Full Version: Terrorism
I,m doing this poll for my class. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
ps. The war on terrorism generally. Please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
ps. The war on terrorism generally. Please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
I don't really understand the question, the way it is put forth. Does this mean any offense against terrorism in general, or specifically the way it is being conducted?
I went with "somewhat justified." I think we have a right and a responsibility to try and prevent terrorism at home, and to some degree abroad. What I don't like, however, is how so many crackdowns on terrorism are somehow being linked back with America, and how American agencies are somehow seeing fit to intervene with police agencies throughout the world in this "war on terrorism."
It seems to be that any terrorist anywhere should be the property of the United States government. Might there be terrorists in Germany or Italy? We don't know, but we'll send you some FBI or CIA people to talk it over. Terrorists in Iraq or Syria? We'll send a fleet your way.
While terrorism should be combatted, it seems the way in which we're approaching it requires more intervention than what is necessary. In that sense, I don't feel it is entirely justified.
It seems to be that any terrorist anywhere should be the property of the United States government. Might there be terrorists in Germany or Italy? We don't know, but we'll send you some FBI or CIA people to talk it over. Terrorists in Iraq or Syria? We'll send a fleet your way.
While terrorism should be combatted, it seems the way in which we're approaching it requires more intervention than what is necessary. In that sense, I don't feel it is entirely justified.
I voted "not justified." I think that in the long run, making "war" against terrorism gives it more legitimacy than it deserves. It also serves to broaden the ideological underpinnings of terrorism, and as such, also give them more legitimacy. Terrorism should be treated as the vicious crime that it is, a crime perpetrated by people who necessarily exist on the extreme fringe of any society. To invade countries wholesale, to cause the deaths of people who have nothing to do with committing a crime, cannot be justified.
To give the ideological debate inherent in much terrorism greater legitimacy will in the long run elevate the conditions leading to that same ideological battle. I see two possible outcomes of our "war on terrorism:
1. We succeed by moving the world closer to authoritarianism. This would be an extremely tenuous victory.
2. We fail because we exacerbate the ideological rifts in the world, and try as we might, we do nothing but ensure and endless cycle of new hatreds, and new generations of terrorists increasingly willing to attempt desperate action.
I see such a victory as inherently false, and such a failure as incredibly scary.
To give the ideological debate inherent in much terrorism greater legitimacy will in the long run elevate the conditions leading to that same ideological battle. I see two possible outcomes of our "war on terrorism:
1. We succeed by moving the world closer to authoritarianism. This would be an extremely tenuous victory.
2. We fail because we exacerbate the ideological rifts in the world, and try as we might, we do nothing but ensure and endless cycle of new hatreds, and new generations of terrorists increasingly willing to attempt desperate action.
I see such a victory as inherently false, and such a failure as incredibly scary.
I vote justified. It seems to me there is no greater precept for war than as a response to an attack.
I voted justified. As much as it can be viewed as a criminal act, terrorism has been and will continue to be supported by various nations and regimes.
While this is oversimplified, we cannot win against terrorists until we take away their base of support, ideological and financial.
And when you have a movement based on the destruction of our nation and culture, there can be no greater problem facing us.
While this is oversimplified, we cannot win against terrorists until we take away their base of support, ideological and financial.
And when you have a movement based on the destruction of our nation and culture, there can be no greater problem facing us.
I voted "not justified," because while I believe that we should do what we can to protect our country from terrorism, I don't like the ambiguous nature of the "War on terror."
Additionally, I feel that to effectively fight terror, we have to analyze our own negative policies and clean them up before we criticize someone else's. Essentially, we can change the world by setting an example, but if we are supporting terror while fighting terror, we lose our credibility.
Additionally, I feel that to effectively fight terror, we have to analyze our own negative policies and clean them up before we criticize someone else's. Essentially, we can change the world by setting an example, but if we are supporting terror while fighting terror, we lose our credibility.
I also voted "Not justified" for reasons similar to those stated by cyan. Were the question "Is America's attempt to address and eradicate terrorism justified?" I would've answered with a resounding "Justified" - if, in fact, we had ever made such an attempt. However, declaring "war" on yet another abstract like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" has been and will be no more profitable than either of those endeavors.
If terrorism is ever going to be removed as a viable option for those around the globe who's interests and concerns are being systematically ignored, it is not going to be through cycles of further violence. If we are serious about addressing terrorism, then we had better start getting serious about what causes terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been doing nothing but ensuring that terror will never go away.
I agree with those here that a military response to an attack is justified. But, in most circumstances, such a response is directed at those responsible. That has not been the case here. We have been told (still without foundation, btw) that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the attack - and that we would get bin Laden "dead or alive". We haven't. Instead, we overthrew the government of Afghanistan where bin Laden happened to have been hiding out at one point, merely because that government wanted to be accorded the same respect and adherence to international law that any other country on the planet should have been able to expect. We have forgotten about bin Laden, we have forgotten about the countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) which, in fact, produced and supported the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11 attack, and we have, instead, declared an unjustified war on a totally unrelated country.
This has all been motivated by commerce, using the "War on Terror" as a very flimsy excuse - and shamelessly exploiting the deaths of American citizens for the sake of naked greed. Meanwhile, we have done little, if anything, to combat terrorism itself - though we have managed to squander the international good will which we gained from the attack, to alienate a sizeable percentage of the world's population in the process, to give Islamic fundamentalists even more fuel for their fire of hatred, and to severely curtail the rights here at home which once made this country such a bastion of freedom. We may have won the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but the terrorists have already won the propaganda war - with the collusion of the Bush administration. And that, after all, is what terrorism is all about.
If terrorism is ever going to be removed as a viable option for those around the globe who's interests and concerns are being systematically ignored, it is not going to be through cycles of further violence. If we are serious about addressing terrorism, then we had better start getting serious about what causes terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been doing nothing but ensuring that terror will never go away.
I agree with those here that a military response to an attack is justified. But, in most circumstances, such a response is directed at those responsible. That has not been the case here. We have been told (still without foundation, btw) that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the attack - and that we would get bin Laden "dead or alive". We haven't. Instead, we overthrew the government of Afghanistan where bin Laden happened to have been hiding out at one point, merely because that government wanted to be accorded the same respect and adherence to international law that any other country on the planet should have been able to expect. We have forgotten about bin Laden, we have forgotten about the countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) which, in fact, produced and supported the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11 attack, and we have, instead, declared an unjustified war on a totally unrelated country.
This has all been motivated by commerce, using the "War on Terror" as a very flimsy excuse - and shamelessly exploiting the deaths of American citizens for the sake of naked greed. Meanwhile, we have done little, if anything, to combat terrorism itself - though we have managed to squander the international good will which we gained from the attack, to alienate a sizeable percentage of the world's population in the process, to give Islamic fundamentalists even more fuel for their fire of hatred, and to severely curtail the rights here at home which once made this country such a bastion of freedom. We may have won the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but the terrorists have already won the propaganda war - with the collusion of the Bush administration. And that, after all, is what terrorism is all about.
QUOTE(cyan @ Apr 21 2003, 12:48 PM)
I voted "not justified," because while I believe that we should do what we can to protect our country from terrorism, I don't like the ambiguous nature of the "War on terror."
I voted Justified because after being kicked in the shin so many times by terrorists, we need to finally get our heads out of the sand & do something about it before a mushroom cloud prevents us from doing squat.
QUOTE
Additionally, I feel that to effectively fight terror, we have to analyze our own negative policies and clean them up before we criticize someone else's. Essentially, we can change the world by setting an example, but if we are supporting terror while fighting terror, we lose our credibility.
We don't need to analyze our policies. There is nothing to analyze. The main reasons that we were attacked is because we supported Israel, who keeps getting suicide bombed & deserves a right to retaliate & because we have bases in Saudi Arabia, which aren't a threat but is to others in their eyes
I voted not justified. for one, "terrorist" can mean anything we want it to.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
imagine for a second you grew up with someone, and knew them all your life. now, imagine, your friend is blown away by let's say a mortar. printed on the shrapnel are the words "made in USA", now wouldn't you dislike america just a little?
when we have reviewed and changed the policies that got us into the current mess, and we are still getting attacked, then it might be justified.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
imagine for a second you grew up with someone, and knew them all your life. now, imagine, your friend is blown away by let's say a mortar. printed on the shrapnel are the words "made in USA", now wouldn't you dislike america just a little?
when we have reviewed and changed the policies that got us into the current mess, and we are still getting attacked, then it might be justified.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Apr 21 2003, 04:31 PM)
I voted not justified. for one, "terrorist" can mean anything we want it to.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
imagine for a second you grew up with someone, and knew them all your life. now, imagine, your friend is blown away by let's say a mortar. printed on the shrapnel are the words "made in USA", now wouldn't you dislike america just a little?
when we have reviewed and changed the policies that got us into the current mess, and we are still getting attacked, then it might be justified.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
imagine for a second you grew up with someone, and knew them all your life. now, imagine, your friend is blown away by let's say a mortar. printed on the shrapnel are the words "made in USA", now wouldn't you dislike america just a little?
when we have reviewed and changed the policies that got us into the current mess, and we are still getting attacked, then it might be justified.
..and we shouldn't have built those dang towers so high in the first place! Nor should we be so prosperous. And no way should we be spending our hard-earned money on foreign aid, how gauche! Oh, and yeah, if another country gets invaded, well, mind our own business dammit!
Yes bomber, you are right. It is all our fault. We're nothing but a rape victim wearing high heels and a short skirt.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 21 2003, 03:03 PM)
..and we shouldn't have built those dang towers so high in the first place! Nor should we be so prosperous. And no way should we be spending our hard-earned money on foreign aid, how gauche! Oh, and yeah, if another country gets invaded, well, mind our own business dammit!
Yes bomber, you are right. It is all our fault. We're nothing but a rape victim wearing high heels and a short skirt.
Yes bomber, you are right. It is all our fault. We're nothing but a rape victim wearing high heels and a short skirt.
do you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add? perhaps terrorists wouldn't attack us if we stop support a country bent on the total eradication of an arab race, or if we stopped putting people like the shah of Iran and saddam hussein in power. or stopped propping up regimes that kill those that convert to christianity.
yes, we are completely innocent and have done nothing over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked. they all hate us cause we are prosperous and free. I suppose you think bush is intellegent and shouldn't be criticized as well.
Ok, let's debate this without getting rude...
My vote went to "somewhat justified." Oddly enough, my reasoning was pretty much the same as cyan's, despite our different vote,
I feel that if a reanalysis of our own internal policies is called a War on Terrorism. so be it. A restructuring is definitely needed. Now the question didn't ask whether we agree with Bush's version of the War on Terrorism...
My vote went to "somewhat justified." Oddly enough, my reasoning was pretty much the same as cyan's, despite our different vote,
QUOTE(cyan @ April 21, 2003, 1:48pm)
Additionally, I feel that to effectively fight terror, we have to analyze our own negative policies and clean them up before we criticize someone else's. Essentially, we can change the world by setting an example, but if we are supporting terror while fighting terror, we lose our credibility.
I feel that if a reanalysis of our own internal policies is called a War on Terrorism. so be it. A restructuring is definitely needed. Now the question didn't ask whether we agree with Bush's version of the War on Terrorism...
QUOTE(Passion51)
..and we shouldn't have built those dang towers so high in the first place! Nor should we be so prosperous. And no way should we be spending our hard-earned money on foreign aid, how gauche! Oh, and yeah, if another country gets invaded, well, mind our own business dammit!
I think even a moderate amount of research would show that the attacks of September 11 were not the result of building too high, possessing so much money, distributing foreign aid or assisting invaded countries.
The same way the community service of a priest doesn't exonerate him of sexual abuse charges, America's international humanitarian aid or other good deeds doesn't exonerate her of the faults of her foreign policy. Our "war on terrorism" is only addressing a symptom, rather than the disease itself.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Apr 21 2003, 09:31 PM)
I voted not justified. for one, "terrorist" can mean anything we want it to.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
case in point, on the "happy patriots day" thread, alan wood called the colonial militiamen terrorist's. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and that is the problem.
I think before we go attacking anyone we should evaluate why the terrorists REALLY hate us. and it isn't cause we are "free" we have done plenty to provoke others into attacking us, such as our unwavering support of the aparthied state of israel, putting people like saddam, the shah (of iran) and others into power, among other things.
Terrorism is not an ambiguous term. It does not apply to a military engagement, such as alan wood suggested. A 'freedom fighter' works against a government organization, and doesn't indiscriminately kill civilians. A terrorist is not a freedom fighter, even if he/she prefers the euphemistic term.
Let’s assume that we make every effort to understand the reasons for the attack. Rather than taking a defensive (or offensive) posture, we simply sit back and wait for diplomacy to work.
Do we allow subsequent attacks? Do we implement the three strikes and you’re out rule? Responding aggressively to terrorism does not require the ceasing of all diplomatic channels. Even if we understand why other countries despise us, there might not be a way to come to any foreseeable agreement.
We mustn’t forget Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. First, we have physiological body needs, next security, social, ego, and finally self-actualization. If you have security, there is time for all the self-actualizing 'what if' philosophizing you could wish for. But, first, that security must be maintained.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Apr 21 2003, 06:40 PM)
yes, we are completely innocent and have done nothing over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked. they all hate us cause we are prosperous and free. I suppose you think bush is intellegent and shouldn't be criticized as well.
This is the kind of thinking that our enemies try to take advantage of all the time. Enemies from without, and sadly enough, enemies from within.
We have done nothing, I repeat NOTHING over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked. Anyone who thinks we have might as well paint a crosshair on their forehead and say 'come get me next'.
I think you need to read the many many books and papers produced by and for fundamentalist muslims. The central message is clear and persistently stated. Non-muslims are infidels and should be killed. Period.
Now, I'm not sure what the apologistic liberals in America would have us do to change that belief. And I'd love to hear just what it is that we did over the past 30 years to bring on that belief. That might get tricky since it was established centuries ago.
We can only hope that the leaders who understand the threats we face, and have the fortitude to face those threats head-on, will be returned to office. Heck, even many dems secretly hope for the same thing because they know they have no clue how to deal with the world we live in today.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 21 2003, 11:19 PM)
Heck, even many dems secretly hope for the same thing because they know they have no clue how to deal with the world we live in today.
Your entire post is diminished by such unconstructive and unsubstantiated stings such as this.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 21 2003, 11:19 PM)
Heck, even many dems secretly hope for the same thing because they know they have no clue how to deal with the world we live in today.
Your entire post is diminished by such unconstructive and unsubstantiated stings such as this.
Jaime.........
I fail to see that p51 is doing anything wrong here other than stating a view.
Who the hell are we to audit a point of view based on "stings" when we do it all the time.
I suggest we allow he/her to develop his/her argument further and allow a debate to occur.
Regards....Alan
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 21 2003, 11:19 PM)
This is the kind of thinking that our enemies try to take advantage of all the time. Enemies from without, and sadly enough, enemies from within.
We have done nothing, I repeat NOTHING over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked...
...Now, I'm not sure what the apologistic liberals in America would have us do to change that belief. And I'd love to hear just what it is that we did over the past 30 years to bring on that belief. That might get tricky since it was established centuries ago.
We have done nothing, I repeat NOTHING over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked...
...Now, I'm not sure what the apologistic liberals in America would have us do to change that belief. And I'd love to hear just what it is that we did over the past 30 years to bring on that belief. That might get tricky since it was established centuries ago.
[Post edited for brevity]
First I'm curious... you speak of enemies within and enemies without. You also speak quite passionately against "liberals" without necessarily specifying. Do you view liberals in general to be enemies within or how might you characterize these "enemies within"?
As for your assertions that we have done "NOTHING" over the past 30 years to warrant attack, would you rather have us believe it is nothing more than envy driving these terrorists, that envy alone can drive a person to not only kill, but die themselves? And if envy truly has this motivational force, why aren't there more terrorist attacks both at home or abroad? Certainly there are more than enough poor or envious people from the lower and middle classes the world over to wreak untold havoc on the world. But yet they don't.
While I don't think terrorist acts can be justified, I do think they can be explained beyond such broad and presumptuous reasons as envy or unfounded hatred.
Without looking up the specific number, approximately 3,000 people died in the airline attacks on September 11, 2001. In retaliation we went into Afghanistan because the Taliban government harbored al-Qaida. I've seen reports tallying up the civilian casualties for that war and it seems to currently equal or rival those of 9/11. While it is certainly seen in America that our retaliation against those we believed attacked us is justified, those related to any of the thousands of civilian casualties in Afghanistan may not agree. Unfortunately the destruction wrought by our military might is not the only possible harbinger of terror.
Over the last 50 years (certainly not all of it in the first twenty), the U.S. has sought to overthrow various governments for a myriad of reasons, helped to crush populist movements, interfered with foreign elections, developed death squads, carried out assassinations, endorsed and engaged in torture, granted immunity and sanctuary to war criminals, used weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations, secretly exposed civilian populations to unlawful chemical and radiation tests, supported oppressive regimes both financially and militarily, and undermined many UN resolutions and treaties (often being the only dissenting vote).
Just to reiterate: I don't feel this necessarily justifies terrorism, but it certainly creates the animosity which breeds it. And it's a good deal more than just "envy" of what we have, or how we live, in America. To say that the United States has done "NOTHING" is at the very least a gross understatement.
Passion:
Well, you've stated this in a way that can't be refuted - and I don't think anyone on this site will. You are correct in saying we do not "deserve" to be attacked. I haven't met a commiepinkoleftist liberal yet who thinks such a thing. Is it your impression that people who seek explanation, who seek the context of global events, are apologists and appeasers? It sounds rather silly to state the converse: that those who tow the line and ask no questions are what, somehow well informed? Or correct? How does less knowledge, or less understanding, possibly equate to a more intelligent viewpoint? Perhaps you ought to crack a history book, passion. And what's that last sentence about? Do you think that people who disagree with your oh-so-well-informed
opinion ought to be targets of some sort? Sheesh!
Please do give us some sources, perhaps a bibliography. Which ones have you read? Or did Rush tell you about them? I'm sure there are books like that, don't get me wrong. But, then, we're living in a country where prominent fundamentalists are also prone to rather... caustic remarks. Falwell, stating Mohammed was a "terrorist," and Jimmy Swaggart ("I didn't put it in, well, just the tip") denouncing Mohammed as a "sex deviant."
There you go again with the apologistic bit. You want to really change that belief? Marginalize it. Most of Islam is struggling to find an identity in an increasingly pluralist world. We should help them do so, not push them closer and closer to Bin Laden's medieval fundamentalism. Instead we continue to trample and alienate even our own Muslim citizens. Not the smartest move, really. Which direction do you suppose many are finding themselves heading? It doesn't take a whole lot of harassment to engender a bitter backlash.
And please, allow me to say it again: seeking the context, looking for reason, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING AN APOLOGIST!!! NOR IS IT APPEASEMENT.
You're simply avoiding engaging debate by running down "liberals" as though they were one, all cut from the same cloth, and two, all mentally retarded.
QUOTE
We have done nothing, I repeat NOTHING over the past 30 years to deserve being attacked. Anyone who thinks we have might as well paint a crosshair on their forehead and say 'come get me next'.
Well, you've stated this in a way that can't be refuted - and I don't think anyone on this site will. You are correct in saying we do not "deserve" to be attacked. I haven't met a commiepinkoleftist liberal yet who thinks such a thing. Is it your impression that people who seek explanation, who seek the context of global events, are apologists and appeasers? It sounds rather silly to state the converse: that those who tow the line and ask no questions are what, somehow well informed? Or correct? How does less knowledge, or less understanding, possibly equate to a more intelligent viewpoint? Perhaps you ought to crack a history book, passion. And what's that last sentence about? Do you think that people who disagree with your oh-so-well-informed
opinion ought to be targets of some sort? Sheesh!QUOTE
I think you need to read the many many books and papers produced by and for fundamentalist muslims. The central message is clear and persistently stated. Non-muslims are infidels and should be killed. Period.
Please do give us some sources, perhaps a bibliography. Which ones have you read? Or did Rush tell you about them? I'm sure there are books like that, don't get me wrong. But, then, we're living in a country where prominent fundamentalists are also prone to rather... caustic remarks. Falwell, stating Mohammed was a "terrorist," and Jimmy Swaggart ("I didn't put it in, well, just the tip") denouncing Mohammed as a "sex deviant."
QUOTE
Now, I'm not sure what the apologistic liberals in America would have us do to change that belief. And I'd love to hear just what it is that we did over the past 30 years to bring on that belief. That might get tricky since it was established centuries ago.
There you go again with the apologistic bit. You want to really change that belief? Marginalize it. Most of Islam is struggling to find an identity in an increasingly pluralist world. We should help them do so, not push them closer and closer to Bin Laden's medieval fundamentalism. Instead we continue to trample and alienate even our own Muslim citizens. Not the smartest move, really. Which direction do you suppose many are finding themselves heading? It doesn't take a whole lot of harassment to engender a bitter backlash.
And please, allow me to say it again: seeking the context, looking for reason, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING AN APOLOGIST!!! NOR IS IT APPEASEMENT.
You're simply avoiding engaging debate by running down "liberals" as though they were one, all cut from the same cloth, and two, all mentally retarded.
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ Apr 21 2003, 10:14 PM)
Terrorism is not an ambiguous term. It does not apply to a military engagement, such as alan wood suggested. A 'freedom fighter' works against a government organization, and doesn't indiscriminately kill civilians. A terrorist is not a freedom fighter, even if he/she prefers the euphemistic term.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, mrs p. To me, the term "terrorist" is highly ambiguous - as is "freedom fighter". Is a freedom fighter still a freedom fighter if they are working against a democratically elected government? Are regimes which indiscriminately kill civilians not practicing terror if the US is supporting that regime?
Were the mujahedin terrorists or freedom fighters? What about the Irish Republican Army? Or Basque separatists? What about the Contras - terrorists or freedom fighters? The PLO? It is often - if not always - a matter of perspective. Many acts committed by marginalized, if organized, groups are identical to acts committed by state governments, including our own. Some consider one an act of terror and the other an act of war. Others see little distinction between the two. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were deemed acts of "defense". Who is using the euphemistic terms here?
This is one of the problems with an unspecified "war on terror". Where do we draw the line? Have we declared war on Irish nationalists or have we declared war on Ulster unionists? Have we declared war on Palestinian suicide bombers or have we declared war on murderous Zionist nationalists? Oh - have we only declared war on terror where the Bush administration can indulge in expansion and profiteering?
It all strikes me as being very subjective.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 22 2003, 02:17 AM)
This is one of the problems with an unspecified "war on terror". Where do we draw the line? Have we declared war on Irish nationalists or have we declared war on Ulster unionists? Have we declared war on Palestinian suicide bombers or have we declared war on murderous Zionist nationalists? Oh - have we only declared war on terror where the Bush administration can indulge in expansion and profiteering?
It all strikes me as being very subjective.
We have declared war on terrorists, and their sponsors and supporters, who threaten the vital interests of the US or its allies. Any Arab country that does not actively work to dissuade radical fundamentalists amongst them is subject to whatever means of persuasion we deem necessary.
If we see more cooperation from the Arab nations, we will be able to lean that much harder on Israel. And if Israel starts sending homicide bombers to Qatar or Bahrain, then we will crack down on them too.
We don't want want anything out of this but our security and freedom. Freedom from not looking up at every jet that flys by, wondering if it's seeking a landing strip or a target. Freedom to visit our relatives in Israel without falling to the ground with every backfire, or wondering if that pretty young woman is really pregnant or is she......
The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
QUOTE(exodus77 @ Apr 21 2003, 01:01 PM)
I,m doing this poll for my class project. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
ps. The war on terrorism generally. When you read the question please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
Please vote
ps. The war on terrorism generally. When you read the question please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
Please vote
When you read the question please take the time to vote and voice yur opinion, it is very important. Thank
I need at least 100 votes on this.
QUOTE(exodus77 @ Apr 21 2003, 01:01 PM)
I,m doing this poll for my class project. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
ps. The war on terrorism generally. When you read the question please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
Please vote
ps. The war on terrorism generally. When you read the question please take the time to respond to the poll, it is very important that you do. :
Please vote
When you read the question please take the time to vote and voice your opinion, it is very important. Thank you.
I need at least 100 votes on this.
QUOTE(exodus77 @ Apr 22 2003, 09:25 AM)
I need at least 100 votes on this.
Don't count on getting that. We're a pretty small place here.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Apr 22 2003, 02:50 AM)
Please do give us some sources, perhaps a bibliography. Which ones have you read? Or did Rush tell you about them? I'm sure there are books like that, don't get me wrong. But, then, we're living in a country where prominent fundamentalists are also prone to rather... caustic remarks. Falwell, stating Mohammed was a "terrorist," and Jimmy Swaggart ("I didn't put it in, well, just the tip") denouncing Mohammed as a "sex deviant."
QUOTE
Now, I'm not sure what the apologistic liberals in America would have us do to change that belief. And I'd love to hear just what it is that we did over the past 30 years to bring on that belief. That might get tricky since it was established centuries ago.
There you go again with the apologistic bit. You want to really change that belief? Marginalize it. Most of Islam is struggling to find an identity in an increasingly pluralist world. We should help them do so, not push them closer and closer to Bin Laden's medieval fundamentalism. Instead we continue to trample and alienate even our own Muslim citizens. Not the smartest move, really. Which direction do you suppose many are finding themselves heading? It doesn't take a whole lot of harassment to engender a bitter backlash.
And please, allow me to say it again: seeking the context, looking for reason, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING AN APOLOGIST!!! NOR IS IT APPEASEMENT.
You're simply avoiding engaging debate by running down "liberals" as though they were one, all cut from the same cloth, and two, all mentally retarded.
Facts and Myths about Muslim Anti-Semitism -Jewish Source
ISLAM AND THE NATION STATE - Terrorism in India by Muslims
American Jihad- An excerpt
The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America
QUOTE
Why America? In Siddiqi's judgment, the need to assume control here is even more pressing than the need to sustain the revolution of the mullahs in Iran or to destroy Israel, for doing so will have a much greater positive impact on the future of Islam. America is central not for the reasons one might expect—its large population, its wealth, or the cultural influence it wields around the world—but on three other grounds.
The first has to do with Washington's role as the premier enemy of Islamism (or, possibly, of Islam itself). In Siddiqi's colorful language, whenever and wherever Muslims have moved toward establishing an Islamic state, the "treacherous hands of the secular West are always there . . . to bring about [their] defeat." Nor are Muslim rulers of any help, for they are "all in the pockets of the Western powers." If, therefore, Islam is ever going to attain its rightful place of dominance in the world, the "ideology of Islam [must] prevail over the mental horizon of the American people." The entire future of the Muslim world, Siddiqi concludes, "depends on how soon the Muslims of America are able to build up their own indigenous movement."
Secondly, America is central because establishing Islamism here would signal its final triumph over its only rival, that bundle of Christianity and liberalism which constitutes contemporary Western civilization. (One cannot help noting the irony that Siddiqi's tract appeared in the same year, 1989, as Francis Fukuyama's famous article speculating that, with the collapse of Communism and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, we had begun to approach the "end of history.") And thirdly, and still more grandly, the infusion of the United States with Islamism would make for so powerful a combination of material success and spiritual truth that the establishment of "God's Kingdom" on earth would no longer be "a distant dream."
But this dream will not happen by itself. To American Muslims, writes Siddiqi, falls the paramount responsibility of bringing Islam to power in their country; and to this goal, Muslims must devote "all of their energies, talents, and resources." For this is how they will be assessed on judgment day: "Every Muslim living in the West will stand in the witness box in the mightiest court of Allah . . . in Akhirah [the last day] and give evidence that he fulfilled his responsibility, . . . that he left no stone unturned to bring the message of the Qur'an to every nook and corner of the country."
The first has to do with Washington's role as the premier enemy of Islamism (or, possibly, of Islam itself). In Siddiqi's colorful language, whenever and wherever Muslims have moved toward establishing an Islamic state, the "treacherous hands of the secular West are always there . . . to bring about [their] defeat." Nor are Muslim rulers of any help, for they are "all in the pockets of the Western powers." If, therefore, Islam is ever going to attain its rightful place of dominance in the world, the "ideology of Islam [must] prevail over the mental horizon of the American people." The entire future of the Muslim world, Siddiqi concludes, "depends on how soon the Muslims of America are able to build up their own indigenous movement."
Secondly, America is central because establishing Islamism here would signal its final triumph over its only rival, that bundle of Christianity and liberalism which constitutes contemporary Western civilization. (One cannot help noting the irony that Siddiqi's tract appeared in the same year, 1989, as Francis Fukuyama's famous article speculating that, with the collapse of Communism and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, we had begun to approach the "end of history.") And thirdly, and still more grandly, the infusion of the United States with Islamism would make for so powerful a combination of material success and spiritual truth that the establishment of "God's Kingdom" on earth would no longer be "a distant dream."
But this dream will not happen by itself. To American Muslims, writes Siddiqi, falls the paramount responsibility of bringing Islam to power in their country; and to this goal, Muslims must devote "all of their energies, talents, and resources." For this is how they will be assessed on judgment day: "Every Muslim living in the West will stand in the witness box in the mightiest court of Allah . . . in Akhirah [the last day] and give evidence that he fulfilled his responsibility, . . . that he left no stone unturned to bring the message of the Qur'an to every nook and corner of the country."
American Statecraft and the Response to Terrorism --A Christian Perspective
QUOTE
The second dimension of the error of dismissing bin Laden as simply beyond the pale of civilization is that we will fail to understand why he, in his Muslim context, can inspire so much sympathy. Bin Laden believes that the God of Islam has authorized him to lead in acts of violent judgment—holy war—against impious governments within Muslim countries, against infidel Jews and Christian crusaders, and against the American Satan, because all are enemies of God. Many Muslims and others from northern Africa on through the Middle East and over to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines believe that, on Muslim terms, bin Laden’s tactics and actions are illegitimate and unjust. But many of them cheer him on and give him financial and moral support because they have learned from childhood to this present day that Western culture—which in their minds is Christian—is morally corrupt, a threat to Allah’s will for the world, and imperialistic in its global aims. And if a single symbol is needed to represent this western, Christian devil, then they point to Israel, a western imposition on Palestine that defiles the land where Allah should be served above all.
All of this dogma—this entire interpretation of reality—must certainly be countered from a Christian point of view. But we do ourselves a disservice if we dismiss and thereby fail to understand Islam and bin Laden’s use of it, including the call for holy war. Salman Rushdie is of little help to Christians at this point when he merely confesses faith in modern secularism, contending that Muslims need to learn how to confine religion "to the sphere of the personal" and to "take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based" (New York Times, 11/2/01). Here faith in "the modern" confronts and abruptly dismisses old-fashioned faith in Allah, yet that feeds right into the fuel that inflames Islamist antagonism to the West. The dynamics behind bin Laden very likely will continue to shape the Muslim world long after he and Al Qaeda are gone. If the worldview and agenda of much of the Muslim world, including that of its political extremists, is different from a secularist worldview and agenda, different from the American civil religion’s worldview and agenda, and different from a Christian worldview and agenda, then it is all the more urgent that Christians seek to fathom everything about all of these religions wherever they are influential.
Terrorism, as Americans experienced it last September, is wrong and requires a publicly just response, and in such circumstances Christians need to articulate a Christian view of just government and its properly qualified use of retributive force. Neither Western secularism’s mistaken dismissal of non-secularist religions, nor the American civil religion’s simple division of the world between good guys (us) and bad guys (them) provides the basis for a Christian view of government’s purpose, obligations, and use of force. The terrorist attacks should serve as a wake-up call to Christians. We have much important and urgent work to do if we are to follow our Lord in obedient service in all spheres of life and in all regions of the world.
FBI Testimony to Congress on Al Qaeda International
QUOTE
Al-Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons:
First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam.
Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group.
Third, Al-Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by Al-Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries. In particular, Al-Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War.
Fourth, Al-Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or with whom it worked, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing.
First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam.
Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group.
Third, Al-Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by Al-Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries. In particular, Al-Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War.
Fourth, Al-Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or with whom it worked, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing.
There are many sources which state why some Muslims hate the West, but we should dwell on Al Qaeda. Let's examine the FBI's statements about the motivations behind Al Qaeda:
1. the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Not much we can do to combat being a secular, non-Muslim government.
2. the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group. OK, we do have control here. The logical thing would be to be to cut aid to ALL governments in the region.
3. Al-Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993, which were viewed by Al-Qaeda as pretextual preparations for an American occupation of Islamic countries. In particular, Al-Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War. OK, US military interventions in foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia, but interestingly, also the Balkans. We could stop all military interventions in any country associated with Islam.
4. Al-Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or with whom it worked, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing.
OK, arresting criminals, especially when they are Muslim.
So, our new policy should be:
1. No aid to any Islamic governements, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and no aid to Israel.
2. No military intervention in the Muslim world (or the Balkans, which does have a minority Muslim population). Not even if we are asked by the UN (evil organization according to Al Qaeda) or some small, helpless Muslim nation (such as Kuwait).
3. Do not arrest terrorists, not even AFTER they have committed crimes.
4. Become a fundamentalist Islamic government.
So, as I see it, our biggest mistake was coming to the aid of Kuwait against (largely) secular Iraq. That led us to keeping a military presence there and it all went downhill. Intervening in the Balkans...well, we should have known that would stick in the craw of fundamentalists.
Doesn't it all really boil down to #4? We are not an Islamic government. Some elements over there cannot tolerate that. And there is not much chance of that changing.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 08:24 AM)
We have declared war on terrorists, and their sponsors and supporters, who threaten the vital interests of the US or its allies.
Where has this been specified? Please provide a source.
QUOTE
Any Arab country that does not actively work to dissuade radical fundamentalists amongst them is subject to whatever means of persuasion we deem necessary.
Ah - so we expect other countries, over whom we have no jurisdiction whatsoever, to subject their citizens to things which, in this country, would be illegal. Cool plan. That's going to sell a lot of people on American-style democracy (not to mention American-style diplomacy).
QUOTE
If we see more cooperation from the Arab nations, we will be able to lean that much harder on Israel. And if Israel starts sending homicide bombers to Qatar or Bahrain, then we will crack down on them too.
Do you have any kind of source for this astronomically unlikely bit of whimsical fantasy - or do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head?
QUOTE
We don't want want anything out of this but our security and freedom.
Do you have a source for this???
QUOTE
The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
Some people might be able to get past their hatred of the Bush administration had it not embarked on so fascistic and autocratic a path in the first place. The two are married, P51. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, no one hates Bush in a void - and those who intensely disapprove of this administration seem much better able to support their position than those who ignorantly support its every move, parroting War Party lines and talk radio buzzwords.
And spare me the "liberal apologist" cow-poopie - I've already read that circular.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
amlord: Quarkie asked for sources on "the many many books and papers produced by and for fundamentalist muslims" in which it is stated that "Non-muslims are infidels and should be killed. Period." He asked you for a bibliography. He asked which ones you had read. You posted an 8000 word response without coming up with a single one! Good work. I'm convinced.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 08:24 AM)
We have declared war on terrorists, and their sponsors and supporters, who threaten the vital interests of the US or its allies. Any Arab country that does not actively work to dissuade radical fundamentalists amongst them is subject to whatever means of persuasion we deem necessary.
...The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
...The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
As to the declaration of war on terrorists, which Wertz has brought up in the post prior to this, I think you'll run into some obstacles because there has been no such declaration. It's a pretty open-ended bag brought out by the government, because Congress didn't declare any war on terrorism (or Iraq for that matter). Essentially the administration is taking a number of liberties in the use of force both at home and abroad, without having Congressional approval. Beyond this, I'm not so sure they ever specified it as you put it... but as I said, I'm not sure.
As to this hatred of Bush thing: You act as though people dislike (or hate, as you prefer) the man simply because he is George W. Bush, and no other reason. Of course, you also said the United States hadn't done anything over the last 30 years that might throw fuel on the fire for terrorists, as well. I don't know a single person who dislikes Dubya for simply being Dubya or the 43rd president of the United States. I personally, and others like me, dislike Bush because of his belligerent approach to foreign relations and his domestic policies bordering on fascism.
You're bound to have seen the long list of issues taken against Bush on this site, yet you still insist it's just some unwarranted dislike of the man for no other reason than who he is.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 22 2003, 11:28 AM)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 08:24 AM)
We have declared war on terrorists, and their sponsors and supporters, who threaten the vital interests of the US or its allies. Any Arab country that does not actively work to dissuade radical fundamentalists amongst them is subject to whatever means of persuasion we deem necessary.
...The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
...The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
As to the declaration of war on terrorists, which Wertz has brought up in the post prior to this, I think you'll run into some obstacles because there has been no such declaration. It's a pretty open-ended bag brought out by the government, because Congress didn't declare any war on terrorism (or Iraq for that matter). Essentially the administration is taking a number of liberties in the use of force both at home and abroad, without having Congressional approval. Beyond this, I'm not so sure they ever specified it as you put it... but as I said, I'm not sure.
As to this hatred of Bush thing: You act as though people dislike (or hate, as you prefer) the man simply because he is George W. Bush, and no other reason. Of course, you also said the United States hadn't done anything over the last 30 years that might throw fuel on the fire for terrorists, as well. I don't know a single person who dislikes Dubya for simply being Dubya or the 43rd president of the United States. I personally, and others like me, dislike Bush because of his belligerent approach to foreign relations and his domestic policies bordering on fascism.
You're bound to have seen the long list of issues taken against Bush on this site, yet you still insist it's just some unwarranted dislike of the man for no other reason than who he is.
In a number of his post 9/11, pre-war speeches Bush quite clearly said we were engaged in a war on terror against terrorists and those who support them, etc.
As for hating Bush, its not about hating the man or hating his policies. Its about allowing that hatred to color every thing ever discussed on this forum. When I see that, eventually my eyes glaze over and I discount most, if not all, of the other content. BTW, the Bush thing hasn't applied to you, but you mentioned it so I reply here.
I don't agree with everything that comes out of the Bush admin, but I do agree with the positions we're taking regarding foreign policy so far. I think the time was past due. Long past due. Go back to the time of the Iranian hostage crisis and you will see an ever more violent degree of terrrorist acts taken against us. Our reprisals were nothing but stutter-steps that made us out to be ready targets. Osama called us 'the weak horse'. Saddam's strategy was to drag the war out as long as possible because we 'wouldn't have the stomach for a long and costly battle'.
I think we've done plenty to dispel that image. Time will tell if it has meaning. I'm betting it does. As a matter of fact, I'm betting 4 more years it does.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 22 2003, 10:01 AM)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 08:24 AM)
We have declared war on terrorists, and their sponsors and supporters, who threaten the vital interests of the US or its allies.
Where has this been specified? Please provide a source.
QUOTE
Any Arab country that does not actively work to dissuade radical fundamentalists amongst them is subject to whatever means of persuasion we deem necessary.
Ah - so we expect other countries, over whom we have no jurisdiction whatsoever, to subject their citizens to things which, in this country, would be illegal. Cool plan. That's going to sell a lot of people on American-style democracy (not to mention American-style diplomacy).
QUOTE
If we see more cooperation from the Arab nations, we will be able to lean that much harder on Israel. And if Israel starts sending homicide bombers to Qatar or Bahrain, then we will crack down on them too.
Do you have any kind of source for this astronomically unlikely bit of whimsical fantasy - or do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head?
QUOTE
We don't want want anything out of this but our security and freedom.
Do you have a source for this???
QUOTE
The path we have embarked on would not be so hard to accept if some were able to get past their hatred for Bush. It colors everything they talk about and it's sad to watch actually.
Some people might be able to get past their hatred of the Bush administration had it not embarked on so fascistic and autocratic a path in the first place. The two are married, P51. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, no one hates Bush in a void - and those who intensely disapprove of this administration seem much better able to support their position than those who ignorantly support its every move, parroting War Party lines and talk radio buzzwords.
And spare me the "liberal apologist" cow-poopie - I've already read that circular.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
amlord: Quarkie asked for sources on "the many many books and papers produced by and for fundamentalist muslims" in which it is stated that "Non-muslims are infidels and should be killed. Period." He asked you for a bibliography. He asked which ones you had read. You posted an 8000 word response without coming up with a single one! Good work. I'm convinced.
Wertz, if and when the child who apparently has gotten hold of your computer gives it back to you I will be happy to respond. However, I expect an adult exchange of ideas, not some graffiti-littered rant.
A couple of issues you raised have been answered in my reply to ABS. Notice how that was done? Civilly, and like gentlemen.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 04:23 PM)
Wertz, if and when the child who apparently has gotten hold of your computer gives it back to you I will be happy to respond. However, I expect an adult exchange of ideas, not some graffiti-littered rant.
A couple of issues you raised have been answered in my reply to ABS. Notice how that was done? Civilly, and like gentlemen.
A couple of issues you raised have been answered in my reply to ABS. Notice how that was done? Civilly, and like gentlemen.
P51 - Two things:
1. Please don't post two posts in a row unless the time to edit your first post has expired.
2. Before your criticize someone else's posting style, you may want to look at your own. You are just as guilty of partisan attacks and blanket statements.
Everyone else, please get this thread back on track, debate civilly, and start a new thread if you want to discuss debating tactics.
I don't think America is perfect. I also don't think killing 3000 of us will fix anything. I feel 100% justified in kicking those thugs out of Afghanistan. I think Bush has some obligation to force countries that want to kill me to reconsider. Does anybody think we could have got rid of all the Al-queda in Afghanistan with diplomacy?
Thank you Cyan!
QUOTE
Everyone else, please get this thread back on track, debate civilly, and start a new thread if you want to discuss debating tactics.
Thank you Cyan!
I can't believe that some people actually think the WOT isn't justified, maybe we need a reminder, this is why we are fighting.
CP
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Apr 22 2003, 07:23 PM)
Does anybody think we could have got rid of all the Al-queda in Afghanistan with diplomacy?
Nope. The Taliban got their diplomatic chance. They got 1 week to turn ole Osama into U.S. authorities & they declined it. I felt that Bush did the right thing in thumbing the Taliban along with their "guests". We took too many shots by Al-Queda in the 90's & 9/11 was the last straw.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 22 2003, 06:23 PM)
Wertz, if and when the child who apparently has gotten hold of your computer gives it back to you I will be happy to respond. However, I expect an adult exchange of ideas, not some graffiti-littered rant.
A couple of issues you raised have been answered in my reply to ABS. Notice how that was done? Civilly, and like gentlemen.
A couple of issues you raised have been answered in my reply to ABS. Notice how that was done? Civilly, and like gentlemen.
Nice deflection, Passion51 - however inappropriate. You know, just about every time someone asks you for a source, you resort to evasion and abuse. I think that tells us all something about your posting style - and level of credibility. I asked you for sources on four separate items. I respectfully make the same request again. And by "sources", the rest of us mean either a link to an item online or the name of a work in print, its author, and any other available publication information. "George Bush made some speeches" is not a "source".
cyan: For the record, I'm not quite sure how to take your "just as guilty of partisan attacks and blanket statements". There were neither partisan attacks nor blanket statements in my posting. There was well-deserved derision for totally speculative statements made without foundation or evidential support being presented as though they were fact, but nothing that could conceivable be construed as an "attack" - unlike many of P51's posts. For the record.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(goamerica @ Apr 23 2003, 08:50 PM)
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Apr 22 2003, 07:23 PM)
Does anybody think we could have got rid of all the Al-queda in Afghanistan with diplomacy?
Nope. The Taliban got their diplomatic chance. They got 1 week to turn ole Osama into U.S. authorities & they declined it. I felt that Bush did the right thing in thumbing the Taliban along with their "guests".
Not quite, goam. The Taliban requested evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt before turning him over - as any other sovereign nation on the face of the planet would be entitled to do under any other extradition case. The US government refused, in contravention of all international law. The Taliban never declined to turn over bin Laden - they just asked for an iota of evidence for doing so (evidence which we had already purportedly given Tony Blair - though no one else has yet to see it) before doing so. The Taliban was given NO diplomatic chance - or, at least, no just, legal diplomatic chance. They were railroaded - to America's eternal shame.
That leg of the "war on terror" was no more justified than the Iraqi leg - though, granted, Afghanistan was somewhat more linked to terrorist activity than Iraq was.
Maybe I just don't understand the rules around here as well as you do. Are we not permitted to express our opinions? Opinions that may have taken years to come by and are surely not the result of any one 'source'. Your jab about Bush's speeches not being a source is hard to understand. As are the many interviews and such by other pols on the Sunday morning circuit, etc.
I read all the time, on line and off. I don't take notes and rarely bookmark. You asked for sources about muslim pubs that preach 'kill the infidel'. By the time I came back to this thread, amlord had supplied many. I am still looking for a story written by a journalist who lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood near the Al Farooq (?) mosque. His insights into what is contained in the neighborhood bookstores and how many of the Arab_Americans in that 'hood feel was very interesting. I still haven't found it, but will post it if I do. But not because you have demanded it.
I don't reply to your 'requests' because they are obnoxious and arrogant in tone. You have no interest in civil debate. You repeatedly try to show up those who dare to voice opinions that differ from yours. You pepper most of your posts with gratuitous slaps at the current President, even though it has nothing to do with the topic. Case in point is the thread about how you would desribe the political leanings of the poster before you(forget the name of that thread). Your very first post there took a shot at Bush.
What is the worst part of all of this is that you are being permitted to take advantage of whatever standing you have here, to try and intimidate those who disagree with you. That is not fair on your part, but even more so on the part of those who permit it.
I will continue to express my opinions. Some with, and some without sources. If I say I think liberals are weak on national security, that is my opinion (and many others too) and I'm entitled to it. Anyone with half a brain realizes that doesn't mean 'every liberal'. If you can't distinguish between expressions of opinion and statements of fact then I suggest you brush up on your communication skills.
I have tried to avoid direct 'conversation' with you so as to not interfere with the debates, but that only seems to make it worse. If you can't stick to issues, please stay away from me.
I read all the time, on line and off. I don't take notes and rarely bookmark. You asked for sources about muslim pubs that preach 'kill the infidel'. By the time I came back to this thread, amlord had supplied many. I am still looking for a story written by a journalist who lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood near the Al Farooq (?) mosque. His insights into what is contained in the neighborhood bookstores and how many of the Arab_Americans in that 'hood feel was very interesting. I still haven't found it, but will post it if I do. But not because you have demanded it.
I don't reply to your 'requests' because they are obnoxious and arrogant in tone. You have no interest in civil debate. You repeatedly try to show up those who dare to voice opinions that differ from yours. You pepper most of your posts with gratuitous slaps at the current President, even though it has nothing to do with the topic. Case in point is the thread about how you would desribe the political leanings of the poster before you(forget the name of that thread). Your very first post there took a shot at Bush.
What is the worst part of all of this is that you are being permitted to take advantage of whatever standing you have here, to try and intimidate those who disagree with you. That is not fair on your part, but even more so on the part of those who permit it.
I will continue to express my opinions. Some with, and some without sources. If I say I think liberals are weak on national security, that is my opinion (and many others too) and I'm entitled to it. Anyone with half a brain realizes that doesn't mean 'every liberal'. If you can't distinguish between expressions of opinion and statements of fact then I suggest you brush up on your communication skills.
I have tried to avoid direct 'conversation' with you so as to not interfere with the debates, but that only seems to make it worse. If you can't stick to issues, please stay away from me.
cyan warned ALL OF YOU two days ago to start a new post regarding debate tactics somewhere else if you MUST hash this out.
If this goes on any more I close this.
Get this back on topic NOW:
If this goes on any more I close this.
Get this back on topic NOW:
QUOTE
Is the War on Terrorism justified?
Debating Tactics
For anybody wanting to join in there, Sleeper had the courtesy to start it up. Some have already offered some insight and helpful advice.
Real quick for a bit of clarification that appears to have been lost in the brief verbal feud:
Quarkhead indeed asked for a bibliography of the publications directly stating things like "kill the infidel," and in particular, books you yourself had read. It's on page 2 of this thread if you'd like to go back and review it. What was provided by amlord was a list of reports about fundamentalist Islam, but not a list of fundamentalist Muslim publications.
I'm not sure such a list is needed as we all know there are those radical factions that will adhere to such extreme messages and actions. Quarkie seems to have anticipated this and made a very valid point, which seems to have gone overlooked:
There are going to be fundamentalists from just about every group we look at. I doubt Republicans or Democrats want to be viewed as racists just because of the dirty past of Trent Lott or Robert Byrd. I also doubt if every Christian wants to be connected with the kind of horribly prejudiced remarks stemming from the likes of Jerry Falwell. Even Billy Graham found blood on his hands following the release of tapes hinting at an anti-semist streak. Clearly, the same applies to the Muslim faith.
Beyond this, though, Wertz went on to bring up some valid points regarding the strike on Afghanistan in his last post (debate tactics aside). While most Americans will view the attack as justified, there wasn't the diplomacy present that many believe. Additional research also reveals that an October invasion of the country had been planned prior even to the events on September 11. Osama was not truly implicated in the attacks until after a highly questionable video surfaced within the caves allegedly discussing the attacks. While not highly publicized, independent analysis revealed both editing and selective translation.
There were also many questions that went unanswered following the attacks themselves. Investigations were brushed aside in the interest of striking back. Even military officers from prestigious West Point questioned the nature of the attacks and the response of state officials both during and after them. It will be swept under the rug as conspiracy theory, of course, but there were many reasons to at least question whether the attacks might be a revised Operation Northwoods.
At the least, the war on terror is very broad and indeed open ended. There's a lot of room for political interpretation. This is being demonstrated in such domestic policies such as the USA Patriot Act and the as yet unpassed Domestic Security Enhancement Act. In these an individual may be considered a "foreign power" and seemingly innocent contributions to organizations can lead to indictments for terrorist activity. I don't think many, if anybody, can argue that retaliation for the attacks is not justified. As I've already stated, I went with "somewhat justified," and I do view retaliation for the attacks to be justified. What I take issue with is the manners in which we are "retaliating".
For anybody wanting to join in there, Sleeper had the courtesy to start it up. Some have already offered some insight and helpful advice.
Real quick for a bit of clarification that appears to have been lost in the brief verbal feud:
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 24 2003 @ 07:15 PM)
I don't take notes and rarely bookmark. You asked for sources about muslim pubs that preach 'kill the infidel'. By the time I came back to this thread, amlord had supplied many.
Quarkhead indeed asked for a bibliography of the publications directly stating things like "kill the infidel," and in particular, books you yourself had read. It's on page 2 of this thread if you'd like to go back and review it. What was provided by amlord was a list of reports about fundamentalist Islam, but not a list of fundamentalist Muslim publications.
I'm not sure such a list is needed as we all know there are those radical factions that will adhere to such extreme messages and actions. Quarkie seems to have anticipated this and made a very valid point, which seems to have gone overlooked:
QUOTE
I'm sure there are books like that, don't get me wrong. But, then, we're living in a country where prominent fundamentalists are also prone to rather... caustic remarks. Falwell, stating Mohammed was a "terrorist," and Jimmy Swaggart ("I didn't put it in, well, just the tip") denouncing Mohammed as a "sex deviant."
There are going to be fundamentalists from just about every group we look at. I doubt Republicans or Democrats want to be viewed as racists just because of the dirty past of Trent Lott or Robert Byrd. I also doubt if every Christian wants to be connected with the kind of horribly prejudiced remarks stemming from the likes of Jerry Falwell. Even Billy Graham found blood on his hands following the release of tapes hinting at an anti-semist streak. Clearly, the same applies to the Muslim faith.
Beyond this, though, Wertz went on to bring up some valid points regarding the strike on Afghanistan in his last post (debate tactics aside). While most Americans will view the attack as justified, there wasn't the diplomacy present that many believe. Additional research also reveals that an October invasion of the country had been planned prior even to the events on September 11. Osama was not truly implicated in the attacks until after a highly questionable video surfaced within the caves allegedly discussing the attacks. While not highly publicized, independent analysis revealed both editing and selective translation.
There were also many questions that went unanswered following the attacks themselves. Investigations were brushed aside in the interest of striking back. Even military officers from prestigious West Point questioned the nature of the attacks and the response of state officials both during and after them. It will be swept under the rug as conspiracy theory, of course, but there were many reasons to at least question whether the attacks might be a revised Operation Northwoods.
At the least, the war on terror is very broad and indeed open ended. There's a lot of room for political interpretation. This is being demonstrated in such domestic policies such as the USA Patriot Act and the as yet unpassed Domestic Security Enhancement Act. In these an individual may be considered a "foreign power" and seemingly innocent contributions to organizations can lead to indictments for terrorist activity. I don't think many, if anybody, can argue that retaliation for the attacks is not justified. As I've already stated, I went with "somewhat justified," and I do view retaliation for the attacks to be justified. What I take issue with is the manners in which we are "retaliating".
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 25 2003, 02:32 AM)
Beyond this, though, Wertz went on to bring up some valid points regarding the strike on Afghanistan in his last post (debate tactics aside). While most Americans will view the attack as justified, there wasn't the diplomacy present that many believe. Additional research also reveals that an October invasion of the country had been planned prior even to the events on September 11. Osama was not truly implicated in the attacks until after a highly questionable video surfaced within the caves allegedly discussing the attacks. While not highly publicized, independent analysis revealed both editing and selective translation.
I don't think 'invasion of the country' is a fair characterization of the game plan at that time. Bin Laden had 'most wanted' status for quite some time and a myriad of plans to take him out had been in the offing but were shelved for one reason or other. But those were all plans aimed at him, not a country or a government.
You seem to have doubts about bin Ladin's involvement in 9/11. If not him, then who? Hard to imagine something that big would go 'unclaimed'.
There were plans prior to the attack also calling for an attack on the Taliban government. I read it in the pamphlet/book Dreaming War, but it's currently lent out to a friend. I'll get a hold of it and hopefully be able to find a link once I have all the details in front of me again for a search. Essentially, there was a game theorist (I think that's what they're called) who compared Eurasia to a chessboard and Afghanistan was a key figure, along with the other so-called "Stans." There were plenty of reasons besides Osama to plan and go into Afghanistan... ranging from the CIA and opium to the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. As I said, though, I'll hopefully get back with a link soon.
And yes, I do have my doubts. They started much along your line of logic: it was hard to believe something of that scale would go unclaimed. Yet that's precisely what we saw from him -- denials. There also ended up being many questions about the hijackers on the plane. The list the FBI gave didn't match the seat numbers phoned in by a flight attendant, she claimed four while they claimed five. But that's for another thread.
As to who I might look to? I hinted at that with my reference to Operation Northwoods in the previous post.
And yes, I do have my doubts. They started much along your line of logic: it was hard to believe something of that scale would go unclaimed. Yet that's precisely what we saw from him -- denials. There also ended up being many questions about the hijackers on the plane. The list the FBI gave didn't match the seat numbers phoned in by a flight attendant, she claimed four while they claimed five. But that's for another thread.
As to who I might look to? I hinted at that with my reference to Operation Northwoods in the previous post.
QUOTE
As to who I might look to? I hinted at that with my reference to Operation Northwoods in the previous post.
I have herd this comment, and this reference many times in the recent months. While it doesn’t surprise me that our military leaders (excluding the President) has plans like this on many different levels, most of which I am sure would sicken any of us. I am also comforted knowing that our main leaders are civil leaders and not military leaders. With that knowledge I find it hard, very hard to look at any past or current administration to sign on to any thing remotely close to what happened on 9/11.
The war on terrorism is justified by many means. It is just sad that it had to take 3,000 +/- lives on U.S. soil to bring us into the fight. Our eyes (the civilian population) have been opened not only to the on going threat from terrorism but to the on goings of the world. Where before 9/11 most people didn’t care what happened outside our boarders, there is an increasing amount of people doing a lot more questioning from both sides of the fence (and those sitting on it) The latest actions taken by the U.S. and its allies has voiced its opposition to such acts. I just hope we continue this stance with each changing administration and that our memory of 9/11 does not dwindle after the initial burst of retaliation against terrorists and those who harbor and support such activities.
Justified.
I have reservations about some strategies or tactics being used to fight the WoT, and about some laws being made with the WoT as the stated purpose, but no reservations at all about the core issue of aggressively combating terrorists. If you'd care to follow up with poll questions on what methods of conducting the WoT are appropriate you'd get a more nuanced response from me.
I have reservations about some strategies or tactics being used to fight the WoT, and about some laws being made with the WoT as the stated purpose, but no reservations at all about the core issue of aggressively combating terrorists. If you'd care to follow up with poll questions on what methods of conducting the WoT are appropriate you'd get a more nuanced response from me.
I think most reasonable people would agree the United States is justified in arresting people who are murders. America now has a large body of evidence that Al-Queda was behind the 9/11 attacks and Al-Queda's leadership was in Afganistan. I just don't think the War on Terror should be as a pretext to fight wars to secure oil resources.
This is a very difficult question to answer without knowing exactly what a "war on terrorism" would consist of. Given that qualification, it seems reasonable that some sort of effort against the threat of terrorism is justified, so that's how I voted.
Pessimist that I am, I also think the the "War on Terrorism" is probably about as likely to suceed as the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs."
Pessimist that I am, I also think the the "War on Terrorism" is probably about as likely to suceed as the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs."
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Apr 27 2003, 12:01 PM)
America now has a large body of evidence that Al-Queda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Cool. Could you provide a link to any of this "evidence"? Don't get me wrong: al-Qaeda is a likely suspect. It's just that, unlike an overwhelming majority of Americans, I don't like to presume anyone's guilt purely as a matter of faith. I would actually like to see some of this alleged evidence before making a final judgement.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Apr 27 2003, 10:54 PM)
This is a very difficult question to answer without knowing exactly what a "war on terrorism" would consist of.
Exactly. That is why I voted the opposite. I don't believe anyone - least of all, the Bush administration, has been able to provide an answer to that question.
QUOTE
Pessimist that I am, I also think the the "War on Terrorism" is probably about as likely to suceed as the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs."
I suspect that is more realistic than pessimistic, Victoria. I would've been more likely to vote as you did had it (ever) been defined, described, or conceived as a "war on the causes of terrorism" - which would not only be... well, sane, but also, possibly, a "war" in which progress could some day be made.
QUOTE
I suspect that is more realistic than pessimistic, Victoria. I would've been more likely to vote as you did had it (ever) been defined, described, or conceived as a "war on the causes of terrorism" - which would not only be... well, sane, but also, possibly, a "war" in which progress could some day be made.
This is a crucial point and one that we have taken on at last. Those 'causes' are born of countries whose population is oppressed, tortured and left completely at the mercy of tyrannical governments. Radical Islamists step in to take advantage of those situations. They rely on the Koran's call to 'kill the disbelievers wherever you find them'.
While we have been aware of this dynamic for quite some time, we haven't had the fortitude to do anything about it. Until 9/11. Previous attacks were responded to in half-hearted fashion, if at all. Enboldened by our lack of the courage to respond, these attacks only increased in intensity. Not only did we fail to respond, we actually began to back-pedal. Remember Madeline Allbright's directive to State that the term 'rogue nations' be eliminated from use? To be replaced by 'states of concern'? I recall thinking at the time that if this keeps up we may be calling them 'allies' soon.
Fortunately, we had an administration in place to resond appropriately to 9/11. On the one hand we have replied with clear and forceful messages that the US will no longer sit idly by and suffer attack after attack, blaming ourselves for being the prosperous nation that we are. At the same time we have set a course meant to improve the lot of those who have been living under the despotic rule that harbors mudereous Islamic fundamentalists as a viable alternative.
The WOT is going to be a lengthy one. There are no quick, nor easy, fixes. Now that our course has been set, and knowing full well that it is a righteous one, we must insure that we continue to elect the leaders who will stay that course. We can ill afford to allow a return to appeasement tactics that failed in the past, and are doomed to fail in the future. This is a world where good and evil are clearly revealed at times. This is one of those times. Those who rely on the Koran to justify the intentional slaughter of innocents must be held to account. Those who support them, even tacitly, must also be brought to justice.
Passion, you say
and later go on to close out your post with
Now, you say that we were fortunate to have the current administration in office at the time of the September attacks, that they were adequately prepared to respond. Thus far we've seen an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which at least seems pretty reasonable. But what about Saudi Arabia?
I'm not necessarily saying we should go in with our guns blazing and level their country next, but what gives? I haven't heard us use a harsh word in regards to Saudi Arabia. There has been no reprimand or criticism of a regime that
West Turns a Blind Eye
The streets of Saudi Arabia are patrolled by the Mutaween, an essentially religious police force who keep watch for "moral offenders," according to the report. Without digging back for some Afghanistan reports, this sounds an awful lot like those morality police the Taliban had wandering the streets. We sure didn't hesitate to criticize and demonize those guys, yet we call Saudi Arabia an ally.
Too late.
I don't presently have a list of names and nationalities in front of me, but I can tell you that I don't recall hearing of any Afghani or Iraqi nationals being involved with any of the terrorist attacks in recent years. Now, just to head off any twisting of words, that isn't to say the regimes in power here were any less horrid. I bring it up because of the list of terrorists believed to be responsible for September 11, which sparked our "war on terror," the majority of them were said to be Saudi nationals.
Osama bin Laden himself is a Saudi national.
But they are listed officially as an ally. And in return for allowing our military base to be stationed on or near "holy ground" in their country, we get our favorite resource: oil. The Saudi populace isn't ignorant... they realize that the U.S. is supporting a violent regime in their country. The same can be said for various other countries either listed as allies or at least missing from any axis of evil globes.
So, when some "radical Islamists step in to take advantage" (as Passion put it) of the situation, do you think they'll really have to persuade these people to dislike the United States and her allies? Look how riled up the American population, including elected officials, got over France calling for more inspections and a stop to war. People viewed the country to be some kind of accomplice to Iraq's horrible regime. So now, on the flip side, we can have the Saudis and other nationals from throughout the region look at the United States and think the same thing. Only we're not just sitting at a council wielding a veto or calling for more inspections; no, we're actively supporting a regime that violates basic human rights on a daily basis.
It all sounds very nice, but when might we expect this? And I wonder, in light of our support of Saudi Arabia, what justice might our country be brought to face? This administration isn't the only one to play this appeasement game, but to try and act as though they aren't playing, and that they're on some righteous crusade now, is a joke. The war on terror isn't addressing the root causes of terrorism and it's unlikely it ever will. Instead, it seems only to be an apt tool for carrying out various political agendas.
QUOTE
Those 'causes' [of terrorism]are born of countries whose population is oppressed, tortured and left completely at the mercy of tyrannical governments.
and later go on to close out your post with
QUOTE
This is a world where good and evil are clearly revealed at times. This is one of those times. Those who rely on the Koran to justify the intentional slaughter of innocents must be held to account. Those who support them, even tacitly, must also be brought to justice.
Now, you say that we were fortunate to have the current administration in office at the time of the September attacks, that they were adequately prepared to respond. Thus far we've seen an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which at least seems pretty reasonable. But what about Saudi Arabia?
I'm not necessarily saying we should go in with our guns blazing and level their country next, but what gives? I haven't heard us use a harsh word in regards to Saudi Arabia. There has been no reprimand or criticism of a regime that
QUOTE
A report by the London-based human rights organisation says that on average two people are beheaded every week in the desert kingdom, which has increased its use of the death penalty... Alleged robbers have their hands and feet amputated, often after unfair trials. Offences related to alcohol consumption or breaking the strict moral code are punishable with flogging... Vague laws on "sabotage" and "terrorism" are used to prosecute perceived government opponents and political parties, elections, independent legislature, and trade unions are all banned... Migrant workers are frequently tortured and ill-treated, Amnesty says, and are more likely than Saudis to be executed or punished by flogging or amputation... women who go about unaccompanied or are in the company of a man who is neither their husband nor a close relative risk being arrested on suspicion of prostitution...
West Turns a Blind Eye
The streets of Saudi Arabia are patrolled by the Mutaween, an essentially religious police force who keep watch for "moral offenders," according to the report. Without digging back for some Afghanistan reports, this sounds an awful lot like those morality police the Taliban had wandering the streets. We sure didn't hesitate to criticize and demonize those guys, yet we call Saudi Arabia an ally.
QUOTE
I recall thinking at the time that if this keeps up we may be calling them 'allies' soon.
Too late.
I don't presently have a list of names and nationalities in front of me, but I can tell you that I don't recall hearing of any Afghani or Iraqi nationals being involved with any of the terrorist attacks in recent years. Now, just to head off any twisting of words, that isn't to say the regimes in power here were any less horrid. I bring it up because of the list of terrorists believed to be responsible for September 11, which sparked our "war on terror," the majority of them were said to be Saudi nationals.
Osama bin Laden himself is a Saudi national.
But they are listed officially as an ally. And in return for allowing our military base to be stationed on or near "holy ground" in their country, we get our favorite resource: oil. The Saudi populace isn't ignorant... they realize that the U.S. is supporting a violent regime in their country. The same can be said for various other countries either listed as allies or at least missing from any axis of evil globes.
So, when some "radical Islamists step in to take advantage" (as Passion put it) of the situation, do you think they'll really have to persuade these people to dislike the United States and her allies? Look how riled up the American population, including elected officials, got over France calling for more inspections and a stop to war. People viewed the country to be some kind of accomplice to Iraq's horrible regime. So now, on the flip side, we can have the Saudis and other nationals from throughout the region look at the United States and think the same thing. Only we're not just sitting at a council wielding a veto or calling for more inspections; no, we're actively supporting a regime that violates basic human rights on a daily basis.
QUOTE
Those who rely on the Koran to justify the intentional slaughter of innocents must be held to account. Those who support them, even tacitly, must also be brought to justice.
It all sounds very nice, but when might we expect this? And I wonder, in light of our support of Saudi Arabia, what justice might our country be brought to face? This administration isn't the only one to play this appeasement game, but to try and act as though they aren't playing, and that they're on some righteous crusade now, is a joke. The war on terror isn't addressing the root causes of terrorism and it's unlikely it ever will. Instead, it seems only to be an apt tool for carrying out various political agendas.
Continuing Abs train of thought:
The Arab countries that have supported our bid for Iraq are almost all Monarchies or autocracies. As with Saudi Arabia, our relationships with these countries are relationships with the ruling families, who profit from the United States and the EU while often brutally suppressing the rights of their people. It is fairly accepted that in many of these countries the populace is much less delighted with US foreign policy in the Gulf region than their rulers are. I imagine that the monarchical governments of these nations played an essential part in the US' invasion of Iraq - if those countries had representative governments, how many of them would have allowed our troops to station there? Very few, is my guess.
Passion wrote:
In this paragraph, I would say you are mostly correct, though I would skip the first sentence. You're right about the populations in these countries. But you must look farther, because what you're doing is isolating these oppressive regimes; you're subtracting the context. How is it that these populations got to be this way? Sure, one could say that Islamic government has been repressive for centuries. That's true. However there is a big difference between governing nomadic and agrarian people in a preindustrial age, and governing people in largely industrialized nation states. The truth in the 20th century is that The big empires were conquering and dividing up the world, defining borders and "force growing" nations. The empires (and it wasn't until the 20th century that the US really started to play this game) very definitely profited from installing autocratic governments around the Persian Gulf.
So though you are partly correct, there's more to the story, if you look deeper. And we must look deeper, because there's one thing for sure - most of those oppressed Arab populations, they're looking deeper too. The fundamentalists calling for Jihad are clever, and they know how to spin as well. What they spin off of history is the notion that the West has it in for Islam, when in reality what we have is an eagerness to befriend those who can bring us great profit or cheap resources, ideology be damned. In this way, our current "War on Terror" is in a sense playing straight into the hands of the fundamentalist spin doctors - if we refuse to admit our part in the current state of affairs, we will only further isolate and solidify the Jihad movement.
If we want to do something positive in the real war against terrorism, we ought to turn to governments like Saudi Arabia, and simply make it financial. We will not trade with you, or buy your oil, or treat with you in any way, until you recognize a Bill of Rights for your people, until you allow your people participation in their own government, until your power is transferred to an elected body. In such a cause, would we not have had more willing allies in the EU? The support of the UN and an endorsement in the Security Council?
Is our need for their oil too important? Is that too great a sacrifice? So it's OK to abrogate my civil liberties, but Buddha damn it if I have to drive less often?
The Arab countries that have supported our bid for Iraq are almost all Monarchies or autocracies. As with Saudi Arabia, our relationships with these countries are relationships with the ruling families, who profit from the United States and the EU while often brutally suppressing the rights of their people. It is fairly accepted that in many of these countries the populace is much less delighted with US foreign policy in the Gulf region than their rulers are. I imagine that the monarchical governments of these nations played an essential part in the US' invasion of Iraq - if those countries had representative governments, how many of them would have allowed our troops to station there? Very few, is my guess.
Passion wrote:
QUOTE
This is a crucial point and one that we have taken on at last. Those 'causes' are born of countries whose population is oppressed, tortured and left completely at the mercy of tyrannical governments. Radical Islamists step in to take advantage of those situations. They rely on the Koran's call to 'kill the disbelievers wherever you find them'.
In this paragraph, I would say you are mostly correct, though I would skip the first sentence. You're right about the populations in these countries. But you must look farther, because what you're doing is isolating these oppressive regimes; you're subtracting the context. How is it that these populations got to be this way? Sure, one could say that Islamic government has been repressive for centuries. That's true. However there is a big difference between governing nomadic and agrarian people in a preindustrial age, and governing people in largely industrialized nation states. The truth in the 20th century is that The big empires were conquering and dividing up the world, defining borders and "force growing" nations. The empires (and it wasn't until the 20th century that the US really started to play this game) very definitely profited from installing autocratic governments around the Persian Gulf.
So though you are partly correct, there's more to the story, if you look deeper. And we must look deeper, because there's one thing for sure - most of those oppressed Arab populations, they're looking deeper too. The fundamentalists calling for Jihad are clever, and they know how to spin as well. What they spin off of history is the notion that the West has it in for Islam, when in reality what we have is an eagerness to befriend those who can bring us great profit or cheap resources, ideology be damned. In this way, our current "War on Terror" is in a sense playing straight into the hands of the fundamentalist spin doctors - if we refuse to admit our part in the current state of affairs, we will only further isolate and solidify the Jihad movement.
If we want to do something positive in the real war against terrorism, we ought to turn to governments like Saudi Arabia, and simply make it financial. We will not trade with you, or buy your oil, or treat with you in any way, until you recognize a Bill of Rights for your people, until you allow your people participation in their own government, until your power is transferred to an elected body. In such a cause, would we not have had more willing allies in the EU? The support of the UN and an endorsement in the Security Council?
Is our need for their oil too important? Is that too great a sacrifice? So it's OK to abrogate my civil liberties, but Buddha damn it if I have to drive less often?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 28 2003, 08:21 AM)
This is a crucial point and one that we have taken on at last.
Balderdash.
QUOTE
Those 'causes' are born of countries whose population is oppressed, tortured and left completely at the mercy of tyrannical governments. Radical Islamists step in to take advantage of those situations. They rely on the Koran's call to 'kill the disbelievers wherever you find them'.
So you are admitting - even if the Bush administration won't - that this "war" is specifically a war on Islamic fundamentalism, not on terror - and, consequently, specifically about the Middle East. It's good to see a bit of honesty from one of the war apologists. Thanks.
Further to Abs' posting regarding your claim that "radical Islamists" take advantage of "countries whose population is oppressed, tortured and left completely at the mercy of tyrannical governments", it is certainly worth pointing out that the US government has similarly taken advantage of numerous countries that meet that exact description - far more often and over a much longer period of time than "mudereous Islamic fundamentalists".
QUOTE
While we have been aware of this dynamic for quite some time, we haven't had the fortitude to do anything about it. Until 9/11. Previous attacks were responded to in half-hearted fashion, if at all. Enboldened by our lack of the courage to respond, these attacks only increased in intensity. Not only did we fail to respond, we actually began to back-pedal. Remember Madeline Allbright's directive to State that the term 'rogue nations' be eliminated from use? To be replaced by 'states of concern'? I recall thinking at the time that if this keeps up we may be calling them 'allies' soon.
This is gratuitous, unfounded, and off-topic Clinton-bashing. It's also inaccurate. If you ask me, Dubya's decision to ignore the Hart-Rudman Report, which was being pursued by the Clinton administration and both parties in both houses of Congress, sounds a bit more like back-pedaling than the decision to use less inflammatory terms for volatile countries.
QUOTE
Fortunately, we had an administration in place to resond appropriately to 9/11. On the one hand we have replied with clear and forceful messages that the US will no longer sit idly by and suffer attack after attack, blaming ourselves for being the prosperous nation that we are. At the same time we have set a course meant to improve the lot of those who have been living under the despotic rule that harbors mudereous Islamic fundamentalists as a viable alternative.
This is gratuitous, unfounded, and off-topic Bush-licking. I know that the response has been wholly inappropriate, I'm not convinced that that is the "clear and forceful message" which is being conveyed, and I see no such course as you describe being set. If history is anything to go by, though, we can't expect you to provide any foundation for your opinions, so I won't even bother asking.
QUOTE
The WOT is going to be a lengthy one. There are no quick, nor easy, fixes. Now that our course has been set, and knowing full well that it is a righteous one, we must insure that we continue to elect the leaders who will stay that course. We can ill afford to allow a return to appeasement tactics that failed in the past, and are doomed to fail in the future. This is a world where good and evil are clearly revealed at times. This is one of those times. Those who rely on the Koran to justify the intentional slaughter of innocents must be held to account. Those who support them, even tacitly, must also be brought to justice.
Of course, the "war on terror" is going to be lengthy - that's the whole point. While I have seen no compelling evidence of a "righteous" course being set (or even contemplated) by the Bush regime, I agree that there are revelations of good and evil at times. The decision to take "preemptive" action against a country in which there was nothing to preempt, knowing that such action would necessarily result in "collateral damage", and considering that there are now over 2000 dead Iraqi civilians as the result of an unwarranted invasion can very accurately be described as "the intentional slaughter of innocents". I wholeheartedly agree that those who supported the unjustified Iraqi campaign should be brought to justice - but I don't imagine it will ever happen.
Interesting point about Saudi Arabia. My guess is that Saudi Arabia may well be the answer to 'where next?' in another thread. Not so much a war, but rather the prime target of our attention in the ME. It wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't already the case.
We are very directly involved in 2 ME countries right now. Afghanistan and Iraq. How we handle things for the next year or two will greatly impact on our next steps. If we have some success in showing that we are not interested in colonizing or occupying, if we have some success in showing we are not at war with Islam, then our next steps may well be more along diplomatic lines requiring little force.
But no matter how successful we are, unless and until the Arab/Muslim world decides it can co-exist with the Israeli/Jewish world, there isn't much hope for an end to all of this. Moderate or mainstream Muslims mustwork to cleanse their religion of the murderous extremists who kill in the name of Allah. Their silence is tacit approval.
We are very directly involved in 2 ME countries right now. Afghanistan and Iraq. How we handle things for the next year or two will greatly impact on our next steps. If we have some success in showing that we are not interested in colonizing or occupying, if we have some success in showing we are not at war with Islam, then our next steps may well be more along diplomatic lines requiring little force.
But no matter how successful we are, unless and until the Arab/Muslim world decides it can co-exist with the Israeli/Jewish world, there isn't much hope for an end to all of this. Moderate or mainstream Muslims mustwork to cleanse their religion of the murderous extremists who kill in the name of Allah. Their silence is tacit approval.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.