War on Terror is Wrong

[Snowlock]

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.

Oooh, snide syntax insults. This is gonna head downhill quickly, huh?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Oooh, snide syntax insults. This is gonna head downhill quickly, huh?

No, actually the paragraph was so poorly written I assumed you intended to imply the origins of the PLO were the same as those of al-Qaeda. If I thought it was simply a case of poor English I wouldn't have bothered to comment.

 

[VertigoGal]

I think this failed attempt at a discussion only proves that diplomacy doesn't work.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think this failed attempt at a discussion only proves that diplomacy doesn't work.

Yeah, let's all be grateful most FYMers don't hold political power.

 

[Snowlock]

No, actually the paragraph was so poorly written I assumed you intended to imply the origins of the PLO were the same as those of al-Qaeda. If I thought it was simply a case of poor English I wouldn't have bothered to comment.

Ah, the last bastion of the losing argument. Critique the writing technique rather than debating the point.

 

[deep]

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.

Yeah, as I said.

I heard more than one member of the administration say that, too.

But, was it a true statement?

 

[VertigoGal]

Yeah, let's all be grateful most FYMers don't hold political power.

oh, but one day I will!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Ah, the last bastion of the losing argument. Critique the writing technique rather than debating the point.

Only when the writing is so poor as to render the point incomprehensible.

For the final time: I didn't intend to criticise your English. I intended to dispute a point you made about the PLO.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

oh, but one day I will!

Should I be scared?

 

[randhail]

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

I'd consider the Oklahoma City bombing or the first WTC bombing to be a terrorist attack but that's just me.

 

[VertigoGal]

Yeah, as I said.

I heard more than one member of the administration say that, too.

But, was it a true statement?

well, it's true that there have been no attacks on US soil. but I think it is incredibly difficult to guage how we are doing in our fight with Al Queda and groups with similar ideologies. people will claim that the lack of attacks on US mean we're "winning." people will claim that the violence in Iraq and bombings in London, Egypt, Spain, etc mean we are "losing." I don't subscribe to either of those arguments, and I think it will take years before we can truly know how much (or how little) progress we've made.

 

[VertigoGal]

Should I be scared?

only if you don't like U2.

 

[Snowlock]

Only when the writing is so poor as to render the point incomprehensible.

For the final time: I didn't intend to criticise your English. I intended to dispute a point you made about the PLO.

Uh huh. But for the final time, we're not talking about terrorism any more, huh? We talking about English class. I wonder why.

 

[Snowlock]

I'd consider the Oklahoma City bombing or the first WTC bombing to be a terrorist attack but that's just me.

Plus embassy bombings, but those little things don't count.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Uh huh. But for the final time, we're not talking about terrorism any more, huh? We talking about English class. I wonder why.

I'll tell you why: Because you composed a paragraph which was so unclear that it appeared you had made a completely incorrect political statement. I therefore asked you to explain your statement only to find out you hadn't intended to make that statement to begin with.

Now we've dispensed with that, perhaps you'd like to get back to the subject we were originally discussing.

 

[deep]

well, it's true that there have been no attacks on US soil.

that is not true

 

[BVS]

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

Oh we've met with Saudi Arabia plenty of times but just not to tell them to stop harboring terrotists.

 

[BVS]

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

Oh this is the worse argument, just like oh well there haven't been any attacks since 9/11. You can't prove this is a backing down for you have no clue as to what was planned pre war.

people were educated...

Now you're beginning to understand.

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.

It has nothing to do with being sued, you stop it before they turn so desperate to turn themselves into bombs. Take a guess how large these terrorist groups were before the war...now how come out of several 1000 are only a handful strapping bombs or flying planes? The pro-war crowd has generalized that every member of a terrorist group is willing to strap a bomb to himself and the truth is that's completely false. Otherwise they would have just learned how to pull a chord and all done it at once all around the world. It's real easy to teach a poor impoverished and uneducated man that his religion requires him to be a martyr.

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."

I'm sorry you mean there isn't any smuggness in the shoot em all crowd? Please.

 

[Se7en]

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.

i guess the lack of said necessities will in no way drive people toward reactionary ideology with the promise of something better? martyrdom, virgins, what have you.

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.

you are twisting my words and arguing a point that i did not even make. i'm fully aware that bin laden is financially stable. you're correct, he did not attack the trade center for economic gain. i've never seen anyone argue that he did. he has a personal vendetta against the u.s. and i think this has probably been discussed numerous times here. the point that i think you missed, is that econ-political conditions allow people like bin laden to take advantage of the less fortunate with promises of martyrdom and virgins, like i mentioned before, in order to carry out their goals. ultimately it is the state of the society that must be dealt with if you're looking for extremist islamic fundamentalism to go away. i don't think bombs can fix that. well, unless you kill ever last one of them.

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.

you can provide meaningful alternatives.

 

[BVS]

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 said you support your government. There were no ifs or buts in that statement. That leads me to believe you do it blindly. If one can't question their own government then one is caught in a very deadly trap.

That is not opinion, that is fact.

 

[VertigoGal]

that is not true

You know what I mean.

 

[VertigoGal]

You said you support your government. There were no ifs or buts in that statement. That leads me to believe you do it blindly. If one can't question their own government then one is caught in a very deadly trap.

That is not opinion, that is fact.

I don't think supporting your government and questioning their policies are incompatible with each other.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

fine, chop down the tree. but how should you get rid of the roots?

. Thank you. Just going out and bombing a country doesn't solve the problem, it just continues the cycle of violence (yeah, Snowlock, the point is that if our war on terror the way it was being done now did what it was supposed to do, things like London's bombings wouldn't have happened at all, terrorism would be dying. But it's not. There's areas still being bombed in this world, our terror alert keeps going up, security measures are airtight-if this war on terror were working, none of that would be happening. Also, I dunno, I've come across a great deal of smugness from some people in the pro-war crowd at times, too, but hey, you wouldn't like me generalizing that group of people, now, would you?). Like you said, U2democrat, we've gotta get to the root of why the terrorists do what they do. But it seems some people just seem to want a quick solution nowadays, they don't want to take the time and effort to do it that way.

Anywho, I dunno, I've just always thought we should try and find ways to deal only with the terrorists (and by "deal" I don't mean "negotiate", I mean find ways to punish them and them alone), that don't involve getting innocent people caught in the crossfire, 'cause a war to me seems to be punishing everybody for the actions of a few idiots, and I just don't agree with that line of thinking at all. I never have, and never will.

Angela

 

[VertigoGal]

It has nothing to do with being sued, you stop it before they turn so desperate to turn themselves into bombs. Take a guess how large these terrorist groups were before the war...now how come out of several 1000 are only a handful strapping bombs or flying planes? The pro-war crowd has generalized that every member of a terrorist group is willing to strap a bomb to himself and the truth is that's completely false. Otherwise they would have just learned how to pull a chord and all done it at once all around the world. It's real easy to teach a poor impoverished and uneducated man that his religion requires him to be a martyr.

[/B]

The fact that a policy creates more terrorists in the short term does not mean it's the wrong one, necessarily. If Muslim extremists demanded we relinquished women's rights, it wouldn't be right to do so. I'm not saying I was in favor of the Iraq war, but the increase in terrorist activity proves, if anything, that the policy was ineffective, not that removing Saddam was an evil thing.

 

[BVS]

The fact that a policy creates more terrorists in the short term does not mean it's the wrong one, necessarily. If Muslim extremists demanded we relinquished women's rights, it wouldn't be right to do so. I'm not saying I was in favor of the Iraq war, but the increase in terrorist activity proves, if anything, that the policy was ineffective, not that removing Saddam was an evil thing.

Sorry but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Who said anything about caving into the requests of terrorists?

 

[deep]

You know what I mean.

Seriously, I do not know what you mean?

Are you saying that there have been no terrorist attacks within the 48 contiguous United States that killed innocent Americans after Sept. 11, 2001?

People that were simply going about their lives, going to work, etc., like the 9/11 victims?

 

[VertigoGal]

Am I wrong?

 

[VertigoGal]

Sorry but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Who said anything about caving into the requests of terrorists?

nevermind, I don't even know what point I was trying to make there.

 

[deep]

Am I wrong?

5 innocent Americans were murdered by someone


and no one cares

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a briefing on October 16, "When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it’s a terrorist act."

Anthrax Attacks, October-November 2001:
On October 7 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that investigators had detected evidence that the deadly anthrax bacterium was present in the building where a Florida man who died of anthrax on October 5 had worked. Discovery of a second anthrax case triggered a major investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The two anthrax cases were the first to appear in the United States in 25 years. Anthrax subsequently appeared in mail received by television networks in New York and by the offices in Washington of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other members of Congress.

 

[VertigoGal]

Do you think that those deaths were related to Al Queda or a group with similar ideologies?