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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that feeling is mutual.
Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white? Numerous times now, have I stated in this thread that I do not respect their killing of people but their willingness to die for their cause. Those are two entirely different things.
You insist that there are only two possibilities. Wrong or right. That is just as big a pile of bull as Bush saying "You're either with us or against us".
The sad fact of the matter is that as long as the U.S and it's allies keep solving matters by force there will be terrorists doing the same. It's a chicken and egg situation really. Do we have terrorists because of our tendency to throw bombs at those that don't see things our way or do we have to throw bombs because there are terrorists. You can't answer that because you don't have the knowledge for it.
I can tell you this though, from my own background. In Ireland, there were no terrorists before the Brits came, just civil war. Then again, civil war is our own business.
Think about it. Before Israel was formed, how many Arabs hated the U.S? There were no terrorist hits to prove they did anyway.
If you're looking for who's right and who's wrong, you're looking at it all wrong. We're all wrong, no one is right, there' nopoint in justifying anyone's motivations on either side because this is obviously just part of an endless (until we kill ourselves) cycle we cannot stop, ignore, fix, redirect or affect in any meaningful way. It's bigger than any of us and we are all powerless, even Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush Abaraham and Mohammed.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
See I don't understand what you term freedom fighter anyway, If I take a fancy to cutting peoples throats and somebody tries to stop me doing this then surely they're restricting my freedom!? Am I thusly a hero? I doubt it!
The IRA are freedom fighters? f*ck off, as an irishman living in London I can tell you that that only a tiny minority of people actually in any way agree with the IRA or UDF or whoever, the rest of the people just want to live their lives happily and safely, England, Ireland, who gives a sh*t they're both going to want taxes.
These people are fighting because they enjoy it, Bin Laden 'enjoys' what he does, he's on a big ego trip. He wants to be big because inside he's small just like Adolf Hitler. does anyone really think that he cares about the plight of Muslims in Palestine? I can't believe that anyone out there can be that naive.
Anyway this conversation is pointless as a guy said in a previous post, 'majority rule' and on that basis in 1000 years time we'll all be Chinese anyway, which suits me.
<strong>PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well put. I was going to write a 500 word essay on this point, but this said it better than I was going to.
[quote]Not when it comes to terrorist.<hr></blockquote>
I'd suggest that some portion of the West makes a serious attempt to understand what breeds terrorism so we will be able preempt the development thereof. The creation of potential terrorist leaders is probably impossible to avoid, but I believe their minions (ulitmately the terrorists themselves) can be corrected.
Macoracle: [quote]Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white?<hr></blockquote>
Scott H: [quote]Not when it comes to terrorist.<hr></blockquote>
Scott H., to support your argument, please supply a definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist"?
I read the FBI definition recently...and it reads very similarly to the one stated earlier in this thread.
When it comes down to our "war on terrorists", it is highly selective. We have funded and continue to fund paramilitary groups all over the world whose modus operandi neatly fits the 'terrorism' mold. We still maintain relations with heads of state and high ranking officials who have committed terrorist acts (and genocide). We still run a tax-payer funded organization, formerly the "School of the Americas" now euphemistically known as the "Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation". based in Fort Benning, which is no better than a "University of Terrorism". Its graduates include many of South and Central America's most notorious terrorists, trained and funded by the US Defense Dept. We give Israel a $3.5 million handout each year; they have an ex-terrorist (if there is such a thing) for a Prime Minister and their actions of "targeted assassinations" are as much "terrorism" as the the actions of the Palestinian suicide bombers. American based groups supply the IRA with weapons and funds. $$Billions have been funnelled to fanatical Islamic Mujahadeen extremists in Afghanistan since the USSR invasion, including Al Qaeda personnel; have these people not committed terrorist acts? We supplied the likes of Indonesia under Suharto with $billions in weapons used to kill over a million east Timorese. We supported the Chinese invasion and current occupation of Tibet. We even handed the Taliban $45 million for opium eradication just prior to Sept 11. Who's going to have a go at us next? Some angry Colombian paramilitary group whose enemies are receiving $billions in funds and weaponry from the US in our supposed "war on drugs"? There are literally hundreds of well documented incidents where US Government agencies (and private parties) have funded and supported international and domestic terrorism. (Naturally these issues do not get coverage in the corporate media, for obvious reasons). Unfortunately for America we either don't want to hear it, or we are in denial.
I am abundantly aware that there are, on this board people who feel that any commentary criticizing US policy, both domestic and foreign, in the war against terror, is anti-American. I sincerely hope nobody misunderstands me, in thinking that I am on some anti-American trip; Make no mistake about it, I love my country as much as anyone, and the events of Sept 11 made me as angry and sad as it is possible to become. I felt that President Bush and Mayor Giuliani did a heroic job of consoling and unifying us in the aftermath of that horrific day. Who didn't? But at the same time it angers and saddens me that we fund and encourage the type of behaviors and methods that eventually resulted in 5000 people b
being murdered in NYC and DC.
Supporting, funding and harboring terrorism ANYWHERE on the planet is at the very least wrong and counterproductive, be it Bogota or Boston. More realistically, is it treasonous, unpatriotic, Anti-American and downright evil.
It would be such a relief to see America and Americans welcomed with open arms in every country on Earth. But now terrorism has entered our consciousness and the horse has bolted. What do we do? We can make our nation a maximum security state. We can abandon all civil rights. We can deport all foreigners and immigrants. We can impose martial law. We can become as authoritarian as Hitler and compile records against citizens and make them wear a color-coded "patriotism index" according to a central evaluation committee. We can arbitrarily round up people who do not toe the official line and intern them without trial. This is already starting. But no amount of paranoid measures will stop angry, suicidal terrorists who have nothing to lose. A committed terrorist can always make an end-run around even the most elaborate security measures.
There will be no relief from the threats until we abandon the Macchiavellian foreign manipulations, the baiting of angry legions, and our gross application of blatant double standards regarding terror. It pisses me off royally that there is even 'one' person in the world who hates us, let alone millions. But try selling that to the shareholders of the big 'defense' contractors and the rest of the 'military-industrial complex' that President Eisenhower so vehemently warned us about. Far too much money is at stake. I repeat... I love my country, and it totally gets my goat that there are so many in positions of power who compromise or endanger our personal and national security by employing ill-judged, hateful or duplicitous domestic and foreign policy. We do persist with these strange and misplaced priorities and allegiances in our apparent "war against terror".
<strong>If you're looking for who's right and who's wrong, you're looking at it all wrong. We're all wrong, no one is right, there' nopoint in justifying anyone's motivations on either side because this is obviously just part of an endless (until we kill ourselves) cycle we cannot stop, ignore, fix, redirect or affect in any meaningful way. It's bigger than any of us and we are all powerless, even Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush Abaraham and Mohammed.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh, thanks. You condensed this whole pile of rhetoric shit into one mouse turd...kind of how George Carlin can take the 10 Commandments and condense them into only two clear rules of life.
They are: "Be honest," and, "Don't kill anybody who doesn't need it" (or words to that effect).
The solutions aren't there now or ever will be in the near future. So lets all go about our lives and hope that our children's, children's, children's children have better sense than any of us.
<strong>If you're looking for who's right and who's wrong, you're looking at it all wrong. We're all wrong, no one is right, there' nopoint in justifying anyone's motivations on either side because this is obviously just part of an endless (until we kill ourselves) cycle we cannot stop, ignore, fix, redirect or affect in any meaningful way. It's bigger than any of us and we are all powerless, even Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush Abaraham and Mohammed.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
[quote] We can arbitrarily round up people who do not toe the official line and intern them without trial. <hr></blockquote> Four words....Prevention of Terrorism Act.
I entirely agree with your entire post. Like I said in the original post, I knew this wasn't going to be a popular opinion to have. Some people have a tendency of reading a post with their reply already in mind.
So far all I've seen are a bunch of people telling me that I respect people for killing, that I respect them for believing in something and, of course, the good old liberal crap.
I knew it wasn't going to be popular but at least criticise it for what it is. Not for what you think I'm trying to say or what you would like for me to say so you can throw your "you're with us or against us" bull at me.
The statement reads: "I respect terrorists for their willingness to die for their cause" What I mean by that, just to save you all the time of telling me what I mean by it, is that they have a goal that they don't mind dying for, not killing for.
Michael Collins, another "terrorist", once told Harry Boland: "I want peace so bad I'd die for it." Die, not kill.
I can handle the whole usual Europeans hate Americans because their jealous nonsense. I can handle the well since we are right, you must be wrong nonsense. Just don't tell me what I really mean. I feel it's fairly obvious from my posts.
<strong>See I don't understand what you term freedom fighter anyway, If I take a fancy to cutting peoples throats and somebody tries to stop me doing this then surely they're restricting my freedom!? Am I thusly a hero? I doubt it!
The IRA are freedom fighters? f*ck off, as an irishman living in London I can tell you that that only a tiny minority of people actually in any way agree with the IRA or UDF or whoever, the rest of the people just want to live their lives happily and safely, England, Ireland, who gives a sh*t they're both going to want taxes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem, once again, the majority of the Irish people want a peaceful solution to the situation in the north. I am one of them. The fact remains that Britain took this land and never gave it back. They had to give back India and pretty much every other country in their British Empire, so what's the problem with Ireland?
Their excuse for that is that otherwise there would be a civil war. As you put it so well, the majority of the people just want to live in peace so I think we can rule out civil war. Secterian groups will attack each other but they do that now as well so what's the difference?
Another excuse is that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland wants to be part of the United Kingdom. Fine by me, that means that 15 years from now they're going to have to give it up. We've waited 800 so we can do another 15.
[quote] These people are fighting because they enjoy it, Bin Laden 'enjoys' what he does, he's on a big ego trip. He wants to be big because inside he's small just like Adolf Hitler. does anyone really think that he cares about the plight of Muslims in Palestine? I can't believe that anyone out there can be that naive.<hr></blockquote>
Bin Laden is a person, well an individual anyway. What you are doing is that you stereotype the entire group of people based on what you think about Bin Laden. Do you not think that the majority of his soldiers would rather be home with their wives and children? There is a difference between enjoying killing and not being afraid to die for what you believe in.
I'd suggest that some portion of the West makes a serious attempt to understand what breeds terrorism so we will be able preempt the development thereof. The creation of potential terrorist leaders is probably impossible to avoid, but I believe their minions (ulitmately the terrorists themselves) can be corrected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah come on! What are you saying?? Talk to them and try to understand what we are fighting? Why the hell would we do that if we can just bomb them all back to the stoneage?? I mean, we're right you know! We never killed any of them and when we did they were all soldiers! Please! Stop!! You're trying to make sense aren't you?? Liberal! Always them Liberals! I betcha you don't even own loads of guns in case Canada invades us!
Ah come on! What are you saying?? Talk to them and try to understand what we are fighting? Why the hell would we do that if we can just bomb them all back to the stoneage??</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the dichotomy you've presented and you want us to believe that you are not telling us we are wrong for responding to the WTC miltarily? Please don't patronize us crap like "I understand your reaction to the WTC attack. I described it as only human."
When you responded to NoanJ this way
[quote]<strong>You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
didn't it even for a moment cross your mind that he was being ironic? And do you see the mirror room you've constructed where you call on us for greater understanding while you fail to understand yourself?
If you truly want a deeper and yet somewhat general understanding of the what motivates bin Laden read J. Bottum's article What Viloence is For in the December 2001 issue of <a href="http://www.firstthings.com"; target="_blank">First Things</a>. It's not available online yet. It may be in a month. You'll have to look for it at your local bookstore although I don't know if it's available in Ireland or not.
didn't it even for a moment cross your mind that he was being ironic? And do you see the mirror room you've constructed where you call on us for greater understanding while you fail to understand yourself?
If you truly want a deeper and yet somewhat general understanding of the what motivates bin Laden read J. Bottum's article What Viloence is For in the December 2001 issue of <a href="http://www.firstthings.com"; target="_blank">First Things</a>. It's not available online yet. It may be in a month. You'll have to look for it at your local bookstore although I don't know if it's available in Ireland or not.
I think the only person who can really tell you what motivates Bin Laden is Bin Laden himself to be honest. So did he interview him? I will definitely read it then.
My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not. You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it. In a way, Northern Ireland shows it as well. The British have ruled there for the last 800 years but they never got rid of "the terrorists".
You're right though. It was a childish reply on my side and I apologize if I offended anyone.
I'm not patronising you when I say I understand it as an initial reaction. I do think it's human. That doesn't mean I think it will solve anything in the end though and that is one of the points I have been trying to make here.
Now I'm more than ready to continue this discussion. Providing there is willingness from people to concede when they're wrong and not just ignore it. It sometimes helps a discussion if you can admit someone else is right about something. Like I am about Ireland.
The reason why I don't read to much in to articles written by journalists or so called experts is because I would like to think that I am quite an observant person and I would like to make up my own mind based on that. I also think a lot of the reporting, be it in articles or books, is not very objective.
I understand that America has done naughty things in the past. I am perfectly willing to not be blind to the past.
What I don't understand, however, is what it has to do with anything.
If you are to use those actions as justifications then all of our past actions that were naughty and mean are justified as well all the way back to God and then I suppose it is all ultimately his fault with all the human actions ever undertaken left to be respectable because of faith or belief in an idea.
You are completely unable to say that the actions being taken by the U.S. "won't solve anything". It is far out of your reach to make such claims.
My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not. You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it. In a way, Northern Ireland shows it as well. The British have ruled there for the last 800 years but they never got rid of "the terrorists".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ehh, I should think that ramming a civilian tower with a passanger jet and killing thousands would be fairly representative of a people who view 'violence as the ultimate solution.'
How do you propose we respond? Or, as groverat asked, "What's the solution?"
I think the only person who can really tell you what motivates Bin Laden is Bin Laden himself to be honest. So did he interview him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you? Are the only people qualified to discuss bin Laden's motives those who've interviewed him?
[quote]<strong>My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The ultimate solution? No. Part of the solution? Yes.
[quote]<strong>You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WWII showed something different. Although I suppose even then we didn't wipe them all out - just enough of them to make the world safer.
[quote]<strong>The reason why I don't read to much in to articles written by journalists or so called experts is because I would like to think that I am quite an observant person and I would like to make up my own mind based on that. I also think a lot of the reporting, be it in articles or books, is not very objective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
J. Bottum is not a journalist, or at least he wasn't being one when he wrote the article I mentioned. It's an essay and it's a good bet that he brings a perspective you haven't considered.
[quote]How do you propose we respond? Or, as groverat asked, "What's the solution?"<hr></blockquote>
Who does have a solution? I would love to hear a real one, but real ones get drowned out in the fashionable clamor for vengeance. Respond? Are we not already doing just that? Afghanstan is now a land of smoldering ruins, and bin Laden is as of yet, nowhere to be found and on the loose. He may not even be in Afghanistan! What about Saudi Arabia for heaven's sake? Not a single Afghani was responsible for hijacking and crashing those 4 aircraft, and 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and they trained for these attacks in Saudi Arabia (as well as in Afghanistan). Our response? We flatten Afghanistan, and brown-nose Saudi Arabia. Maybe the fact that Saudi Arabia is the worlds largest supplier of oil, and the fact that major international oil companies are based there, and we have oilmen as President and V.P. is a partial reason for our unbalanced response. Maybe also, the fact that Kazakhstan has perhaps the world's largest untapped oil reserves, (international oil companies have for years wanted to get a pipeline from there, through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean) is one reason we are paying such huge attention to Afghanistan in order to set up a stable enough regime so that a pipeline can be built. The attacks on NYC and the Pentagon are a "convenient" (excuse the term) easy-sell justification.
Strange also, our sudden dislike for the Taliban; I have the impression that altho' they weren't on 'buddy-buddy' terms with the Bush Administration, just before Sept 11 we sent them $45 million to help them in their supposed "opium-eradication" program (ha!). And the program that suddenly sprung into action with the dropping of aid packages is more a feelgood PR exercise for favorable world impression than a genuine humanitarian effort. The packages contain material that Afghanis dont eat, they are printed in English, and are the same color as unexploded clusterbombs! Its pure phoney. In reality we dont give a flying fxck for the fate of Afghan villagers. After all, are not they harboring Al Qaeda personnel?
Incidentally, it is oil money that furnishes these terrorists...and here we are, driving our flag-adorned gas-guzzling SUVs, pushing our oil consumption to record highs, in some grotesque reversal of patriotism, providing yet more income to a clutch of middle-eastern right-wing rogue states whose citizens have few rights, they treat their women like animals, never heard of democracy and free elections, and pass hatred of America down to subsequent generations, partly because of our support and recognition of their oppressors.
Out of respect for the thousands dead, America could have used these horrendous attacks to really do some even greater good in the world, and to use our massive resources to help eliminate the causes of terrorism. No such luck; our sole concern is with dealing with the symptoms. We are already fouling up a fantastic opportunity to really make the world a safer place for us, and all peoples. I can almost see someone saying "peace isnt profitable enough; if we dont have any enemies, then by God we better make some".
Sounds cynical yes, but probably more realistic than being a pollyanna....
Comments
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that feeling is mutual.
Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white? Numerous times now, have I stated in this thread that I do not respect their killing of people but their willingness to die for their cause. Those are two entirely different things.
You insist that there are only two possibilities. Wrong or right. That is just as big a pile of bull as Bush saying "You're either with us or against us".
The sad fact of the matter is that as long as the U.S and it's allies keep solving matters by force there will be terrorists doing the same. It's a chicken and egg situation really. Do we have terrorists because of our tendency to throw bombs at those that don't see things our way or do we have to throw bombs because there are terrorists. You can't answer that because you don't have the knowledge for it.
I can tell you this though, from my own background. In Ireland, there were no terrorists before the Brits came, just civil war. Then again, civil war is our own business.
Think about it. Before Israel was formed, how many Arabs hated the U.S? There were no terrorist hits to prove they did anyway.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The IRA are freedom fighters? f*ck off, as an irishman living in London I can tell you that that only a tiny minority of people actually in any way agree with the IRA or UDF or whoever, the rest of the people just want to live their lives happily and safely, England, Ireland, who gives a sh*t they're both going to want taxes.
These people are fighting because they enjoy it, Bin Laden 'enjoys' what he does, he's on a big ego trip. He wants to be big because inside he's small just like Adolf Hitler. does anyone really think that he cares about the plight of Muslims in Palestine? I can't believe that anyone out there can be that naive.
Anyway this conversation is pointless as a guy said in a previous post, 'majority rule' and on that basis in 1000 years time we'll all be Chinese anyway, which suits me.
<strong>PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well put. I was going to write a 500 word essay on this point, but this said it better than I was going to.
<strong>
I think that feeling is mutual.
Maybe you would be helped by trying to see that there is a grey area between black and white?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not when it comes to terrorist.
I'd suggest that some portion of the West makes a serious attempt to understand what breeds terrorism so we will be able preempt the development thereof. The creation of potential terrorist leaders is probably impossible to avoid, but I believe their minions (ulitmately the terrorists themselves) can be corrected.
Scott H: [quote]Not when it comes to terrorist.<hr></blockquote>
Scott H., to support your argument, please supply a definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist"?
I read the FBI definition recently...and it reads very similarly to the one stated earlier in this thread.
When it comes down to our "war on terrorists", it is highly selective. We have funded and continue to fund paramilitary groups all over the world whose modus operandi neatly fits the 'terrorism' mold. We still maintain relations with heads of state and high ranking officials who have committed terrorist acts (and genocide). We still run a tax-payer funded organization, formerly the "School of the Americas" now euphemistically known as the "Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation". based in Fort Benning, which is no better than a "University of Terrorism". Its graduates include many of South and Central America's most notorious terrorists, trained and funded by the US Defense Dept. We give Israel a $3.5 million handout each year; they have an ex-terrorist (if there is such a thing) for a Prime Minister and their actions of "targeted assassinations" are as much "terrorism" as the the actions of the Palestinian suicide bombers. American based groups supply the IRA with weapons and funds. $$Billions have been funnelled to fanatical Islamic Mujahadeen extremists in Afghanistan since the USSR invasion, including Al Qaeda personnel; have these people not committed terrorist acts? We supplied the likes of Indonesia under Suharto with $billions in weapons used to kill over a million east Timorese. We supported the Chinese invasion and current occupation of Tibet. We even handed the Taliban $45 million for opium eradication just prior to Sept 11. Who's going to have a go at us next? Some angry Colombian paramilitary group whose enemies are receiving $billions in funds and weaponry from the US in our supposed "war on drugs"? There are literally hundreds of well documented incidents where US Government agencies (and private parties) have funded and supported international and domestic terrorism. (Naturally these issues do not get coverage in the corporate media, for obvious reasons). Unfortunately for America we either don't want to hear it, or we are in denial.
I am abundantly aware that there are, on this board people who feel that any commentary criticizing US policy, both domestic and foreign, in the war against terror, is anti-American. I sincerely hope nobody misunderstands me, in thinking that I am on some anti-American trip; Make no mistake about it, I love my country as much as anyone, and the events of Sept 11 made me as angry and sad as it is possible to become. I felt that President Bush and Mayor Giuliani did a heroic job of consoling and unifying us in the aftermath of that horrific day. Who didn't? But at the same time it angers and saddens me that we fund and encourage the type of behaviors and methods that eventually resulted in 5000 people b
being murdered in NYC and DC.
Supporting, funding and harboring terrorism ANYWHERE on the planet is at the very least wrong and counterproductive, be it Bogota or Boston. More realistically, is it treasonous, unpatriotic, Anti-American and downright evil.
It would be such a relief to see America and Americans welcomed with open arms in every country on Earth. But now terrorism has entered our consciousness and the horse has bolted. What do we do? We can make our nation a maximum security state. We can abandon all civil rights. We can deport all foreigners and immigrants. We can impose martial law. We can become as authoritarian as Hitler and compile records against citizens and make them wear a color-coded "patriotism index" according to a central evaluation committee. We can arbitrarily round up people who do not toe the official line and intern them without trial. This is already starting. But no amount of paranoid measures will stop angry, suicidal terrorists who have nothing to lose. A committed terrorist can always make an end-run around even the most elaborate security measures.
There will be no relief from the threats until we abandon the Macchiavellian foreign manipulations, the baiting of angry legions, and our gross application of blatant double standards regarding terror. It pisses me off royally that there is even 'one' person in the world who hates us, let alone millions. But try selling that to the shareholders of the big 'defense' contractors and the rest of the 'military-industrial complex' that President Eisenhower so vehemently warned us about. Far too much money is at stake. I repeat... I love my country, and it totally gets my goat that there are so many in positions of power who compromise or endanger our personal and national security by employing ill-judged, hateful or duplicitous domestic and foreign policy. We do persist with these strange and misplaced priorities and allegiances in our apparent "war against terror".
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>If you're looking for who's right and who's wrong, you're looking at it all wrong. We're all wrong, no one is right, there' nopoint in justifying anyone's motivations on either side because this is obviously just part of an endless (until we kill ourselves) cycle we cannot stop, ignore, fix, redirect or affect in any meaningful way. It's bigger than any of us and we are all powerless, even Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush Abaraham and Mohammed.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh, thanks. You condensed this whole pile of rhetoric shit into one mouse turd...kind of how George Carlin can take the 10 Commandments and condense them into only two clear rules of life.
They are: "Be honest," and, "Don't kill anybody who doesn't need it" (or words to that effect).
The solutions aren't there now or ever will be in the near future. So lets all go about our lives and hope that our children's, children's, children's children have better sense than any of us.
<strong>
Not when it comes to terrorist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To them you're the terrorists.
Basically, you are the people you despise.
They are incapable of reasoning and so are you.
<strong>If you're looking for who's right and who's wrong, you're looking at it all wrong. We're all wrong, no one is right, there' nopoint in justifying anyone's motivations on either side because this is obviously just part of an endless (until we kill ourselves) cycle we cannot stop, ignore, fix, redirect or affect in any meaningful way. It's bigger than any of us and we are all powerless, even Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush Abaraham and Mohammed.
PS: The fact that someone will respect someone else just because they believe in something, anything, is pretty sad. There are good ideas and bad ones, just having them isn't enough.
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
PS: I know the American language sometimes differs from the English one, but I do believe the words "I respect them for their
willingness to die for what they believe in" are the same in both.
I entirely agree with your entire post. Like I said in the original post, I knew this wasn't going to be a popular opinion to have. Some people have a tendency of reading a post with their reply already in mind.
So far all I've seen are a bunch of people telling me that I respect people for killing, that I respect them for believing in something and, of course, the good old liberal crap.
I knew it wasn't going to be popular but at least criticise it for what it is. Not for what you think I'm trying to say or what you would like for me to say so you can throw your "you're with us or against us" bull at me.
The statement reads: "I respect terrorists for their willingness to die for their cause" What I mean by that, just to save you all the time of telling me what I mean by it, is that they have a goal that they don't mind dying for, not killing for.
Michael Collins, another "terrorist", once told Harry Boland: "I want peace so bad I'd die for it." Die, not kill.
I can handle the whole usual Europeans hate Americans because their jealous nonsense. I can handle the well since we are right, you must be wrong nonsense. Just don't tell me what I really mean. I feel it's fairly obvious from my posts.
Die for it. Not kill.
<strong>See I don't understand what you term freedom fighter anyway, If I take a fancy to cutting peoples throats and somebody tries to stop me doing this then surely they're restricting my freedom!? Am I thusly a hero? I doubt it!
The IRA are freedom fighters? f*ck off, as an irishman living in London I can tell you that that only a tiny minority of people actually in any way agree with the IRA or UDF or whoever, the rest of the people just want to live their lives happily and safely, England, Ireland, who gives a sh*t they're both going to want taxes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem, once again, the majority of the Irish people want a peaceful solution to the situation in the north. I am one of them. The fact remains that Britain took this land and never gave it back. They had to give back India and pretty much every other country in their British Empire, so what's the problem with Ireland?
Their excuse for that is that otherwise there would be a civil war. As you put it so well, the majority of the people just want to live in peace so I think we can rule out civil war. Secterian groups will attack each other but they do that now as well so what's the difference?
Another excuse is that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland wants to be part of the United Kingdom. Fine by me, that means that 15 years from now they're going to have to give it up. We've waited 800 so we can do another 15.
[quote] These people are fighting because they enjoy it, Bin Laden 'enjoys' what he does, he's on a big ego trip. He wants to be big because inside he's small just like Adolf Hitler. does anyone really think that he cares about the plight of Muslims in Palestine? I can't believe that anyone out there can be that naive.<hr></blockquote>
Bin Laden is a person, well an individual anyway. What you are doing is that you stereotype the entire group of people based on what you think about Bin Laden. Do you not think that the majority of his soldiers would rather be home with their wives and children? There is a difference between enjoying killing and not being afraid to die for what you believe in.
<strong>
I'd suggest that some portion of the West makes a serious attempt to understand what breeds terrorism so we will be able preempt the development thereof. The creation of potential terrorist leaders is probably impossible to avoid, but I believe their minions (ulitmately the terrorists themselves) can be corrected.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah come on! What are you saying?? Talk to them and try to understand what we are fighting? Why the hell would we do that if we can just bomb them all back to the stoneage?? I mean, we're right you know! We never killed any of them and when we did they were all soldiers! Please! Stop!! You're trying to make sense aren't you?? Liberal! Always them Liberals! I betcha you don't even own loads of guns in case Canada invades us!
Well said Mac! Well said!
<strong>
Ah come on! What are you saying?? Talk to them and try to understand what we are fighting? Why the hell would we do that if we can just bomb them all back to the stoneage??</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the dichotomy you've presented and you want us to believe that you are not telling us we are wrong for responding to the WTC miltarily? Please don't patronize us crap like "I understand your reaction to the WTC attack. I described it as only human."
When you responded to NoanJ this way
[quote]<strong>You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
didn't it even for a moment cross your mind that he was being ironic? And do you see the mirror room you've constructed where you call on us for greater understanding while you fail to understand yourself?
If you truly want a deeper and yet somewhat general understanding of the what motivates bin Laden read J. Bottum's article What Viloence is For in the December 2001 issue of <a href="http://www.firstthings.com"; target="_blank">First Things</a>. It's not available online yet. It may be in a month. You'll have to look for it at your local bookstore although I don't know if it's available in Ireland or not.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
didn't it even for a moment cross your mind that he was being ironic? And do you see the mirror room you've constructed where you call on us for greater understanding while you fail to understand yourself?
If you truly want a deeper and yet somewhat general understanding of the what motivates bin Laden read J. Bottum's article What Viloence is For in the December 2001 issue of <a href="http://www.firstthings.com"; target="_blank">First Things</a>. It's not available online yet. It may be in a month. You'll have to look for it at your local bookstore although I don't know if it's available in Ireland or not.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the only person who can really tell you what motivates Bin Laden is Bin Laden himself to be honest. So did he interview him? I will definitely read it then.
My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not. You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it. In a way, Northern Ireland shows it as well. The British have ruled there for the last 800 years but they never got rid of "the terrorists".
You're right though. It was a childish reply on my side and I apologize if I offended anyone.
I'm not patronising you when I say I understand it as an initial reaction. I do think it's human. That doesn't mean I think it will solve anything in the end though and that is one of the points I have been trying to make here.
Now I'm more than ready to continue this discussion. Providing there is willingness from people to concede when they're wrong and not just ignore it. It sometimes helps a discussion if you can admit someone else is right about something. Like I am about Ireland.
The reason why I don't read to much in to articles written by journalists or so called experts is because I would like to think that I am quite an observant person and I would like to make up my own mind based on that. I also think a lot of the reporting, be it in articles or books, is not very objective.
What I don't understand, however, is what it has to do with anything.
If you are to use those actions as justifications then all of our past actions that were naughty and mean are justified as well all the way back to God and then I suppose it is all ultimately his fault with all the human actions ever undertaken left to be respectable because of faith or belief in an idea.
You are completely unable to say that the actions being taken by the U.S. "won't solve anything". It is far out of your reach to make such claims.
What is your suggestion?
<strong>
My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not. You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it. In a way, Northern Ireland shows it as well. The British have ruled there for the last 800 years but they never got rid of "the terrorists".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ehh, I should think that ramming a civilian tower with a passanger jet and killing thousands would be fairly representative of a people who view 'violence as the ultimate solution.'
How do you propose we respond? Or, as groverat asked, "What's the solution?"
<strong>
I think the only person who can really tell you what motivates Bin Laden is Bin Laden himself to be honest. So did he interview him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you? Are the only people qualified to discuss bin Laden's motives those who've interviewed him?
[quote]<strong>My bombing dig, I admit it was a tasteless one, was more aimed at the people that see violence as the ultimate solution to this issue. It is not and you know it's not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The ultimate solution? No. Part of the solution? Yes.
[quote]<strong>You can't wipe out all your enemies. Vietnam showed it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WWII showed something different. Although I suppose even then we didn't wipe them all out - just enough of them to make the world safer.
[quote]<strong>The reason why I don't read to much in to articles written by journalists or so called experts is because I would like to think that I am quite an observant person and I would like to make up my own mind based on that. I also think a lot of the reporting, be it in articles or books, is not very objective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
J. Bottum is not a journalist, or at least he wasn't being one when he wrote the article I mentioned. It's an essay and it's a good bet that he brings a perspective you haven't considered.
[quote]How do you propose we respond? Or, as groverat asked, "What's the solution?"<hr></blockquote>
Who does have a solution? I would love to hear a real one, but real ones get drowned out in the fashionable clamor for vengeance. Respond? Are we not already doing just that? Afghanstan is now a land of smoldering ruins, and bin Laden is as of yet, nowhere to be found and on the loose. He may not even be in Afghanistan! What about Saudi Arabia for heaven's sake? Not a single Afghani was responsible for hijacking and crashing those 4 aircraft, and 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and they trained for these attacks in Saudi Arabia (as well as in Afghanistan). Our response? We flatten Afghanistan, and brown-nose Saudi Arabia. Maybe the fact that Saudi Arabia is the worlds largest supplier of oil, and the fact that major international oil companies are based there, and we have oilmen as President and V.P. is a partial reason for our unbalanced response. Maybe also, the fact that Kazakhstan has perhaps the world's largest untapped oil reserves, (international oil companies have for years wanted to get a pipeline from there, through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean) is one reason we are paying such huge attention to Afghanistan in order to set up a stable enough regime so that a pipeline can be built. The attacks on NYC and the Pentagon are a "convenient" (excuse the term) easy-sell justification.
Strange also, our sudden dislike for the Taliban; I have the impression that altho' they weren't on 'buddy-buddy' terms with the Bush Administration, just before Sept 11 we sent them $45 million to help them in their supposed "opium-eradication" program (ha!). And the program that suddenly sprung into action with the dropping of aid packages is more a feelgood PR exercise for favorable world impression than a genuine humanitarian effort. The packages contain material that Afghanis dont eat, they are printed in English, and are the same color as unexploded clusterbombs! Its pure phoney. In reality we dont give a flying fxck for the fate of Afghan villagers. After all, are not they harboring Al Qaeda personnel?
Incidentally, it is oil money that furnishes these terrorists...and here we are, driving our flag-adorned gas-guzzling SUVs, pushing our oil consumption to record highs, in some grotesque reversal of patriotism, providing yet more income to a clutch of middle-eastern right-wing rogue states whose citizens have few rights, they treat their women like animals, never heard of democracy and free elections, and pass hatred of America down to subsequent generations, partly because of our support and recognition of their oppressors.
Out of respect for the thousands dead, America could have used these horrendous attacks to really do some even greater good in the world, and to use our massive resources to help eliminate the causes of terrorism. No such luck; our sole concern is with dealing with the symptoms. We are already fouling up a fantastic opportunity to really make the world a safer place for us, and all peoples. I can almost see someone saying "peace isnt profitable enough; if we dont have any enemies, then by God we better make some".
Sounds cynical yes, but probably more realistic than being a pollyanna....