Who are the real terrorists?

[SpellAndShield]

Thank you for your scholarly exposition/riposte there, RZ1029. However, I fear I must take issue with one particular statement, in relation to the Patriot Act and government snooping, when you say;-

 

"Besides, if you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to hide. Personally, I have no problem with the government checking into everyone, myself included, if it means I never have to watch another 9-11. They're checking up on people, not dragging them out of their beds in the middle of the night and executing them for being suspected of possibly maybe being terrorists. They use it together information on suspected terrorists to either confirm or deny that suspicion."

 

I beg to differ. The British example shows that such Government powers are widely abused, since the definition of "enemies of the people" and "terrorist" have been taken to mean "Anyone who disagrees with Phoney Tony and Barking Brown". I should know - I have been filmed and snooped upon and been smacked over the head with a police baton because I am a supporter of hunting with dogs. Clearly I am a menace to rival Bin Laden. Even more absurd abuse of Government powers, if that were possible, has lead to anti-terrorist laws being used to snoop on what people put in their trash bins. But far worse, I have some relatives from the former Soviet bloc who found out that you didn't have to have done anything to end up in the Gulags.

 

But as to the main part of your argument, I am on your side. As a Briton, I feel it is insulting and untrue to describe the American government as terrorists. After all, various US governments have sent aid as well as troops and pulled Europe out of some very big messes, and we should realize that. Suspicious of His Holiness Obama as I am (after all he doesn't like us Brits very much)I feel a lot happier with the USA as policeman of the world than I would without it. The Israelis also get a lot of criticism but at the end of the day, were they not there armed to the teeth and ready to use armed force, we would have a whole heap more problems. Please don't let anyone tell me that they are so principled that they would far rather let the likes of Al Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah (how very conceited to call themselves The Party Of God) and the delightful Ahmedinajad have free rein (or indeed reign), and hold us to ransom/threaten our way of life, than have the USA and allies keeping them at bay.

 

The CIA is by every definition in the book, a terrorist organisation; is the CIA part of the government?

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Please don't let anyone tell me that they are so principled that they would far rather let the likes of Al Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah (how very conceited to call themselves The Party Of God) and the delightful Ahmedinajad have free rein (or indeed reign), and hold us to ransom/threaten our way of life, than have the USA and allies keeping them at bay.

This is an incredibly important point that is generally overlooked today ( bold emphasis added by me).

 

Our ideals in the West are not shared at all by these people. Many left-wingers around Europe cry out when someone wants to pass a law that limits the number of mosques that can be built in a European country but don't realize that these selfsame people wanting this mosque wouldn't permit a single church (or whatever, I'm not Christian, it's just a choice of words to get the point across) or synagogue or whatever in their own country, for example. We extend rights and privileges in our own lands that these people, in their lands, would never ever even think of allowing. Other examples are endless.

 

War, in all of its fronts, its a terrible thing. I'm not a war monger, but I do know that peace in a world of fanatics is only achieved at the point of a sword. You don't necessarily have to use that sword, but when you are talking about people that think you should die because you're not one of them (fanatics of all types and colours and creeds are this way), you'd better have it ready. It's a terrible shame to have to kill people, but it's a very large discussion here. What we're talking about is shaping the world, designing the future itself.

 

Maybe people don't realize it, but we in the West have this problem ("terrorism, terrorists", et al) because we allow ourselves to have this problem. We allow it by not going out and systematically exterminating all of those people that would, if they could, do exactly that to us. Those are our principles of democracy, freedom of expression, and the right to and from the practice of religion as each individual sees fit.

 

Not to be too polemical, and I'll just say it as an example (I'm not saying it should happen or anything), but if Israel had a free hand in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any more conflicts in that region for a long time. Just like when the Muslims came in themselves a long time ago. That's the way people are according to the old ideas. Now, there are new ideas but it takes a while to take on. People can only have anti-war sentiments because they stand in a situation of power great enough to allow them to have such dissenting thoughts.

 

When fanaticism dies down, rationality can take place. There are a lot of remarks here about Islam, but let me cite one example which should point out that it isn't Islam per se but fanaticism that I'm really talking about: Moorish Spain, held by the Moors (Muslims from Northern Africa) was not at its height a fanatical place. Far from it! In fact, there were universities where Muslim, Christian, and Jew studied together and spread the knowledge of the pagan world through Europe due to what they translated together, sparking not only the Renaissance but also the foundation of Oxford University and other centres of learning.

 

The "War on Terror" is a joke. However, there are important battles going on, nevertheless. They don't necessarily need to be, but it's complicated and it's not just about oil. Fighting is necessary, under some shroud. Humanity is not ready to hold hands. There are old ideals still floating around and new ones mingling in. It's delicate, but if the coin has two sides, and it seems like it does these days...one side (for example) that lets you draw cartoons, lets you have an existence as a woman, and lets you worship or not as you please, and then another side of the coin that does not...I know very well which way I want the coin to land when it's flipped.

[marharth]

Let me make it clear that it doesn't matter if you find it insulting or not that your being called a terrorist.

 

If you are a terrorist by definition, you are a terrorist. If you find that insulting its not a valid counter argument.

[Karasuman]

In light of this original, fresh and totally new of idea of dogging the US and calling them everything from terrorists to corrupt ***holes, what major world power that's ever existed did *not* have their own (sometimes corrupt) agendas behind the things they did? Can you name one? I sure can't. In fact, the US is pretty tame on the scale of corruption, tyranny and bloodthirst compared to many global powers of the past, such as Rome, Germany, and Russia, to name a few.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not here to interrupt anyone's American bashing as it is a rip-roaring good time for lots of folks these days (and if you dislike it to the degree of the OP I cannot imagine why you'd still be here), but can we at some point stop acting as though the US is the only nation that ever existed that used its power and influence to further its own goals?

 

If you want to believe your countrymen are terrorists, fine, that's your right. But it seems to me something of this nature is at least partially posted just to see what kind of reaction we can get out of people.

[JimboUK]

In light of this original, fresh and totally new of idea of dogging the US and calling them everything from terrorists to corrupt ***holes, what major world power that's ever existed did *not* have their own (sometimes corrupt) agendas behind the things they did? Can you name one? I sure can't. In fact, the US is pretty tame on the scale of corruption, tyranny and bloodthirst compared to many global powers of the past, such as Rome, Germany, and Russia, to name a few.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not here to interrupt anyone's American bashing as it is a rip-roaring good time for lots of folks these days (and if you dislike it to the degree of the OP I cannot imagine why you'd still be here), but can we at some point stop acting as though the US is the only nation that ever existed that used its power and influence to further its own goals?

 

If you want to believe your countrymen are terrorists, fine, that's your right. But it seems to me something of this nature is at least partially posted just to see what kind of reaction we can get out of people.

 

Every country puts its own interests first, I don't see why the US shouldn't. Governments are elected to serve the people of that country, not the people of other countries. Sadly America bashing is becoming as common as Israel bashing in Europe these days. :sad:

[LadyMilla]

Every country puts its own interests first, I don't see why the US shouldn't. Governments are elected to serve the people of that country serve the ruling economic/business interest groups of that country, not the people/business/economic interest groups of other countries.

Fixed it for you.

[Balagor]

We extend rights and privileges in our own lands that these people, in their lands, would never ever even think of allowing. Other examples are endless.

To be great minded has always shown superiority. Should we loose that?

 

Maybe people don't realize it, but we in the West have this problem ("terrorism, terrorists", et al) because we allow ourselves to have this problem. We allow it by not going out and systematically exterminating all of those people that would, if they could, do exactly that to us. Those are our principles of democracy, freedom of expression, and the right to and from the practice of religion as each individual sees fit.

To go and exterminate all we don´t see fit for our democrazy is the cruelest suggestion I have ever heard of. Why not back out off their countries as they ask. Perhaps it would work. We never tried.

Not to be too polemical, and I'll just say it as an example (I'm not saying it should happen or anything), but if Israel had a free hand in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any more conflicts in that region for a long time. Just like when the Muslims came in themselves a long time ago. That's the way people are according to the old ideas. Now, there are new ideas but it takes a while to take on. People can only have anti-war sentiments because they stand in a situation of power great enough to allow them to have such dissenting thoughts.

True. No more problems. If Israel had free hands, they would nuke all Palestinians. No more Palestinians, problem solved.

Can you actually hear what you are saying? Try to turn it around and say, let´s give UN free hands to make a resolution on Israel, with no veto from US.

 

With all this said let me apologize to all those I have called a terrorist. Also I have the deepest sympathy with the victims of the 911, and their families, the lastest airport attack in Moscov and all other attacks. I do not support terrorism. Those who know me, know me as the "Ghandi-freak". I do not support violence. If sombody punch me on my nose, I turn the other chick (yes, I have done so). I am not a fanatic, so if somebody else wants to punch back, I support that.

I am not off topic here, I will come to the point. I somebody punch you, you punch back. Fair. I somebody punch you in a crowd, and you don´t see who did it, it is not fair if you just punch the person you think looks guilty.

This is what I think happens when countries like US and Israel go on "punishing" warfare after a terrorist attack. Only a few terrorists get killed/captured, and far to many innoncent people get killed/injured.

Even the soldiers who do the job are victims. One of my best friends Simon, who has been in Croatia, Iraq and Afghanistan, is nothing but an empty shell. He has seen it all. He has had it al, wife, kid and divorce. He lives in a forrest and weeps at my shoulders from time to time. He did hes duty, he was send there under false conditions by the Danish gouvernment, who wanted to serve the US gouvernment. It was the Bush administration at that time. All false conditions. By that I mean that they were told that there was an enemy they were going to fight, but the problem is there WAS no enemy. The enemy was created lateter as the allied troops started to appear in said contries. (2. time in Iraq and present Afghanistan)

That´s why I at least call the Bush administration a terror organisation, an those who support it terrorist or ignorants at best.

One more time my apologies

[JimboUK]

Every country puts its own interests first, I don't see why the US shouldn't. Governments are elected to serve the people of that country serve the ruling economic/business interest groups of that country, not the people/business/economic interest groups of other countries.

Fixed it for you.

 

The economic and business interests are also part of that country, if they don't do well then nor do the people.

[marharth]

Every country puts its own interests first, I don't see why the US shouldn't. Governments are elected to serve the people of that country serve the ruling economic/business interest groups of that country, not the people/business/economic interest groups of other countries.

Fixed it for you.

Wrong, governments are made to protect and serve the people in the country and nothing more.

 

Having good economics also helps the people, but that's not what governments are mainly for.

[LadyMilla]

The economic and business interests are also part of that country, if they don't do well then nor do the people.

 

Believe me, a country may be very unhappy in spite of the fact that the business oligarchies with the political elite in tow are living la vida loca.