So was I. Butterflies will fly... butterflies will fly...
I voted for Finding Bin Laden, remembering that's what Bush promised to do, "We will hunt him down in the caves... blah, blah, blah..." Unable to accomplish that, I guess he went for the easier option. Fair enough.
Good question. To me, terrorism means using an act of violence or a plausible threat of violence against innocent civilians to force an adversary to accept your demands or as an act of revenge.
A good effort at a definition. The interesting thing about your definition is that it certainly leaves very few parties/states untouched. In other words, there are very few parties/states who can't have fingers pointed at them.
I do not know for sure what hte root causes are, but the BS about Israel/Palestine is not where it is at. Also, since terrorists are not typically beholden to any one leader a regime change is not, to me, going have an appreciable effect in the long term.
If Israel allows the creation of a Palestinian State, I believe that in the short term you will see a slowing of terrorism in Israel. Not a complete stop. But you have that also when Israel occupies Gaza et al with troops. So the creation of the Palestinian state would seem to be the preferable option, until you start to look at the long term, and then things become very fuzzy. I do not think that the peace would last.
The religion of the terrorists is obviously a root cause of the terrorism, but there is nothing that a government can do about it. I do not advocate the killing of any person based on religious choice. Beyond that, I do not think that terrorism will ever end so long as there are Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists that take the Koran at its word that there can be no peace until the whole world bows to Islam. If you want a short term victory I guess that peace will be achieved for a few years with the creation of a Palestinian state. However, once that happens, all bets are off.
Terrorism will stop when the people committing it have an interest in stability. Stability comes from a liberal democracy and a free market, in a region with other liberal democracies and free markets.
Any regime change in itself does nothing - it depends on what comes after. What if there was a regime change in Iraq from Saddam to Uday? Or in Saudi Arabia from Saud to bin Laden?
curiousuburb you absolutely have a point here. But the problem is that people only consider nuclear weapons a terrorist threat in the hands of "terrorists." Now, who do you think these "terrorists" might be? Hmmm?
I would say ha-ha but based on your opinions there's a chance you just might actually think this way. Glad you're not in a position of power.
I was not aware that anyone on this message board had even a cursory knowledge of my opinions. Which of my opinions has led you to speculate that I "just might actually think this way"?
Usually I've heard that solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the source to the problem, but even two years ago some were claiming that Iraq is the real source of unrest in the Mid-East. Since we've gone down the road of attacking Iraq, how in the long run does this help us more than solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
I'm not looking for reasons to justify or crucify the war, I'm just looking past the war to when it's over and Saddam is gone. What effect is that really going to have on the region?
I'm not looking for reasons to justify or crucify the war, I'm just looking past the war to when it's over and Saddam is gone. What effect is that really going to have on the region?
No one really knows. Least of all the Bush adminstration. Ah well...
Comments
Originally posted by der Kopf
I was looking for "Regime change in USA"...
So was I. Butterflies will fly... butterflies will fly...
I voted for Finding Bin Laden, remembering that's what Bush promised to do, "We will hunt him down in the caves... blah, blah, blah..." Unable to accomplish that, I guess he went for the easier option. Fair enough.
Heaven help us.
- T.I.
2. Ménage Ã* trois
3. Regime change
4. 10.2.5
5. UhhhhÂ?.regime change?
hint: a little self-reflection might be useful in the exercise.
Originally posted by tonton
Good question. To me, terrorism means using an act of violence or a plausible threat of violence against innocent civilians to force an adversary to accept your demands or as an act of revenge.
A good effort at a definition. The interesting thing about your definition is that it certainly leaves very few parties/states untouched. In other words, there are very few parties/states who can't have fingers pointed at them.
the most important elements in the War on Terror are
Originally posted by Scott
Root causes?
This is to answer both you and Groverat.
I do not know for sure what hte root causes are, but the BS about Israel/Palestine is not where it is at. Also, since terrorists are not typically beholden to any one leader a regime change is not, to me, going have an appreciable effect in the long term.
If Israel allows the creation of a Palestinian State, I believe that in the short term you will see a slowing of terrorism in Israel. Not a complete stop. But you have that also when Israel occupies Gaza et al with troops. So the creation of the Palestinian state would seem to be the preferable option, until you start to look at the long term, and then things become very fuzzy. I do not think that the peace would last.
The religion of the terrorists is obviously a root cause of the terrorism, but there is nothing that a government can do about it. I do not advocate the killing of any person based on religious choice. Beyond that, I do not think that terrorism will ever end so long as there are Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists that take the Koran at its word that there can be no peace until the whole world bows to Islam. If you want a short term victory I guess that peace will be achieved for a few years with the creation of a Palestinian state. However, once that happens, all bets are off.
Any regime change in itself does nothing - it depends on what comes after. What if there was a regime change in Iraq from Saddam to Uday? Or in Saudi Arabia from Saud to bin Laden?
Originally posted by Retrograde
How about people try to analyze what terrorism means?
hint: a little self-reflection might be useful in the exercise.
Terrorism is whatever the conquering/oppressing nation says it is.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Terrorism is whatever the conquering/oppressing nation says it is.
Cheers
Scott
Bingo
Originally posted by curiousuburb
man, all of you are off topic from the thread title.
the most important elements in the War on Terror are
curiousuburb you absolutely have a point here. But the problem is that people only consider nuclear weapons a terrorist threat in the hands of "terrorists." Now, who do you think these "terrorists" might be? Hmmm?
ps. I like your wordplay on "elements"!
I would say ha-ha but based on your opinions there's a chance you just might actually think this way. Glad you're not in a position of power.
I was not aware that anyone on this message board had even a cursory knowledge of my opinions. Which of my opinions has led you to speculate that I "just might actually think this way"?
Originally posted by Retrograde
Bingo
Reminded me of something I wrote in July '02 on my old blogger blog. I argued that there is no such thing as terrorism.
Cheers
Scott
I'm not looking for reasons to justify or crucify the war, I'm just looking past the war to when it's over and Saddam is gone. What effect is that really going to have on the region?
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not looking for reasons to justify or crucify the war, I'm just looking past the war to when it's over and Saddam is gone. What effect is that really going to have on the region?
No one really knows. Least of all the Bush adminstration. Ah well...
- T.I.