Terrorism

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:49 pm

Corth

I work about 10 miles from a facility that makes soybean oil, about 8 miles from a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant and about 50 miles from a new plant making biodiesel. I will agree that net gain from these new fuels are small or even nonexistent in some cases, but that is what R&D is for. That being said, oil is a finite resource that some authorities on the subject are saying we will be completely without sooner rather than later. Oh, I forgot that I live in the second windiest state in the US...windy enough to power some incredible percentage of the country's electricity needs (most of which now comes from fossil fuel).

The point I am making is pretty simple, oil may be great, but its gonna be gone. Oil, of course, is not that great for reasons beyond net return, but again, mostly irrelevant...we, as a global community, will undoubtedly use it all.

As for not having enough biomatter to create adequate fuel, two things. One, I don't believe it, but I don't know for sure. Two, maybe we could cut down on the roughly 70% of American grain being fed to beef cattle. Yes, an extreme position, but one that might seem appealing if truly faced with an energy crisis. And, I lied, third, what about the uber extreme notion of reducing consumption?!? I realize that is way, way out there, but its a thought :)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:17 pm

Avak:

The problem with oil is not running out of it. There will be oil in the ground long after human civilization is gone. The problem is that it is becoming more difficult (and expensive) over time to extract the oil that does remain. Saudi Arabia, for instance, extracts about 90% of its oil from 5 super-giant oil fields that have been in production for over 40 years and have likely seen their best days already. There have only been a few major oil discoveries in the past 40 years, with only one super-giant oil field on the caspian sea. A typical oil field sees production increases for the initial few years, and then production decreases approximately 4% a year until it no longer is economically feasible to produce from that field. Because of cheap oil since the mid 80's, little money has been invested in discovering new sources, and increasing refinary capabilities. Under the best of circumstances it can take a decade to put a new field into production, and not many new fields have been going into production.

On the other side of the supply/demand equation, demand has been increasing sharply, particularly due to the massive growth in China and India. Demand has been increasing in the US as well, though not at such rates.

With oil production decreasing, and demand increasing, we are likely to see expensive oil for a long time to come. I personally am expecting to see oil at about $90 a barrel within two years (currently $60), and about $3.75 or so for gasoline at the pumps.

Our modern industrialized economy is built on cheap oil. If you compare a chart of greenhouse gas emissions (hydrocarbon use) over time with a chart of world GDP growth, you will see that they are almost identical. In the past, when oil got expensive production was increased and prices stabalized. A good example is 1980, when oil was priced at about $87 a barrel in today's money due to the Iranian revolution. Soon afterwords, production spiked and prices fell as low as $10. Short term we fell into a pretty sharp recession. If oil prices increase over the long term, it will result in long term recessions. No growth.

Alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass, are a solution to some of our energy needs. Particularly electricical energy which is currently produced by burning natural gas (another dwindling resource) in most of the US. However, there is no suitable alternative to gasoline for transportation (which, btw, accounts for 78% of hydrocarbon useage). It takes a hell of a lot of CONCENTRATED energy to move a ton or two of metal at 50-70 MPH for a few hundred miles. We can certainly increase fuel efficiency (hybrids, for instance), and we can also decrease consumption. Both of these things will have to happen, but neither on its own will be enough given the pending oil crisis.

One possible solution is hydrogen, which stores roughly double the energy of gasoline. The problem is that hydrogen needs to be produced, and it actually takes more energy to produce it than what you get out of it. It has a negative EROEI. The only way to switch to hydrogen on a large scale for transportation uses would be to build 20,000 or so nuclear plants. But remember, uranium is also a finite resource, like oil, and its questionable whether enough uranium could even be produced to power all those plants. Under ideal circumstances, it would take decades to build the infrastructure and production needed to implement a hydrogen energy economy.

The conclusion is that an energy crisis is just about inevitable. Go long on oil and uranium producers. Short airlines.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:37 am

Alternate sources of energy?

How about building roads so we don't expend half our gasoline sitting in traffic?

How about better planned communities to cut down on cross-town errands?

How about mixed zoning to reduce commuting distances and increase Corporate community involvement?

When we're not trying to KILL each other while driving to work, people won't buy as many gas guzzling SUVs and huge vehicles out of a need to protect themselves.

There are so many more ways to reduce oil dependance.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:05 pm

Well if we actually got a Fusion plant working, that could be used as the energy source to create the Hydrogen needed for transportation.
Its a shame that our government (and others) don't heavily invest in this field to get it going... it was and still is perpetually 25 years away.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:57 pm

Regarding Fusion:

Just thinking about all the people crying about how money the US Government would be pouring into research rather than into education or healthcare is already giving me a headache.

It's not really necessary for the US Government to take up the task of researching nuclear fusion at this moment in time. There is such a powerful and distinct benefit for the private sector to develop nuclear fusion in conjunction with the academic community, rather than to make it a political issue, that the issue in general cannot be ignored.

Firstly, any large oil company has the resources. The first company to develop commercial nuclear fusion would leap ahead of all its competitors in the energy market in leaps and bounds - PROVIDED THAT - the US Government protects their right to the intellectual property and the knowledge of how create sustainable commercial nuclear fusion.

The energy bill most recently being pushed through Congress, and a few ohters before it, briefly touch on the subject, but none establish the hard guidelines that major energy industry players would need in order to justify the expenditure in R&D.

That's not to say the energy industry is lobbying hard for it either.

Starting up the game would mean a virtual private sector 'arms' race. And by arms, I mean alternate sources of energy. Unfortunatly for the rest of us, no one is really ready to stomach this kind of violent movement without a great enemy breathing down on our necks (as the Germans and Russians have in the past).

Fortunately for us, the Chinese are beginning to wake up...
Nokar
Sojourner
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: kokomo, in, usa

Postby Nokar » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:24 pm

Now there was something with a vietnam dispute and i would like to second Shiallia there because my grandfather who is a vietnam and WW2 veteran and he also feels like a terroist because of his actions in both wars. Now no he is not one, but from the trials and tribulations that one must go through in order to end another human beings life is something that most of us will not have to bere. (God Willing)


Bawog,

I am sorry that your grandfather feels the way he does about the orders he had to follow 'in country'

I do have to pipe up as well about things like this though. My father is a Vietnam Vetran. I have talked with him before about his experiences and how he has dealt with them. He doesn't feel he was a terrorist. He doesn't feel he did the wrong thing.

You have to understand when you are on foreign soil, especially in the jungles of Nam, that you are sent out with your 'team' your 'company' etc. That you had a job to do and orders to follow. He was in the 101st airborne aircav recon. Him and a small team went out and recon'd areas.
When firefights did happen you have to make a decision as to whether or not you want to make it and come out of the conflict alive.

The enemy over there, 'charlie' as he called them, was using mind games on the american troops. Mind games such as sending a mamasan across the fight with a baby strapped to her front and either between her and the baby was a explosive charge or strapped to her back was a explosive charge and her only mission was to get as close as she could to your company and then detonate the charge. You had to make a decision right then and there. Kill one so called 'innocent' to save the lives of your men or let yourself and others die. Same with the young children who would run into base camp with explosives, they had orders to find the officers tent and frag it: tossing a pineapple grenade into it.

There are a lot of things, when you go to war, that are not desirable but you have to ensure your survival and your teams survival. The closest bond you could ever possibly have with another person is in a combat situation. It is not like your best friend and you getting into a bar brawl and making it out. That's just a one night thing and not planned either. You are in a combat situation that just keeps going and going and going.
Day in, Day out you are not only watching your back but the backs of many others.

Do I agree with having to pull the trigger and putting down a woman or a child? No... But if it is a wartime situation where it is either their life or the lives of my men and I, I would pull the trigger.

Teflor,

If you don't know the feelings, the aftermath of having to take a life I congratulate you. You surely do not want to have to live with it on your conscious. It is not an easy thing. The faces never go away. The sounds never go away, the smells never go away, the feeling of the trigger and the recoil never goes away. It is not something you want to have to do. Trust me on this. as well as anyone else out there who is currently in the military, I spent my time in the military during the first gulf war, operation desert storm. Having to take a life is never easy. It is one thing to spray or strafe a building to clear it but when you have an enemy in your sights, locked and loaded goin hot, and you know that it was for sure your shot that did it no one elses the ending result weighs more on you than when you have strafed a structure or gave the order to frag a room or building.

With that I'll say no more. except if any of you meet a WWII to present day vet who's been in country, stop and take the time to thank them for what you have. Unless you've been there you can't understand what they truly went through.

L8r,
Rhoquinn group says 'Nok no wandering!'
You group say 'Is there any aggro's here?'
You flee westward!
You group say 'ummm guys?'
Rhoquinn group says 'Dammit Nok'
Welcome to toril
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Corth wrote:The conclusion is that an energy crisis is just about inevitable. Go long on oil and uranium producers. Short airlines.

Corth


While this is a very pragmatic statement, it's also a very selfish one and is a very good example of the "Me first" mentality that has been a major cause of many of the consumption/environment/financial/etc crises we are experiencing now. Honestly, wtf are we going to do with all the money we've made if the world is just GONE because we have prioritized money above all else? Are we any better off in the long run?

And on a sort of side note, you should all read James Kuntsler and see what he had to say about all of this.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:57 pm

Shrug. I am proud of being very selfish.

I think the selfishness of individuals and corporations are the reason we have such a good quality of life. If individuals and corporations did not use their labor and resources to produce things that other people want, then we wouldn't have those things. And of course, they are doing it out of a profit motive. If there isn't any profit in it, then its generally not anything that is useful to society (otherwise people would be willing to spend on it).

Yes, there are exceptions. Some things are useful to society and cannot be profited on. Thats why we have government.

So I will try and make some money on rising oil prices, as a result of spending my time and intelligence analyzing the industry, and perhaps one day I will buy something with that money and help put food on the table of some manufacturing employees. Obviously, I do not believe the world is ending any time soon.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:09 pm

Corth wrote:Shrug. I am proud of being very selfish.

I think the selfishness of individuals and corporations are the reason we have such a good quality of life.


Any quality of life increase brought about by someone's selfishness is purely an indirect byproduct. That doesn't speak well for human nature. We are a social species yet for some reason so many of us (especially in the U.S.) only care about ourselves and then taut the indirect benefits as though they're our main impetus. Disgusting.

There are so many other ways we can benefit our species as a whole that would have much longer-lasting effects and yet we only seem to care about ourselves individually in the now. That's shortsighted and our future generations will pay dearly for it just so a few people (relatively speaking) can get rich on this very downfall of our global society.

I only hope Europe saves the world from the U.S and China, the two main threats to us at present (and, being an optimist, I think this is a good possibility).
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:38 pm

Yes, its indirect. But it is still a social benefit. Things done without selfish intent usually provide a lot less benefit. Why? Because they weren't important enough to the beneficiary for him to provide something in return. Thats one of the reasons why government resources are wasted so often. Government programs are enacted by uninterested buearocrats who try to figure out what they think people want or need, without any personal ramifications if they are wrong, while on the other hand business decisions need to provide something that people actually do need, or the person making the decision might have trouble making his mortgage payment.

I'm sorry if it reflects poorly on human nature in your opinion. I think its an absolutely fabulous way for society to figure out how to expend its labor and resources.

We'll see how well Europe does in the long term. I'm not very bullish on them... :) Although France (spit) made a smart move by building a whole bunch of nuclear plants over the years.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:20 pm

Corth wrote:Yes, its indirect. But it is still a social benefit. Things done without selfish intent usually provide a lot less benefit. Why? Because they weren't important enough to the beneficiary for him to provide something in return. Thats one of the reasons why government resources are wasted so often. Government programs are enacted by uninterested buearocrats who try to figure out what they think people want or need, without any personal ramifications if they are wrong, while on the other hand business decisions need to provide something that people actually do need, or the person making the decision might have trouble making his mortgage payment.


Actually, if you look at a lot of the socio-economic programs instituted in Europe you find a lot of benefit spread across the general populace and a relatively small amount of waste (especially as compared to the U.S., but that's not saying much). Further, the people of Europe have an innate sense of pride when it comes to anything they manufacture--and I do mean anything. If you want something made right, look to Europe. If you want something made cheap, look to China. European-based companies actually do rather well for themselves while keeping a watchful and caring eye on both domestic and global issues--a good example of how capitalism can be successful without trashing everything in its path.

Corth wrote:I'm sorry if it reflects poorly on human nature in your opinion. I think its an absolutely fabulous way for society to figure out how to expend its labor and resources.


Engh, no need to apologize for my opinion. I already know that you and I see the same things and come to different conclusions. I find it fascinating. :shock:

Corth wrote:We'll see how well Europe does in the long term. I'm not very bullish on them... :) Although France (spit) made a smart move by building a whole bunch of nuclear plants over the years.

Corth


Again, you're in the majority--most of this country downplays Europe's power and common sense. Hopefully one day they will be able to teach the rest of us a valuable lesson. And as for France, you forgot that they also have the best-ranked healthcare system in the world--and it's socialized. 8)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:44 pm

France's health care system... They had a heat wave in 2003 and some 10,000 senior citizens ended up dying. Some blame goes to the government mandated 35 hour work week which was strictly enforced at understaffed government senior institutions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p06s02-woeu.html
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:07 pm

Corth wrote:France's health care system... They had a heat wave in 2003 and some 10,000 senior citizens ended up dying. Some blame goes to the government mandated 35 hour work week which was strictly enforced at understaffed government senior institutions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p06s02-woeu.html


And yet their system is still ranked #1 in 2005. But thanks for the unofficial 2003 data. :wink:
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:24 pm

Birile wrote:While this is a very pragmatic statement, it's also a very selfish one and is a very good example of the "Me first" mentality that has been a major cause of many of the consumption/environment/financial/etc crises we are experiencing now. Honestly, wtf are we going to do with all the money we've made if the world is just GONE because we have prioritized money above all else? Are we any better off in the long run?


This is a rather non-pragmatic statement. Unfortunatly, I don't believe anyone has actually made, or is anywhere near able to, the case that the world will simply disappear.

Furthermore, in response to the posts following the above quote, to base what is best for humanity simply on terms of what is selfish and what is selfless is fundamentally flawed and systematically ignorant.

Selfishness and Selflessness are two characters of humanity that are non-existant points which you cannot point a moral compass at. One instance's selflessness is another's selfishness.

Truthfully, the only way to impact society and it's relationship with the environment in which it exists is through actual education, and by that I mean true research and unbiased application.

Selfishness (pure capitalism) would spurn those with the capability to search for this truth in order to profit from it, and yet the truth would be found.

Selflessness (pure communism) would spurn those with the capability to search for the truth in order to profit from it, and yet the truth would be found.

So basically, poo poo on both of you.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 pm

I have no doubt, Birile, that a socialized health care system can be very good, even best in the world. I could even see one of the more fragile western economies deciding to spend so much of their finite resources on medical care, that their medical care would be the finest in the world, even as unemployment reaches the double digits and overall quality of life decreases enormously. Additionally, I could see such a country where the government decides to ration this best of the best health care to the young and middle-aged, and allow its senior citizens to start frying on the first sunny day. After all, what good are senior citizens? Sacre Bleu!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:59 pm

So Cuba, for instance... socialism on crack, has some of the best education in the world. Perhaps even better than the US. It certainly helps to be highly educated when the government decides that you would be best placed in an automobile repair facility... fixing the only cars left in Cuba.. those from the 1950's. It amazes me that the US government would want to prevent these highly educated people from fleeing the island en masse. These are exactly the kind of people we want immigrating here.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:02 pm

Teflor, why do you even bother posting your opinions sometimes? you bring
up some decent topics, i must admit. You, however, seem to always argue
from the same point of view, and even when exposed to evidence
and opinions contrary to your own, you just point fingers and tell others
why they are wrong. This type of "discussion" is perhaps one reason why
most of these threads turn into flamefests. Perhaps if people listened to, and
looked at things from a different perspective instead of getting all defensive
about their point of view, we would have more effective discussions here.
In addition, continually posting your opinion, unchanged, without having
insight towards the other persons view, makes you look both very naieve
(more than you really are, i'm sure) and is quite inflammatory. How about
making this a discussion board, and not just a place to see yourself type?
And yes, Teflor is NOT the only person guilty of this. I just used him as an
example this time, as it was convenient.

Some call bush a hero. Others would argue a terrorist leader.

Some Iraqi's would call Saddam a hero. Others have seen evidence that
he was a terrorist leader.

Look at hitlers following. He was most definately a terrorist leader from
my perspective. However, he also did things that have benefited society.
And no, i'm not talking about the ethnic cleansing of a certain religous
group. There are a multitude of advances in medicine that are a direct
result of research he funded/ordered done.

Bottom line, the side of right or wrong depend on which side you grew up
on, and which side you were brainwashed into believing.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:54 pm

Delmair wrote:Bottom line, the side of right or wrong depend on which side you grew up on, and which side you were brainwashed into believing.


Yet you assume there are sides.

Truth exists no matter what you think of things Delmair, and it could very well possibly lie with me and the way I see things.

Then what would you have to say?

If you don't mind I want to tell you all a story about a father and son.

A bully from school is picking on the son, who returns home having been beaten up and made to do something bad and feels greatly ashamed. He feels like he should have stood up to the bully and done something about how he treats his fellow classmates, and decides to ask for his father's advice.

"Dad? There is a bully at school who beats me up and makes me do things I don't want to do. What should I do?"

"Well son, the world will always have bullies in it and you will have to learn how to live with them. The first thing you need to do is understand why the bully does what he does. You could talk to him about it and see what I am telling you is true. The bully wasn't raised in a loving family like ours, son. He does the things he does because he is insecure and is just trying to feel like he has control and power.

I'm sure if you ignore him, he will go away."

The son takes his father's advice and is bullied again the next day. Ignoring the bully angered him into physically hitting the son in addition to making him do the same things he didn't want to do before.

"Dad, I ignored the bully and he did it again and this time he hit me."

"Well son, my first bit of advice I suppose was incomplete. He probably feels threatened by you, and ignoring him may have been seen as you resisting him. Perhaps you should change some of the things you do so you don't appear as threatening, try to do a little of what he wants without actually doing everything he tells you to."

The son takes his father's advice and is bullied again the next day. Trying to appease the bully only encourage the bully to become more aggressive, and this time he made the son do two things that he didn't want to do, before laughing and moving on.

"Dad, I tried to appease the bully but he only got worse."

"Well son, I suppose bullies can't always be appeased, perhaps this time you should do everything he tells you to exactly the way he tells you to do it and he will see that you are no threat to him at all. After all, a weak and flexible limb is difficult to snap."

The son takes his father's advice and is bullied again the next day. This time he does everything the bully tells him to do, exactly the way he tells him to do it.

His father runs out of their flaming house to see his son standing there with a can of gasoline and a book of matches, smiling despite the screaming sobs of his mother.

"Dad! You were right! I did everything the bully told me to do, and he couldn't believe I set our house on fire. He couldn't believe I did it and he ran away. He didn't even make me kill Mrs. Whitworth's cat or cut that girl he's tied up in the shack. Now I know how to deal with bullies."

Perspective can only get you so far.
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Postby Raiwen » Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:16 am

What is truth?

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

I'm going to concentrate on two concepts of this defination: (1) the body of real things, events and facts, (2) judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true.

So What is True?
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true> b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed <the true dimension of the problem> d : CONSISTENT <true to character>


In all these definations, you still have an underlying concept: things that are true are based on facts known and on things being accepted as being true.

Facts can be misleading. Knowing only a portion of the facts can obsure what happened. Not everything that is accepted as true, is absoulte - it fits our reality enough to be true, but we are far from actually knowing any "absolute truth".

Mathematics is as close to absolute truth as we can get, but any mathematician will tell you that even that field of study is not without it's assumptions - which every few decades or so - turn out to be wrong.

Therefore.. as long as there is a possibility that any percentage of facts will be unknown, there will always exist at least two sides to anything.

Just learn from history. History is written by those who win the war.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:29 am

Raiwen wrote:Just learn from history. History is written by those who win the war.


Actually, curiously enough, at the Battle of Palo Alto in the US-Mexican war, May 8th, 1846? The history and facts of the battle were indeed told by the losers of the confrontation.

As I recall, the US cartographer died prior to the battle from illness, and the only maps/diagrams available from the battle (and the official US maps) were made by the cartographer on the Mexican side.

Needless to say, while the Mexcians lost, they fought very bravely and retreated in an orderly fashion.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:49 pm

Because "good" threads never die!

http://watchingamerica.com/alraialaam000001.html

The above link is a translated article discussing the role of the US in the Middle East from a person who lives there. It is very short, but for those that don't want to be bothered, here are some highlights:

The simple truth is that the United States is the one who forced us to hate and oppose it, due to its racist policies toward the Muslim world. The tragedies that we are seeing in the world today are irrefutable evidence of the barbaric nature of both political and military thought in America toward the Muslim world.


In a nutshell, the United States has used its military juggernaut to kill and displace millions of people. This represents terrorism at its ugliest by a superpower against a nation, simply because that nation has natural resources!


Anyway, before you hit reply, I'm not advocating these reasons as presented...so don't kill the messenger. I posted them because of how rarely Americans hear the reasons, yes reasons (because they exist even if you think you are omniscient :wink: ) for some behaviors that have been labeled here, and in other places, as terrorism.

And you can all thank me for reviving this thread in game...
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:18 pm

Yet, the author has not bombed anything.

Nice 'reasons' there,

but if you want to go by any idiot's best guess, you're welcome to try.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:23 pm

avak wrote:Because "good" threads never die!

http://watchingamerica.com/alraialaam000001.html

The above link is a translated article discussing the role of the US in the Middle East from a person who lives there. It is very short, but for those that don't want to be bothered, here are some highlights:

The simple truth is that the United States is the one who forced us to hate and oppose it, due to its racist policies toward the Muslim world. The tragedies that we are seeing in the world today are irrefutable evidence of the barbaric nature of both political and military thought in America toward the Muslim world.


In a nutshell, the United States has used its military juggernaut to kill and displace millions of people. This represents terrorism at its ugliest by a superpower against a nation, simply because that nation has natural resources!


Anyway, before you hit reply, I'm not advocating these reasons as presented...so don't kill the messenger. I posted them because of how rarely Americans hear the reasons, yes reasons (because they exist even if you think you are omniscient :wink: ) for some behaviors that have been labeled here, and in other places, as terrorism.

And you can all thank me for reviving this thread in game...


While I'm not an advocate for this war in any way shape or form, whoever wrote that crap is an idiot.

Point one, he/she believes, "...the United States is the one who forced us to hate...". Nobody can force anybody to feel or think a certain way -- baring extensive "treatments" a la Clockwork Orange. The writer is trying to blame a negative reaction on something other than the one having the reaction. This just isn't true.

Second point, just to argue semantics, you can't have a "racist" policy toward a religious group -- because they are not a race. (Of course this does not apply to those of the Jewish faith, but those are extenuating circumstances)

Third point, the article is twisting the reality of things. First off, the writer is making assumptions about the entire nation of America and their feelings towards the Muslim religion and followers. Again, this is just not true. Second, even those for the war, the case is that they are against fundamentalist Muslims and rarely believe that the religion is evil or wrong in general.

Lastly, the writer makes the assumption that we are there just for natural resources. This could be argued, but neither the writer, or myself, can truely say that we know the exact intentions of the United States government. We can say that it is a good possibility that we are there for oil, but it could easily be argued that we are also there for revenge. Hell, there are many easily argued perspectives on this subject, but in the end, that's all they are -- perspectives.

Conclusion:

Writer = retarded and this article holds no credibility to those who are able to ignore emotive persuasion techniques. I give it 0/5 stars.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:33 pm

Jesus teflor, maybe you should get off the short bus and take a trip on the logic train.

I was making this really big intellectual leap by assuming that in the quote "The simple truth is that the United States is the one who forced us to hate and oppose it" the author (whom you apparently know personally), said "us" to refer to a general group of people in the Middle East and elsewhere that "hate and oppose" America...and that -one- manifestation of "hate and oppose" is terrorism.

In preview it looks like Kifle is responding to the content instead of just the typical inflammatory nonsense that you post, Teflor.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:34 pm

Avak, I'm not going to give your post any more than it deserves.

Delmair made a good point and here was my response to that:
http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 876#148876

Kifle brought up enough legitimate reasoning for me to give a proper response:
http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 589#148589

I'm very sorry if the value of your posts just doesn't make the cut.
Now have you had enough or do you want to keep flapping your gums?
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:35 pm

I agree with Kifle. . . nicely put.

Sounds to me the author of that article is just as closed minded and retarded as your average redneck bible thumper who's looking to "'git them turbin heads". Just because someone "has perspective" on something doesn't make them right. They're still fully capable of being a weak minded sheep, like anyone else.

Isn't that all life is, really? The strong willed controlling the weak minded. It happens in America, it is happening in the Islamic countries. . . people are just sheep. "Yes! I blow self up for you and 72 virgins!" "Yes! I vote for you if you keep my kids from learning evolution!"

Anyone have more information on the following theory:

This war is about Religion. Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist. According to Fundamentalist beliefs, before the second coming of Christ, the Jews must reinherit their promised land (which, according to this believe includes Iran, Iraq and other neighboring nations). I don't know where I've heard that, but I do know at least part of it (the religious tenants) are in part correct. Revenge + Oil + Freeeedom just do not make sense.

Thanks!

-Lost
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:06 am

I think the author of the article I linked to is making some valid points. You can choose to dismiss them as "retarded" if you so wish, but I'd like to try to illustrate my interpretation of the argument.

First, he argues that Palestinians have been put through hell by the Isrealis who, in turn, are funded by the United States. Isreal is second on the list of the US's foreign aid receipients...which, without checking, might make them the second largest benefactor of financial aid in the world. Point being, they use that money to fight the Palestinians. Anyone that doubts the negative effects of this relationship on the tenor of Middle Eastern relations is absolutely not paying attention.

Second, he argues that the US has occupied Iraq. He's not the only one saying that. Here's a link to an article about the relationship between Iraq and the London bombings that starts with this quote:


"Does anyone doubt that 10,000 bin Ladens have been created by the events of the past two and a half years? If they do, they have their head in the sand."

George Galloway; British Parliament, 7-7-05


http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07182005.html

I don't really understand his third point, nor do I agree with it.

That, however, was not the point. Kifle, how can you say that "the writer is trying to blame a negative reaction on something other than the one having the reaction..." ? That is a strange sentiment. No, you cannot "force" someone to have a feeling...this is also translated from Arabic. You can, however, incite feelings with relative ease. In my opinion, the -vast- majority of the people who support the war on Iraq do so because of emotive persuasion.

Ultimately, I find that article very interesting because as we all know, perception -is- reality. I feel that until we can honestly come to terms with the perceptions that exist, based on reality or otherwise, we'll stay in the same spot, spinning our wheels.

No, wait, ultimately I want to be safe in my own home and when I go outside...and I want my kids to be safe too...and I don't want them to have to go to war. So, how do we accomplish that? I'll tell you two answers that I feel have been implied and make me ill:

1 - kill and/or punish all the "terrorists"
2 - better security

Both have been tried and neither will ever, ever, ever work.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:31 am

Avak -

I understand your two final points (that they won't work). . . but what will work? It is obvious you can't negotiate with people who kill innocents. Lets say we give in. .. and give them their "demands" (does anyone really know what they want? Do THEY know themselves?). Let us assume its kick the Israelis out and give them back their land and also get out of Iraq...so, we get out of Iraq, pack up all the Israelis and give them Casinos in Nevada and Iowa. What happens next time someone gets their panties in a bunch? Well, we can get our way if we blow some innocents up. Lets do that! We hate FOX networks because they broadcast semi-nude ladies to our youth! Infidels! Blow up some people. . .OK, now what. . .take FOX off the air? You can't give into these demands because someone kicks and screams. Sure, we're wrong for touching them off, but I don't think reacting to their form of 'negotiation' is going to help anything.

And really, in the end, don't they want all of the "West" to burn in Holy Jihad flames or some such? They don' t want to be left alone to torture their people. . . they want all infidels dead. Hard to negotiate with that kind of attitude!

Lost
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:50 am

Waelos

I completely agree with what you are saying and I honestly don't know what the solutions are. Certainly, unequivicably, rolling over is not a solution either. While a terrible choice to have to make, I fully supported the ousting of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

I think the solutions are not going to be crisp soundbytes that can be said in State of the Union address or on political talk shows, but complex multi-faceted responses to a myriad of concerns. As examples that have been brought up now several times, I believe that resolution to the Isreal/Palestine conflict and a strategic retraction from Iraq would be major steps in the right direction. Couple those with honest attempts at weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, dismantling of the hate and suspicion cultivator known as the Patriot Act and the hiring of a leader with real foreign dimplomacy skills and we might start making some progress.

Just to be clear, let me reiterate my personal belief that negotiating with people who are actively working to kill civilians is not a good option. I would be opposed to it in all but the most desperate of situations. However, those situations occur...we negotiated with al Sadr in Iraq, successfully, in light of his aggressive campaign to kill the infidels by all means possible, including suicide bombings for which matyrdom awaited.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:10 am

Agreed. . . there is no simple solution =( What I really hate is that now that we're in Iraq, how can we pull out in good conscience? We'll leave the Iraqi people defenseless against foriegn insurgents who come in to take power and we end up with another dictator. If we stay, we're the unholy oppressors. We really _can't_ win. And, if you believe what some people say, we can't cease the support of Isreal due to so much political cash coming from American Jews who would revoke their monetary suppor(of any political candidate that expressed a desire to stop supporting Isreal. And at this point, I think they only way to get out of there would be to have a President who told everyone the aid would stay the same, get into office, yank it, get our guys and girls home from Iraq, put more money into alt. fuel sources and just let the rest of the world sort out its own problems.

Sad thing is, no matter what we do, we'll be the badguys. If we dont help, we're self centered and egotistic. If we do help someone, we're evil and oppressive. If we help some people and not others, we're playing favorites.

Basically, I think the US will be hated for as long as it is a superpower. . .or until another superpower comes along that people will hate more.

Sad days indeed.


-Lost
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:02 am

Waelos wrote:This war is about Religion. Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist. According to Fundamentalist beliefs, before the second coming of Christ, the Jews must reinherit their promised land (which, according to this believe includes Iran, Iraq and other neighboring nations). I don't know where I've heard that, but I do know at least part of it (the religious tenants) are in part correct. Revenge + Oil + Freeeedom just do not make sense.


"This war is about Religion."

War is cruelty. Nothing less, nothing more. The reasons for warfare are much to broad and many in number to actually place any one particular reason on it. Leaders can lead us into war for certain reasons, soldiers fight the war for other reasons, people support the armies for further more and forever lengthy reasons.

The War of 1812 had it's reasons, impressment, monarchial pride, the roots of US nationalism and patriotism, manifest destiny.

The US civil war is a good example. It was a war fought over slavery, states rights, the preservation of the Union, big industry, big agriculture, the will, the voice, the vote of the people.

The US-Mexican War was fought over land, Texas, California, crime, trade, national security, gold, wealth, and dominance.

World War II was fought despite an FDR campaign pledge that the sons of America would fight in no foreign war. The reasons lay from a Japanese sneak attack, the free people of Europe, the deep relationship between England and the United States, an attempt to extend American influence into China and the greater pacific, the pleas of an embattled Austrailian prime minister, the evil of the Nazi regime.

This war we fight today is no different.


But you are absolutely correct about one thing. The Christian Coalition just attributed hard cash to a Jewish couple that I know in order to convince them to move to Israel.

It is kinda freaky.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:08 am

avak wrote:I think the author of the article I linked to is making some valid points. You can choose to dismiss them as "retarded" if you so wish, but I'd like to try to illustrate my interpretation of the argument.

First, he argues that Palestinians have been put through hell by the Isrealis who, in turn, are funded by the United States. Isreal is second on the list of the US's foreign aid receipients...which, without checking, might make them the second largest benefactor of financial aid in the world. Point being, they use that money to fight the Palestinians. Anyone that doubts the negative effects of this relationship on the tenor of Middle Eastern relations is absolutely not paying attention.

Second, he argues that the US has occupied Iraq. He's not the only one saying that. Here's a link to an article about the relationship between Iraq and the London bombings that starts with this quote:

(quote)

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07182005.html

I don't really understand his third point, nor do I agree with it.

That, however, was not the point. Kifle, how can you say that "the writer is trying to blame a negative reaction on something other than the one having the reaction..." ? That is a strange sentiment. No, you cannot "force" someone to have a feeling...this is also translated from Arabic. You can, however, incite feelings with relative ease. In my opinion, the -vast- majority of the people who support the war on Iraq do so because of emotive persuasion.

Ultimately, I find that article very interesting because as we all know, perception -is- reality. I feel that until we can honestly come to terms with the perceptions that exist, based on reality or otherwise, we'll stay in the same spot, spinning our wheels.


Perception will only get you so far.

The highlights you quoted of that particular article lays out the reasons why people can hate America.

They do not even begin to touch on the reasons why terrorists kill women and children for their own pleasure.

If you want to talk about perception.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:11 am

avak wrote:No, wait, ultimately I want to be safe in my own home and when I go outside...and I want my kids to be safe too...and I don't want them to have to go to war. So, how do we accomplish that? I'll tell you two answers that I feel have been implied and make me ill:

1 - kill and/or punish all the "terrorists"
2 - better security

Both have been tried and neither will ever, ever, ever work.


Avak, can you tell me the price of liberty?

Killing all the terrorists and improving security are the only things that will work. People who believe they can change things by bombing women and children will do so until they realize that it won't. Only through eternal vigiliance will they come to the table instead of blowing it up.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:15 am

Waelos wrote:Avak -

I understand your two final points (that they won't work). . . but what will work? It is obvious you can't negotiate with people who kill innocents. Lets say we give in. .. and give them their "demands" (does anyone really know what they want? Do THEY know themselves?). Let us assume its kick the Israelis out and give them back their land and also get out of Iraq...so, we get out of Iraq, pack up all the Israelis and give them Casinos in Nevada and Iowa. What happens next time someone gets their panties in a bunch? Well, we can get our way if we blow some innocents up. Lets do that! We hate FOX networks because they broadcast semi-nude ladies to our youth! Infidels! Blow up some people. . .OK, now what. . .take FOX off the air? You can't give into these demands because someone kicks and screams. Sure, we're wrong for touching them off, but I don't think reacting to their form of 'negotiation' is going to help anything.

And really, in the end, don't they want all of the "West" to burn in Holy Jihad flames or some such? They don' t want to be left alone to torture their people. . . they want all infidels dead. Hard to negotiate with that kind of attitude!

Lost


Why do both of you seem to percieve the "West" as being the only target of terrorism?

The number one suicide bombers of mosques? Self-proclaimed jihadists.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:16 am

avak wrote:dismantling of the hate and suspicion cultivator known as the Patriot Act


Do you even know what the Patriot Act is and has done?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:33 am

avak wrote:I think the solutions are not going to be crisp soundbytes that can be said in State of the Union address or on political talk shows, but complex multi-faceted responses to a myriad of concerns.


Thanks for the soundbyte, Captain Obvious.

- Hatred does not equate to terrorism (unless jihadists hate Muslims and Allah)
- The 'west' is not the only victim of terrorism, nor is Israel.
- Feeling safe when you walk outside depends entirely on how safe you wish to make yourself - crime and violence are things that have never, ever been stopped despite everything that has been tried - but it does not mean that our methods do not work.

How difficult is it for you to understand that terrorism has no logic.

And that we should never give it any.
Lahgen
Sojourner
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:58 am

Postby Lahgen » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:44 am

Teflor:

I'm all for grinding the terrorists into dust.

The problem, put simply, is that we are not abolutely sure that it's ONLY the terrorists who are being punished by our efforts. Moreover, it seems that there are too many who would want to see more than the actual terrorists be punished by our efforts.
Kesena OOC: 'i wish my daddy bought me power tools'
Dorgh group-says 'damn, even with Cofen helping Mori, they STILL can't kill someone
Hekanut says 'I know level doesn't matter much, but most won't take seriously if a level 2 claims to be the best thing before, during, and after sliced bread.'

Rather than seeing "subpar race/class," see "challenge."
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:08 pm

Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Postby Raiwen » Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:22 pm

"It wasn't the fault of the Americans," Hamza's father said later, relenting.

"It's their responsibility," said Wid Hussein. "The Americans brought all this tragedy to us."

"Don't say that -- it's not the Americans who are killing. It's the terrorists," Hamza's father answered.

"It's their responsibility," she shot back. "Why did they come here?"


Even they don't know why we are there.

The terrorists know this much: it doesn't matter that they are the ones killing their own people, eventually the moral of the country will become so low, that the people will look to anyone to put the blame on - this will be the most visible presence of force - the American military.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:45 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Thanks for the soundbyte, Captain Obvious.

...

How difficult is it for you to understand that terrorism has no logic.

And that we should never give it any.

If terrorists had any reasoning whatsoever, then their actions could be understood.

Terrorists do not posess reason.

IT IS FOOLISH TO THINK THAT TERRORISTS HAVE A REASON FOR ANYTHING.

"What is "stupid and naive" is to believe" that they have motivations or that their
motivations may be understood.

Clearly, terrorists are not above killing anybody, be it women or children, mosques
or the world trade center, brits or spaniards, iraqis or yemenis.

What is stupid and naive is when their motivation is not painfully clear.

Contradicting yourself in your own post is sweet...They have no motivations and the fact that you don't understand them makes you stoopid!!

A terrorist utterly and throughly uses without permission or conscience the
lives of the innocent in full offense and harm in order to strike indirectly
at those they believe have wronged them,

they do it, with a smile on their face,

and they see it as their ticket to a private garden of unrivaled pleasure.

So, they have reasons or they don't?

The time for debate is over. Freedom must prevail, fellowship must be established
amongst nations that defend the rights of its citizens, terrorists must never find
another target to bomb or hole in the ground to hide in again - ever. Our breathern
in Iraq have held elections that they were not forced to participate in.

I think the number of people that showed up to vote, speak loudly, and clearly, the
will of free people.


Please tell me you have a mirror in your mom's basement where you dress up in a suit, hand over heart, and recite this crap to yourself.

They do not even begin to touch on the reasons why terrorists kill women and children
for their own pleasure.


More reasons...I am sooo confused.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:38 pm

Now Avak, I can understand that you feel backed into a corner, unable to comprehend and keep up under the power of your own intelligence. I'm going to explain things very carefully and clearly to you and you should be able to pick up on them.

Listen carefully, because I'm only going to explain this once.

avak wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:How difficult is it for you to understand that terrorism has no logic.

If terrorists had any reasoning whatsoever, then their actions could be understood.

Terrorists do not posess reason.

IT IS FOOLISH TO THINK THAT TERRORISTS HAVE A REASON FOR ANYTHING.

"What is "stupid and naive" is to believe" that they have motivations or that their
motivations may be understood.

Clearly, terrorists are not above killing anybody, be it women or children, mosques
or the world trade center, brits or spaniards, iraqis or yemenis.

What is stupid and naive is when their motivation is not painfully clear.


Contradicting yourself in your own post is sweet...They have no motivations and the fact that you don't understand them makes you stoopid!!



Now Avak, listen carefully as I explain how these statements fit together, as clearly you do not see how the pieces fit by yourself.

Terrorists don't have logical reasons for the crimes they commit against humanity. They won't gain anything by killing women and children in London subways or New York City office buildings other than the wrath and scorn of free people.

Their motives are clear. To kill the innocent for their own pleasure. It is not a reason, but an excuse. It's clear that you haven't been able to see this so this is the best that I can do to explain it for you.

You can't understand why terrorists use their victims in such a full and offensive manner. Not until you have bombed some innocent women and children yourself with a smile on your face.


avak wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:A terrorist utterly and throughly uses without permission or conscience the
lives of the innocent in full offense and harm in order to strike indirectly
at those they believe have wronged them,

they do it, with a smile on their face,

and they see it as their ticket to a private garden of unrivaled pleasure.

So, they have reasons or they don't?


They don't have reasons that we could possibly understand. This is not an act of hatred or aggression, but a declaration of war against humanity, freedom, choice, the value of life, and the will of free people. When 'reasons' are things beyond logic, they become excuses. THey have no reasons for doing what they have done. Just a twisted smile and a laugh that drowns the hearts of men in sorrow.

avak wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:The time for debate is over. Freedom must prevail, fellowship must be established
amongst nations that defend the rights of its citizens, terrorists must never find
another target to bomb or hole in the ground to hide in again - ever. Our breathern
in Iraq have held elections that they were not forced to participate in.

I think the number of people that showed up to vote, speak loudly, and clearly, the
will of free people.


Please tell me you have a mirror in your mom's basement where you dress up in a suit, hand over heart, and recite this crap to yourself.


To this insult, I give you this response:

I, _______________ do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me ____.

Links:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

It's a simple oath, but it's one that untold suffering has been undertaken in its keeping. With these suits goes combat boots.

avak wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:They do not even begin to touch on the reasons why terrorists kill women and children
for their own pleasure.


More reasons...I am sooo confused.


There's a reason why you're confused.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:12 pm

They have reasons. Whether they're angry about religion or foreign powers being involved in what they see as their affairs, they have reasons.

That doesn't make these good reasons and it doesn't excuse their actions, but they're not beyond our comprehension. If terrorists kill for the pure pleasure of killing or for hate or for revenge, that is also not beyond comprehension. Understanding of these motives is certainly more difficult than understanding why like-minded people act as they do, but it's not impossible.

Fanaticism, in any form, is a great breeding ground for their types of behavior. Walk the line! Repeat the slogan! You are always and ultimately right and because of this the thing you represent is always right! Don't question authority. In other words, there are plenty of people who live in the U.S. who, if born in an area and a similar situation as terrorists would act exactly as they do. Because they are not and do not, we treat them as awesome freedom loving americans and try to categorize the terrorists as unhuman.

It's useless to do so because they are not and they are not beyond understanding. Humans are humans are most of us are capable of very horrible and evil acts. However, there is a reason that we do not (usually) commit them in the "free" parts of the world. Among other things (like wealth), the idea that it's okay do to so is not pushed on us by outside forces very often.

In the middle east, on the other hand, there is some pressure from various influences to become a terrorists. It often comes from peer pressure and religious pressure. I hope you can understand these concepts because both are very effective mechanisms in the early part of someone's life. If used properly, they could probably make a terrorists out of many people.

Does understanding this do us any good? Except for intelligence methods and dealing with religious battles outside of the U.S., I don't think so. But if it does any good at all, it's better than just classifying what is turning out to be a large group of people as beyond human morality. If they were, the world would probably be a better place.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:54 pm

Anger is a reason for kicking a box. Spitting on the American flag. Taking up arms against American power.

It's not a reason to blow up a school full of children.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:16 am

I agree. And like I said, it's not about good reasons, but it's also not without reason. I suppose you could say it's human rationalization at it's worst. But that's also debatable.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:15 am

When you blow up a bus in London the way they have, it is already clear that they are beyond human morality, and no amount of classification or understanding will change this fact Mitharx.

There is no reasoning that will alter this.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:32 am

The fact that a human being did it should indicate that it is not beyond human morality. It may be beyond your understanding of morality or beliefs, but human beings are really capable of some truely horrible things. That doesn't make them non-human. It would be a contradiction.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:40 pm

I think there is validity to this idea, which Teflor and others have posited, that there can be an absolute good and absolute evil or right and wrong, whatever. This is a subject on which an entire branch of philosophical thought has been developed and still is lacking resolution, but it is certainly plausible that there can be a Right and a Wrong.

However, I take issue with the notion that any of us could possibly even begin to suggest that we can distinguish Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong. That is absolutely (!) preposterous. But, if you can make that claim Teflor, I would hope, for the benefit of humanity, that you stop posting on an obscure BBS and offer your services to high level negotiations and global politics. Omniscience is a skill rarely listed on resumes.

In our history, Americans have been terrorists. Arguably, we are today. Indisputably, contaminating trade blankets with small pox and sending them into Native American villages to decimate truly innocent populations is an act of terrorism and, in my opinion, an order of magnitude more cowardly than suicide bombings.

Recently, Americans have negotiated with so-called terrorists in Iraq. Despite an official Presidential policy that we do not, we negotiated a cease fire with Muktada al Sadr. If you have forgotten, al Sadr was actively encouraging both military and civilian killings. The negotiations have resulted in an almost complete quelching of violence from al Sadr's followers. I highly doubt the negotiation entailed, "Stop or we'll kill you" seeing as how that was the policy before the talks.

In summary, two points...one, blanket statements about Good and Evil, Right and Wrong may be convenient for maintaining a focused worldview predicated on fear, but they do little for an honest discussion of the problems we find ourselves facing.

Two, everyone has a reason for everything. Its like Newton's 3rd Law for Psychology...for every action, there is a reason. De-humanizing is, once again, a transparent attempt at maintaining a worldview based on fear. If you allowed yourself to see into the chaotic reality, you would see that we are also guilty.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:31 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm

Mayor blames Middle East policy

Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested.

The London mayor told BBC News he had no sympathy with the bombers and he opposed all violence.

But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I.

Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region.

He attacked double standards by Western nations, such as the initial welcome given when Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq.

There was also the "running sore" of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:36 pm

And those damned oil-hungry mosques and Russian elementary schools.

The reasons you keep giving are ones to dislike the west, not reasons for the wholesale slaughter of children.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:06 pm

Avak, why do you believe in an absolute right or wrong? I mean, I believe in kantian morality and I don't buy the idea that categorical imperatives are universal. They are well-suited for a moral human society, but I can't get to the universal from there. Like you said, the absolute rights and wrongs are ultimately unobtainable and so completely unuseable because we couldn't identify them if we tried. With those ideas in mind, I go back to my first sentence. I'm curious.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest