philosphy of terrorism
- Thread starter imimim
- Start date
I
Io Aurelia
Guest
Yes, but even if they did hand over bin Laden and he was executed, would that have erradicated terrorism? Would that have solved the problems in the middle east which caused all this in the first place? Would that have made everything go back to normal, so everyone can go back to not thinking about the middle east and get on with their lives?
No. Getting rid of Osama will not solve anything, all it will do is make his followers feel even more justified in terrorizing the U.S. Even if he is killed, another Osama will appear to take his place.
For the last time- NO ONE IS BASHING THE U.S. No country is perfect, and yours is no different. If someone happens to bring up something that could be considered a criticism, it does not automatically equate to "u.s bashing".
By examining the situation that casued the terrorists to want to attack america in the first place.
By America taking a good honest appraisal of its role in the world and evaluating why there is so much resentment towards them in Arab countries.
By taking the steps to allieviate the cause of resentment. Obviously, the terrorists had beef particularly with the U.S. They chose to attack America, not England, Australia, France etc. Why would this be so? It's not as simple to just say "Oh, they hate us, and that's all there is to it".
Yes, they resent you, but they have their reasons. America has to honestly examine the cause for the resentment. It's not simply a case of "Oh, well they don't like us because we value Liberty and Democracy" That's simply propaganda, these peole have REAL reasons why they don't like the U.S, and terrorist attacks from these people will only go away if America comes to understand these reasons.
Io
IO
There you go again - no one is bashing the US. Have you read anything in this thread? And there you go again, saying that the US needs to take a look.... - Look my point is this - terrorists are going to terrorize no matter what. US is not the only country to have terrorist acts committed against it - Do you watch the news? This thread is named "Philosophy of terrrorism". In other words, why do they think the way they do? Like I said in an earlier post, it doesnt matter if we were a perfect country, terrorist would still find something to terrorize!
And so basically your saying if you were prez, in reaction to the 911 attacks - you would of took a better look at our policies ? Anything else??? You guys are not answering the question realistically.
Asguard
Really. You dont think the events of 911 were good enough reason? What if they invaded our country, would that be good enough reason? Were in a war, because were trying to prevent a tragic situation like this from happening again. So if they did this to us 10 more times, would that be good enough reason? Weve had terrorist acts committed against in the past before, we didnt start a war then. This was just the last straw. They were illegally in OUR country, they got pilot training in OUR country, they flew OUR planes into OUR buildings and killed OUR citizens. Then they publicly announced war against us and told us they were planning more attacks. If thats not good enough reason for a war, I dont know what is.
Groove on
There you go again - no one is bashing the US. Have you read anything in this thread? And there you go again, saying that the US needs to take a look.... - Look my point is this - terrorists are going to terrorize no matter what. US is not the only country to have terrorist acts committed against it - Do you watch the news? This thread is named "Philosophy of terrrorism". In other words, why do they think the way they do? Like I said in an earlier post, it doesnt matter if we were a perfect country, terrorist would still find something to terrorize!
And so basically your saying if you were prez, in reaction to the 911 attacks - you would of took a better look at our policies ? Anything else??? You guys are not answering the question realistically.
Asguard
Really. You dont think the events of 911 were good enough reason? What if they invaded our country, would that be good enough reason? Were in a war, because were trying to prevent a tragic situation like this from happening again. So if they did this to us 10 more times, would that be good enough reason? Weve had terrorist acts committed against in the past before, we didnt start a war then. This was just the last straw. They were illegally in OUR country, they got pilot training in OUR country, they flew OUR planes into OUR buildings and killed OUR citizens. Then they publicly announced war against us and told us they were planning more attacks. If thats not good enough reason for a war, I dont know what is.
Groove on
Can't you SEE. your war stops NOTHING. you cant even find Binladin let alone the man you will piss of by killing him and every time a bullet hits the wrong person or a bomb hits a civillan 5 more people hate you. All your war dose is prove their RIGHT.
I
Io Aurelia
Guest
Re: IO
Asguard is completely right. Can't you SEE. your war stops NOTHING.
There you go again. It may come as a shocking surprise to you that your country is not perfect. If I happen to point out some imperfections, it does not automatically equate to "u.s bashing", although you seem to think it does. In that case, fine, see it as "u.s bashing", but it's justified nevertheless.
You can keep whingeing all you want about "u.s bashing", but that doesn't make the facts go away. That's as much as I will say about this, and I'm not going into it any further.
I keep saying it because the US does need to take a look. Yes terrorists will always be around, but by understanding why they chose to attack in the first place, and alleviating the problems lessens the chance of them doing it again.
Obviously you haven't even read my posts properly, Are you so brainwashed by CNN propaganda that you can't even see the world like it is? These attacks did not come out of the blue, there's been a situation in the middle east that america has been involved in for ages.
The president is only a figurehead, and does not make all the decisions. And yes I would have taken a look at the policies, and worked out how to alleviate the problems given the circumstances. The fact is, fixing up the relationship between the U.S and the middle east cannot be solved by a "quick fix" war. More bombs, more killing, more hatred will not solve anything. In fact by undertaking this war, you've done exactly what the terrorists wanted. The people responsible for the attacks wanted to start a war with you....the hijacking was mainly a way of saying "hey, america, come and get us!".....you've fallen straight into their trap.
Now I have a question for you, and you alone. Please explain to me how the war in afghanistan will prevent a tragic situation like this from happening again. That is, I want to know how this war will erradicate terrorism.
Io
Asguard is completely right. Can't you SEE. your war stops NOTHING.
There you go again. It may come as a shocking surprise to you that your country is not perfect. If I happen to point out some imperfections, it does not automatically equate to "u.s bashing", although you seem to think it does. In that case, fine, see it as "u.s bashing", but it's justified nevertheless.
You can keep whingeing all you want about "u.s bashing", but that doesn't make the facts go away. That's as much as I will say about this, and I'm not going into it any further.
I keep saying it because the US does need to take a look. Yes terrorists will always be around, but by understanding why they chose to attack in the first place, and alleviating the problems lessens the chance of them doing it again.
Obviously you haven't even read my posts properly, Are you so brainwashed by CNN propaganda that you can't even see the world like it is? These attacks did not come out of the blue, there's been a situation in the middle east that america has been involved in for ages.
The president is only a figurehead, and does not make all the decisions. And yes I would have taken a look at the policies, and worked out how to alleviate the problems given the circumstances. The fact is, fixing up the relationship between the U.S and the middle east cannot be solved by a "quick fix" war. More bombs, more killing, more hatred will not solve anything. In fact by undertaking this war, you've done exactly what the terrorists wanted. The people responsible for the attacks wanted to start a war with you....the hijacking was mainly a way of saying "hey, america, come and get us!".....you've fallen straight into their trap.
Now I have a question for you, and you alone. Please explain to me how the war in afghanistan will prevent a tragic situation like this from happening again. That is, I want to know how this war will erradicate terrorism.
Io
I
Io Aurelia
Guest
Really? Please explain.
Sept 11 was indeed a bad day for America and while I agree taking over jets and killing our people was wrong...But if you try to look at things from the perspective of the Middle east it makes this mess a bigger mess. England controlled Palestine in 1947 and it was somewhat friendly. But the UN decided to split the country into two countries.. Palestine and Isreal.(which at the time had no country).Isreal starting moving in with our protection..Palestine was fighting the whole thing saying it is our country..That started the war between Palestine (which is just people without a country now) and Isreal. I really see both sides of that war and wish they could agree on two countries but the fact remains we have supported Isreal and armed them the whole time resulting in they say around 100,000 deaths just on the palestine side. Irag most of us know about desert storm but what many of us don't know is around 2.000.000 civilians have died there because of the war and the sanctions we imposed against them..The Untited States has tried twice to overthrow Syria, and did overthrow Iran and put the Shah back in power. The people of Iran had set up a democrocy and we changed it back to a dictorship *shrugs* there is two sides of that story but oil was our motivation. The attempted assination of Muammar Qadhafi resulted in around 100 civilain deaths and we missed our man but killed his two year old daughter. We even shot down an iranian airliner full of civilains during Iran/ Irags war..Our closest supporter in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia but our relationship with them has been shaky at best..Overall the area hates us and wishes we would leave them alone.. I don't see why we don't leave them alone.. Lets suck it up and build more refineries and stop thinking we have to have their oil and making decisions that look so selfish in the middle east. A result of that created the radical Islams and for ther record they worship the same God as Christians, Jews, and catholics..Don't let the use of the word allah or your church lie to you..The line of prophets in their religion start with Adam and Eve and follow all the way to Jesus..the only difference is Mohammed is a prophet after Jesus that we don;t accept..But that is the only difference other than how they worship but gee our own churches don't agree on how to worship...I'm not defending their actions but I can't defend our actions either..Both sides are wrong just like Isreal and Palestine..but we started that mess ourself..shrugs..an after thought Muslems and normal Islam preach war is wrong and condemn Bin Laden right with us..it's the radical branch that fights us with terrorist..what's the answer...well telling Isreal to s top fighting isn't going to work...trying to overthrow governments there isn't going to work..in a few years Afghanistan will be a waste of money to us and history will prove me right...arming Isreal is not helping...and certainly attacking Irag will make things worst..It's a mess over there and and war doesn't look like any type of solution.. I don't know the answer but they have asked us since 1948 to leave them alone and we still haven't listened.. shrugs..
Last edited:
I
Io Aurelia
Guest
Exactly.
ImaHamster2
Registered Senior Member
Io Aurelia after your plea on another thread for others to join your side on this thread this hamster again feels compelled to post. StRgrl has really been the only one making substantial replies to the lengthy posts by Aurelia and Asguard. StRgrl has been unfailingly polite and reasonable. Piling on is hardly fair debate.
This hamster supports the anti-terrorism side and believes that hard measures now may prevent a wider conflict later.
Io Aurelia posted:
“Can't you SEE. your war stops NOTHING.”
“It may come as a shocking surprise to you that your country is not perfect.”
“whingeing all you want about "u.s bashing"”
“Obviously you haven't even read my posts properly, Are you so brainwashed by CNN propaganda that you can't even see the world like it is?”
This hamster recalls no posts claiming the US is perfect. Everyone seems to agree that the US has made mistakes. The major difference is that some believe that overall the US role in world affairs has been positive. Whether this hamster has been whining or has been brainwashed is best left for others to decide.
Justagirl posted:
“we have supported Israel and armed them the whole time resulting in they say around 100,000 deaths just on the Palestine side.”
Why does the US get full credit for those deaths? (Do these deaths include the Palestinians killed while trying to kill Israelis?) If the US didn’t support Israel how many Israeli deaths would result? The US has also long supported Egypt as a moderate in the Middle East. The US can influence Middle East affairs. it can’t control them. (As several US presidents have learned to their dismay.)
“Irag most of us know about desert storm but what many of us don't know is around 2.000.000 civilians have died there because of the war and the sanctions we imposed against them..”
The US gets credit for the war and the deaths attributed to the embargo?
Saddam Hussein could have stopped the embargo by allowing full access to UN inspectors. Likely there are other ways that food and health care could reach people in Iraq if Saddam allowed it. Saddam uses his own people’s welfare as a weapon against the US. Saddam is quite willing to have two million Iraqis die so that he gets nuclear weapons. (This also the man that committed eco-terrorism by igniting the oil fields in an apparent act of spite.) The US is to allow this man to gain weapons of mass destruction?
“did overthrow Iran and put the Shah back in power. The people of Iran had set up a democrocy and we changed it back to a dictorship *shrugs* there is two sides of that story but oil was our motivation.”
Oil was a major reason. As was fighting Russian influence in the area. The Shah was committed to western modernization and the US. He promoted an educated middle class including women. He took power away from Mullahs and that eventually led to his overthrow. In hindsight this hamster agrees that the US support for the Shah was a mistake. A people can't be forced to adopt western values.
Justagirl, you advocate the US walking away from the area? Islamic radicals would love that. Would it lead to peace?
This hamster agrees that it is easier to guess what won’t help than figuring out what will.
Here is this hamster’s view of US policy.
September 11 was a wake-up call for the US. For too long the US has ignored groups financing, recruiting, and training terrorists to create an army to attack the US while hiding under the protection of hostile governments. Add the danger that Iraq, Iran, or N. Korea might supply this army with weapons of mass destruction and a US response is necessary.
Attacks on terrorists and nations that support terrorists will harden some opinions against the US. In many cases those people were already hardened in their attitudes. (Many Arabs apparently believe the propaganda that Israel was behind 911.) There will be a political price the US must pay. The US will attempt to garner support and listen to its allies. Ultimately the US will act. This may lead to World War III or to increasing world chaos. Basically the US government sees no other course. Inaction seems even more likely to lead to disaster.
The US anti-terrorism program is multi-faceted. It includes direct battle with terrorists, removal of financial and logistical support, and changing world opinion so that terrorists are no longer condoned. It includes building intelligence partnerships to detect, apprehend, and convict terrorists. It includes programs to reduce US infrastructure vulnerabilities and create disaster response teams. It includes psychologically preparing US citizens for new terrorists acts including biological and nuclear threats. A strong effort is being made to focus enmity on terrorists rather than on Arabs or Muslims. The US expects a long and costly struggle.
US policy does include saber rattling. Part of the pressure on Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea is that no one knows just how serious the US threats are. The threats and reassurances are likely deliberate policy. These policies are not being created by Bush. Bush mediates and makes final decisions but the policies are created by very bright and knowledgeable people with good intelligence sources. (Bush does make verbal blunders. His forte is garnering US public support, not foreign policy.) Doesn’t mean the policies aren’t mistaken or that they will work. Nor are these policies for the primary benefit of any country other than the US. The US will buy support, paying with trade concessions, military and intelligence alliances, and military and economic aid. (Many countries are going to get over the table and under the table goodies from the US.)
These policies aren’t simplistic solutions as portrayed by some on this thread. Many of the covert US policies may never be known. If there is a future historian looking back on these events from the comfort of a secure world, she may judge the US harshly. For now the US must muddle through.
This hamster supports the anti-terrorism side and believes that hard measures now may prevent a wider conflict later.
Io Aurelia posted:
“Can't you SEE. your war stops NOTHING.”
“It may come as a shocking surprise to you that your country is not perfect.”
“whingeing all you want about "u.s bashing"”
“Obviously you haven't even read my posts properly, Are you so brainwashed by CNN propaganda that you can't even see the world like it is?”
This hamster recalls no posts claiming the US is perfect. Everyone seems to agree that the US has made mistakes. The major difference is that some believe that overall the US role in world affairs has been positive. Whether this hamster has been whining or has been brainwashed is best left for others to decide.
Justagirl posted:
“we have supported Israel and armed them the whole time resulting in they say around 100,000 deaths just on the Palestine side.”
Why does the US get full credit for those deaths? (Do these deaths include the Palestinians killed while trying to kill Israelis?) If the US didn’t support Israel how many Israeli deaths would result? The US has also long supported Egypt as a moderate in the Middle East. The US can influence Middle East affairs. it can’t control them. (As several US presidents have learned to their dismay.)
“Irag most of us know about desert storm but what many of us don't know is around 2.000.000 civilians have died there because of the war and the sanctions we imposed against them..”
The US gets credit for the war and the deaths attributed to the embargo?
Saddam Hussein could have stopped the embargo by allowing full access to UN inspectors. Likely there are other ways that food and health care could reach people in Iraq if Saddam allowed it. Saddam uses his own people’s welfare as a weapon against the US. Saddam is quite willing to have two million Iraqis die so that he gets nuclear weapons. (This also the man that committed eco-terrorism by igniting the oil fields in an apparent act of spite.) The US is to allow this man to gain weapons of mass destruction?
“did overthrow Iran and put the Shah back in power. The people of Iran had set up a democrocy and we changed it back to a dictorship *shrugs* there is two sides of that story but oil was our motivation.”
Oil was a major reason. As was fighting Russian influence in the area. The Shah was committed to western modernization and the US. He promoted an educated middle class including women. He took power away from Mullahs and that eventually led to his overthrow. In hindsight this hamster agrees that the US support for the Shah was a mistake. A people can't be forced to adopt western values.
Justagirl, you advocate the US walking away from the area? Islamic radicals would love that. Would it lead to peace?
This hamster agrees that it is easier to guess what won’t help than figuring out what will.
Here is this hamster’s view of US policy.
September 11 was a wake-up call for the US. For too long the US has ignored groups financing, recruiting, and training terrorists to create an army to attack the US while hiding under the protection of hostile governments. Add the danger that Iraq, Iran, or N. Korea might supply this army with weapons of mass destruction and a US response is necessary.
Attacks on terrorists and nations that support terrorists will harden some opinions against the US. In many cases those people were already hardened in their attitudes. (Many Arabs apparently believe the propaganda that Israel was behind 911.) There will be a political price the US must pay. The US will attempt to garner support and listen to its allies. Ultimately the US will act. This may lead to World War III or to increasing world chaos. Basically the US government sees no other course. Inaction seems even more likely to lead to disaster.
The US anti-terrorism program is multi-faceted. It includes direct battle with terrorists, removal of financial and logistical support, and changing world opinion so that terrorists are no longer condoned. It includes building intelligence partnerships to detect, apprehend, and convict terrorists. It includes programs to reduce US infrastructure vulnerabilities and create disaster response teams. It includes psychologically preparing US citizens for new terrorists acts including biological and nuclear threats. A strong effort is being made to focus enmity on terrorists rather than on Arabs or Muslims. The US expects a long and costly struggle.
US policy does include saber rattling. Part of the pressure on Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea is that no one knows just how serious the US threats are. The threats and reassurances are likely deliberate policy. These policies are not being created by Bush. Bush mediates and makes final decisions but the policies are created by very bright and knowledgeable people with good intelligence sources. (Bush does make verbal blunders. His forte is garnering US public support, not foreign policy.) Doesn’t mean the policies aren’t mistaken or that they will work. Nor are these policies for the primary benefit of any country other than the US. The US will buy support, paying with trade concessions, military and intelligence alliances, and military and economic aid. (Many countries are going to get over the table and under the table goodies from the US.)
These policies aren’t simplistic solutions as portrayed by some on this thread. Many of the covert US policies may never be known. If there is a future historian looking back on these events from the comfort of a secure world, she may judge the US harshly. For now the US must muddle through.
Last edited:
first off the the first statement atributed to Io was mine (i noticed you didn't have anything to say against me)
As to who is in the other camp its You, *stRgrL*, Nephilim, Chagur, Hoth and some i have probably forgotten (think bullets is there somewhere to)
As to who is in the other camp its You, *stRgrL*, Nephilim, Chagur, Hoth and some i have probably forgotten (think bullets is there somewhere to)
ImaHamster2
Registered Senior Member
Asguard, thanks for the clarification. This hamster missed your post on the “WWIII” thread and only read Io Aurelia’s encouragement to Justagirl to post on this thread.
This hamster really doesn’t have anything to say against anybody on this thread. (Did want to encourage Io Aurelia to be a little less disparaging.) This hamster guesses that some of the people included as being in the other camp will be surprised. Some likely felt their posts were neutral.
Don’t think there is much disagreement as to the events occurring. The main disagreement seems to be whether the bad has been balanced with some good and in interpretation and emotional reaction to the events. This hamster can’t claim someone else’s interpretation or emotional reaction is wrong. Can only offer this hamster’s view. Mainly did that for balance.
Nor does hamster disagree with the cycle of terrorism Asguard predicted as a likely outcome of US retaliation. The US government has predicted the same and warned US citizens to expert more attacks.
This hamster agrees with Io Aurelia that the terrorists wanted the US to retaliate. They hoped to escalate the conflict into open warfare between Arab and Muslim countries and the West. The terrorists were correct that the US could not and would not let September 11 pass unanswered.
Think everyone agrees that the course the US is following is dangerous. The disagreement stems over whether the course is justified or necessary. The US government position is that the present US policy provides the best chance that a US city will not be attacked by biological or nuclear weapons. That is not a risk for most US allies (other than Israel) or other countries. Some countries may wish to see US arrogance constrained by terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. US interests aren’t necessarily shared.
This hamster doesn’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen.
This hamster really doesn’t have anything to say against anybody on this thread. (Did want to encourage Io Aurelia to be a little less disparaging.) This hamster guesses that some of the people included as being in the other camp will be surprised. Some likely felt their posts were neutral.
Don’t think there is much disagreement as to the events occurring. The main disagreement seems to be whether the bad has been balanced with some good and in interpretation and emotional reaction to the events. This hamster can’t claim someone else’s interpretation or emotional reaction is wrong. Can only offer this hamster’s view. Mainly did that for balance.
Nor does hamster disagree with the cycle of terrorism Asguard predicted as a likely outcome of US retaliation. The US government has predicted the same and warned US citizens to expert more attacks.
This hamster agrees with Io Aurelia that the terrorists wanted the US to retaliate. They hoped to escalate the conflict into open warfare between Arab and Muslim countries and the West. The terrorists were correct that the US could not and would not let September 11 pass unanswered.
Think everyone agrees that the course the US is following is dangerous. The disagreement stems over whether the course is justified or necessary. The US government position is that the present US policy provides the best chance that a US city will not be attacked by biological or nuclear weapons. That is not a risk for most US allies (other than Israel) or other countries. Some countries may wish to see US arrogance constrained by terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. US interests aren’t necessarily shared.
This hamster doesn’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen.
I must admit that being in Australia i don't fear the direct results of a direct atack but i do fear (very much) where i see this conflict leading to. NUKELAR WAR. THE END OF THE WORLD AND ALL LIFE. If Australia did get atacked though i still belive i would feel the same way. I honestly belive that this is only going to lead us to another Northen Irland or NUKELAR WAR.
Hampster ..shrugs..we have to take credit for the deaths in Palestine as it would be like the Untied States taking Florida and giving it to the Cubans leaving all of the Florida people there to be without a home..that's what we did to palestine..we didn't pull the trigger but we suppiled the war, the guns, and the weapons..Yes we have to take credit for the deaths in Iraq..the same as you like to giv credit to the terrorist for NYC.. your right about NYC but that doesn't change the other either just because you live here..they asked us to leave and we stay for the oil and we cause te hatred that we have wheather you want to admit it or not