Terrorism

[teflor the ranger]

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but sofar, the only thing "stupid" or
"naieve" about this thread seems to be Teflor. His argument of what is or
is not terrorism in his opinion versus others is quite interesting. The last
couple posts would have made much more sense if a little "in my opinion"
were added, versus trying to sound like the end-all, be-all voice of authority
on the matter. And then, just as things seem to be turning against him:
"asshole overload" and leaves.

Del, I hate to rain on your moron parade, but by 'goodbye thread', I'm speaking about the asshole overload that tends to get threads deleted.

Don't be such an idiot.

[teflor the ranger]

What worries me, is when the "saviors" use the same tactics as the "terrorists".

I will believe that when "saviors" target the innocent for the purpose of terrorizing the survivors.

[teflor the ranger]

To the contrary Teflor, my father served in-country in vietnam and I have heard the tales and witnessed the emotional scars that his actions, UNDER ORDERS, caused him.

And attributing lack of motivation to terrorists seems to be a case of misjudging your enemy and leaving your flank open.

Are you saying he was a terrorist, or anything like one?

He feels that his actions labeled him as one, yes, rather than as a soldier following orders.

So how can you claim any similarities between Vietnam and terrorism? Are you saying he targeted innocent women and children for death?

[teflor the ranger]

And it's getting rather annoying to see people still believe in the whole "we're there to liberate the people from evil!"

You can ask the people of Germany, or Japan, what the intentions of the American people are.

[teflor the ranger]

USA: "We're right!"
Other Country: "No, you're arrogant -- we're right!"
Repeat with other words...

Omfg. Intelligence to be found here!

[teflor the ranger]

The actions of terrorists are unfortunate. But i believe that evil, and terror is a matter of perception. I could see how the middle east would see the US as terrorists.

"The actions of terrorists are unfortunate."

The actions of terorrists are a declaration of war against humanity, freedom, and life itself. If ever anything was purely evil and criminal, their actions would be that.

"evil, and terror is a matter of perception."

Or a bomb meant to kill innocent women and children for the aims of harming as many people as possible, for the satisfaction of punishing humanity for what has happened to themselves.

"I could see how the middle east would see the US as terrorists."

First of all, we don't hide. Those who believe we have wronged them know where they can find recourse.

Second of all, we don't target the innocent for death for the sake of punishing those we believe are evil and to terrorize the surviving innocent.

Third of all, we're not motivated by a singular ideology. Having served alongside people of all faiths, if we do indeed share a bond of the preservation of humanity, not its destruction.

[teflor the ranger]

It is all a matter of perception.

Save your perception for the people of London, and those who gleefully awaited news of their deaths.

[Lahgen]

To the contrary Teflor, my father served in-country in vietnam and I have heard the tales and witnessed the emotional scars that his actions, UNDER ORDERS, caused him.

And attributing lack of motivation to terrorists seems to be a case of misjudging your enemy and leaving your flank open.

Are you saying he was a terrorist, or anything like one?

He feels that his actions labeled him as one, yes, rather than as a soldier following orders.

So how can you claim any similarities between Vietnam and terrorism? Are you saying he targeted innocent women and children for death?

By your own admission Tef, international law allows for the intentional targeting of civilians during war.

[teflor the ranger]

To the contrary Teflor, my father served in-country in vietnam and I have heard the tales and witnessed the emotional scars that his actions, UNDER ORDERS, caused him.

And attributing lack of motivation to terrorists seems to be a case of misjudging your enemy and leaving your flank open.

Are you saying he was a terrorist, or anything like one?

He feels that his actions labeled him as one, yes, rather than as a soldier following orders.

So how can you claim any similarities between Vietnam and terrorism? Are you saying he targeted innocent women and children for death?

By your own admission Tef, international law allows for the intentional targeting of civilians during war.

And how is this relevant at all?

[Shiallia]

The aggression level on this thread is a bit more than I wish to participate in. I believe I will bow out, having expressed my opinion and in turn read those of my peers and learned to see things from the point of view of those same.

[teflor the ranger]

The goal of Al-Quada is to create a pan-arabic state. They use terrorism to make us afraid of muslims and thereby drive muslims into their camp.
So far the reaction of most people is pretty much just as Osama wants. Kill all the muslims, bomb all those countries back into the stoneage. Invade a country because the leader tried to kill my dad! (Note that I supported my country in helping the US in Iraq because i think you should help your friends even if they do something stupid).

Who's bombing who into the stone age?

[bawog]

Heh ok so I've finally decided to pipe up here.

Terroists are similar to the religous fanatics of many areas or the world and they believe that their "greater being" (who or whatever that may be) will award them in their afterlife or however they choose to cross over after death. Now should we condone this sort of behavior..hell no...but we all can't be terroists and strike back at them with vengeance, but yet a more proper action would be to just use mind games and propaganda upon out enemies. I mean in our real lives...would you A. Beat the hell out of your enemy or B. Use mind games against them in order to mentally beat them down.? 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)

Anywho I just needed to chime in cause this hits close to home with me.

[Kifle]

Heh ok so I've finally decided to pipe up here.

Terroists are similar to the religous fanatics of many areas or the world and they believe that their "greater being" (who or whatever that may be) will award them in their afterlife or however they choose to cross over after death. Now should we condone this sort of behavior..hell no...

What exactly is your definition of a fanatic? I mean, wouldn't Bush be considered a fanatic? With all the Christian legislature he's trying to get passed and forced down the throats of us non-Christian citizens, you'd think he's trying to make us live a Christian lifestyle regardless of whether I want to or not. Kinda funny, huh...

Anyway, what were you saying?

[Cap'n Lythix]

Bush is a total fanatic. What's with his reluctance for stem cell research? You'd think he would want to make the wife of his father's former boss happy, considering that man is the prime reason dubbya is in office anyway.

[teflor the ranger]

There is one thing I feel that I do have to submit, along with my opinion in this thread thus far.

By whatever grace in or outside of existance, I have never faced an enemy that I had to kill.

According to several people I have spoken with and others posting here to the thread, who have also never had to kill, this makes me naive, young, stupid, etc, etcetera, etcetera.

Yet the more naive, young, and stupid people, tell me all that they know, that we haven't learned enough, that we don't know enough, or we don't understand enough - one thing is clear. The only thing we have not been able to do is to learn from other people's mistakes.

When was the last time you met a veteran that regretted honorably serving his country?

When was the last time someone who fought terrorists, drug lords, crime, genocide, ever told you that they regret doing too much or fighting too hard?

Stop. Listen. Learn.

When you can hear only people who think the way you do, then, my friends, you will know what naivety, stupidity, and terror are like.

[bawog]

Kifle,

There are several different definitions that would constitute one as a religious fanatic, and they variate in severity. Here is some examples of what I am speaking of,

A. We have the attacks in London, our September 11 here in America.
Now these people are terroists, but also in their beliefs they are also held deeply with respect in their religion because of their actions in life. In our eyes they may be the scum of the world, but in other eyes they are heros of the religion warriors even some would call them.

B. Now there are religious fanatics that have come to pass even in the US and other countries that have done similiar actions, just not in the severity and public display of brutality that the Islam Fanatics have. For instance we have had the KKK here in america which were major religious fanatics that had thought that the african american popilation was a disease that plagued that land. (FYI I'm not trying to make this a race thing just an example)

C. We have the Germans in WW2 who were trying to wipe out an entire race of Jewish people due to their beliefs that they were inferior, and were not meant to be.

Teflor,

No my grandfather has no regret for serving his country, I was merely trying to say that there is a price after you end a life. Not a material price but a price that holds heavy on a person's soul. However I do agree with you on the statement that we as a civilation have not learned from our mistakes, and if we did there would be no wars, famine, etc,

[Kifle]

Kifle,

There are several different definitions that would constitute one as a religious fanatic, and they variate in severity. Here is some examples of what I am speaking of,

A. We have the attacks in London, our September 11 here in America.
Now these people are terroists, but also in their beliefs they are also held deeply with respect in their religion because of their actions in life. In our eyes they may be the scum of the world, but in other eyes they are heros of the religion warriors even some would call them.

B. Now there are religious fanatics that have come to pass even in the US and other countries that have done similiar actions, just not in the severity and public display of brutality that the Islam Fanatics have. For instance we have had the KKK here in america which were major religious fanatics that had thought that the african american popilation was a disease that plagued that land. (FYI I'm not trying to make this a race thing just an example)

C. We have the Germans in WW2 who were trying to wipe out an entire race of Jewish people due to their beliefs that they were inferior, and were not meant to be.

Exactly. My point was, by the same definition you call these Islamists fanatics, Bush is also a fanatic. Also, by the same definition you call them terrorists, our government is also guilty of being terrorists; not only in the instance of the Iraqi war, or even the Afghani overthrow, but also in the past with such examples as the Iran-Contra affair/Nicaragua and selling gas bombs to Saddam during the Regan administration. I think it is totally rediculous to point our fingers at one group of people and label them as evil and then look at our own actions and call them justified and good. They are no worse than we are, and I think its about time people lower their pedestals and buy smaller horses.

[Kifle]

When was the last time you met a veteran that regretted honorably serving his country?

I know two people recently out of Iraq that deeply regret joining the military because of the things they had to do. They don't feel they were defending the country, but rather felt that they where some kind of corperate mercenary group.

Virtually every Vietnam vet I've talked to deeply regrets having been in the military because of the things they saw and were ordered to do. I have three of them in my family. One however, was brainwashed by propaganda like half of the nation is today. He felt that it was more important to "defend" democracy, which was never in jeopardy at the time, than to kill innocent men, women, and children for no apparent reason.

Not everybody in this country, or even in the military, drink up the war propaganda like it were some kinda of life-giving soda. Some of us are able to think for ourselves and judge a position without having it spoonfed to us by a clearly biased source.

Also, no matter how ignorant I am of war, since I have never been in one, I can tell you for a damn fact that I would never be proud to be in one. I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians. I could never justify robbing a family of their father or mother because they were on the opposing side. Their governments are making them fight for reasons that are just as retarded as mine, so they deserve to die just as much as me or you. It is selfish to believe that the opposing army is made up of evil individuals that have nothing but hate for other life on this planet. If they hate our army, its because we are fighting for a greedy, underhanded nation. For these reasons, it would never matter how ignorant I am of actual warfare; I am fully aware of what would happen to me if I returned from a war. I'm fully aware that I would regret ever having to take anybody elses life. I'm fully aware that watching a five year old bleed to death because of my granade shrapnel would completely destroy my character.

[teflor the ranger]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians.

Yeah Kifle, I'm sure this is exactly what US servicemen do.

*roll*

[Imis9]

Or Kifle, it might just change your character and make you a tougher and stronger person with a better character because you had to make a tough decision. It is easy to go through like not regretting your actions because you don't do anything. It is tougher to actually make the tough calls and do the tough things which will change who you are but will make you better.

Imis

"Life is a series of experiences, each one of which makes us bigger, even though sometimes it is hard to realize this. For the world was built to develop character, and we must learn that the setbacks and grieves which we endure help us in our marching onward."
-- Henry Ford

[moritheil]

If our country is so awesome and good and well intentioned, why is africa in the state it is now?

Are you suggesting that the USA is somehow solely responsible for Africa and that the people of Africa have no soverignty and can't take care of themselves? Or that the USA, and it alone, should be responsible for fixing problems in the event that international aid is required? Whatever happened to multinational coalitions?

This part of your rant just sounds like the infamous "White Man's Burden" rhetoric.

[moritheil]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians. I could never justify robbing a family of their father or mother because they were on the opposing side.

Then why justify the slaughter of large buildings full of civilians? Why justify robbing a family of their father or mother when they weren't even fighting against you?

Or if that's not what your reasoning is, what exactly is the reasoning behind "it's okay for them to bomb unarmed civilians; it's not okay to try to hunt them down?"

[teflor the ranger]

And again, another irony is that after how many decades of Isreali and Palestinian violence, that's exactly what they're doing...sitting down and chatting about why they're all so mad, over cups of tea.

Yes, Avak, but HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THERE?

25 years of TOTAL WARFARE, BOMBS, GUNFIRE.

Israel has stood firm and defeated the terrorist cause WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE COME TO THE TABLE TO BEGIN WITH.

[teflor the ranger]

If Japan did invade and then set up military across the country after overthrowing our "evil" government, do you think for a second that militia groups wouldn't form around the country to combat them? Do you think we wouldn't have people bombing their country in an attempt so send them a "leave us alone" message?.

We wouldn't bomb our own churchs or our own people. Apple, meet Terrorist.

[Sephraem]

I've always thought it should be called 'Cowardism'.

So have I. There is no bravery in attacking innocent people who are unable to defend themselves from your attack. There is no honour in dying in the blast you created when you strapped a bomb to yourself and detonated it in a place you knew would be populated by civilians. There is no glory in preying on the weak.

I.R.A.

I wonder; if the press had continually referred to the Irish Republican Army as 'Fundamentalist Catholics', or 'Militant Catholics', or 'Catholic Terrorists', how would it have changed perception of the IRA, and of the conflict over Northern Ireland?

How would it have affected Catholics, and Catholicism?

The word, 'fundamentalism' means a return to basic, and core, principles. A real 'fundamentalist' Muslim would never consider that killing innocent people was what Allah wants him to do, just as a real 'fundamentalist' Catholic would not believe that God would want him to do it. These terrorists are not Fundamentalists; they are lunatics, using their interpretation of scripture as an excuse to blow stuff up and kill people.

What is "stupid and naive" is to believe that they have no motivation for thier actions and that by studying their motivations we cannot defeat them.

Fear is the motivation.
Fear is what they want to inspire..

Well, sort of.

What the terrorists want is to destroy. Their agenda is really one of blowing stuff up and killing people. If the terrorists' demands were acceded to, they would find another excuse. They would move the goalposts.

[Oghma]

A lot of people hear the word terrorist and think "Islam" or "Muslim." Three or four years ago, there was an episode of West Wing that occurred outside the storyline in rememberance of 9/11. It was called Isaac and Ishmael.

The following analogy was in that episode:


Islamic Extremist
is to Islamic

as

____
is to Christianity.


Any time I hear of a terrorist act, and someone says the Islam is to blame, I think of this analogy. The answer is KKK. That's who's doing this terrorist stuff. The Islamic KKK. Now I know that a lot you see on TV is for the sake of entertainment, but there are certain things from this show that speak volumes.

I don't have too much to say other than I highly suggest you to watch this episode of The West Wing, and don't generalize people by the religion they follow and such.

Oghma

[Kifle]

If our country is so awesome and good and well intentioned, why is africa in the state it is now?

Are you suggesting that the USA is somehow solely responsible for Africa and that the people of Africa have no soverignty and can't take care of themselves? Or that the USA, and it alone, should be responsible for fixing problems in the event that international aid is required? Whatever happened to multinational coalitions?

This part of your rant just sounds like the infamous "White Man's Burden" rhetoric.

Not at all Mori. I was simply implying that Africa has been in it's current state for far longer than Iraq, yet we chose to "liberate" and "help" the Iraqis instead of the Africans. If it was our sole intent to liberate those people, logic would dictate that we would have liberated Africa's people first -- but, since it wasn't the case that we went over there to liberate the people, it should no longer be said that we went over there with the intentions of doing so. That was my point.

Now, I am pretty ignorant to what it would take to help Africa or Iraq in the most efficient way, so I'm not even going to give my opinion on what we "should" do. I'll wait till I'm more educated on that subject.

[Kifle]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians. I could never justify robbing a family of their father or mother because they were on the opposing side.

Then why justify the slaughter of large buildings full of civilians? Why justify robbing a family of their father or mother when they weren't even fighting against you?

Or if that's not what your reasoning is, what exactly is the reasoning behind "it's okay for them to bomb unarmed civilians; it's not okay to try to hunt them down?"

Never said it was right to bomb unarmed civilians. Don't read things that aren't there. If you actually read what I wrote instead of creating sentances that aren't there and "quoting" things I never said, you'd quickly realize I'm taking quite the pacifist stance on the whole issue, and the words "it's okay for them to bomb unarmed civilians; it's not okay to try to hunt them down?" would never cross my lips unless it was in a sarcastic tone.

So, to sum up, I don't think it is easy to justify war, and that it should be avoided as much as possible. Something I'm very sure we have not done since WWII.

[Kifle]

If Japan did invade and then set up military across the country after overthrowing our "evil" government, do you think for a second that militia groups wouldn't form around the country to combat them? Do you think we wouldn't have people bombing their country in an attempt so send them a "leave us alone" message?.

We wouldn't bomb our own churchs or our own people. Apple, meet Terrorist.

David Koresh. Do some research on him and what happend to him...oh, and not what you may have heard on the news when you were 11 either. Find out what happend to that missing steel door that "burned" in the fire. Oh, and find out why exactly lethal dosages of gas where shot into areas of the compound that where known to only hold women and children. Oh, could you please also find out why exactly the exit doors to that area of the compound were blocked off from the outside AFTER the fires were lit by the FBI? You find that out, and you'll have your counter argument.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the 60's and all the black churches that were burned not only by the KKK, but other groups working for the government and government officials.

But lets not just talk about bombing our own churches. Lets move this to shooting our own schools. Remember Kent State anyone? How about Jackson State?

Should I go on?

[Kifle]

Or Kifle, it might just change your character and make you a tougher and stronger person with a better character because you had to make a tough decision. It is easy to go through like not regretting your actions because you don't do anything. It is tougher to actually make the tough calls and do the tough things which will change who you are but will make you better.

Imis

"Life is a series of experiences, each one of which makes us bigger, even though sometimes it is hard to realize this. For the world was built to develop character, and we must learn that the setbacks and grieves which we endure help us in our marching onward."
-- Henry Ford

I think being a father and a husband give me enough chances to make "tough" decisions without having to hold a gun to some guys head while he pleads for his life and the lives of his family.

Also, you think I don't have anything I've done that was very wrong and I don't regret? I hate to disappoint you, son, but I've lived quite an eventful life and have probably had to make a lot of decisions you would not want to make. I didn't all-of-a-sudden just appear at where I am, you know. I was homeless and jobless for a good portion of my first two college years. I got by doing things I hope my children never do or think they have to do. I mad bad decisions which had me spending some time in jail. I've lived in the ghetto and I've lived in the 'burbs.

If you think war is what it takes to build strong character, I urge you to go there and see for yourself what kind of crap it can do to a man. I urge you to be the guy that wakes up in the middle of the night only to find that he's strangling his wife and she has a terrified look on her face -- only to snap out of it and cry. I urge you to be the man that sees the bullet ridden child that he shot in every single child he has seen for the past thirty years. If thats what you think it takes to build character and if this is what you constitute as "tough decisions" then by all means, you go and do it, but I'll live my life knowing that isn't what it took for me. I have my family and I have my own life. Those decisions are tough enough for me, and I have lived enough to know that I don't need any more than what I have right now.

[Kifle]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians.

Yeah Kifle, I'm sure this is exactly what US servicemen do.

*roll*

My Lai Massacre or maybe even the intentional fire upon civilians in the Korean War. Get out of your fantasy world, teflor, nobody else is living there but you.

[teflor the ranger]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians.

Yeah Kifle, I'm sure this is exactly what US servicemen do.

*roll*

My Lai Massacre or maybe even the intentional fire upon civilians in the Korean War. Get out of your fantasy world, teflor, nobody else is living there but you.

I'd say you lived in your own world, but there are a lot of extremist idiots that have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[Corth]

One problem in these debates (both on the bbs, and in political discourse) is that the words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' have no meaning. One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. The IRA, Basque Separatists, and Chechnyan rebels are good examples. In any event, the lack of meaning in the words that are at the crux of the debate is why the conversation starts with a condemnation of those who bombed london, diverts into condemnations of targetted assassinations, and ends with references to vietnam massacres.

The most likely definition of a terrorist is someone who uses terror to accomplish their political objectives. Under this definition, the Israeli government with their targeted assassinations are certainly terrorists. Indeed, the US army in some of their practices can be described as terrorists as well. But we are not at war with Israel or ourselves. We're at war with a specific group of people who are trying to KILL us. Those who would undoubtedly detonate a nuclear bomb over manhattan given the opportunity. We are fighting them for our very lives.

The civilized world is not at war with terrorism, its at war with radical islamic nationalism. I hope that at some point the powers that be start calling it what it is, regardless of how politically incorrect it is. We need to know exactly what it is we're fighting in order to defeat it.

The fact of the matter, however, is that it is indeed a war. Certainly not a conventional war, but a war nonetheless. The islamic nationalists strike at us in the only way they can.. by entering our relatively open society and hitting generally soft targets... civilians. In the short term, we fight them through more conventional methods. In the long term, the only thing that will defeat islamic nationalism is the large scale adoption of the westernized value system by the islamic people. The islamic nationalists went to war against us because of the corrupting influence (from their perspectic) of our culture. They will ultimately be defeated when the important elements of our culture is adopted by Islam as a whole.

I think that is the reason why Iraq is such an important piece of the puzzle for the GWB. The ultimate purpose of the venture is to establish an islamic democracy. Its anyone's guess whether democracy can be imposed upon a people. The recent elections were highly succesful, and it seems that most of the people who live there want the project to work. But a large portion of the population, particularly the Sunni's, want to see it fail miserably. Its a very touch and go situation. But it has enormous upside if it works. If the rest of the islamic world sees a succesful Iraq, there would be pressure on the dictators of the region to apply similar westernized reforms. Its a huge gamble, and it may not work, but it has amazing potential.

Corth

[Kifle]

I could never justify slaughtering a small villiage of civilians.

Yeah Kifle, I'm sure this is exactly what US servicemen do.

*roll*

My Lai Massacre or maybe even the intentional fire upon civilians in the Korean War. Get out of your fantasy world, teflor, nobody else is living there but you.

I'd say you lived in your own world, but there are a lot of extremist idiots that have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

Nice plan...attack the man and not his arguments. If I were trained in critical thinking and logic, I'd say that you would have just lost some credibility and ground in the debate; also, if I had seen your patterns of debate in the past, I'd say that you usually start doing this when somebody calls you out on your shoddy "facts" (we'll refer to them as fopinions or Tefacts).

Strong-arm the kids at your local library. Shit like that don't fly 'round here.

[Kifle]

One problem in these debates (both on the bbs, and in political discourse) is that the words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' have no meaning. One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. The IRA, Basque Separatists, and Chechnyan rebels are good examples. In any event, the lack of meaning in the words that are at the crux of the debate is why the conversation starts with a condemnation of those who bombed london, diverts into condemnations of targetted assassinations, and ends with references to vietnam massacres.

The most likely definition of a terrorist is someone who uses terror to accomplish their political objectives. Under this definition, the Israeli government with their targeted assassinations are certainly terrorists. Indeed, the US army in some of their practices can be described as terrorists as well. But we are not at war with Israel or ourselves. We're at war with a specific group of people who are trying to KILL us. Those who would undoubtedly detonate a nuclear bomb over manhattan given the opportunity. We are fighting them for our very lives.

The civilized world is not at war with terrorism, its at war with radical islamic nationalism. I hope that at some point the powers that be start calling it what it is, regardless of how politically incorrect it is. We need to know exactly what it is we're fighting in order to defeat it.

The fact of the matter, however, is that it is indeed a war. Certainly not a conventional war, but a war nonetheless. The islamic nationalists strike at us in the only way they can.. by entering our relatively open society and hitting generally soft targets... civilians. In the short term, we fight them through more conventional methods. In the long term, the only thing that will defeat islamic nationalism is the large scale adoption of the westernized value system by the islamic people. The islamic nationalists went to war against us because of the corrupting influence (from their perspectic) of our culture. They will ultimately be defeated when the important elements of our culture is adopted by Islam as a whole.

I think that is the reason why Iraq is such an important piece of the puzzle for the GWB. The ultimate purpose of the venture is to establish an islamic democracy. Its anyone's guess whether democracy can be imposed upon a people. The recent elections were highly succesful, and it seems that most of the people who live there want the project to work. But a large portion of the population, particularly the Sunni's, want to see it fail miserably. Its a very touch and go situation. But it has enormous upside if it works. If the rest of the islamic world sees a succesful Iraq, there would be pressure on the dictators of the region to apply similar westernized reforms. Its a huge gamble, and it may not work, but it has amazing potential.

Corth

Funny, I just wrote a paper for my poly sci course on the topic of the definition of terrorism being a huge proponent to the mixed views on the Western stance on this "war".

Anyway, yeah, you're right on a lot of points, but I don't think that forming a democracy in the Middle East is the only way to succede. You don't have to make somebody adopt your point of view in order to quash hatred, you only have to promote tolorance and understanding. In fact, the latter idea works more often than the first. If you tell somebody, "this is how it is, and this is the "right" way to do things", they'll close their mind. People don't like being told they are wrong; however, if you were to say, "Our citizens are happy, and while you may not agree with how we do things, we harm neither our citizens or you in the process." then you can have an open debate and hopefully come to some agreement. Granted, it is harder and often times more time consuming to do it this way, but I'd say the range of success would only be near the mid-line and the range of failure would be around the same. If you set up a puppet government and hope it succedes in the conditions we have, you're right, we're gambling. The price we pay for losing in the gamble is very high, but the effect it would have if things go as we hope would be equally high.

Peronsonally, I don't believe the government should make such gambles when millions of lives are at stake. I'd like to see a bit more conservative aproach that would ensure as much safety to this country as possible. That is where I believe our government has failed.

[teflor the ranger]

Kifle, your arguments have both no value or relevance.

Your assertion is that US servicemen target innocent women and children.

The evidence you provide is one possible incident in Vietnam, and scattered possible incidents in Korea.

Equivilantly, using your logic, I can submit that there is evidence that some muslims have blown up mosques,

therefore muslims are terrorists.

Basically, what I am saying is that you're a fool. Again I repeat as a matter of fact:

I'd say you lived in your own world, but there are a lot of extremist idiots that have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[Kifle]

Kifle, your arguments have both no value or relevance.

Your assertion is that US servicemen target innocent women and children.

The evidence you provide is one possible incident in Vietnam, and scattered possible incidents in Korea.

Equivilantly, using your logic, I can submit that since some muslims have blown up mosques,

that muslims are terrorists.

Basically, what I am saying is that you're a fool.

I never said "all" soldiers, and I never said "all the time". I said that I couldn't justify it. It has happend, and it will continue to happen. You're trying to invalidate an argument that I never made; therefore, I would say that you don't read peoples posts, you just look for little things they say and try to look smart. Kudos brainiac.

I could list a lot more of those "scattered possible incidents" but like always, you'd come back with a devistating argument along the lines of:

":roll: You're dumb. You think that since birds can fly, trucks have wheels. Pssh, you're an asshat. Lolz"

So, I'll save myself the time and ignore you like usual.

[teflor the ranger]

It wouldn't be so devastating if it wasn't true, Kifle.

[teflor the ranger]

I never said "all" soldiers, and I never said "all the time".

Curiously enough, nor ever have I.

Having fun in that extremist world?

Funny thing is with all those edits, we can never tell what arguments you are actually making when I read them.

Kudos.

[teflor the ranger]

smartass retort removed - for now but i'll happily bring it back up if you want to be lame.

[teflor the ranger]

Look, Kifle, I am going to level with you for a brief moment.

Your arguments - a minor handful of servicemen that regretted something about their service, a few minor potentially ugly incidents that look bad for the United States and our Armed Forces, that a cult that shot and killed nearly a dozen federal agents checking for illegal weapons and suspected child abuse was brought to answer for their crimes, that you are incapable of justifying some of the things that may or may not have happened throughout our long history - are incredibly weak.

The truth in fact, and the matter is: that you will never find strong evidence for your claims, because we, as Americans are a United Nation and share in ALL the shame, and most importantly, the things we have done as a country for all of mankind.

Crime occurs in America, but this does not mean that Americans are criminal.

Evil occurs in war, but this does not mean that war is evil.

Church bombing occurs in America, but that does not mean that Americans will bomb churches if the Japanese invade America.

If you cannot see why your argument is both invalid and irrelevent, I blame extremism, you parrot the ideas of those who are the most critical of everything for some reason, possibly because you identify with them.

Where the United States has made the decision to have total and undisputed victory, and steeled its will to do so, flourishing centers of humanity have risen to boldy take their place amongst the free world (Nazi Germany, Japan, Europe, eventually Eastern Europe, the Phillipines).

Where the United States has accepted defeat, negotiated with madmen, or stalled on decisive action: tyrants and ideology crush religion, free thought, and the people live in the most squalid of conditions beneath jackboot and bayonet (Vietnam, Somalia, Chile, Thailand, early on Eastern Europe).

Our greatest SHAME as a NATION is that we have accepted that things are the way they are, and time, waiting, hoping is the only solution.

Our greatest shame is not a village that may or may not have been slaughtered in Vietnam, but of all the other villages we allowed to become forced into communist labor and their families to subsist a per capita yearly income of merely $500, but the massive genocides that we watch on CNN, but the plague of HIV we have only begun to fight.

Our greatest shame is that we decided that we did not want to fight. That we did not want to secure ultimate and complete victory over famine, disease, genocide, tyranny.

Just a few days ago, on a subway car in London, a small package of about ten pounds of cheap plastic explosives detonated, placed there intentionally, to kill women, children, working class citizens just trying to live in a strange and new world.

The question is: do we overcome?



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.



Compassion for the terrorists DEMANDS that we destroy them utterly to speed them on their way, and to prevent them from doing any further wrong for which they may be held accountable by some supreme diety at the end of their lives.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that freedom can be forced upon others. Free people can chose to be enslaved. Enslaved people cannot chose to be free. Never has there been a free people made free without the help of others (for a while, except for France. but the Germans got them).

It is because we care, that we must claim total and undisputed victory.

And freedom is mankind's greatest weapon, because we cannot get there without making the choice.


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.


A proponent for total and undisputed victory over terrorists,
a proponent for total and undisputed victory for freedom in the middle east,
a proponent for total and undisputed victory over defeat,
David

[rylan]

Kifle, did you believe that piece on TV last year (I forget which show aired it) that claimed the government faked the entire moon landing?
It comes across to me that you are as mistrusting and blind in your belief that the US government is to blame for everything as those who preach that the US government can do no wrong.

[avak]

And again, another irony is that after how many decades of Isreali and Palestinian violence, that's exactly what they're doing...sitting down and chatting about why they're all so mad, over cups of tea.

Yes, Avak, but HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THERE?

25 years of TOTAL WARFARE, BOMBS, GUNFIRE.

Israel has stood firm and defeated the terrorist cause WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE COME TO THE TABLE TO BEGIN WITH.

I think this is still relevant to the current thrust of the discussion.

Israel has done anything but defeat "terrorism." Which is -exactly- my point. After decades of trying to defeat "the terrorists" and Palestine trying to assert themselves in various ways (including civilian bombings), both sides have realized that they are in an endless cycle of violence that can only be resolved through non-military means. Why do we (whether that be the US or the UK or anyone) have to suffer through decades of this mess when we can learn from others' experiences? As Corth most accurately said, this "war" cannot be won by conventional military tactics. Time to figure out a new game plan.

I, however, completely disagree with Corth on the tactics that will cause the end of this violence. Two things that would go oh, about a gazillion times farther than imposing a puppet democracy in Iraq would be helping resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and switching over to a fuel source that didn't depend so heavily on mid-east oil.

[rylan]

... and switching over to a fuel source that didn't depend so heavily on mid-east oil.

That one has my vote. I would sooooooooooo love to be able to say 'F-YOU' to the oil cartel and let them play with themselves in the sand. Too bad our research into fusion and other energy sources is still a joke.

[Corth]

Good luck finding a viable alternative for transportation energy. A hydrogen economy would require some 20,000 nuclear plants built in just the United States (there is a net loss of energy return in producing hydrogen). There isn't enough platinum in the world to replace all our vehicles with fuel cell technology. Certainly we could produce more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, but your still relying upon hydrocarbons. And for those who say that you can run a car off vegetable oil.. compare the price of a gallon of vegetable oil to a gallon of gasoline.

So you know, what little money I do have is invested in oil. Cheap energy is a thing of the past. Do a little bit of research on 'peak oil'.

Corth

[Kifle]

Kifle, did you believe that piece on TV last year (I forget which show aired it) that claimed the government faked the entire moon landing?
It comes across to me that you are as mistrusting and blind in your belief that the US government is to blame for everything as those who preach that the US government can do no wrong.

I think the theory has credibility; however, being a physics major for a good two years of college gave me enough information to believe otherwise. I think it is idiotic to believe one side or the other until enough proof is brought to the table to give one side more viability.

In the case of the Iraq war, what with the amount of evidence pointing towards bush lying (British memos, failure to find wmd's, rebuilding contracts, lack of exit strategy, Security Council findings, lack of connection between Saddam and Osama, etc...), I have more than enough reason to believe he started a war by strong-arming congress, lying to the entire nation, and because of his personal agend. I have enough evidence to believe he has endangered the lives of the Iraqi citizens and the Unitied States citizens unnecessarily.

Because of John Aschroft's retooling of the PATRIOT act after congress had passed it, I have enough reason to believe the current administration is granting the federal government more power than intended by both congress and the American people.

With just these two examples, among many more I'm not going to list, I have enough evidence to form my opinion that the current administration has failed itself and the American people.

Just because I pay attention to the details and don't believe everything the president says when he butchers the English language behind the podeum, does not mean I buy into every conspiracy theory out there, and it does not indicate that I am just looking for ways to hate my government. It simply means that I pay attention.

As far as the current discussion has gone, I never said the Army was evil and all it does is kill kids. I said that I want no part of it because things like this do occur. I also said that the way our government is going about it is selfish and reckless. I also said that while there are people who bomb civilians, we do it as well and can be categorized, quite easily, as terrorists just as the Islamic extremists.

My goal was to show that while you think we might have all the right to trample through the Middle East in the name of democracy and Christianity, we are truely no different than who we intend to eradicate. It's a hard pill to swallow, and you'll probably never get it down, but I don't have to live with it. I'm very aware that we are pushing our way of life on them just as much as they'd like to push their way of life on us. We are using the same tactics to do it only we have a lot more resources to do so, so we can be more effective and efficient; therefore, we can have more of an impact which makes our attacks more meaningful in the grand scheme of things. These are the only differences. That is what I'm saying.

[Shar]

I don't have anything to say about this topic, others have already said what I would but I thought I would post and say...

WOOT! I'm very happy to see people having actual "discussions" without using intense flames or insults. For the most part, this thread is the ideal political debate thread :P WTG everyone.

/proudmom

[Kifle]

Good luck finding a viable alternative for transportation energy. A hydrogen economy would require some 20,000 nuclear plants built in just the United States (there is a net loss of energy return in producing hydrogen). There isn't enough platinum in the world to replace all our vehicles with fuel cell technology. Certainly we could produce more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, but your still relying upon hydrocarbons. And for those who say that you can run a car off vegetable oil.. compare the price of a gallon of vegetable oil to a gallon of gasoline.

So you know, what little money I do have is invested in oil. Cheap energy is a thing of the past. Do a little bit of research on 'peak oil'.

Corth

I'm not going to claim to know much about this, but as far as the economy goes:

Vegetable oil is a relatively endless product. We can grow more raw material in a very short amount of time; Gas, on the other hand, is made from crude oil which takes a very long time to create and expensive to refine.

As far as the price for the Vegetable oil goes, it is because of the usage, among other things, that makes it this way. Since most of the uses for VO call for only a small amount, a gallon of the stuff will last a considerable amount of time. People will pay the higher prices when the average person can make a gallon of VO last a few months; However, when the usage goes up, people would pay for the cheapest stuff. You'd see a lot of upstart VO companies in a very short amount of time. This would spur competition and the prices of VO would lower to what the companies could handle to make a decent profit. Eventually the market would have a good 5 or so larger companies that would eat up the rest of the smaller ones and you'd see a leveling off of price. This price, I'd be willing to wager, would be a lot cheaper than what we pay for gas now.

But, again, I'm not sure about the specifics of this stuff, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[teflor the ranger]

And again, another irony is that after how many decades of Isreali and Palestinian violence, that's exactly what they're doing...sitting down and chatting about why they're all so mad, over cups of tea.

Yes, Avak, but HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THERE?

25 years of TOTAL WARFARE, BOMBS, GUNFIRE.

Israel has stood firm and defeated the terrorist cause WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE COME TO THE TABLE TO BEGIN WITH.

I think this is still relevant to the current thrust of the discussion.

Israel has done anything but defeat "terrorism." Which is -exactly- my point. After decades of trying to defeat "the terrorists" and Palestine trying to assert themselves in various ways (including civilian bombings), both sides have realized that they are in an endless cycle of violence that can only be resolved through non-military means. Why do we (whether that be the US or the UK or anyone) have to suffer through decades of this mess when we can learn from others' experiences? As Corth most accurately said, this "war" cannot be won by conventional military tactics. Time to figure out a new game plan.

I, however, completely disagree with Corth on the tactics that will cause the end of this violence. Two things that would go oh, about a gazillion times farther than imposing a puppet democracy in Iraq would be helping resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and switching over to a fuel source that didn't depend so heavily on mid-east oil.

Yet, Avak, you must take the steps to get through the game. Folding is an option for those who lose. When they give up their bombs and guns and come to talk to you, then you know you have actually defeated terrorism.

[Corth]

Kifle:

It almost certainly takes more energy to produce vegetable oil than the amount of energy ultimately stored within it. You need to, of course, grow and harvest the vegetables first (using hydrocarbon powered agricultural machinery). Transport them to a processing plant by truck. Process the vegetables into vegetable oil in a factory (refinery!). And finally, transport the finished product to... vegetable oil service stations. How many miles are you going to get from a gallon of vegetable oil? I doubt very much. I don't think your going to find this to be a cost effective solution.. and even if it were, there is probably not enough arable land in the world to produce enough vegetables for us to replace our transportation fuel source with vegetable oil.

The operative term is EROEI, or Energy return on energy invested. Oil has an enourmous EROEI. A gallon of gasoline produced from crude oil is the equivalent of some 500 or so hours of human labor. You get a lot of bang for the buck. Its cost effective to produce it in saudi arabia, ship it somewhere else for refining, and then finally transport it to gas stations.

Vegetable oil, on the other hand, is a novelty. Its a nice way to recycle oil used in the restaurant industry, but not a large scale solution.

Corth