2 years later, and bin Laden is winning

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by BoulderHead
If you did not mean violence perhaps you shouldn’t have chose to use the word “fight”, or at least have expounded on what you meant by that word.

Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And what are these intentions of the majority of muslims? Hmm? Invade our countries, kill our leaders and preachers, convert us to their religion?

Isn't that what you just advocated doing to them?

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

Drag, you are the biggest bin Laden supporter on the board, and you don't even know it. Your response is EXACTLY the response that terrorism exists to create. bin Laden wants a holy war, and you are playing right into his hands by suggesting one. You spout your simplistic 'us vs them' rhetoric, and suggesting that we need to hurt 'them' before they hurt 'us'...and your counterp[arts in government do as much long term damage as any car bomb.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

We've killed tens of thousands of civilians because 9-11 was so terrible. Now if killing 3,000 innocent civilians is so bad and inexcusable, how does killing tens of thousands make it better. Is it because They are muslim and We are christian, is it because They are Brown and We are white, is it because they are third world and we are first? Do our civilians have a greater entitlement to live then theirs?

And just exactly do you expect to accomplish by bombing people in countries that had nothing to do with 9-11, hmm? Are people angry enough to give their own lives for their cause going to say "hmm, the US bombed people in a whole other country, I'd better stop before I get hurt."

Do you feel the same about white christian americans after Oklahoma city as you do about muslims?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
We've killed tens of thousands of civilians because 9-11 was so terrible.

According to whom?

 

[Zero]

That number sounds rather too high...injured that many? Certainly. Ruined the lives of that many Iraqi civilians? Most likely. Several thousand killed sounds more probable.

The Christian Science Monitor says 5-10 thousand, while the Iraqi Bodycount website puts in at about 6-8 thousand.

 

[Zero]

And, of course, every innocent Iraqi(like the 9 Iraq police gunned down by U.S. troops,for instance) has surviving friends and families that will likely look at terrorist attacks on America in a more favorable light now.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by zero
Keep your comments on what people say, then, and not direct your criticism towards them...its a fine line.

Followed by

Originally posted by zero
Well, that is the idiot Republican stance for you...make up retarded reasons for the behaviour of your opponents.

That is the very reason for things like terrorism, people who do NOT follow their own rules, but want everyone else to!

Aside from that, "War on Terrorism" is a 'Cause on it's own effect' because "War" is a cause and it's effect is "Terror" so a "War on Terrorism" is (sorta) self generating.

That's kinda why Bin laden (Probably dead, in a body bag, in a freezer, somewhere in America, to keep this all going) has the appearence of still being in a winning position, his Ghost is still inciting terror.

 

[drag]

This is really funny...
I mean some of you really sound like you've just landed
straight from the 70s. What is all this NEVER FIGHT and
NEVER WAGE WAR and Turn The Other chick crap ?!
Seriously, though, like I said, I mainly reffer a war
of ideologies and only a little actual physical actions
when really unavoidable, I can not understand this at all.
So people die and what's you solution ? Tell me what it is
exactly ? Do nothing ? Universal love ? Weed smoking ?
Seriously, what is YOUR solution ? Or maybe you DON'T see
a real need for one ? Maybe you don't think it's worth to
bother ? How many bodies would it take for you ?

I'm playing into Bin Laden's hands ? Because he wants a war ?
Possibly. But then again he and many like him had already
started one and they enjoy the wide support of a huge amount
of people. It is one thing to avoid a fight it is another
to run when you're attacked and inoccent civilians are
murdered. Not to mention the fact that you do not know
the mentality of the people on the other side. In the
middle east and north africa they have a totally different
mentality - if someone strikes you and you do not respond
it is not nobility or rightousness for them, rather a sign
of weakness and a signal to continue the attack. If you
do not bargain and drive a hard bragain you'll be cheated
and taken advantage of with no regret and with great pleasure.
I'm pretty certain that had the US not attacked Afghanistan
after 9/11 there would be other major attacks in the US and
the world in general. Instead, and not just because of the
war - 'cause its not that difficult to carry out such attacks
regardless of it, the terrorists gained more respect for the
US as their opponent, apparently still capable, despite the
opposition and the risks, to go to war after being dealt such
a blow.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

What is all this NEVER FIGHT and
NEVER WAGE WAR and Turn The Other chick crap ?!

The "crap" is that terrorism is not something you can fight with bullets and tanks. It is a method, and a tool of ideology.

Seriously, what is YOUR solution ? Or maybe you DON'T see
a real need for one ? Maybe you don't think it's worth to
bother ? How many bodies would it take for you ?

The second "crap" is that terrorism has nothing to do with the body count. Terrorism is about fear, about garnering support, about disruption and destruction of democratic ideals. Blowing up an empty bank is terrorism just as crashing into the twin towers.

I do see the need for the solution. In fact, there are many solutions. They involve talking to people. Encouraging international relations. Alienating the extremist and encouraging progressives. Not using a policy of fear and provide an excuse for totalitarian regimes worldwide to crack down on the opposition. Not going to war without reliable evidence on nations which turn out to have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Thinking out a solution, a plan instead of diving naively in. Working out the reprocussions of each act. Not ignoring advice from your own intelligent services that an invasion would increase the threat of terrorism. Not developing a culture of lies and unthinking nationalism. Not playing into the terrorist strategy of divide and conquer by seeing the world in black and white.

The real fanatics care nothing of respect, or deterence - they don't care, and if 9/11 says anything, it says they are not afraid to die. And yet by attacking, and worse doing so in a way that alienates much of the world pushes multitudes of peoples into this same sort of, us vs them thinking.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Bin Laden and Saddam are not winning, but what they are doing is not losing, not being stopped. It's not totally the president's fault, except of course the miserably poorly planned Iraq war. And he slashed funding for fire-fighters and police.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
The "crap" is that terrorism is not something you can fight with bullets and tanks. It is a method, and a tool of ideology.


The second "crap" is that terrorism has nothing to do with the body count. Terrorism is about fear, about garnering support, about disruption and destruction of democratic ideals. Blowing up an empty bank is terrorism just as crashing into the twin towers.

I do see the need for the solution. In fact, there are many solutions. They involve talking to people. Encouraging international relations. Alienating the extremist and encouraging progressives. Not using a policy of fear and provide an excuse for totalitarian regimes worldwide to crack down on the opposition. Not going to war without reliable evidence on nations which turn out to have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Thinking out a solution, a plan instead of diving naively in. Working out the reprocussions of each act. Not ignoring advice from your own intelligent services that an invasion would increase the threat of terrorism. Not developing a culture of lies and unthinking nationalism. Not playing into the terrorist strategy of divide and conquer by seeing the world in black and white.

The real fanatics care nothing of respect, or deterence - they don't care, and if 9/11 says anything, it says they are not afraid to die. And yet by attacking, and worse doing so in a way that alienates much of the world pushes multitudes of peoples into this same sort of, us vs them thinking.

The problem is, America has the biggest military toys, and they have to justify using them, or their budgets will be slashed. If all you know how to do is fight a traditional war, and you attempt to use those toools and techniques against terrorists, you are doomed to long-term failure.

It is also important to truly understand the motives of terrorists. To spout nonsense like "they hate us because of our freedoms' makes us feel good for being free, righteous for fighting back, and does nothing to address the real problem. Ultimately, I don't think terrorists are even fighting against us. They are fighting for the hearts and minds of their fellows. They call us infidels and murderers, and attack us. We respond by killing some of them, plus a bunch of civilians, and move into their countries, proving that we are the infidels and murderers that the terrorists claim.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is, America has the biggest military toys, and they have to justify using them, or their budgets will be slashed. If all you know how to do is fight a traditional war, and you attempt to use those toools and techniques against terrorists, you are doomed to long-term failure.

It is also important to truly understand the motives of terrorists. To spout nonsense like "they hate us because of our freedoms' makes us feel good for being free, righteous for fighting back, and does nothing to address the real problem. Ultimately, I don't think terrorists are even fighting against us. They are fighting for the hearts and minds of their fellows. They call us infidels and murderers, and attack us. We respond by killing some of them, plus a bunch of civilians, and move into their countries, proving that we are the infidels and murderers that the terrorists claim.

Amen to that one!...but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Amen to that one!...but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them.

There are significant differences between the various westernized nations - as much as is possible while still being able to call them "democracies." Whether you consider it a big constraint or a small one, what is required to be a democracy is that the power to govern is derived from a mandate from the governed. If a government doesn't include that, its not a democracy - and under modern political philosophy is also not a legitimate government.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Amen to that one!...but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them.

Well, here's another good point...Iraq is not a country in the same way that America is. It was kind of 'invented', and lots of cultures have been thrown together as a nation that have no true links between them. And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, here's another good point...Iraq is not a country in the same way that America is. It was kind of 'invented', and lots of cultures have been thrown together as a nation that have no true links between them. And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.

Not when it was formed. Of the non-Native Americans, they were something like 90+% Protestants (the lowest number for any of the thirteen colonies was 84% for Maryland) and %British ranged from 55% to 89%. Most others were Dutch, French, or German.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.

Imagine, though, what would happen if, say, a few hundred thousand people from each European country were suddenly tossed into Iraq, and told that they were now a nation, and had to make it work...and watch chaos ensue.

 

[Zero]

And, we have gone rather far afield...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well, Bin Laden seems to be (still) winning simply because his image can be used to rally factions to a cause, regaurdless of whether, or not, he is even still alive. It succeeds simply because We are scared of death.

 

[FZ+]

Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.

And of course, it took centuries of civil war, civil rights campaigners and so on to work that out. And there are still loony fundamentalists, hyper-nationalists and racists roaming about.

We don't quite intend that of Iraq, do we?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, here's another good point...Iraq is not a country in the same way that America is. It was kind of 'invented', and lots of cultures have been thrown together as a nation that have no true links between them. And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

Which may also be the root of much of the anger/hatred..what have you...to what extent does the blame lie in support for nationalism, including in some instances Arab nationalism seen by Muslim fundamentalists as a Western/European import, introduced for the purpose of destroying the Islamic Caliphate? In this respect, do those who are minorities, many of which are ancient races with a long history in the region such as Copts, Assyrians and Kurds, do these people have a right to self determination? and to what extent, if in fact it exists, would our belief in that right aggravate hatred towards us?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Imagine, though, what would happen if, say, a few hundred thousand people from each European country were suddenly tossed into Iraq, and told that they were now a nation, and had to make it work...and watch chaos ensue.

Why? Europe is coalescing as we speak. The EU is about as strong already as the first iteration of the US and it continues to consolidate its power.

And again, the US has hundreds of thousands of people from each of doznes of places. It works fine here. It can work anywhere where people WANT it to work. Unfortunately in many places people prefer killing each other to peace and prosperity.

And of course, it took centuries of civil war, civil rights campaigners and so on to work that out. And there are still loony fundamentalists, hyper-nationalists and racists roaming about.

We don't quite intend that of Iraq, do we?

We would hope they could learn from our mistakes like so many other countries have. What took us two centuries took Japan roughly two decades.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Why? Europe is coalescing as we speak. The EU is about as strong already as the first iteration of the US and it continues to consolidate its power.

And again, the US has hundreds of thousands of people from each of doznes of places. It works fine here. It can work anywhere where people WANT it to work. Unfortunately in many places people prefer killing each other to peace and prosperity. We would hope they could learn from our mistakes like so many other countries have. What took us two centuries took Japan roughly two decades.

Yeah, but it is all happening organically, over time, not by declaration that goes into effect next Tuesday. And, of course, no one prefers killing each other...or maybe, everyone prefers it, and some of us are just better at it?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but it is all happening organically, over time, not by declaration that goes into effect next Tuesday. And, of course, no one prefers killing each other...or maybe, everyone prefers it, and some of us are just better at it?

We did it with Germany and Japan almost exactly the way we are trying to do it in Iraq. Do you think there is there something fundamentally better about the Germans and the Japanese than the Iraqis? I don't.

Further, "everyone" is a lot of people. I don't prefer killing people to living in peace. Do you?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
We did it with Germany and Japan almost exactly the way we are trying to do it in Iraq. Do you think there is there something fundamentally better about the Germans and the Japanese than the Iraqis? I don't.

Further, "everyone" is a lot of people. I don't prefer killing people to living in peace. Do you?

Germany and Japan are "real" countries, not a conglomeration ofr multiple ethnic and religious groups slammed togeth by imperialists at the beginning of the last century.

I'm starting to think every country is willing to be the dictator, and kill if necessary to get it. Pecking orders and what-not.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Germany and Japan are "real" countries, not a conglomeration ofr multiple ethnic and religious groups slammed togeth by imperialists at the beginning of the last century.

I'm starting to think every country is willing to be the dictator, and kill if necessary to get it. Pecking orders and what-not.

So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere.

I don't claim to understand the minds of religions people...I also do think that prosperity plays a huge role in things, or at least allowing a certain amount of indulgence. I am only half kidding, for instance, when I talk about paving Jerusalem and putting a bunch of fast food places in its place, or dropping porn to fix the violence.

I think democracy can work if people want it to. I also think that American-style democracy is a particularly American thing, and each country will have to go its own way to get where it needs to be.

On the other hand, if you think of Islam as being basically the same as Christianity, and see it as a meme, you can look at where it is along a timeline that Christianity follwed, and think that there may be a natural progression towards peace that they haven't found yet. Think about how violent and ruthless Western countries were just a few hundred years ago...I hope that teh Middle East doesn't need as long to wise up.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

We see this in America today.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? (SNoP)

I suspect that that is the ingrediant that is the "time" factor that allowed those countries to recover faster then the Iraqi's seem to be presently able.
Germany and Japan both had some form of stability, stable Governement, prior to their wars, Iraq's governance was much more an "imposed stability" then the willing stability that those others had.

I would like to know how do we, "Western Society" aleviate the fear that is instilled, within people, by mention of the Name of "Osama Bin", how do we rectify the effect that the Mass media had/has in serving, un-intentionally*, Osama's fear mongering way?

*The are only doing the Jobs we want them to do

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is quite possible that the Iraqi's themselves recognize that the impedance to their becoming a "Democracy" is the very fact of the lengthy cultural heritage of (psuedo) administration by "Church", or, simply the "Church" having to much influence within the processes.

How can that be "helped" (for lack of a better word) if at all, and if that is what the Iraqi people, themselves, really want?
(And how do we find that out??)

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed.

Uh huh...been watching Fox Lies Network much? Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq is barely a coherent nation to begin with, so buiding a national identity will have to come before building any sort of democracy. Attacking Iraq was unnecesary, and is a boost to world terrorism. Read the thread, man.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course.

H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

Amazing ! I admire your wealth of knowledge...