What would it take......

[Dreadsox]

What would it take to get you to support the War on Terror?

For example:

Today Bill Gertz (One of the leading journalists and critics of the US Governents failures surrounding 9/11) Says:

"U.S. intelligence agencies received reports this week indicating Islamic terrorists have targeted American schools for attack, intelligence officials said.
The reports indicate that the targeting includes plans to attack all levels of educational institutions in the United States, ranging from elementary schools to colleges and universities, said officials familiar with the reports."

Is the threat of action enough to make you support the government?

 

[Foxxern]

I already support the government. It's not like I believe the government needs to be overthrown or something like that. Does that mean I support their decisions? Not all the time. Personally, I think their decisions will make us less safe, not more. That's why I don't always support them.

I think we need a "war against terror", but that we are going about it in all the wrong ways. We're choosing the knife over the pen. We haven't given people in poor countries any reason to like us, and until we do, there will always be hate and the potential for terror.

 

[Dreadsox]

I think we need a "war against terror", but that we are going about it in all the wrong ways. We're choosing the knife over the pen. We haven't given people in poor countries any reason to like us, and until we do, there will always be hate and the potential for terror.

Examples of ways you would like to see us fight terror with the "pen" please.

 

[nbcrusader]

We haven't given people in poor countries any reason to like us, and until we do, there will always be hate and the potential for terror.

The evil behind terrorism has little to do with poor countries. The majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Maybe it has to do with a way of thinking that transends economic groups.

The knife has been raised against innocent civilians by a group that isn't looking for justice by the pen.

 

[Foxxern]

Examples of ways you would like to see us fight terror with the "pen" please.

How about oil deals that ensure that their countries' economic growth isn't confined to the ultra-wealthy? How about helping develop the poorer regions of these countries? No, that in and of itself won't be the answer. But if the terror groups have no one to recruit, it'll be awful hard for them to commit most of their acts.

 

[nbcrusader]

But if the terror groups have no one to recruit, it'll be awful hard for them to commit most of their acts.

I agree with your statements about supporting broader growth in developing countries, rather that just a select group benefiting from development.

As for the War on Terror, I think it is easier to cut off the head of the evil instead of trying to win the hearts of the foot soldiers (who probably only hate America/Israel/Western Ideals/whatever, because that is all they are taught).

 

[Dreadsox]

How about oil deals that ensure that their countries' economic growth isn't confined to the ultra-wealthy? How about helping develop the poorer regions of these countries?

Well, how do you propose to force the people who have the oil to do this?


As for developing these poorer regions of the countries are you saying more aid money?

 

[Foxxern]

The evil behind terrorism has little to do with poor countries. The majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Maybe it has to do with a way of thinking that transends economic groups.

The knife has been raised against innocent civilians by a group that isn't looking for justice by the pen.

Yes, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. Their motives are murky at best. But the vast majority of recruits into groups like Al-Qaeda are from areas where people have no other option than to join some sort of group to take care of them. If we help give people options other than "kill yourself", then we might get somewhere.

 

[Foxxern]

As for the War on Terror, I think it is easier to cut off the head of the evil instead of trying to win the hearts of the foot soldiers (who probably only hate America/Israel/Western Ideals/whatever, because that is all they are taught).

I agree here. I know its easier to go for the head, but I think we really need to do both. I feel that Al-Qaeda should be wiped out, including the leaders at the top. But this war isn't meant to be easy. We also need to win over the pawns who are at the bottom of the ladder and show them that America isn't bad, and there is no reason to hate us.

 

[Dreadsox]

If we help give people options other than "kill yourself", then we might get somewhere.

Well, the problem is, they are not killing themselves. They are killing others. As for options, no one forced them to do what they chose to do. That is called Free Will.

This thread is going off topic.

Lets get back to the original question.

 

[Not George Lucas]

What would it take?

Well, for starters, I'd really like my civil liberties back.

I also think the whole basis of the war on terror (claiming a license to invade any nation whose politicians Bush doesn't like) is immoral.

I also think they should either change the name of Operation: Enduring Freedom to something else or restore our fredom. That'd be nice.

Oh yeah, and there is no real just, moral basis for the so-called war anyway.

 

[Foxxern]

Well, how do you propose to force the people who have the oil to do this?

As for developing these poorer regions of the countries are you saying more aid money?

I think we need to closely examine the way in which our money is being spent over there. I'm not in a position to give specifics, but I think that people over there don't need more money, but better management of the money that is already there. We need to have a genuine feeling that we want to help the people there. That would be a huge step forward.

Am I saying that we shouldn't fight at all? Of course not. There are always people who, for whatever reason, cannot be reasoned with. Unfortunately, it becomes a situation where its either us or them. But we have to understand that the vast majority of people, even those who are recruited by terrorists, are not like that. They can learn that America is not evil, if we prove it by changing the economic and political system that is currently weighted against them.

 

[Foxxern]

This thread is going off topic.

Lets get back to the original question.

Fine, the question was: "What would it take to get you to support the War on Terror?"

I already support wiping out terror. Isn't that the point of the War on Terror? I just don't support the means.

So do you now want me to answer "What would it take for you to support the actions the US gov't is taking in order to wipe out terror against the US?"

edit: spelling error

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, for starters, I'd really like my civil liberties back.

Frankly, other than a slightly longer wait at the airport , I haven't noticed a depravation of civil liberties.

I also think the whole basis of the war on terror (claiming a license to invade any nation whose politicians Bush doesn't like) is immoral.

On what basis is this immoral? It is immoral to sit silently while your neighbor beats their children. It is immoral to sit silently while a group plans an attack against innocent civilians.

 

[martha]

What would it take to get you to support the War on Terror?

For example:

Today Bill Gertz (One of the leading journalists and critics of the US Governents failures surrounding 9/11) Says:

"U.S. intelligence agencies received reports this week indicating Islamic terrorists have targeted American schools for attack, intelligence officials said.
The reports indicate that the targeting includes plans to attack all levels of educational institutions in the United States, ranging from elementary schools to colleges and universities, said officials familiar with the reports."

Is the threat of action enough to make you support the government?

Are you saying that if we don't follow our president lock-step into the quagmire, we don't support our goverment?

And here's a question back for you: How many of these inane "terror reports" have ever panned out? Do you think we should shit ourselves on the off-chance that the detainees aren't jerking our chains just to see us crapping out over nothing?


To answer your question: NO. Some vague threat against my workplace isn't enough for me to support getting dragged into questionable alliances and giving up my Constitutional rights.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. Their motives are murky at best. But the vast majority of recruits into groups like Al-Qaeda are from areas where people have no other option than to join some sort of group to take care of them. If we help give people options other than "kill yourself", then we might get somewhere.

People join gangs because they lack family or economic support - they have nowhere else to go.

People join Al-Qaeda because they are taught that killing infidels is a holy calling. They are not interested in knowing where you come from or what you believe

 

[martha]

People join Al-Qaeda because they are taught that killing infidels is a holy calling. They are not interested in knowing where you come from or what you believe

Um, it's what you believe (or don't) that makes you an infidel.

And then why are most of their targets American if they don't care where you came from?

 

[Dreadsox]

I think we need to closely examine the way in which our money is being spent over there. I'm not in a position to give specifics, but I think that people over there don't need more money, but better management of the money that is already there. We need to have a genuine feeling that we want to help the people there. That would be a huge step forward.

Am I saying that we shouldn't fight at all? Of course not. There are always people who, for whatever reason, cannot be reasoned with. Unfortunately, it becomes a situation where its either us or them. But we have to understand that the vast majority of people, even those who are recruited by terrorists, are not like that. They can learn that America is not evil, if we prove it by changing the economic and political system that is currently weighted against them.

I like the two pronged approach. I still wonder how much aid we have to give to other nations though.

 

[Foxxern]

People join gangs because they lack family or economic support - they have nowhere else to go.

People join Al-Qaeda because they are taught that killing infidels is a holy calling. They are not interested in knowing where you come from or what you believe

I don't believe this is so. Most people who join Al-Qaeda do so for economic support. After they join, then they are taught that killing Americans will benefit them. Honestly, why would a shopkeeper's son in Kabul really have any interest in taking down America? They wouldn't unless someone gave them a reason to do so. The desire to kill oneself is something that comes either out of desperation, or persuasion. It would be hard for a religion to survive if it actually taught that suicide was a good thing.

 

[nbcrusader]

Um, it's what you believe (or don't) that makes you an infidel.

In Islam, there are three types of people. Believers, those who will become believers and infidels. As a Christian, I fall in this last catagory.

And then why are most of their targets American if they don't care where you came from?

I don't think I can fully answer this question in a couple of lines, so I will get back to you when I have more time.

 

[Foxxern]

I like the two pronged approach. I still wonder how much aid we have to give to other nations though.

Well, I don't think we should just give them aid. Giving someone something like that is almost a form of putting them down. We can't throw money at the problem. I think we have to literally work with them on the problem, giving our suggestions, but ultimately letting them come up with a way to improve their lives. They know their own culture much better than we know it, and they will know best how to improve their situation. I think we can help provide the resources they need, however.

 

[Foxxern]

In Islam, there are three types of people. Believers, those who will become believers and infidels. As a Christian, I fall in this last catagory.

Are you saying that Muslims consider all non-Muslims to be evil and deserving of immediate death? I'm pretty sure my Muslim friends would beg to differ.

 

[nbcrusader]

Are you saying that Muslims consider all non-Muslims to be evil and deserving of immediate death? I'm pretty sure my Muslim friends would beg to differ.

How Muslims treat infidels varies. I think it is well accepted that the majority of Muslims are not violent, kill non-believer types.

I think our discussion dealt with the extremists within Islam.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Frankly, other than a slightly longer wait at the airport , I haven't noticed a depravation of civil liberties.

The Patriot Act, for starters. Big Brother is watching you.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: What would it take......

Are you saying that if we don't follow our president lock-step into the quagmire, we don't support our goverment?]

DO not put words into my mouth. I believe I did start a thread saying that disagreeing with the president was "not anti-American.

And here's a question back for you: How many of these inane "terror reports" have ever panned out? Do you think we should shit ourselves on the off-chance that the detainees aren't jerking our chains just to see us crapping out over nothing]

What I do know is that there was plenty of evidence to put two and two together to figure out September 11. But somehow the ball was dropped despite clear evidence.

I also know Gertz is an expert in this field and has been an outspoken critic of how the ball was dropped prior to 9/11. Since he is intelligent and an expert, I doubt that he would put such a thing into the newspaper today lightly.

To answer your question: NO. Some vague threat against my workplace isn't enough for me to support getting dragged into questionable alliances and giving up my Constitutional rights.

What Constitutional Rights have you given up? Please, be specific. Thank you for your answer to my question.

I am sure we both can agree that we hope it is not some "vague" threat like the "vague" threat of high jackings a year ago.

 

[TylerDurden]

Obviously the US has to use the sword, but also the pen. Its kinda like the whole plan is to kill every terrorist that pops up, but do nothing to stop them from popping up. Meanwhile actions like attacking Iraq are only going to double, triple the lines down at the old local terrorist recruitment office.

Afghanistan was the right move.

Iraq without the UN is a very bad move.

Dealing with the reasons why there is so much hate for the US in the middle east (not necessarily by changing policy, some maybe) would be an excellent move.

Wealthy Western nations taking care of other regions now will save countries like the US from having to deal with, say Africa, as the next 'middle east' in 20 years time.

More Powell, less Rumsfeld.

More of all of the above and the US could turn it all into something really good. That would make me support the US Govt. At the moment, it's 98% 'Sword', which is only going to fix immediate problems.

 

[Dreadsox]

Obviously the US has to use the sword, but also the pen. Its kinda like the whole plan is to kill every terrorist that pops up, but do nothing to stop them from popping up. Meanwhile actions like attacking Iraq are only going to double, triple the lines down at the old local terrorist recruitment office.

I agree...we need more than dropping food packages on people. I just wonder how much more money we have to give.

Afghanistan was the right move.

I agree.

Iraq without the UN is a very bad move.

I agree. Unless, clear proven links to Al-qaeda are present.

Dealing with the reasons why there is so much hate for the US in the middle east (not necessarily by changing policy, some maybe) would be an excellent move.

Again...is this done through more foreign aid?

More Powell, less Rumsfeld.

I wish Colin Powell were president. Unfortunately, he will never get his party's nomination due to his beliefs on certain issues.

More of all of the above and the US could turn it all into something really good. That would make me support the US Govt. At the moment, it's 98% 'Sword', which is only going to fix immediate problems.

Best post of the day to this thread. Tips hat to Tyler.

Peace to all.

 

[Foxxern]

Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

What Constitutional Rights have you given up? Please, be specific. Thank you for your answer to my question.

These two are particularly disconcerting from the Patriot Act:

• Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges.
• Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use.

Yes, I realize that wiretaps are nothing new. I just wonder what constitutes a "suspected terrorist".

 

[joyfulgirl]

I've had some direct experience with the Patriot Act. I work for a non-profit org that gives away large sums of money to individuals in the form of grants. Since the Patriot Act was established, we continue to receive embarrassing phone calls from grantees saying 'Um...the check you sent me bounced.' Well the check didn't really bounce but banks are now refusing to honor large sum checks to individuals (we're talking artists and writers) if the check has a hand-written signature, which all of ours do. This is absurd.

The government can also go to your library and look at the books you've checked out. It can also search your home when you are not there because they can now get 'sneak and peek' search warrants without having to show one iota of proof of breaking the law.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

These two are particularly disconcerting from the Patriot Act:

• Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges.
• Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use.

Yes, I realize that wiretaps are nothing new. I just wonder what constitutes a "suspected terrorist".

See, I do not have any objections to either of these. I am not a terrorist, therefore I do not have to worry about the wiretap. 2nd, I am a citizen, therefore, I can't be detained for 7 days without charges.

I am sure the "Shadow Government" will be able to define "suspected terrorist"......That was an attempt at humor.