z edge,
originally posted by z edge
I really don't believe in it either if a criminal is captured and can be put away at no danger to anyone else.
However, there are always circumstances that make me agree with it: IN the situation with bin laden I agree with my lovely liberal mother, who states she could care less what happens to any of those people (bin laden and al queda, terrorists in general), meaning they could die horribly and she would sleep well.
I believe in these special circumstances we are better off carrying out the law.
Also, I only believe in taking another life as a last resort in self-defense of country, family, and lastly self.
OK. Don't agree anyway. Since this is supposed to be a free forum we are both entitled to our own opinions. There was no need however to reply to me in particular regarding the death penalty since a few others expressed this same opinion previously in this thread.
originally posted by z edge
then we wipe them off of the face of the earth with extreme prejudice, the world simply cannot allow this terror
Great slogan. The Bush Pro War propaganda team is missing out on some extraordinary talent. Someone ought to let them know.
originally posted by z edge
Who is going to support them? etc...
Your reply to my third statement shows that you missed completely my point. I did not say that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda "step up because of the poor conditions". Poverty, substandard living conditions, hunger, lack of education, etc are a fertile ground for groups like Al-Qaeda to flourish. Why? Because these groups
claim to fight against the cause of real grievances that affect ordinary people in their everyday existences, a quality that makes them attractive for these people, who see no other way of being heard, to follow and support them - ideologically obviously, not financially since they barely have enough to eat. So the answer to your first question is the same people who are supporting them now, unless you are calling for a mass massacre in the Middle East.
However it is clear that groups like Al-Qaeda lean on legitimate motivations and widespread ignorance which lead people to follow them and even in some cases join them, as a cover-up to push forward their own agenda. And it's clear that their own agenda couldn't be further from holiness in the same way the West's agenda couldn't be further from "fighting for freedom". The bottom line here is concentration of power in the area and gaining control over the oil business which is what both sides are fighting for.
What I'm trying to point out is that as long as the present grievances continue to exist people will be ready to follow and support groups like Al-Qaeda. In fact if conditions weren't given for ordinary people to support them, I mean that people were living under decent conditions, were educated, didn't have particular claims (such as Palestinians to an independent state) ignored by the international community unless they resort to extreme measures, these groups would have no support at all. In fact it would be the same ordinary people who would try to isolate them and get rid of them because they would see that their presence could very well put at stake their normal (and satisfactory) lifestyle. I mean that there would be no ground for these groups to operate as freely as they do now: they would not be harboured by most countries (as there would be no room for fanatical leaders and dictators), they would not have so much manpower readily available, ordinary people wouldn't collaborate with them, etc. In fact they would be much weaker than they are now and much more easily done away with if they didn't disappear by their own initiative.
originally posted by z edge
They do not take aid from people especially from infidel satans like the arrogant americans?
Meaning?
originally posted by z edge
They empower themselves by enslaving others and oppressing their own.
They are also very well-funded.
That they are very well funded - there's no doubt, still their outward causes are attractive for poor and uneducated people to follow. That they empower themselves by enslaving others and oppressing their own - no, I think you're mixing things up. It's governments like the Taleban or the Iranian or the Pakistani regimes who oppress their own - not terrorist groups. It's true however that terrorist groups are supported/harboured/helped whichever you like by these governments. However it would be interesting to remember that some of these regimes were supported and even helped into office by the US in the past because their presence at the lead of these countries was deemed useful by the US to defend/preserve American "national interest" .
originally posted by z edge
IF these "bin ladens" are going to step up because of the "poor conditions" [sic] against the great satan who deserved it anyway because of isolationism and slavery and stealing from indians then consider this: at the very least they are 100 times more guilty of the very same thing.
You don't really believe that the
great satan's sins of "isolationism, slavery and stealing from the Indians" are the reason they sustain to justify their fight against the US, do you??? In any case their resentment towards the West stems from its imperialist policy in the area. You called my logic naive. What should your logic be called for this statement?
BTW (sic) is used for
textual quoting normally when the spelling or grammar is suspect. The expression "poor conditions" which may be gramatically incorrect in this context was nowhere to be found in my original post. When you claim to make textual quotes please try to make sure that they are exactly what it was said/written.
?
