Who are the real terrorists?

[SpellAndShield]

I was born on a piece of land, I am not obligated to love it.

By definition, I am not a traitor.

 

I agree that you are not a traitor, ungrateful yes, living under the protection of honorable men and women who risk their lives so that you can exercise your right of free speech, safe and secure through no effort of your own. Fortunately the country does not require your services or abilities such as they are, you might want to look up the definition of 'civatas' something that must have eluded you during your education.

 

To the other posters:

This is individual is certainly not representative of the moral fiber of the country I assure you. The right to dissent and to vehemently disagree with policies of the government is an American tradition of which I throughly agree, but to take pride in a lack of patriotism is something that I can only pity.

 

Honourable? I know you will say it was exceptional but was there anything honourable to My Lai? Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are risking their lives so he can exercise his right to free speech? Our foreign policy, which you support out of a sense of pragmatism has little to do with defence of the country proper. Military servicemen are not risking their lives for abstract political ideals and it is almost comical to suggest that they do. Many joined simply to escape crushing poverty and as a way to pay for education. Do you truly believe the American military has over 700+ military bases in 130+ countries for the sake preservation of free speech within the USA? :mellow:

 

The type of 'civitas' you are referring to is little different to a tribe and ultimately, that is what patriotism is, a form of tribalism, no different to religious tribalism or ethnic tribalism. The manifestation of pride in something you have no control over (the country of your birth) is something I find baffling. Pride, if shown at all, should be shown at the having exercised one's own abilities and accomplishing something, not in a something that was heaped upon you by (mis)fortune. Until humanity overcomes tribalism in all its myriad forms, we are doomed.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Stardusk

[ginnyfizz]

If it had not been for what you call tribalism, which is what most would call patriotism, some huge dollops of stubbornness and extremely stout allies (yes, the good old USA and the Commonwealth troops, with the Free French and the Free Poles too), my own country, of which I am not ashamed to be proud, would have fallen under the Nazi jackboot. With an approach such as you favour, we wouldn't have been able to summon up the energy to be arsed to fight them on the beaches and on the landing grounds. The lesson of history teaches us that sometimes in order to protect such values as we hold dear, we must go and fight in or on behalf of countries that are not our own. In 1939, Britain and France went to war because of the attack on Poland. The USA offered financial and other aid without which we could not have survived, then they themselves were attacked and also declared war. Yes, the servicemen in both World Wars DID go to war because of political ideals. Servicemen in wars since have done so. It IS possible to be both pragmatic and to protect the ideals of our way of life and the type of society that we wish to live in, as well as the ideal of defending the weak, by going to war.

[SpellAndShield]

If it had not been for what you call tribalism, which is what most would call patriotism, some huge dollops of stubbornness and extremely stout allies (yes, the good old USA and the Commonwealth troops, with the Free French and the Free Poles too), my own country, of which I am not ashamed to be proud, would have fallen under the Nazi jackboot. With an approach such as you favour, we wouldn't have been able to summon up the energy to be arsed to fight them on the beaches and on the landing grounds. The lesson of history teaches us that sometimes in order to protect such values as we hold dear, we must go and fight in or on behalf of countries that are not our own. In 1939, Britain and France went to war because of the attack on Poland. The USA offered financial and other aid without which we could not have survived, then they themselves were attacked and also declared war. Yes, the servicemen in both World Wars DID go to war because of political ideals. Servicemen in wars since have done so. It IS possible to be both pragmatic and to protect the ideals of our way of life and the type of society that we wish to live in, as well as the ideal of defending the weak, by going to war.

 

WWII was for the more part, a morally defensible war; Vietnam was not, what we are doing today is not. You really cannot compare the these things. WWII is far in the past; let's talk about what the USA has done AFTER WWII, starting by employing ex-Nazis as spys against the Soviets to overthrows of elected governments to perpetual, pointless war, wasting American lives and killing millions of foreign civilians in the process. You can only live on the glories of the past for so long. Tribalism has its occasional uses; usually it does not.

[Keanumoreira]

You know, this discussion is rather a delicate one, and I sense a lot of hostility in this group.

 

Everyone is always quick to judge on their own terms, this I can understand from other nature, but to purposely attack the innocent minority of a country based on its goverment is unaccpetable. I'm not calling anyone here a racist as that may not be the case, but the assumption that every American born is a capitlist, blood thirtsty monster is bias. I'm not out to get anyone's money, and I only attack another person if provoked. And another thing, everyone seems so worked up about the West that they fail to see the East. What about Europe and Asia? Why hasn't anyone started complaining about what they have done? Oh no, sure, everyone is quick to forget genocide and international terrorism, but no one can get over a little greed and self persuit by a goverment unconnected to a people, a goverment mind you, that has its own interests at heart as every other nation around the world? Why are we even arguing over such trival and selfish matters when people everywhere have just the same amount of blame, yet we become the dart of the board? I don't agree with our goverment and how it is currently running a corrupt Democracy as it should be a free one, and I'm well aware of what the officals have done, but in the full scope of things, history has seen a lot worse. What, you think things are going to change over two wars and worthless documents? Ha! It's always been this way, and it will for a very long time. We haven't changed by much as far as politics is concerned; we are still nations on the roam, all racing to be number one as empires have done for 10,000 years. It isn't going to change.

 

I say just get over it or get out there and actually do something. Stop sitting around and bickering about it when it gets you no where.

[RZ1029]

I'm going to go ahead and pull my hat out of this arena. I have enjoyed the discussion and hope nobody has taken anything I have said as a personal attack. Some things were directed towards people, but only to prove points, not to make any statement about their character. I shall continue to watch this debate with interest, but I feel if I let myself go much further I may say something I might regret, and would rather pull myself from this before that would happen.

 

To the rest of you still engaged in this battle of wits, I wish you all the best and would like to remind you not to squat with your spurs on.

 

EDIT: Forgot to use my orangey color I'm starting to like.

Edited January 27, 2011 by RZ1029

[HappyHerring]

Maharth, I have a friend who whilst being a genuine socialist , somewhat to the left of what most people in Europe or even China today would be comfortable with, is consistantly a member of more than one minor trotskyist organisation and delights in egging on arguments between those notoriously argumentative organsisations. Are you actually British and is your name Lawrence?

 

Seriously though. Every nation, grouping or organisation, including anarchism and socialism, relegates those outside to 'outsider status' it is not possible to go against human nature and say "I am none of these", if you are actually interested in participating in society. The only people who have the luxury of not being able to identify with a social group in any way are those who are unprepared to actually participate in said societies.

 

Who is the terrorist? is it the WW2 Luftwaffe, who when bombing the U.K. had a campaign which targeted historic towns to terrorise and destroy public morale or the RAF who bombed German cities in part in response to said campaign as well as due to it's, acknowledged ability to pinpoint bomb strategic targets?

 

Were the British and Americans guilty of terror attacks when they bombed Dresden etc, after the Luftwaffe lost most ability to strike back or were they using the tools to hand at the request of an ally who had suffered on a far larger scale with what tools they had to hand?

 

From my reading of liberation/terrorism campaigns the terrorisation of the civilian body is required by the 'liberating' body to show "I have the ability to make you suffer if you do not support me far in excess of the opposition". This remains so just as it was in the American revoloution, the Chinese revoloutiion and ad infinitum. The question should be what is the realistic outcome? Is the putative new iteration of the state to the general advantage of all? Does it give relatively equal access to equitable justice to all? The aim of Al Qaeda seems to be one of a world state with one person leading it. The lesson of arab history seems to be that an autocratic theocratic state soon becomes the prisoner of the military. Given the choice between a relatively pluralistic world where many can express dissent and an everlasting dictatorship where surely death is the result of dissent as it is blasphemous to question the will of heaven as expressed by a caliph I would choose what we have now as the alternative would be a genuine state of terror.

 

 

 

 

[ginnyfizz]

WWII was for the more part, a morally defensible war; Vietnam was not, what we are doing today is not. You really cannot compare the these things. WWII is far in the past; let's talk about what the USA has done AFTER WWII, starting by employing ex-Nazis as spys against the Soviets to overthrows of elected governments to perpetual, pointless war, wasting American lives and killing millions of foreign civilians in the process. You can only live on the glories of the past for so long. Tribalism has its occasional uses; usually it does not.

 

WWII is only far in the past to the young, for some it is within living memory, and I was born only 16 years after it ended. Had the USA not "Meddled" in such a comprehensive fashion and the Nazis arrived in Britain, I would never have been born, as I had one Jewish grandparent. This is nothing to do with dwelling on past glories, but using an example for illustration.

 

And surely, the lesson of WWII is precisely why the USA and allies act quickly, with hindsight (oh how wonderful that is) perhaps precipitately. We dillied and dallied and let Hitler go on the rampage and become a real force to be reckoned with, making the task of getting rid of him even more costly in lives as well as financial terms. The lesson was aut feri nil feriare - strike or be struck. In future, act quickly and try to cut off the head of the hydra. In some cases, to use your example, Vietnam, it goes very badly. In others, it works.

 

@ Happy Pig, an excellent and well articulated post.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Given the choice between a relatively pluralistic world where many can express dissent and an everlasting dictatorship where surely death is the result of dissent as it is blasphemous to question the will of heaven as expressed by a caliph I would choose what we have now as the alternative would be a genuine state of terror.

Very well said, and that is precisely what I think the real underlying point is, personally, i.e. the purposeful manufacturing of the unification of the world under some chosen guise. Unification is happening, has been for a while (forever?...), and foxy types have been actively working at it since WW2 (can't remember the name of that doctrine...) in the US to make sure that they were the ones whose guise would win out, and far better a pluralist one that a Monotheoretical one for everybody's well-being, is what I say, too.

 

I think that a lot of this business with terrorists, etc., "rogue nations" and whatnot are just excuses to shape the unification of the world in the Eyes of the Beholders.

 

This stuff has always been done, with generally far cruder methods, only now "reasons" and "excuses" have to be given to the public. Doesn't matter if the reasons and the excuses are false or don't make sense. History will take care of the rest...as long as you made sure you were the Shaper of the Guise the world wears.

 

Sound too "conspiratorial" or evil, even?

 

[Harbringe]

 

The Iran Plateau has substandard oil. The oil trapped in the tar sand of the Monterey Formation (under the Los Angeles Basin) is better quality. Their sorry sour crude can be heated in an expensive, laborious process and can be turned into a lower-grade oil, which in turn can be used to make petro products.

 

The Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming hold the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. That makes the oil reserves under the Iran Plateau literally a drop in the bucket.

 

So much for the wicked American Capitalist pigs lusting after Middle Eastern oil. Let the fundamentalists have the oil and the whole region. The only reason oil was ever pulled from the ground in the first place was the British needing the stuff prior to WW2.

 

Well lets be honest about that ,its an estimate of 1.5 - 1.8 trillion barrels and its estimated approx 750 billion of it is recoverable and to my knowledge I haven't heard of anyone conclusively confirming that much oil is there ,mind you even if only half that amount is there and again half the above stated figure of 750 billion is recoverable its still an incredible find .Also add in that its not in the form of oil but of shale and it takes one barrel of oil to get two from shale and unlike the Athabaskan oil sands in which its shale is lying virtually on the surface ,the Green River shale is a different geological formation , much of it being deeply buried .Its going to be much harder to get at that vs the Athabaskan oil sands and that took near 40 yrs to get going.

 

Again its not about getting the oil , its about selling the oil , related to but not the same .One is about oil . One is about the US Dollar

 

Here is a link on oils relationship to the dollar .His assertion in the last paragraph is wrong but overall its pretty accurate.I had read a similar piece that went into much more detail in explaining the same thing , but I can no longer remember the google search parameters that lead me to it .Anyhoo read it if you like maybe I'll get lucky and find the other one and post it too.

 

My link

 

Hmm strange didn't give me a chance to name the link ,just posted it as my link

Edited January 27, 2011 by Harbringe

[Aurielius]

 

Honourable? I know you will say it was exceptional but was there anything honourable to My Lai? Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are risking their lives so he can exercise his right to free speech? Our foreign policy, which you support out of a sense of pragmatism has little to do with defence of the country proper. Military servicemen are not risking their lives for abstract political ideals and it is almost comical to suggest that they do. Many joined simply to escape crushing poverty and as a way to pay for education. Do you truly believe the American military has over 700+ military bases in 130+ countries for the sake preservation of free speech within the USA? :mellow:

 

The type of 'civitas' you are referring to is little different to a tribe and ultimately, that is what patriotism is, a form of tribalism, no different to religious tribalism or ethnic tribalism. The manifestation of pride in something you have no control over (the country of your birth) is something I find baffling. Pride, if shown at all, should be shown at the having exercised one's own abilities and accomplishing something, not in a something that was heaped upon you by (mis)fortune. Until humanity overcomes tribalism in all its myriad forms, we are doomed.

 

Stardusk

Yes I think that I can use the term honorable, the war that you are pulling out as an example raged back and forth for ten years with atrocities committed by both the Viet Cong and the NVA (though less so by the latter) and yes even by our (the US / ARVN) side , but it should be noted that Lt Calley was tried by a military court and found guilty. I fail to recall that any similar trials were held by Hanoi during or after the war's conclusion.

The vast majority of servicemen fought honorably and within the rules of war, something that was rarely accorded to us. As an aviator in that war the concept of falling into the hands of the Viet Cong or NVA made one seriously consider reserving the last bullet in one's sidearm for yourself, rather than be a guest of the Hanoi Hilton.

 

Civatas or the role of good citizenship that one plays within one's country is not an outmoded concept and certainly not a form of 'tribalism', that it is akin to patriotism is more in line with the original roman definition. Patriotism though, to younger audiences may seem outmoded but to those of us that were born shortly after WWII it is hardly irrelevant, it is that sense of civatas and patriotism that prevented a new dark age from descending upon the world at the cost of many thousands of serviceman's lives and unfortunately millions of innocents as well. You will find these outmoded patriots buried in European cemeteries and hundreds of islands in the Pacific, I for one, feel an obligation that their sacrifice not be ignored, marginalized or forgotten. Those that forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

 

The world is not becoming one homogeneous group but rather splintering off into many old and new subsets, some of these new subsets are antithetical to the concept of liberty, free speech, freedom of religion or even the general welfare of people as a whole. Some of these factions use asymmetric warfare to forward their ideology. It is when that use of asymmetric warfare takes no regard for innocent bystanders then I feel that the term 'terrorist' is aptly applied.