Question Regarding Terrorists - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-10-2001, 04:39 PM   #31
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:
Like someone to blame, you are my new Interference hero!!!
Exactly, I second what lady said.
__________________

follower is offline  
Old 10-10-2001, 05:00 PM   #32
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Posts: 79
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Like Someone to Blame - which Middle Eastern country do you suggest to bring Bin Laden down? Given that Bin Laden is based in Central Asia, this may not be the best solution. Additionally, any moderate Arab nation that attempts this is liable to incur extremeist wrath within its own borders. While a peaceful solution is always preferable to bloodshed, the realities of modern geo-politics sometimes leave you without much of a choice. You say you want to avoid further bloodshed - what's the proof that a lack of military response will lead to fewer terrorist attacks? That tactic certainly didn't work in Lebanon in the 1980s.

You should also remember that many of the US policies that are nominally at issue were taken in defense of Muslims (Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia).
__________________

devalera1 is offline  
Old 10-10-2001, 05:06 PM   #33
War Child
 
PopFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 910
Local Time: 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1:
Has terrorism ever worked? I mean, has a government ever changed it's policy because of terrorist acts?
Sure. The United States declared their indepedance from Great Britian, didn't they? Only about a third of the people in the colonies at the time really wanted to separate, so you could consider them terrorists or a sort. History is written by the victors.

That being said, I still think that the United States is justified in bombing the Taliban...NOT Afghanistan, but the Taliban.



------------------
"Good men die unhappily. Bad men die unluckily. THAT's tragedy." --Tom Stoppard

"I can't watch a man sing a song. He gets all emotional, he starts swaying...it's embarrassing!" -- Jerry Seinfeld
PopFly is offline  
Old 10-10-2001, 06:59 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PopFly:
Sure. The United States declared their indepedance from Great Britian, didn't they? Only about a third of the people in the colonies at the time really wanted to separate, so you could consider them terrorists or a sort.
what is your definition of terrorists? The dictionary version of terrorism is "mass-organized ruthlessness" and the definition of terrorist is "one who rules by terror". Now, exactly how do the US revolutionaries fit either of those definitions?
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-10-2001, 07:05 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by stagman:
Islam can not tolerate Christianity.
Christianity can not Tolerate Islam.
Many Muslim communities are tolerant of the Christian monorities in "Islamic countries." They can each tolerate the other; but just as the problem historically was the Christian Crusades out of Europe to "re-take" the Holy Land, several of the "radical" Islamic groups today wish to impose and intolerant form of Islam, including Shar'ia law, over all of the people in that society.

And Crzy4bono:

You said it very well!

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 10-10-2001).]
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-10-2001, 07:18 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 09:49 PM
Like Someone To Blame:

Please remember that several "moderate" Arab governments have themselves been targets of Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. These include Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's royal family, Saudi Arabia's royal family (who exiled him), as well as several of the Persian Gulf countries. He has also had conflicts with both the radical Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and it's moderate president. Much like devalera1
said, none of these nations want to go after him because he IS popular among some of the more radical elements of Arab society, and this could set into motion the very civil war he envisions in order to topple those governments.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 10-10-2001).]
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 02:32 AM   #37
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 03:49 AM
I agree on some points, but not others.

The US image around the world has been deteriorating for several decades. In many places the US has gone from the hero of WW2 to the corporate monster of the next millenium. The foriegn policies of both government and business need to address numerous issues before the US can rebuild its reputation worldwide.

I disagree however that the current operation is nothing more than bombing Afghanistan into submission. In reality very few targets are being hit - airfields, training camps, and some communication/control facilities. It is neccessary to do this before ground forces can be inserted, not doing so would only increase the risk of losing a transport plane full of troops. The news makes the airstrikes sound like the second coming of the apocalypse. People hear that the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and they think of Hiroshima.

I honestly can't think of another way to stop Bin Laden and his network. Can we agree that he must be stopped? And if so, how do we do it?
the olive is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 02:40 AM   #38
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Posts: 79
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Like Someone to Blame - I don't think you quite get the problem with using "logic and diplomacy" here. First, these attacks were in planning stages over a year ago - around the same time the Clinton administration had a workable peace plan on the table that would have created a Palenstinian state. If the formation of that state is one of these terrorists' goals, why plan such an operation? Second, the bombings of Iraq and No-fly zones which you refer to are the result of Iraq's destablization of the region by invading Kuwait. And by the way, not one of our actions embargos food to Iraq - that's done by Hussein.

The doctrine espoused by the Taliban and Bin Laden defies logic. Seeing things through their eyes means denying over half of the world's population a voice. Not too mention it perverts the teachings of Islam which stress peace and non-violence.
devalera1 is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 02:54 AM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Olive, we can absolutely agree Bin Laden and his network must be stopped. How we do it is the tough part. I mean, it is a very complicated political issue. To many in the Islamic world Bin Laden is a hero, if we kill him he will be looked upon as a martyr and worshipped even more. Somebody else will take up his fight. Of course, doing nothing allows him to wage his war of terror as well, so it is no doubt a dicey situation for our leaders.

I do continue to believe that killing him poses greater risk to us in the end. Why? Well, if we kill him it further infuriates the Arab world who already hates us and will elevate terrorism to a whole new level. It would be that much easier and with less consequences to our nation's long term safety, if we could somehow, through diplomatic channels, convince the ARAB world to bring him down. That way, our hands would be washed clean and it could go a long way towards changing the perception of America in the Middle East. Why add fuel to the fire with bombs, bullets, and force if we could somehow work out a diplomatic solution that would eventually lead to a Middle Eastern country bringing Bin Laden and his network down? It wouldn't be easy but eventually these countries in the Middle East must help us alleviate the problem and not escalate it. So again, if we could better navigate the diplomatic channels available to us and exert a little pressure on some of these more moderate Arab states we could see an easing of tensions and hostility towards the west.

__________________

Like someone to blame is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Larry Mullen Jr. Question popkidu2 Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 10 11-19-2001 08:00 PM
IMPORTANT QUESTION for those with GA line experience Hoodlem Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 4 11-05-2001 11:55 AM
Speaking of men and women of Interfer........will Elvis answer this question? mad1 Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 3 11-02-2001 05:40 AM
did anyone see the 97' EMA's performance of "Mofo" last night? I have a question... U2girl Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 2 10-30-2001 04:35 AM
a question for those who go on U2's tours, a real basic U2 question, what is "nookie" diamondbruno9 Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 34 10-02-2001 09:23 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com