America in the Middle-East

[Peregrine]

Guantanamo Bay.

 

Have any of the inmates been convicted of being terrorists? No? If they have not been convicted they are innocent until proven guilty.

 

You apparently missed the part where I said the entire Guantanamo Bay mess was wrong.

 

But since you tried to use that as a reply to my argument....

 

Even the worst of abuses there haven't ended in dead prisoners. Compared to people who torture and murder innocent victims just to make a political point, we already have the moral high ground and are in no danger of losing it.

And of course the civilian casualties in Iraq are not murder victims... they're 'collateral damage'.

 

There isn't much hope for you if you can't see the difference between accidental civilian casualties and intentionally targeting civilians in a way to kill the most innocent victims possible.

 

And you've conveniently ignored the double standards of US foreign policy. Why are the people of Saudi Arabia not being liberated, for one? Ah but of course.. the Saudi government are friends of the US... Why are human rights in Palestine not addressed? Oh, who cares, they're all a bunch of suicide bombers anyway.... <rolleyes>

 

And yet again you make accusations without bothering to understand my position. What gave you the idea I think it should end at Iraq? I wouldn't mind seeing Saudi Arabia get the same liberation, and I definitely don't like Israel.

 

Unfortunately, demanding change in that policy is just wishful thinking. Our military is too tied up in Iraq to get involved anywhere else.

 

Which country is that you're referring to? The country which posed no threat to the US? Which had no long range weapons capability that would have enabled it to attack the US? Which had no weapons of mass destruction? Which had no links to Al Qaeda? The country the US and allies invaded on a pretext?

 

Which has what to do with the present situation? As much as I hate that we got involved in Iraq in such a poorly planned way, that doesn't change the fact that they are a terrorist threat now.

 

Sure... you tell me that if another nation invaded your country, bombed your home, killed your relatives, etc you'd strew flowers in the path of their army. [Dark0ne, I'd REALLY like a more sarcastic rolleye smilie...]

 

No, but I definitely wouldn't start murdering random people as a statement of protest. There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, no matter how bad the invasion/occupation.

 

And of course you'd be able to identify the suicide bombers and terrorists on sight. Well, I suppose that's easy, isn't it - it's those guys with the towels on their heads. <sarcastic rolleye smilie>. Those guys which have 'terrorist' listed as their profession, wear Al Qaeda sweatshirts and badges saying 'Osama for president'. Yeah - they're so easy to spot.

 

Yes, since we all know it's so hard to tell if it's a terrorist or not when you see a guy aiming an AK-47/RPG/whatever at a crowd of innocent targets....

 

Obviously some would slip through, but that doesn't stop us from giving up on defending ourselves now. It would be no different with what I suggested, except that the potential attackers who have no fear of death would be given something worse to fear.

 

Oh right - terrorist acts are ok then if warning is given in advance. <shake-head-in-consternation smilie>

 

Property damage =/= murder.

 

Thank you once again for confirming the perception growing ever more widespread abroad that Americans are a bunch of ignorant gung-ho cowboys who think they can solve all problems by riding in, guns blazing.....

 

When someone wants you dead so badly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to blow up innocent victims just to protest your actions, the solution is to kill them. There is a time and place for negotiating and peaceful solutions, but that time is long passed in Iraq.

[Malchik]

To give Peregrine his due, he does accept that the war should never have been started. Unfortunately I'm not sure that he has much of a grasp about how the human mind works. From posts in other threads he relies a great deal on facts and logic and rationality. There's nothing wrong with that in itself but it is not typical. Humans are irrational. They will not give the logical, planned responses others expect them to. His 'solution' would fail, in the same way that most US foreign policy decisions have failed because they pay no attention to the needs of the people they try to liberate. "They must be the same as ours because we've got it right!"

 

Such a view is one of such overweening arrogance as well as such crass stupidity it is hard to sit still and listen to it. (I accept that it is not only the US that holds this view but it is far more prevalent there.)

 

The population of Iraq is overwhelmingly Islamic. Anyone resisting the invasion is likely to be a Moslem. To say that the freedom fighters in Iraq are Islamic terrorists/fanatics is simplifying reality to the point of nonsense.

 

They are Islamic because the whole population is, near enough. They are terrorists in the eyes of the US because they attack the US. And yet if it had been the Iran that invaded Iraq these same terrorists would be freedom-fighters deserving of US support.

 

There is no simple solution to Iraq and until the US actually starts to take note that the rest of the world is different and these differences count there will never be peace anywhere the US interferes.

 

America as a superpower is in decline. It's actions refect a subconscious awareness and perhaps a fear of what this means. Once it has percolated fully into the national psyche the world will become much safer until the next superpower (perhaps China) is in its death throes.

 

Like Theta I hope the first part of this happens quickly.

[Peregrine]

His 'solution' would fail, in the same way that most US foreign policy decisions have failed because they pay no attention to the needs of the people they try to liberate. "They must be the same as ours because we've got it right!"

 

Unfortunately, the needs of the liberated people became an impossible dream the moment we let Bush invade without the slighest plan for what to do once the military victory was won. We're stuck with fixing Iraq, and doing so requires that we end the terrorist attacks so the rebuilding can begin.

 

The population of Iraq is overwhelmingly Islamic. Anyone resisting the invasion is likely to be a Moslem. To say that the freedom fighters in Iraq are Islamic terrorists/fanatics is simplifying reality to the point of nonsense.

 

No, it's truth. There's a difference between resisting an invasion and blowing up innocent victims to make a political statement. Calling them "freedom fighters" grants them far too much legitimacy. They're terrorists and murderers, undeserving of the name "human".

 

Obviously their religion isn't the only factor. But how many of them do you think would kill themselves so willingly without that promise of a place in heaven? And without the moral approval of their "god" to murder in his name? Without the religious fanatacism to motivate their actions, there would be a lot fewer terrorists.

They are Islamic because the whole population is, near enough. They are terrorists in the eyes of the US because they attack the US.

 

No, they're terrorists because they kill innocent victims whose only "crime" is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't matter who the victim is, there is no excuse for that.

 

And yet if it had been the Iran that invaded Iraq these same terrorists would be freedom-fighters deserving of US support.

 

No, they'd be terrorists deserving of US bullets through their heads.

 

There is no simple solution to Iraq and until the US actually starts to take note that the rest of the world is different and these differences count there will never be peace anywhere the US interferes.

 

We're way past the point of US interference in Iraq. It's fact now, and the only question is how to make peace anyway.

[Malchik]

There's a difference between resisting an invasion and blowing up innocent victims to make a political statement. Calling them "freedom fighters" grants them far too much legitimacy. They're terrorists and murderers, undeserving of the name "human".

 

Obviously their religion isn't the only factor. But how many of them do you think would kill themselves so willingly without that promise of a place in heaven? And without the moral approval of their "god" to murder in his name? Without the religious fanatacism to motivate their actions, there would be a lot fewer terrorists.

 

During the invasion of Iraq many innocent civilians were killed by invaders who were making a political statement. In your definition this makes the invaders (US and UK) terrorists and murderers undeserving of the name human. If they get the same treatment back isn't the expression 'fair's fair'?

 

The idea of making the possibility of 'going to heaven' impossible is one that has occurred to me in the past. Unfortunately I have never been able to find any evidence to support the view that it works. Attempts to undermine religion have always backfired before and I am sure would do so now. You quote an example where it is said to have done but I'd need to examine the circumstances in more detail before I can be persuaded it was an exception.

 

One must also bear in mind that fanaticism is not solely down to religion. I sometimes get the feeling that Peregrine is a fanatical atheist (or a fundamental atheist perhaps?). There are many examples of political fanaticism in history.

 

And Peregrine while you may feel Iraqi's fighting against an invasion by Iran would be terrorists that is not the way the US has behaved in equivalent situations in the past, where they actually arm the so-called terrorists.

 

Let us be realistic. Suicide bombing has been proved to be very effective. We will have to accept that it is not going away whatever we would like.

[Peregrine]

During the invasion of Iraq many innocent civilians were killed by invaders who were making a political statement. In your definition this makes the invaders (US and UK) terrorists and murderers undeserving of the name human. If they get the same treatment back isn't the expression 'fair's fair'?

 

Accidental civilian deaths are not even close in evil to intentionally targeting civilians in a way to kill as many of them as possible. Nowhere in the invasion was there an effort to maximize civilian casualties. The terrorists, on the other hand, do exactly that. I hope you can see the difference.

 

Attempts to undermine religion have always backfired before and I am sure would do so now.

 

But why have they backfired? Have they backfired because undermining religious motivations is doomed to failure, or because political (or other) reasons prevented the attack from being made as effectively as possible?

 

One must also bear in mind that fanaticism is not solely down to religion. I sometimes get the feeling that Peregrine is a fanatical atheist (or a fundamental atheist perhaps?). There are many examples of political fanaticism in history.

 

I have no problem with religion as long as it:

1) Does not negatively affect the lives of those who do not choose to believe it

and

2) Its believers don't try to present it as objective and rational truth

 

I have plenty of religious friends (of various degrees), and we get along just fine. We disagree, but we do so quietly and peacefully.

 

And even at my most "fanatic", I don't support murder in the name of my anti-religion. I think you can see the difference between strong verbal attacks and killing people.

 

My hatred of the terrorists has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with the fact that they are terrorists. Their religion is just a possible method of counter-attack.

 

And Peregrine while you may feel Iraqi's fighting against an invasion by Iran would be terrorists that is not the way the US has behaved in equivalent situations in the past, where they actually arm the so-called terrorists.

 

Remember my statement about people like me being a sadly small minority of the population? Despite your celebrations of this fact, I'm far closer to the rest of you in belief than the majority we do have.

[ThetaOrionis01]

No, but I definitely wouldn't start murdering random people as a statement of protest. There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, no matter how bad the invasion/occupation.

 

Would you fight the invaders, and those of your own country collaborating with them?

 

 

Yes, since we all know it's so hard to tell if it's a terrorist or not when you see a guy aiming an AK-47/RPG/whatever at a crowd of innocent targets....

 

Like, for instance, US troops aiming guns at Iraqis in readiness to defend themselves?

 

Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't mean they're going to start shooting at random.

 

And what about those terrorists who do not point guns at people.... how do you identify a suicide bomber in a crowd, or a vehicle filled with explosives?

 

You can't.

 

 

 

Property damage =/= murder.

 

The IRA sometimes used to give bomb warnings before committing terrorist acts. By your reasoning, those warnings excused their tactics.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to agree with you.

 

A terrorist act is a terrorist act - whether it is committed by a group of fanatics, or by a rogue state.

 

When someone wants you dead so badly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to blow up innocent victims just to protest your actions, the solution is to kill them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that solution worked really really well in the past.. which is why Palestine is a garden of delight.

 

It never occurs to you to ask yourself what drives people into suicide bombing? Do you really believe that it is as simple as 'religious fanaticism'?

 

When you take away from a person everything they had to live for - their homes, their families, their freedom, their hope of justice - then you have created a potential suicide bomber.

Everytime allied forces kill a child, a mother, a father, a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, you breed hatred and vengeance.

 

You want to put an end to suicide bombings?

 

Try giving the bombers something to live for.

[Malchik]

Attempts to undermine religion have always backfired before and I am sure would do so now.

 

But why have they backfired? Have they backfired because undermining religious motivations is doomed to failure, or because political (or other) reasons prevented the attack from being made as effectively as possible?

 

I don't know for sure but it is something of the same effect that makes people club together when they feel threatened. In the same way that an attack on a country tends to make the country forget its internal differences, attacks on groups and not only religious groups have the same effect. Usually the religions emerge stronger, at least in the short term.

 

I suspect if religion were not used as a reason another would be invented because in real terms religion is simply an excuse.

 

I am no supporter of terrorism and I know that you are not either Peregrine but your suggested solution could not work because you are trying to cure the symptoms not the disease. My comment about you being a fanatical atheist was tongue-in-cheek, though you must bear in mind we only have your forum posts to go on. I'm sure if I were living in a country with states than pass laws forbidding the teaching of evolution I would became as rabid as you, maybe more so! But it is too easy to blame religion.

 

Take religion away and the terrorist atrocities will continue because the 'disease' is the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness in the lives of the people. Only when they feel they have something to live for will it change. Attacking the terrorists on religious grounds will have the opposite effect to the one you hope for. The religious leaders would simply say, for example, that god would pardon anyone who died from an invaders bullet no matter how it was treated.

 

It is very easy to be distracted by the symptoms but that won't lead to a workable cure.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Oh, and something else:

 

There isn't much hope for you if you can't see the difference between accidental civilian casualties and intentionally targeting civilians in a way to kill the most innocent victims possible.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

A dead child is a dead child. A dead woman is someone's dead mother, someone's dead daughter, someone's dead wife, someone's dead sister. A dead brother is a dead brother. The only fact that matters to their parents, their husbands, their children is that they are DEAD.

Do you really think that those grieving relatives give a flying f*ck for some lame excuse of 'wrong intelligence' or 'it was an accident, we didn't mean it' or 'such things happen in war'? They have lost their loved ones, and that matters to them every bit as much as the death of a soldier matters to his family, or the death of a terrorist victim matters to their families.

 

If you can easily dismiss those casualties as an accident, why should the terrorists care about how many innocents they kill during their 'war'?

 

If you cannot see that then there is not much hope for you.

 

The mere fact that you are even trying to make a distinction completely pulls that 'moral high ground' you claim to occupy from under your feet.

[Dark0ne]

I wonder if Peregrine would so easily sit back and do nothing if an "accidental" cruise missile blew up his family while they were shopping in the local mall (of course, Peregrine's at home arguing in this debate, and therefore not killed in the attack). Said "terrorists" then proceed to invade his house and occupy it. Don't worry though, you can still live there Peregrine, you're just given a curfue of 9PM lights out, no internet -- oh, and in a few weeks time you won't be allowed to leave your house for 3 weeks because a suspected uprising is about to occur against the invaders.

[Malchik]

I wonder if Peregrine would so easily sit back and do nothing if an "accidental" cruise missile blew up his family  while they were shopping in the local mall (of course, Peregrine's at home arguing in this debate, and therefore not killed in the attack). Said "terrorists" then proceed to invade his house and occupy it. Don't worry though, you can still live there Peregrine, you're just given a curfue of 9PM lights out, no internet -- oh, and in a few weeks time you won't be allowed to leave your house for 3 weeks because a suspected uprising is about to occur against the invaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see where you are coming from on this but it is very hard for the US to consider themselves vulnerable to terrorist attack at the moment (to some extent due to media brainwashing but also they are relatively safe by virtue of geography). It's hard to take seriously what you do not consider possible. Perhaps instead of the missile coming from 'terrorists' it cold be a misfire at home due to someone hacking into the system. The government might then invade his campus as the source of the hacking, torturing suspects, holding them without warrants and shooting anyone who looked as if he or she might be carrying a gun. Now that scenario is horribly believable! Would the students simply accept the treatment or would they try to do something about it?