 1 month 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.

Extras:

Top

TheOneYouKnow
addict

Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 19 years, 9 days

Re: How to handle terrorists

[Re: Xochitl]
#2360670 - 02/20/04 06:21 PM (19 years, 1 month 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

Extras:

Top

Jump to top

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 [ show all ]

Shop:

Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Red Vein Kratom

General Interest > Political Discussion

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )	spacedragon	9,273	148	06/21/04 06:26 AM by st0nedphucker
Terrorists want Bush	Vvellum	646	14	06/23/04 09:34 AM by grib
Terrorists get free ride in the UK	Phred	1,028	12	05/22/06 08:15 AM by GazzBut
Muslim women, children shield terrorists in Thailand	lonestar2004	872	7	09/24/05 07:12 PM by Baby_Hitler
Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist?	Los_Pepes	541	2	01/10/06 02:00 PM by Tao
Muslims are terrorists. ( 1 2 all )	looner2	3,052	20	12/12/05 05:37 PM by Los_Pepes
Infidels had Bali coming	wingnutx	419	2	08/14/03 05:13 PM by Cornholio
What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? ( 1 2 3 4 5 all )	1stimer	9,419	80	07/01/05 01:22 PM by Ancalagon

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,917 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]