or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Respect for terrorists....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Respect for terrorists.... - Page 2

post #41 of 150
BRussell,

all I was doing was responding to ScottH and giving a mini-historical take as to why the "west" has a particular relationship to the idea of the individual and society.

As for moral relativism growing from post-modernism. I can see your point, however, post-modernism is complex, and when the term is being used to describe a practice and not a condition (ex= "he is a post-modernist," not, "in the post-modern age") it is often motivated by a pervading sense of an ethical struggle, and a concern for a ethics that would be prior to "essences".

That issue is complex and would demand many threads, but, I could say that post-modernists are arguing something similar to what we want when we hope Osama Bin Laden would not think his world view is the absolute TRUTH and everybody else is wrong and so should be killed.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #42 of 150
I have a lot of respect for these people.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/international/middleeast/21JIHA.html?pagewanted=2" target="_blank">An Investigation in Egypt Illustrates Al Qaeda's Web</a>

[quote]In early 1998, when the two groups announced that they had formed the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the focus of Islamic Jihad shifted from overthrowing the Egyptian government to attacking American interests. The merger also appeared to increase the Egyptians' sense of purpose, according to the confessions of defendants in the trial.<hr></blockquote>

Then later

[quote]"It has nothing to do with age or era," said Mr. Zayat, who has defended thousands of Islamic militants over the years and served time in prison for his youthful involvement in an extremist movement. "It is ideology. These groups have their own literature that is passed down from generation to generation. This literature promotes the idea of `jihad' and the use of violence to overthrow those who do not rule according to God's law."<hr></blockquote>

then even later

[quote]Despite its reputation as the shrewdest of the Egyptian terrorist groups, Jihad actually failed to achieve most of its targets. A suicide bomber failed in his attempt to kill the Egyptian interior minister in 1993. A car bomb later that year that was meant to kill the prime minister instead killed a child who was standing nearby. <hr></blockquote>

How can you have anything but respect for these people? :confused: You can't. They are worthy of a great deal of respect from us!

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #43 of 150
From what I gather...

Bin Laden is Saudi by birth, but his father was from Yemen or Oman...I forgot.

The Taliban consists primarily of Pashtuns...Pakistan is majority Pashtun...at least politically.

The Northern Alliance / United Front consists mostly of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks.

Frankly, I think they're all fooked in the head.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #44 of 150
This thread is about terrorism... not JUST Afganistan and Pashtuns.. lets stay on theme.

Terrorism...

We have to come up with new terms for different kinds of 'terrorism'. There are the so-called Freedome Fighters, but thats just means that there is another side that calls the same group terrorists.

There are the religious terrorists who use religion as an excuse to blow up someone of a different religion and force others their thoughts. The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.

There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)

There are social-terrorists who just try and destabilize what we consider as status-quo. I would think these people are just sort-of loopy and are anti-social to begin with

There are political-terrorists who, in the name of fascism or communism or some other ism decide that, to make a point, they gotta blow stuff up, assassinate, destroy, etc.

The list can go on and on...

So who is right? Who do you "respect" of these terrorists?
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #45 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>The 8 Aid workers that were recently (bunch of friggin idiots imo) were terrorists. Why? They tried to impose christianity (maybe in a subtle way) onto people and in a place where it was EXPRESSEDLY PROHIBITED. Are they that STUPID? They knew the rules and got caught. Their frikken fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure I'm grasping your definition here. Where does the "terror" part come in?

[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>There are eco-terrorits... but why aren't they called eco-freedom fighters then? (hint: corporate 'persuasion' to media)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps it is because they're not trying to "free" anybody.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #46 of 150
Zo has reached a new level of stupidity.
post #47 of 150
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/" target="_blank">Saudi Time Bomb?</a>

I suggest you all see this.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #48 of 150
As I read through this thread, I tend to agree with most of what Scott H. has said, though I doubt his claims that the apologist types agree with the tactics used against us on 9-11. In my experience even die-hard liberal types are sickened by what happened, just like the rest of us. This one transcended meaningless political boundaries and touched virtually all of us in the same way. As it should have....


That said, I think the issues that need to be addressed are sort of being glossed over to some extent. There are a couple good points the original post brought up, but didn't explain well:

1. The media (or government influence over the media) can paint equally guilty parties in completely different lights (freedom fighter vs. terrorist). Israel is the perfect example.

Anyone throwing stones or molotov cocktails at an Israeli are "militants" and "terrorists", any Israeli tank commander or helicopter pilot or sniper hurling military munitions into residential neighborhoods are merely "doing their job." I don't buy that at all.

The context of the means is always over-looked by the media (which is certainly controlled by some extent by Israeli sympathizers, Jewish or otherwise). It's simple: one side has money and military support up the wazoo, one side does not and so must resort to what I will call guerilla tactics - the use of non-conventional weapons and tactics to fight back at someone with the real hardware.

I don't see either side as being more terrorist than the other, because they both kill civilians by the dozen...the only difference is the kind of explosives being used. Either act is despicable to my way of thinking. Long story short: the Isreali government / military carries 50% of the blame in that conflict. No more, no less. The media would do us all a favor to cover it that way.

2. There will be consequences for our actions overseas, and sadly they won't always be diplomatic consequences (i.e. the kind we can predict or deal with politically). Obviously, we never expected the consequences to come in the form of 9-11.

Let me set my POV for the record: I think we are right and justified to track, hunt down, and if need be, end the life of the miserable fooks who purpotraited this crime against humanity (and it was just that). I don't understand them, I don't sympathize with them, and I don't "get" them. I don't want to, because it would call into question my own humanity.

That said, our government needs to take a long, hard look at how we handle our affairs overseas. Again, Israel is a key example.

For many years, our media and our government has overlooked the wrong-doings of the Israeli military. You never hear any negative-spin reports about Israeli troops or tanks killing innocent Palestinian civilians, or about the Israeli government beig bull-headed when making compromises during the peace talks.

If you were to take our BS media coverage at its face value, you'd be led to think all of the blame (for every event) lies with the Palestinians. Anyone who knows human nature, knows that's a load of crap.

There are other places and other examples as well. For instance, I don't believe we did much to help Russia nor any of the former Soviet republics once the wall came down. We threw a few parties, showed a few leaders smiling and shaking hands, and then left them all to figure out capitalism for themselves.

We watched their economies spin out of control, we watched as the organized crime types took over, and we did nothing. We said "here, put up a McDonald's and a Levi's shop, and 'good luck!'" We left them high and dry, without any signifcant financial aid, any source of economic re-education, etc. etc. We're talking about societies whose citizens had been indoctrinated for decades, made to buy into the socialist system. But we didn't do anything to help them build a new system....

Same with Afghanistan, as soon as we got the result we wanted (between the USSR and mujahadin) we left the people that needed our help high and dry. We got the result we wanted, and left. That is weak in every way, and does much to tarnish our image.

We can't do that anymore; we can't afford to. If we pretend to care enough about political freedom, financial independance for citizens, and all the rest, then we need to not just pick sides and give speeches when things go our way. We need to bring our business and educational know-how to those places as well.

I'm rambling too much but the point is, we have to act in a way that gives other nations the impression that we (the ones with all the resources) will help to get less fortunate people on their feet when they need us. That we don't just pick the most convenient interests and most convenient means of doing our part.

which leads me to

3. The attacks on 9-11 were, at the heart of the matter, a result of extreme resentment towards the United States.

It can be argued that our uneven-handed foreign policies caused some of that resentment. That's not a justification, but an identification (of the root causes). Causes we have to identify to make sure (as best we can) this doesn't happen again. Part of it is added security and better intelligence, but part of it is also cutting off the "bad blood" before it spreads further.

We must re-evaluate how we handle our foreign affairs, and make sure that when we get involved with sticky situations, we take an even-handed approach (that is, judge all parties by the same standards) and that we put our money and our effort where our mouths are when it comes time to get things working again.

Will that eliminate religious fanatics who want to see us dead? Probably not, but it will very definitely sway a lot of foreign governments and foreign nationals who are sitting onthe proverbial fence. And we need all the support we can get in a situation like this.

Sorry for the long post... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #49 of 150
You can't blame September 11th on US foreign policy unless you understand US foreign policy first.

Do you know the difference between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian schools of foreign policy?

Do you know the basic principles of US foreign policy?

Most importantly, do you know how these ideologies and principles have been applied over the past two-hundred years?

Are you thoroughly familiar with the historical experience of America, and the ways in which that experience has shaped our foreign policy decisions?

To those of you who shout "didn't you learn anything from Vietnam," didn't you? Do you know why and how we became involved in Vietnam, and do you know why we were eventually forced to withdraw?

Do you understand the historical experience of the Moslems, most especially their involvement on the Iberian peninsula and in the Byzantine empire?

Do you understand the current political climate of Afghanistan, and moreover, the Afghan historical experience?

Do you know the meaning of reason, or do you prefer to take the emotionalist stance and shout and rave about things you simply do not understand?

Ugh. Getting close to time to run for that Gulch, methinks.
post #50 of 150
What a post Moogs. I agree. Osama ain't no friend of mind (1 degree of seperation from people who died on 11/9/01), but ...

Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.

Oh, and overthrowing democratically elected governments at the cost of greater then 1 million lives (as in Chile) is going to have to stop too.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #51 of 150
Terrorists are not to be revered, respected, or even thought of in a good light no matter who they are or what they stand for. If htey are terrorists they should be be locked up and have the key thrown away at the least. (I am pro death penalty for the cases that deserve it by their actions.)

To try to tie the Taliban to Christians is lazy at the least. And to say that the Aid workers were somehow terrorists for presenting a Christian viewpoint to a Muslim is sheer lunacy. If I tell someone about an opposing religious view I am a terrorist? Hardly. They did not have those people at gunpoint. Did they make a decision that was likely to get them in trouble, yes. Does that make them stupid or terrorists, no.

These people are those that I feel should be respected. They are trying to present their view to someone even though it may cost them their lives. No guns, no dead civilians, no planes flying into two of the worlds largest buildings at peak office hours.

ScottH and Roger_Ramjet, my hat is off to you two. I have enjoyed your posts very much in this and other threads.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #52 of 150
Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.

Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.

Who decides who a terrorist is?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #53 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
Until America acknowledges that the best interest of the world is not the same as "most stable and cheap supply of oil to America" and alters foreign policy accordingly, no amount of bombs are going to create peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is death to Israel. Should we support that?

Should we enter into negotiations with every two bit group that can build a truck bomb?
post #54 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs, I'd just like to say that while I don't agree with a lot of what you said, I'm glad to see somebody state the opposing view thoughtfully and rationally for once.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #55 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>Noah, it's just plain more complicated then that amigo.

Ignoring the theological issues behind those aid workers, you say that terrorists should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Tell me, was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The rulers of Seth Efrica said he was. The people of SA are now free because (to a significant extent) of his actions.

Who decides who a terrorist is?</strong><hr></blockquote>

In the instance of Nelson Mandela I cannot speak because I have not read up on him much. But if he killed innocent civilians like was done at the WTC, people who nothing to do with his battle except that they represented something he hated and therefore felt was a target, then yes he was a terrorist. If not then I cannot say whether or not he was. I would have to read up a bit first. The people that attacked the WTC were terrorists, pure and simple. IF they did not die when the attack occurred then I would have supported execution under the law. For those who do similar acts of terrorism even if on a smaller scale then I support imprisonment and or capitol punishment. It is as simple as that.

Was anyone freed due to the attacks on the WTC? Is the US more or less likely now to cow to the demands of these groups who felt the need to brutally attack US and other world citzens who were innocent of the crimes being pushed on them?

I will never accept less than total responsibility for their actions being put on them, and any punishment that comes along with it. So this "war" on terrorism was brought on them by their own actions. It was a long time coming. All the US embassies bombed, the USS Cole, TWA Flight 800, and the list goes on until the present WTC... I am tired of being kicked and not responding. They brought this to a head and now they are going to pay for what they have done.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #56 of 150
Someone should point out the case of Mr. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and their associates.


(and let's just leave it at that.)

OK, let's not.

Moogs made a great post.

and <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html" target="_blank">this</a>.

Killing is never good. Is this so hard to understand? I guess so. We all lose.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #57 of 150
Originally posted by groverat:

[quote]There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.<hr></blockquote>

When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.

I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.

Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #58 of 150
Being a freedom fighter does not justify your actions. There is savagery behind every title at times. I in no way meant to insinuate that freedom fighters are always good, only to point out that there is an actual distinction in the naming.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #59 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.

A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?

B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.

How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #60 of 150
Hi, I'm a total moron. I have my head up my ass. I respect the men that killed this woman. They earned my respect by killing her.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1121_balkcom.html" target="_blank">Sharon Balkcom</a>


Â*
Sharon Balkcom, raised on the scrappy streets of East Harlem, was in the third grade when her teachers realized that she had a gift for mathematics, said her mother, Rosalie, who was not surprised.

Ms. Balkcom, 43, the second of three children, attended some of the city's most rigorous and selective secondary schools: Robert F. Wagner Middle School on the Upper West Side and the Bronx High School of Science. She received an M.B.A. from Pace University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Colgate University.

Ms. Balkcom's academic aptitude and varied education prepared her to tackle most jobs. She was a computer systems manager at Marsh & McLennan, where she had worked for about three years, her mother said. "She was motivated," said her brother Gordon, a publicist. "Whereas I might need someone to kick-start me, she was self-motivated."

As a child, that motivation helped Ms. Balkcom, a resident of White Plains, overcome teasing from neighborhood children about being a bookworm. "She held her head up and continued to do what was right," Mrs. Balkcom said. "My husband and I brought our children up the best we could. We tried to instill in them the importance of having an education. We taught them that things were not handed to them. If they wanted something, they had to work hard to get it."

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #61 of 150
I'm back again. My head is still up my ass. From in here I respect the people that killed this man.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_0918_strose.html" target="_blank">Fitzroy St. Rose</a>



Dominica, Oh, Dominica
Â*
Fitzroy St. Rose displayed the national flag of his island country, Dominica, on the bedroom wall of his sparsely furnished apartment in the East Bronx. He was constantly trying to set people straight about the Commonwealth of Dominica, part of the Windward Islands.

No, he told them, it's not the Dominican Republic, where even Dominica's postal mail is sometimes sent.

He was so loyal to his impoverished homeland that last year he helped organize a group, the Exodus Club, to raise money for its hospitals and other institutions. The club often met in his small apartment.

His loved ones gathered there for a prayer meeting Saturday night, returning to clean up Sunday morning.
post #62 of 150
This guy seemed like a good guy. Too bad he died while the terrorist were earning my respect. BTW I'm a ****ing moron.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1031_sadocha.html" target="_blank">Frank John Sadocha</a>

Nearing a Longtime Dream
Â*



Frank John Sadocha was weeks away from his dream of opening his own restaurant on Long Island. He was training people to take over for him as manager of the food services division of Cantor Fitzgerald when the World Trade Center was attacked.

"All he tried to do was to get us ahead," said his wife, Nancy. Mr. Sadocha, who lived in Huntington with his wife and two daughters, did the catering for a local temple on weekends and sometimes weeknights, in addition to his job in the city.

"He was very much in charge, and he knew catering so well," his wife said. But as hard as he worked, Mr. Sadocha, 41, always had time for his daughters, Ashley, 5, and Kristy, 4.

A few weeks ago, after they had enrolled the girls on soccer teams, Ashley said she didn't want to play, that she wasn't any good at soccer. Her father took her outside and worked with her.

"He boosted her confidence," Mrs. Sadocha said. "By the end of the weekend she said she couldn't wait to play, and she told me, `Daddy said I was good.' "
post #63 of 150
Scott H said:

[quote]Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is death to Israel. Should we support that?<hr></blockquote>

While Israel is the subject matter, let us not forget what happened at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982. At least 1800-3000 Palestinian refugees (men, women and children, all civilians) were slaughtered by "Christian Phalange" militiamen, aided and abetted by the Israeli army. Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister at the time, and even an Israeli appointed Commission of Inquiry found that he was at least partially responsible for the planning and ordering of the massacres.

International Red Cross estimates that upwards of 15,000 people were murdered.A later accounting reported by the independent Lebanese daily An-nahar gave a figure of 17,825 known to have been killed and over 30,000 wounded, including 5500 killed in Beirut and over 1200 civilians killed in the Sidon area. By late December, the Lebanese police estimated the numbers killed through August at 19,085 with 6775 killed in Beirut.

This event has been exhaustively documented; there was also a sickening but excellent documentary aired on the reserved and conservative BBC show Panorama re. this massacre. Ariel Sharon and the Israeli army were shown to be clearly responsible for one of the worst incidents of mass terrorism of the 20th century.

Ariel Sharon is now Israel's Prime Minister. The United States gives the Israeli Government $3.5 billion per annum on a standing order basis, much of which goes into purchasing weapons, often used against Palestinians who are currently having their homes bulldozed and farmland destroyed.

Imagine how New Yorkers feel, having lost 5000 innocent people in the September 11 attack. Imagine the feelings towards Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda by those bereaved ones, whose loved ones just went to work, and were subsequently murdered by terrorists. In parallel, imagine how those tens of thousands of bereaved Palestian families feel about a country (USA) which sends $billions to support a country which is led by a man who fits any definition of "terrorist". New Yorkers, and Americans in general, myself included, are quite rightly angry, shocked and sad, and want retribution. Many Palestinians are in the same boat.

It is situations like this which hinder the cause of the USA, and put Americans in danger, when foreign policy decisions which at best are shortsighted and duplicitous, and at worst, downright destructive, are forced into effect. In response to the 9-11 attacks President Bush has launched a world-wide campaign against terror. For America's sake, I hope that we abandon some of the blatant double standards that infest so much of our foreign policy and only serves to create so much hatred and instability. With the help of the international coalition, we must go after ALL terrorists, no matter where they reside, no matter how wealthy and well-connected they are. That includes terrorists who hide behind suits and ties as well as those in turbans and fatigues.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #64 of 150
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.

I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.

Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

So would you consider the English government to be terrorists then? You concede that they too have killed thousands of innocent Irish civilians so if the IRA are terrorists for doing so, which I can agree with, so are the English government?

I think we both know that the killing didn't stop after the potato famine. There is the Croke Park massacre in 1920 for example.

What I would also like to point out about this bombing is that six men were arrested and convicted for it based on fabricated evidence. They were later aquitted and became known as The Birmingham Six. That's hardly justice is it?

Is it justice that The Guildford Four, also convicted for a pub bombing, were convicted on forced confessions, fabricated evidence and the neglecting and witholding of information from the defence? Is it justice that after these people were aquitted none of the policemen involved, guilty of commiting these crimes, were ever punished for them?

No that's not justice. They took 15 years from these people and they knew they were innocent from day one. 15 years and they got away with it. When these things happen people can be expected to then seek their own kind of justice.

The IRA, does other things as well. They also attacked MI6, a military target if ever there was one. Are they freedom fighters when they do that but terrorists when they do another?

I'm not trying to defend bombing pubs, even if they are mainly soldiers pubs, or atrocities like Omagh. But I would like to know whether the English government are freedom fighters when they liberate Europe in WWII, when of course civilians were killed, and terrorists when they shot 12 people on Bloody Sunday? For which, again, never an English soldier was convicted of any wrongdoing.

Someone pointed out in another thread that war is bloody and dirty and innocent people get killed. For the Irish, this is our war and innocent people get killed.

President Bush said that civilian victims "happen" when you start throwing bombs around. Am I right to assume that when you know innocent people will be killed but you still continue to bomb you're willingly killing innocent people? Is president Bush a terrorist himself? A terrorist for the cause of getting revenge?
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #65 of 150
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.

A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?

B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.

How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can we agree that you should not talk about things you obviously know nothing about.

The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?

Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?

Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.

You're right man. We should just "get over it". What were we thinking. You know, why would we still be angry just because our demands for freedom were never fully met? The grievance may be that ermm...the six counties are still part of Great Britain, therefore it's occupation has not ended?

Now I could go on to tear your ill informed argument to shreds some more but I doubt that you are willing to listen.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #66 of 150
Thread Starter 
Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?

I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.

Maybe your self righteous self could also have the decency to put up some pictures of innocent victims that have died in your "war on terror"?
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #67 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?

Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?<hr></blockquote>

Pretty touchy when someone suggests a way out of the cycle of violence in your country. Aren't you the one who wrote this as a way to respond to the WTC attack?

"...(the U.S) could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it."

As for how long you should be holding grudges I guess that depends on how long you want to wait for peace. France "got over" Germany and they had as big of a bitch against them as you do against Britain. That seems to be working out okay. Ditto for Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc.

[quote]Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.<hr></blockquote>

What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #68 of 150
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes that is what I wrote and I stick by it. I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.

I not saying he is wrong for suggesting there is a way to get our country back without violence. I am saying he is wrong for suggesting that we "get over it" That has nothing to do with anything. We want our country back. What ever else is negociable but not that.

Those in the north that do not want to be part of the Irish republic do not matter and for the following reasons:

1. They are descendants of the so called Ulster Plantation. It's Ireland's version of "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out". If you have not seen Braveheart what happened was that English landowners were given lands in Ireland, impregnated women (not by mutual consent) to raise them by their believes. These people had no business to be there in the first place so neither do their descendants.

2. The fact that they form the majority will not last much longer. It is predicted that by 2016 the Republican population will outnumber the Unionist population. Are you saying that then Britain should have a referendum and give it up? Do you believe that would actually happen? Do you think the U.S should then go on to bomb England because the majority of the population in the north wants to rejoin Ireland and they won't give it?

FYI the IRA has upheld the last cease fire it's signed. Even when Unionists went around pipe bombing Republican neighbourhoods. 51 and counting, this year alone.

The latest Republican attacks, the Omagh attack amongst them, were carried out by the Real IRA. A group which the IRA and Sinn Feinn have nothing to do with.

Another interesting fact that you may want to know is that 75% of the political attacks in the north in 2001 were carried out by Unionists.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #69 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Zo has reached a new level of stupidity.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Always great to be dissed on for no explanation. I said contoversial things and you don't agree to them, so you assault me.

See, this is an example of someone trying to impose his views while dissing everyone because he doesn't agree. So, instead of trying to explain why Im a friggin idiot, he just set off a 'bomb' without attempting to 'negotiate' at it.

Scott... you are a terrorist. Shame on you.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #70 of 150
Thread Starter 
When you are saying that France, Holland and Belgium got over Germany fairly quickly do you even realise that France, Holland and Belgium were also liberated and Northern Ireland is still occupied?

You are comparing two entirely different things and on top of that you're comparing 5 years of occupation to 800 years and counting.

France and Germany mainly fought over the Elsas throughout history. The Elsas is also now a part of France. Your point is moot.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #71 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

... I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.<hr></blockquote>

And then there's the likes of you telling us we're wrong for responding to the WTC attack militarily.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #72 of 150
I'd like to go on record to say that Scott H.'s first post says it all abot his self.

You are getting a degree? You may want to learn half a #### about unfallacious arguement.

You are not needed or wanted if you are simply going to belittle those in the forums.

I've argued with you before and you're an arrogant sophist with the moral character of any beauracrat.

You may think that you "know" a lot but you only have decent english skills with which to diss people with your rampant opinion.

Take a hike pal.
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
post #73 of 150
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

And then there's the likes of you telling us we're wrong for responding to the WTC attack militarily.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe in a previous post in this thread I said that I understand your reaction to the WTC attack. I described it as only human.

I actually know that for a fact because that is my opinion.

May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #74 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?

I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I'm sorry. You're right. I didn't understand. Moving on.

I respect the terrorist for having the balls to kill this woman. Other people would have chickened out but not the terrorist. They had the courage to kill this grandmother. Oh BTW after a nights sleep I'm still a ****ing idiot just like macoracle.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_0925_mcgovern.html" target="_blank">Ann McGovern</a>



The Light of Her Life
Â*
On a return trip from Long Island to her apartment in Manhattan two weeks ago, Terry McGovern had the sudden idea to surprise her mother, Ann McGovern, with a visit. In her arms, she carried her newborn, Liam Andrés.

To her delight, Mrs. McGovern, who was in the shower, ran to meet them at the door, half dressed and dripping water, and began yelling for her husband: "Larry, Larry, look who is here! Liam is here! Liam is here!"

And that's how Ms. McGovern says she will remember her mother: exuberant, happy, full of life. Mrs. McGovern, who lived in East Meadow on Long Island, was a claims analyst for the Aon Corporation and worked on the 93rd floor of 2 World Trade Center, the first tower to collapse. A native of the Bronx, Mrs. McGovern drove a black sports car and was an avid golfer who had recently made a hole in one.

But her biggest thrill, Ms. McGovern said, was her youngest grandson, Liam Andrés, born two months ago. Several times a week, she would leave her job and sneak in a visit with her daughter and the baby in the Upper West Side. "She'd drive me crazy," Ms. McGovern said. "She would show up at all hours, saying she just had to see him. She called him the light of her life."

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #75 of 150
Thread Starter 
I wonder what you're doing on a discussion board if you're not capable to have a discussion?

I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.

Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #76 of 150
I think the word you're looking for in regards to Scott H.'s play at emotions is "sanctimony".

Anyway, the semantic jousting with the word "terrorist" is off-topic as well.

Cowardice is not to be respected. Dying for what you believe is idiocy when what you believe is bullshit and your death will bring nothing but pain to the people you're trying to help.

So no, no love for these particular terrorists.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #77 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>

Scott... you are a terrorist. Shame on you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Common...that is just weak. I don't pretend to know Scott personally, but it seems he has been truly scarred by this event, and so his posts are a little emotional. I can understand that. That doesn't mean there's no merit to what he's saying. I didn't catch the post where he dissed you Zo, but calling him a terrorist doesn't boost your credibility a whole lot (even if you said it in jest).


Anyway, to Mr. Beer I have to confess I am not an expert on US Foreign Policy. I don't have access to the "original documents", I don't listen in on the conference calls and I don't know all the players, moles and motives. But I don't have to, despite your suggestion to the contrary.

And before you quote any collegiate-level texts or other books, unless the author of the book was an inside player (someone like James Baker for example), I doubt they know either. And even if they were inside playes, their books are bound to read like justifications for whatever unpopular actions they took at the time. Even retired politicians have a hard time with non-partisan explanations....

Even so, it doesn't take much to understand that over the last three decades or so, our government has taken a somewhat un-even approach to our relations with Israel. By uneven, I mean specifically how we respond to things they do, things we would not condone if done by other nations...I mean how they are the largest recipient of US foreign aid, even though from an economic an, their citizens don't need it...and of course I mean how the media (which one can argue is pushed to some extent by the government) portrays the Arab-Israeli conflicts that have taken place. That is, who is always portrayed as the victim (Israel) and who is portrayed as the aggressor (Arabs)....

Over time, constantly ignoring all the little things that go on there on the Israeli side -- and ignoring the grievances of Arab citizens --- that can have a serious effect on how we are perceived in that region. It is very easy to see how so many of them can be turned against us.

You may argue that perception is something beyond our control and so we should just keep on doing what we're doing, but I would argue perception is everything over there. Many of these people don't have the level of education or political sophistication we have in this country...they tend to see things in black and white, not shades of grey (which is where the truth lies in this case). Thus it is important that we give visible signals (through our media, through the words of our politicians and through our actions at all of the summit meetings and such) that we *are* aware of Arab grievances, we *do* acknowledge [some] of them are legimate, and that we *will* hold Israel to the same standards of conduct that we expect from Arab nations.

That may sound a little egotistical -- that countries have to live up to certain political and military standards we set forth -- but my point is not to say "we're in charge" but rather "we're going to look upon this conflict with a renewed sense of objectivity." That can help sway perceptions in our favor over there, and thus help to abate some of the anti-American sentiment, [which you can view as either a symptom or root cause of the behavior we saw on 9-11].

No, changing our policies towards [and how we interact with] Israel and other nations won't eliminate all terrorism, but it will help, and that's the point....isn't it?

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #78 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I wonder what you're doing on a discussion board if you're not capable to have a discussion?

I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.

Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys. </strong><hr></blockquote>


Just trying to put a human face on the people killed by the terrorist that you respect. Your words. Not mine. You respect them. I guess I do to but only as an deadly enemy that needs to be wiped out.
post #79 of 150
For those who say we should get over it and look for a diplomatic solution rather than trying to rid the world of these terrorist networks you have at least one ally in your thinking. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2246-2001Nov22.html" target="_blank">The Taliban</a>.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #80 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No I was busy. I don't have time for more right now.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Respect for terrorists....