You see, this stupid claim is everywhere. There are two problems with this argument:
1. Even potential terrorists have a conscience. But the more pissed off people become, the less power that conscience has over them.
2. There are many people who previously didn't really intend to hurt anyone, but once they get pissed off enough they might change their minds.
I have to fundamentally disagree. Reasonable people do not become terrorists. Terrorists do not have a conscience. They have a dogma. I have no sympathy for terrorists, I will not consider their "plight" so long as their means of protest/action are so foul.
1. Even potential terrorists have a conscience. But the more pissed off people become, the less power that conscience has over them.
What a ridiculous argument. Please explain how anger excuses terrorist actions? Why do you defend terrorists?
Quote:
To "do what we think is right" and not what everybody else thinks is right is indeed acting like we're not part of the world. Or do you think "our right" is better than "their right"?
Indeed it is. Do you actually believe that a state with a proven record of torture and terror towards its citizens knows what's "right"? You need to enlighten us as to how the Iraqi regime has done anything "right" from a moral stance up to this point, I'd like to hear it...
Quote:
If we are in fact doing it to free the Iraqi people (what happened to "ridding Saddam of his WOMD"?), and everybody else doubts our motives or thinks they're not important enough to go to war, then we should stop what we're doing until we can convince them otherwise.
Ever stop to think this war could have multiple motives there genius? Of course the "freedom of iraqi" people route is a far more media friendly motive to put forth. This is a war of politics as well, no big surprise there. I think there's ample evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq, we just haven't found the "smoking gun" so to speak. Give it time.
Ah yes the "everybody else" reasoning again. Nevermind that "everybody else" AGREED to 1441 which very explicity stated there would be "serious consequences" if he did not comply. US, Britian and the rest of the coalition took it seriously, while "everybody else" saw fit to neuter the enforcement.
What a ridiculous argument. Please explain how anger excuses terrorist actions? Why do you defend terrorists?
.
I'm not sure I saw 'excuse' in the post that you're reffering to, perhaps just 'explanation'
I don't see the state of Bhutan, which has the highest rate of 'Gross National Happiness' exporting terrorists
I see very few Canadian terrorist, as, for the most part Canadians are a content people . . .
No Icelandic terrorists . . . and I know they are happy . . .
I do see a lot of Palastinian terrorists and I know that they are very upset about their plight, a lot of Arab terrorists and they, enerally are angry at their neglected position as 'Third worlders' . . . .
seems that real conditions lead to terrorism . . . I woln'd say anger is the onle reason though . . . but there are definite factors some of which can be taken into account when deciding if and when to invade soveriegn states . .
Noone excuses hell-bound terrorist scum. Some of us would like to end it instead of attempting to use war, which will make more terror as it ALWAYS does.
Sure, happy people don't become terrorists. Correct. Brilliant deduction Watson, thanks for pointing that out.
But he IS making excuses for them. His "explanation" is rationalizing that they had no control of their actions due to their anger. Those pooor poooor angry people didn't know what they doing! It's not their fault!!
Noone excuses hell-bound terrorist scum. Some of us would like to end it instead of attempting to use war, which will make more terror as it ALWAYS does.
Well unlike unwanted solicitors at your door Harald. Terrorrists just won't go away. Their hatred of the west just doesn't go away. Please explain how you propose we "end it"?
So we're going to bomb Iraq until they're happy then? Good plan.
I can't say I *like* the US going to war. But it seems the only resort for an obstinant dictator like Saddam. And yes... we are doing everything in our power to avoid bombing civilians and hopefully when the regime is removed they WILL be happier. The alternative being certain unhappiness due to torture, terror and dictatorship.
So if you don't like that, what's your plan then Sparky, do you have one?
I can't say I *like* the US going to war. But it seems the only resort for an obstinant dictator like Saddam. And yes... we are doing everything in our power to avoid bombing civilians and hopefully when the regime is removed they WILL be happier. The alternative being certain unhappiness due to torture, terror and dictatorship.
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
It makes my embarrisment over my missing commitment to the war debate here go away.
Anyone remember that villan in some Martel comic that only got stronger the more he was attacked by the heroes? Thats how I think of terrorism. So the question is: How did they defeat him in the end? I can´t remember but if anyone can then maybe thats the way to deal with terrorism
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
Fact. More terror.
Fact? Assumption. I see your point, but I don't think its something I would bank on. Gee it would sure suck from thier point of view if they got a better gov't installed and could actually get food and water huh? That would sure cause a lot of hatred wouldnt it?
I don't know what liberal news media you're watching that ONLY points out the Iraqi's that hate the US and love their evil dictator, but I've seen plenty to the contrary. It's not nearly as one sided as you'd like to lead us to believe.
Cutting healthy checks to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers isn't funding international terror? Now, I don't believe there is any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but it is clear that he does fund international terror in other ways.
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
Fact. More terror.
I find this position irresponsible. If you have the priviledge of being the rich, powerful, free US, can you just ignore the real plight of others around the world or do you have a burden, a responsibility to help where you can?
A simmering pot will boil over. Doing nothing to curb or deal with voilent factions in the near-term means more terrorist acts. Fact. Now, not dealing with public resentment, fear and repression against the US, its allies and the corrupt governments in the mideast will also lead to more terrorist acts. In short, the status quo isn't acceptable but the near-term problem of dealing with violent factions can make long-term goals, however noble, more difficult too. It's a real conundrum. There's no simple answer of course.
To "do what we think is right" and not what everybody else thinks is right is indeed acting like we're not part of the world. Or do you think "our right" is better than "their right"?
"Everyone else"? What "everyone else"?
Oh yes, this "the whole world is against this" garbage again.
Harald:
Quote:
And as to why, if Groverat is anything to go by, many Americans curiously won't "give a shit" as to what led them to do it. Very strange times.
So we avoid doing anything that would make any potential terrorist mad?
I advocate war with the knowledge that it might increase terrorism. I also advocate war knowing that this isn't going to cause World War III.
[BSo we avoid doing anything that would make any potential terrorist mad?
I advocate war with the knowledge that it might increase terrorism. I also advocate war knowing that this isn't going to cause World War III. [/B]
No, pissing off muderers is fine by me.
Taking courses that will lead to total fücking disaster, however, is not.
And that is the case here. Always has been. Which is why the US wouldn't have won it's vote on the UNSC veto or not. Which is why 91% of Spain -- you remember them, unimportant European nation in the Coalition of the Willing -- are against this war. Which is why ALL the neighbours of Iraq, even those that have been at war with Iraq, think it was a bad idea. Which is why ALL the goodwill the world showed to the US after 9/11 has gone.
Groverat, this is the single worst thing that has happened to the planet since World War II. Saddam was a disaster for Iraq; this war is a catastrophe for the whole planet.
Taking courses that will lead to total fücking disaster, however, is not.
And that is the case here. Always has been.
Mr. Ritter, I'm glad you have taken the time to visit our forum. Please keep your hands off of my 12-year-old niece.
Quote:
Which is why the US wouldn't have won it's vote on the UNSC veto or not.
Yes, because we all know the UN Security Council is the ultimate authority on how to keep world peace.
Tell me, can you think of a time the UN Security Council did something right that wasn't spearheaded by the US?
Quote:
Groverat, this is the single worst thing that has happened to the planet since World War II. Saddam was a disaster for Iraq; this war is a catastrophe for the whole planet.
You are a drama queen. You are also full of crap. Tens of millions of Russians died under Soviet control. 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 1994.
This isn't even the "worst thing" to happen in the last 10 years. Economic sanctions killed more Iraqi civilians in December of 2002 than this war has so far.
But if you measure tragedy in terms of opinion polls maybe you have a point.
This isn't even the "worst thing" to happen in the last 10 years. Economic sanctions killed more Iraqi civilians in December of 2002 than this war has so far.
I assume you're trying to jab some none-existant Clinton-o-philia?!?!
I thought that you were above that party-line stuff . . . I try to be . .
Well since he was the president from 1992 to 2000 it's hard not to mention him. I'm jabbing at how the American executive branch dealt with the Iraq question for 8 years. The president happened to be named Bill Clinton.
This is relevant because he was supposedly the foreign relations master and so many yearning for the days where we defaulted to the UN on so many matters.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
You see, this stupid claim is everywhere. There are two problems with this argument:
1. Even potential terrorists have a conscience. But the more pissed off people become, the less power that conscience has over them.
2. There are many people who previously didn't really intend to hurt anyone, but once they get pissed off enough they might change their minds.
I have to fundamentally disagree. Reasonable people do not become terrorists. Terrorists do not have a conscience. They have a dogma. I have no sympathy for terrorists, I will not consider their "plight" so long as their means of protest/action are so foul.
tonton spewed:
1. Even potential terrorists have a conscience. But the more pissed off people become, the less power that conscience has over them.
What a ridiculous argument. Please explain how anger excuses terrorist actions? Why do you defend terrorists?
To "do what we think is right" and not what everybody else thinks is right is indeed acting like we're not part of the world. Or do you think "our right" is better than "their right"?
Indeed it is. Do you actually believe that a state with a proven record of torture and terror towards its citizens knows what's "right"? You need to enlighten us as to how the Iraqi regime has done anything "right" from a moral stance up to this point, I'd like to hear it...
If we are in fact doing it to free the Iraqi people (what happened to "ridding Saddam of his WOMD"?), and everybody else doubts our motives or thinks they're not important enough to go to war, then we should stop what we're doing until we can convince them otherwise.
Ever stop to think this war could have multiple motives there genius? Of course the "freedom of iraqi" people route is a far more media friendly motive to put forth. This is a war of politics as well, no big surprise there. I think there's ample evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq, we just haven't found the "smoking gun" so to speak. Give it time.
Ah yes the "everybody else" reasoning again. Nevermind that "everybody else" AGREED to 1441 which very explicity stated there would be "serious consequences" if he did not comply. US, Britian and the rest of the coalition took it seriously, while "everybody else" saw fit to neuter the enforcement.
Originally posted by dviant
What a ridiculous argument. Please explain how anger excuses terrorist actions? Why do you defend terrorists?
.
I'm not sure I saw 'excuse' in the post that you're reffering to, perhaps just 'explanation'
I don't see the state of Bhutan, which has the highest rate of 'Gross National Happiness' exporting terrorists
I see very few Canadian terrorist, as, for the most part Canadians are a content people . . .
No Icelandic terrorists . . . and I know they are happy . . .
I do see a lot of Palastinian terrorists and I know that they are very upset about their plight, a lot of Arab terrorists and they, enerally are angry at their neglected position as 'Third worlders' . . . .
seems that real conditions lead to terrorism . . . I woln'd say anger is the onle reason though . . . but there are definite factors some of which can be taken into account when deciding if and when to invade soveriegn states . .
But he IS making excuses for them. His "explanation" is rationalizing that they had no control of their actions due to their anger. Those pooor poooor angry people didn't know what they doing! It's not their fault!!
Puh-leease.
Originally posted by Harald
Noone excuses hell-bound terrorist scum. Some of us would like to end it instead of attempting to use war, which will make more terror as it ALWAYS does.
Well unlike unwanted solicitors at your door Harald. Terrorrists just won't go away. Their hatred of the west just doesn't go away. Please explain how you propose we "end it"?
Originally posted by dviant
Sure, happy people don't become terrorists. Correct. Brilliant deduction Watson, thanks for pointing that out.
So we're going to bomb Iraq until they're happy then? Good plan.
Originally posted by Harald
So we're going to bomb Iraq until they're happy then? Good plan.
I can't say I *like* the US going to war. But it seems the only resort for an obstinant dictator like Saddam. And yes... we are doing everything in our power to avoid bombing civilians and hopefully when the regime is removed they WILL be happier. The alternative being certain unhappiness due to torture, terror and dictatorship.
So if you don't like that, what's your plan then Sparky, do you have one?
Originally posted by dviant
I can't say I *like* the US going to war. But it seems the only resort for an obstinant dictator like Saddam. And yes... we are doing everything in our power to avoid bombing civilians and hopefully when the regime is removed they WILL be happier. The alternative being certain unhappiness due to torture, terror and dictatorship.
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
Fact. More terror.
It makes my embarrisment over my missing commitment to the war debate here go away.
Anyone remember that villan in some Martel comic that only got stronger the more he was attacked by the heroes? Thats how I think of terrorism. So the question is: How did they defeat him in the end? I can´t remember but if anyone can then maybe thats the way to deal with terrorism
BTW I vote for bringing back the old smilies.
Originally posted by Harald
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
Fact. More terror.
Fact? Assumption. I see your point, but I don't think its something I would bank on. Gee it would sure suck from thier point of view if they got a better gov't installed and could actually get food and water huh? That would sure cause a lot of hatred wouldnt it?
I don't know what liberal news media you're watching that ONLY points out the Iraqi's that hate the US and love their evil dictator, but I've seen plenty to the contrary. It's not nearly as one sided as you'd like to lead us to believe.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
or funds international terror.
Cutting healthy checks to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers isn't funding international terror? Now, I don't believe there is any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but it is clear that he does fund international terror in other ways.
Originally posted by Harald
Well, Sparky, you need to understand that he's a bastard. But he's THEIR bastard and however inconvenient you may find it, they see us as invaders. And no matter how hard we try (and I'm sure we do) pictures of 10 year olds with their heads blown off will be on the telly and orphaned kids will grow up hating the US.
Fact. More terror.
I find this position irresponsible. If you have the priviledge of being the rich, powerful, free US, can you just ignore the real plight of others around the world or do you have a burden, a responsibility to help where you can?
A simmering pot will boil over. Doing nothing to curb or deal with voilent factions in the near-term means more terrorist acts. Fact. Now, not dealing with public resentment, fear and repression against the US, its allies and the corrupt governments in the mideast will also lead to more terrorist acts. In short, the status quo isn't acceptable but the near-term problem of dealing with violent factions can make long-term goals, however noble, more difficult too. It's a real conundrum. There's no simple answer of course.
To "do what we think is right" and not what everybody else thinks is right is indeed acting like we're not part of the world. Or do you think "our right" is better than "their right"?
"Everyone else"? What "everyone else"?
Oh yes, this "the whole world is against this" garbage again.
Harald:
And as to why, if Groverat is anything to go by, many Americans curiously won't "give a shit" as to what led them to do it. Very strange times.
So we avoid doing anything that would make any potential terrorist mad?
I advocate war with the knowledge that it might increase terrorism. I also advocate war knowing that this isn't going to cause World War III.
Originally posted by groverat
[BSo we avoid doing anything that would make any potential terrorist mad?
I advocate war with the knowledge that it might increase terrorism. I also advocate war knowing that this isn't going to cause World War III. [/B]
No, pissing off muderers is fine by me.
Taking courses that will lead to total fücking disaster, however, is not.
And that is the case here. Always has been. Which is why the US wouldn't have won it's vote on the UNSC veto or not. Which is why 91% of Spain -- you remember them, unimportant European nation in the Coalition of the Willing -- are against this war. Which is why ALL the neighbours of Iraq, even those that have been at war with Iraq, think it was a bad idea. Which is why ALL the goodwill the world showed to the US after 9/11 has gone.
Groverat, this is the single worst thing that has happened to the planet since World War II. Saddam was a disaster for Iraq; this war is a catastrophe for the whole planet.
No, pissing off muderers is fine by me.
Taking courses that will lead to total fücking disaster, however, is not.
And that is the case here. Always has been.
Mr. Ritter, I'm glad you have taken the time to visit our forum. Please keep your hands off of my 12-year-old niece.
Which is why the US wouldn't have won it's vote on the UNSC veto or not.
Yes, because we all know the UN Security Council is the ultimate authority on how to keep world peace.
Tell me, can you think of a time the UN Security Council did something right that wasn't spearheaded by the US?
Groverat, this is the single worst thing that has happened to the planet since World War II. Saddam was a disaster for Iraq; this war is a catastrophe for the whole planet.
You are a drama queen. You are also full of crap. Tens of millions of Russians died under Soviet control. 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 1994.
This isn't even the "worst thing" to happen in the last 10 years. Economic sanctions killed more Iraqi civilians in December of 2002 than this war has so far.
But if you measure tragedy in terms of opinion polls maybe you have a point.
Originally posted by groverat
This isn't even the "worst thing" to happen in the last 10 years. Economic sanctions killed more Iraqi civilians in December of 2002 than this war has so far.
another reason they are bound to adore US.
Originally posted by pfflam
another reason they are bound to adore US.
Well, the Clinton administration told us it was a hard choice, but they thought it was worth it.
"For what end?", I wonder.
Originally posted by groverat
Well, the Clinton administration told us it was a hard choice, but they thought it was worth it.
"For what end?", I wonder.
I assume you're trying to jab some none-existant Clinton-o-philia?!?!
I thought that you were above that party-line stuff . . . I try to be . .
Originally posted by pfflam
I assume you're trying to jab some none-existant Clinton-o-philia?!?!
I thought that you were above that party-line stuff . . . I try to be . .
Well since he was the president from 1992 to 2000 it's hard not to mention him. I'm jabbing at how the American executive branch dealt with the Iraq question for 8 years. The president happened to be named Bill Clinton.
This is relevant because he was supposedly the foreign relations master and so many yearning for the days where we defaulted to the UN on so many matters.
That idea, of course, is foolish and lazy.