War on Terror is Wrong

[Numb1075]

you're telling me that we haven't held meetings w/ leaders of any of these countries that are harboring these terrorists? WOW....

you guys win, I lose
you're "opinion" is fact and mine is wrong.

 

[Snowlock]

That's a laugh...yeah we've seen a big backing down tell that to London.

Alternative, find the reasons that these "bad people are doing bad"...

Terrorism will never die, just like racism will never die. But ideas can be controled. The power that racism had in the States 50 years ago doesn't exist today, and war didn't have to be waged.

Yes, that is a backing down in London. As horrible as those attacks were, they could've been a lot worse.

Equating the solutions to racism and terrorism is rather simplistic; at least when the terrorists are from other countries. With racism, laws were passed to force racists to conform or pay the penalty. Laws were passed to ensure that minorities got a fair shake. And people were educated in schools at a young age that race doesn't matter when judging a person.

How do you propose we do this when talking about people in other countries? I don't think if they are willing to bomb public transportation systems or fly airplanes into skyscrapers, that they are too concerned about being sued or going to prison.

The thing about you anti war people that really gets me is the smugness of your beliefs. You thinnk you are so smart and we are so dumb, but all you can do is sit there and criticize. "That's a laugh". It is huh, then tell me what your solution is. Or are you just "raising awareness by asking questions."

 

[Numb1075]

Snowlock"The thing about you anti war people that really gets me is the smugness of your beliefs. You thinnk you are so smart and we are so dumb, but all you can do is sit there and criticize."

agreed

 

[deep]

you're "opinion" is fact and mine is wrong.

you are old enough to know who Muammar Khadafi is.

 

[Se7en]

i don't quite understand how war or violence has been a worthwhile solution in the first place.

 

[Snowlock]

I guess you did not read newspapers about gitmo, the use of napalm, the use of clusterbombs, torture, killing inocent civlilians. ( sp )




k,.i think economic help, more medical aid to civilans ect. would be a good thing to end the support of *normal* population to the terrorist. Help people to start there own buisness, help developing agryculture ect ( not the Halliburton way )


It will be a very slow proces and one that will cost lives also, but at the end that will be the only sollution.

So in other words, just buy them off, right? That's quite the argument. In fact let's just do that for everyone who is violent. Right? They must have a reason, so we'll make them happy and then they won't kill us. Perfect solution. In fact, we'll just take your idea one step further, shall we?

Let's get rid of prisons, and courts and police. When someone commits a crime, it's obviously because they are unhappy. So, to get them not to committ any more crimes; lets not punish them, lets PAY them. Excellent.

 

[Se7en]

So in other words, just buy them off, right? That's quite the argument. In fact let's just do that for everyone who is violent. Right? They must have a reason, so we'll make them happy and then they won't kill us. Perfect solution. In fact, we'll just take your idea one step further, shall we?

Let's get rid of prisons, and courts and police. When someone commits a crime, it's obviously because they are unhappy. So, to get them not to committ any more crimes; lets not punish them, lets PAY them. Excellent.

you equate underdeveloped or 3rd world countries to prisons? i guess on one hand that is sort of accurate, but on the other no one deserves to go without food, water, shelter, etc. the point isn't to "pay them off," but to help everyone achieve a better quality of life. you know, sort of get to them before the islamists do. as u2democrat said, it's about attacking the roots. someone earlier was talking about racism and how we just passed laws and it disappeared. perhaps they forgot about several centuries of slavery? jim crow laws? the kkk? racism didn't exactly bow out gracefully and it's still not gone. terrorism will probably never be eliminated which makes the name for the war pretty stupid anyway, but there is a chance to weaken the hold of radical islam on arabs. i don't see how bombing and invading has helped that. perhaps it's time to try something new?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Equating the solutions to racism and terrorism is rather simplistic; at least when the terrorists are from other countries. With racism, laws were passed to force racists to conform or pay the penalty. Laws were passed to ensure that minorities got a fair shake. And people were educated in schools at a young age that race doesn't matter when judging a person.

The point is you can't eradicate an idea, be it racism, terrorism or any other ideology.

The thing about you anti war people that really gets me is the smugness of your beliefs. You thinnk you are so smart and we are so dumb, but all you can do is sit there and criticize. "That's a laugh". It is huh, then tell me what your solution is. Or are you just "raising awareness by asking questions."

Oh there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the debate, including a fair few right here in FYM. But clearly neither 'side' have found a solution yet so why don't we stick to debating some of the issues instead of making snide generalisations about those who disagree with us?

 

[Numb1075]

Deep, of course I know who Khadafi is and the crap he's done.

BonoVoxSupastar: "That can be a deadly trap my friend."

believing in my gov't can be a deadly trap?? Ok, NOT believing in your gov't can be a deadly trap.

that is just your opinion.

You know, they do have room over in Iran or Saudi Arabia. You can "believe" in their gov't.

of course i am joking

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

believing in my gov't can be a deadly trap?? Ok, NOT believing in your gov't can be a deadly trap.

that is just your opinion.

You know, they do have room over in Iran or Saudi Arabia. You can "believe" in their gov't.

of course i am joking

IMO government's acting in a manner which makes their citizens question their every move is the real "deadly trap." And personally I think blind faith in a government is far more dangerous than scepticism.

 

[deep]

Deep, of course I know who Khadafi is and the crap he's done.

he is a terrorist that this Administration did "rationalize with" and negotiate with.

and now has open relations with.

 

[Snowlock]

The point is you can't eradicate an idea, be it racism, terrorism or any other ideology.



Oh there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the debate, including a fair few right here in FYM. But clearly neither 'side' have found a solution yet so why don't we stick to debating some of the issues instead of making snide generalisations about those who disagree with us?

No, you can't eradicate an idea be it racism or terrorism or any other. What you can do though is make the penalty harsh enough so they don't want to do it.

If it was Al Qaeda that bombed London (and I believe it was) then why did they do it there? Certainly they hate the US far more... Why not hit us instead?

And don't accuse me of snide generalizations. My remarks were a direct response to the comment of the poster I was replying to. Talk to him about snide; or is it because you agree with him that it makes the comments more acceptable?

 

[Numb1075]

it's not BLIND faith. we are for the most part, moral people who elected officials who will do what's in the best interest of it's people.

 

[VertigoGal]

Numb1075

VertigoGal

Snowlock


Well, you guys don't support the administration?

This is their new campaign.

are you with us or against us?

maybe you are unlawful combatants?


those 1800 dead have taken the game as far as it can go


new election cycle - old dance is a proven loser

you must learn the new dance.

umm, first of all, I don't particularly like the Bush administration.

can you lay off the tired jokes and just answer my question?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

No, you can't eradicate an idea be it racism or terrorism or any other. What you can do though is make the penalty harsh enough so they don't want to do it.

Then you're talking about preventing people from acting upon an ideology, not preventing them from believing in it.

And don't accuse me of snide generalizations. My remarks were a direct response to the comment of the poster I was replying to. Talk to him about snide; or is it because you agree with him that it makes the comments more acceptable?

Well, like it or not the poster you were replying to didn't make a grand generalisation about all people who hold a particular political belief. You did and that's what I responded to.

 

[Numb1075]

Deep, we rationalized w/ Khadafi and today there is peace between the 2 sides.

we've spoken to and tried to rationalize w/ other leaders as well, but to no avail. both side have to come to a mutual positive agreement.

these terrorists are sick individuals (maybe even beyond repair) and they haven't responded kindly to that.

oh and PS, maybe the war on terrorism and homeland security might just be working, according to my calculations, there haven't been any succesful terrorist plots on the US soil since 9/11

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

it's not BLIND faith. we are for the most part, moral people who elected officials who will do what's in the best interest of it's people.

Even if you believe that politicians try to act in the best interests of their constituents (which, let's face it, isn't exactly a given) that's not a guarantee that they're right.

 

[Snowlock]

you equate underdeveloped or 3rd world countries to prisons? i guess on one hand that is sort of accurate, but on the other no one deserves to go without food, water, shelter, etc. the point isn't to "pay them off," but to help everyone achieve a better quality of life. you know, sort of get to them before the islamists do. as u2democrat said, it's about attacking the roots. someone earlier was talking about racism and how we just passed laws and it disappeared. perhaps they forgot about several centuries of slavery? jim crow laws? the kkk? racism didn't exactly bow out gracefully and it's still not gone. terrorism will probably never be eliminated which makes the name for the war pretty stupid anyway, but there is a chance to weaken the hold of radical islam on arabs. i don't see how bombing and invading has helped that. perhaps it's time to try something new?

No, you missed the point. The point being that while it's true everyone deserves food, water, shelter etc; not having those things is no excuse to do evil things.

Plus, it's completely besides the point. These terrorists aren't doing what they are doing for monetary gain, or for a better life. It's being done for religious reasons. Bin Laden himself is a multi multi millionaire (at least he was). He certainly didn't attack the WTC because he was thirsty. Al Qauda wasn't formed to improve the lives of those around them. It was formed to stop an atheist country from invading a Muslim one. Same with the PLO. You are thinking this is a war of economics; it's not. It's a war of ideologies.

And as has been said before, you can't erradicate an idea in any way; be it economic or diplomatic. You can surrender to it, or you can fight for your own.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

It was formed to stop an atheist country from invading a Muslim one. Same with the PLO.

Really?

 

[Numb1075]

FizzingWhizzbees, correct, our politians might not always be right, but i'll roll the dice w/ them (Bush, Clinton, Reagan anyone), than the regimes in any other country.

 

[VertigoGal]

you equate underdeveloped or 3rd world countries to prisons? i guess on one hand that is sort of accurate, but on the other no one deserves to go without food, water, shelter, etc. the point isn't to "pay them off," but to help everyone achieve a better quality of life. you know, sort of get to them before the islamists do. as u2democrat said, it's about attacking the roots.

right. although there were many motives for going into Iraq, I do believe that this was one. the logic being that people in a democratic society tend to have a higher quality of life and less anger/frustration that can be channelled into extremism. this obviously isn't true in the short term, but we'll have to see how it works out in the long term (best case being a functioning democracy and improving economy, worst case being civil war).

as far as someone else's comments about negotiating with terrorists...of course we negotiate with terrorists, when it's feasible or beneficial! always have, always will. saying otherwise is just rhetoric, and all administrations use rhetoric, it's nothing new or particularly alarming.

 

[Snowlock]

Then you're talking about preventing people from acting upon an ideology, not preventing them from believing in it.



Well, like it or not the poster you were replying to didn't make a grand generalisation about all people who hold a particular political belief. You did and that's what I responded to.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm an American; I believe people can think whatever the hell they want to think, and believe whatever the hell they want to believe. Those are the basic principles of this country. And as long as those people arn't ramming airplanes into skyscrapers or bombing innocent commuters, or gassing peasant farmers; then more power to 'em.


And hey, when the poster makes a snide comment, and I read other snide comments from other posters who share his beliefs, or see them on TV, or from others I know; I form an opinion about that group.

 

[Snowlock]

Really?

Yep really. Al Qaeda was formed to stop the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yep really. Al Qaeda was formed to stop the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan.

I was talking about the idea that the PLO was formed to "stop an athiest country invading a Muslim one." You sure about that?

 

[VertigoGal]

.

 

[deep]

oh and PS, maybe the war on terrorism and homeland security might just be working, according to my calculations, there haven't been any succesful terrorist plots on the US soil since 9/11

I have heard more than one member of the administration sat this too.

Is it correct?

 

[Snowlock]

I was talking about the idea that the PLO was formed to "stop an athiest country invading a Muslim one." You sure about that?

Didn't say that. My reference of the PLO was as it's another terrorist org that was formed for ideological reasons; not economic ones. Don't look for insults where they're not intended. If you're looking to be insulted, I can definately help you out. But let's make sure it's intentional.

 

[deep]

oh and PS, maybe the war on terrorism and homeland security might just be working, according to my calculations, there haven't been any succesful terrorist plots on the US soil since 9/11

Was there a terrorists attack on U. S. soil that killed any Americans during Clinton's Administration?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Didn't say that. My reference of the PLO was as it's another terrorist org that was formed for ideological reasons; not economic ones. Don't look for insults where they're not intended. If you're looking to be insulted, I can definately help you out. But let's make sure it's intentional.

I think you'll find I was questioning either your knowledge of world politics or your ability to write coherent English, rather than looking to be insulted.

 

[VertigoGal]

OKC?

heh. anyway, I think the logic that there hasn't been another attack since 9/11 means Bush's policies work is something the GOP was banking on for re-election. seems to have worked.