Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits
This happened on Saturday, but when I tried to post about it yesterday I was so angry I had to delete the post.
I'm still furious and sickened, but I think I can get the news across a little better today. You have probably already heard about it anyway.
On Saturday night, at about 21.30, the soldiers at an Army base in Antrim (Northern Ireland) ordered pizzas from the local Domino's. You know, Domino's Pizza - same sort of pizza you can get in most Western countries. Could be your local Domino's. I guess it was a big order as they sent two cars. Two men - one 19 and one 30 - you know, decent hardworking pizza delivery guys, hoping for a tip, getting through their shift, waiting for the weekend delivered the pizzas. The kinda guy who deliveres your pizza.
Two squaddies came out to collect them. Sapper Mark Quinsey 23 and Cengiz 'Patrick' Azimkar 21. They were both due to be posted to Afghanistan. You know, the dangerous place, where horrid Muslims shoot at you. Chaps like the ex-Forces men who post here.
Two murderous men sat in a car outside the barracks opened fire. They shot and the above named soldiers. Not content with shooting, they went over and fired again at the soldiers on the ground, killing them. Both were unarmed. They seriously wounded another four people in total - including the two pizza delivery men. No, you don't know men like this. They are infected with a cancer of hate and will happily kill anyone, anywhere, any time.
The "Real" IRA have claimed the kill. Filthy murdering bastards. Even Gerry Adams has spoken out against it (albeit in a mealy-mouthed way). I wouldn't piss on him if he was burning to death in front of my eyes. Well, maybe afterwards. But let's face it, if even he - with the blood of so many on his hands - thinks this was A Bad Thing then there's not many who can say otherwise.
Four hardworking men. Three Brits and a Pole. How dare they? How dare they kill my people, in my country? I thought we'd seen the end of this random waste a decade ago. I'm anti-death penalty, and I won't change my opinion on that. But I'd be happy to see them starve themselves to death in a shit smeared cell. Let's see how "Real" their aspirations are then.
Oh, btw, this is the toned down version. Imagine what I was typing yesterday.
I read about this in today's paper. It's so sad. I hate this stuff. Always the innocent suffer...
Wow, SG, I was really shocked to hear that happened. Our thoughts are with you. It really seemed like peace was steady. And it only takes a few extremists like this to mess it up. Hopefully, as wired as you guys are, they will have caught them on the video and can track them down.
We can only hope that the power sharing in the Irish parliament remains strong enough to face this tragedy with a united front and get the arseholes that did it.
I think that will happen. It's in no one's interest to go back to the way things were.
Wow. I thought the IRA didn't do stuff like that anymore. I thought Britain and Ireland had worked everything out.
I'm so sorry SG to hear about this. :(
It wasn't the IRA. It was a splinter group that thinks the IRA has gone soft. They're trying to get the IRA to fire up again and become more 'hands on' instead of political.
Jesus. Just what we need, more radical assholes in the world with guns. Why can't we all just live together? Seriously.
Well we do, it's just that some people have some weird ideas about what the best way to live is.
Sounds like they took some notes from Iraq.
Aye. And people think that "Arabs" and "towel-heads" and Muslims are the only freakazoids out there.
Nope, sorry. White European Christians are quite happy to kill. Kill and kill and maim and kill. They did, and horribly it turns out they still do. A policeman has also been killed now.
I haven't said, but you might know, I am from an Irish family. I am probably closer to my Irish roots than almost any Irish Americans. Certainly I went to church every Sunday, and we - English Catholics - prayed only for the victims - English, Irish or otherwise. Never for the murdering bastards regardless of religion.
I am not anti-Catholic. I'm certainly not anti-American. I am against using Irish heritage as an excuse to fund terrorism. I doubt the Nor-Aid collection tins got much following 9-11. But they did previously. They did. And they helped kill many civilians.
Again, times change. And I hope Ireland has changed. I'm pretty sure it has. But if I have the money, I will take a trip to Ireland and spit on Paddy McGuinness' and Gerry Adam's graves.
I'll dance in Thatcher's too if it's any consolation. Nothing to do with terrorism. I just want to tramp the dirt down.
Sounds like they took some notes from Iraq.
The other way around:
Iraqi terrorists had bomb technology developed by the IRA.
It's a GLOBAL war on terror, and it's not over...
The 'Real IRA', who were almost certainly behind these attacks, are more like criminals than terrorists. They run protection rackets, deal drugs and engage in organized crime. To be honest, political killings like this, from them, are pretty rare. Its more likely been done to assure themselves that they are really real freedom fighters and not criminals, more than for any real political reason.
The attack on the soldiers was the Real IRA. The murdered constable was a different splinter group.
During the troubles, though I always thought them vicious bastards, especially to their own (punishment beatings, disappearances etc), I always had some sympathy with the IRA. Without them fighting their campaigns I doubt the British government would have sat around the table and opted for peace.
But there's a bloody big difference between fighting to free your country from decades of occupation and de facto apartheid, and fighting because you don't like the details of the peace.
Yes, I just checked, the police killing was the Continuity IRA. With the attack on Saturday, and a ton of other stuff I was doing yesterday, I lept to a conclusion before doing the necessary fact-checking.
CIRA are definitely more political than the RIRA. However, they are not without their own problems. A few years ago, several of their imprisoned members had a falling out with the CIRA and split from them, joining other groups or forming splinter organizations. If that has continued, then it could be that they are stepping up their campaign because they are running out of personnel. Terrorists groups are normally more dangerous towards the end of their life cycle. During 2006-7 they seemed to concentrate on cleaning house with their defectors and since then have been more violent than usual.
Also, since Martin McGuiness has labelled the CIRA terrorists as "treasonous", I would not want to be in their shoes right now. The RUC has rules, whereas the PIRA have none. And its not like Sinn Fein aren't really invested in the peace deal already...
Here's what I don't understand about this whole issue. Terrorism is generally a tactic that is used by one people to gain their indpendence from another power/country that is oppressing them. IF the people doing the oppressing would just stop and give them their freedom, then the tactics should stop. I believe that is the problem in Israel/Palestine. And I believe that is al Qaeda's beef with the west.
I don't know what the politics are right now between Britain and Ireland, and what the IRAs continued beef is. But, if it has anything to do with what I said, it seems to me that Ireland should be it's own independent country, with sovereignty and independent government and all that goes along with that. Could you please enlighten me SD? Are they not independent now? I kinda thought all of this was pretty much settled.
Im not SD, but I can elaborate. Essentially, the problem is there is a significant population in Ulster who are still pro-British and pro-Union. These are the Loyalist factions you often hear about. For that reason, it would be difficult to just "give" northern Ireland away. Quite frankly, the Republic of Ireland isn't that interested in having to take on that region of the country either, given the history of violence and economic issues it suffers. Equally, on the other side, you have the republicans, such as the IRA, who want the British out.
At the moment, The Republic of Ireland is free and independent country and has been for nearly a century. Northern Ireland is still under British rule, but there is the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, where much power has been devolved to.
Because the IRA negotiated with the UK, hardline Republicans consider them traitors to the cause, and are looking to reignite the Troubles. So far, the British establishment isn't biting, however.
Terrorism is generally a tactic that is used by one people to gain their independence from another power/country that is oppressing them. IF the people doing the oppressing would just stop and give them their freedom, then the tactics should stop.
Perhaps your original premise isn't entirely correct.
According to one definition:
Terrorism, according to Merriam-Webster is the systematic use of terror, "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which (1) are intended to create fear (terror), (2) are perpetrated for an ideological goal , and (3) deliberately target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants.
So you are in favor of granting the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others?
Im not SD, but I can elaborate. Essentially, the problem is there is a significant population in Ulster who are still pro-British and pro-Union. These are the Loyalist factions you often hear about. For that reason, it would be difficult to just "give" northern Ireland away. Quite frankly, the Republic of Ireland isn't that interested in having to take on that region of the country either, given the history of violence and economic issues it suffers. Equally, on the other side, you have the republicans, such as the IRA, who want the British out.
At the moment, The Republic of Ireland is free and independent country and has been for nearly a century. Northern Ireland is still under British rule, but there is the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, where much power has been devolved to.
Because the IRA negotiated with the UK, hardline Republicans consider them traitors to the cause, and are looking to reignite the Troubles. So far, the British establishment isn't biting, however.
Thanks Zhuge Liang. I appreciate your response.
Perhaps the Brits and the Republic of Ireland should just allow Northern Ireland to be independent then and let them form their own country and government. I mean, if that's where all the trouble is coming from, and if a majority of the people want independence, just give it to them. Let them see if they can make can make it on their own.
Perhaps the Brits and the Republic of Ireland should just allow Northern Ireland to be independent then and let them form their own country and government. I mean, if that's where all the trouble is coming from, and if a majority of the people want independence, just give it to them. Let them see if they can make can make it on their own.
Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?
All I have to say is let's look at the name: Northern Ireland.
As Zhuge has already pointed out, though, the Loyalist community don't want independence, they want to remain a part of the UK. They consider themselves British, subjects of her Majesty.
Add to that the complicated matter of parliamentary politics and it becomes very messy. There's many an English government has been held up during difficult votes by support from Loyalist Irish MPs. Also, up until very recently (like the last couple of years) it was a safe bet to say that any Prime Minister or Party that presided over the handing back of Northern Ireland, would have consigned themselves to the political wilderness in doing so.
Perhaps your original premise isn't entirely correct.
According to one definition:
Quote:
Terrorism, according to Merriam-Webster is the systematic use of terror, "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which (1) are intended to create fear (terror), (2) are perpetrated for an ideological goal , and (3) deliberately target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants.
So you are in favor of granting the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others?
How is that contradictory to what I said? And I would add that, who the terrorist is depends on which side you're on. In other words, to some Iraqis, WE are the terrorists, to the Palestinians, the Israeli govt is the terrorist. People don't generally start out using terrorism as a tactic, they generally use it when their voices aren't being heard and they don't have the resources (like an army) the other side has. Terrorism usually is a result of actions others have taken - or an effect of a cause. (cause and effect. Every action has consequences. When people take actions they know are controversial and likely to cause trouble, then can we really be surprised when the shit hits the fan?)
I think, when dealing with these kinds of situations, it is extremely important to try and understand where the other side is coming from, something we rarely do in this country (or something the more powerful rarely do). What is their beef? What is it they really want? What are they after? Why have they resorted to these kinds of drastic actions? Try to put yourself in their place, and see how you would feel. See if there is common ground that can be met by
both sides. It really is about power: one side has it, the other one doesn't. If we could get out of these heirarchical, patriarchal social structures of power-over, and move into structures of shared power, or
power-with, the world would be a much better place.
I honestly do not believe most people want to live in a state of war. I believe most people want peace. When you have a situation where people have been fighting for SO long, it's easy to demonize one side over the other. Well, maybe the "demons" have resorted to doing abhorent things out of necessity. If we don't try to understand their point of view and what they want, we will never solve the problem of terrorism.
And I have to add, I find it very hypocritical that some people support military wars that create terror for the people in the countries where they fight, no matter how noble they believe their purpose might be, and then demonize the other side for actually fighting back. We kill thousands of innocent people in airstrikes and such, we call them collateral damage. So why is it OK when we do it, but not when others target innocents? We may not be targeting innocents, but we know they are there, and we strike anyway. They are still dead.
Having said all of that, I want it to be understood that I do not condone the actions of terrorists. I do understand why some of them do it. Understanding the psychology of something doesn't mean you believe it is right.
I do understand why some of them do it. Understanding the psychology of something doesn't mean you believe it is right.
Well put.
As Zhuge has already pointed out, though, the Loyalist community don't want independence, they want to remain a part of the UK. They consider themselves British, subjects of her Majesty.
Add to that the complicated matter of parliamentary politics and it becomes very messy. There's many an English government has been held up during difficult votes by support from Loyalist Irish MPs. Also, up until very recently (like the last couple of years) it was a safe bet to say that any Prime Minister or Party that presided over the handing back of Northern Ireland, would have consigned themselves to the political wilderness in doing so.
I agree it's a very messy prospect, considering the people of Northern Ireland are divided themselves. I honestly don't have the answer. I only think that, until those who oppose it are given a voice at the table and some power to help solve the issue, things will likely continue to get worse.
You really are a socialist, sugah. Thats ok, I'm just sayin.
Well put.
Thank you Dana. I usually get creamed for my opinions about this issue.
hey classic, I've admitted to being somewhat of a socialist. :D Where you been?
I agree with the principle of some of that. I did just take a look at
this document
TERRORISM DEFINED
The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
This definition was carefully crafted to distinguish between terrorism and other kinds of violence. The act of terrorism is defined independent of the cause that motivates it. People employ terrorist violence in the name of many causes. The tendency to label as terrorism any violent act of which we do not approve is erroneous. Terrorism is a specific kind of violence.
The official definition says that terrorism is calculated. Terrorists generally know what they are doing. Their selection of a target is planned and rational. They know the effect they seek. Terrorist violence is neither spontaneous nor random. Terrorism is intended to produce fear; by implication, that fear is engendered in someone other than the victim. In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience.
Finally, the definition addresses goals. Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views. The objectives of terrorism distinguish it from other violent acts aimed at personal gain, such as criminal violence.
Its a long read, but worthy if for nothing more than to gain some insight on the thoughts of those who wrote it.
The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles.
It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen...
When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace.
The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door.
These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.
I read somewhere that the most common age of IRA members range from 15 to 18 years old. If that is true, this is an extremely important aspect to be looked into more deeply since the reason for children to be joining the IRA and not adults can mean many different things.
I agree it's a very messy prospect, considering the people of Northern Ireland are divided themselves. I honestly don't have the answer. I only think that, until those who oppose it are given a voice at the table and some power to help solve the issue, things will likely continue to get worse.
Since Northern Ireland is very divided, I honestly don't think peace is possible unless one side completely takes over the other or they come together under a single value. Especially as of lately, I have been really convinced that peace and true democracy can not exist in a heterogenous population (I can explain this in further if needed) and violence and sometimes terrorism can almost be an inevitable result of decentralized power in a centralized state setup.
Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?
Well of course but I feel your logic is flawed. If terrorism is the result of a oppressed population finally putting their voice out to the world it is much different then a group of radicals that are fighting for their own unpopular ideological aims as DanaC suggests. In one situation, it would be benificial for the oppressor state to give up amounts of power while in the second situation, it would not since the the terrorists do not represent the "voice" of the population.
For example, if blacks in the 1950's used violent instead of non-violent protests, is their situation any different? Obviously the tactic would produce different results but the fact that they were oppressed and deserve equal rights does not change.
Each situation has to be looked at differently since the movement behind the acts of terrorism are completely different as well. In this situation, it seems that the IRA does not represent the population and the fact that it is made up of 15-18 years olds really shows the lack of maturity in the movement.
Pierce - How exactly is my logic flawed? Especially since it is a question posed to a previous poster?
@Pierce.... Not to burst your bubble, but there were actually some violent blacks during the Civil Rights Movement era. As well as others who thought groups such as SNCC needed to embrace direct action in the form of violent instead of passive resistance. But yeah you're right the violence of a few does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the non-violent majority and their legitimate concerns.
Whose bubble are you bursting?
Classic, because you are looking at it much too narrowly.
Classic, because you are looking at it much too narrowly.
I call Bullshit - I never posted MY position - I posted a definition to counter hers from the DOD (not mine) and then posed a question to her. Where did I ever state my logic?
Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?
This is just a question? Doesn't imply your position at all? Are you serious?
I call Bullshit
I knew you would. BECAUSE YOU TAKE SUCH A NARROW VIEW.
Read the posts in this thread Classic and try to absorb what they are saying...think about them. Nobody is giving terrorism a pass, but they are doing a good job of trying to figure out why it it.
Yes, essentially, but we dont have to.
ETA: It actually does all boil down to narrowness of view anyway, doesnt it?
I was speaking to Pierce in my post, can't edit to clarify now because the time limit has passed.
Thats all well and good banter, but tell me exactly what my position is then. It shouldn't be too hard for you since I apparently said what it is and its so "narrow." Or just go back in this thread and copy it from there - that'll work too.
Jinx did that already, Classic. And my post tried to.
This is just a question? Doesn't imply your position at all? Are you serious?
I knew you would. BECAUSE YOU TAKE SUCH A NARROW VIEW.
Read the posts in this thread Classic and try to absorb what they are saying...think about them. Nobody is giving terrorism a pass, but they are doing a good job of trying to figure out why it it.
Yes, essentially, but we dont have to.
ETA: It actually does all boil down to narrowness of view anyway, doesnt it?
Jinx did that already, Classic. And my post tried to.
Which one? Where? You apparently have a preconceived notion of my opinion and then call it narrow. Wanna try again.
Just go ahead and tell me what my opinion is. Please.
Jinx did that already. There was definitely a view point (with 'tude even) suggested in the response she quoted. Its not a big deal Classic, and Pierce already did a really good job of explaining himself.
OOps, was editing while you were posting.
Maybe you should tell us what your did mean by this then before I go any further.
Originally Posted by classicman
Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?
That was my response to sugarpops post of, paraphrasing here, "why don't we just give them what the want?"
What I read was akin to saying, if a terrorist group is violent enough and attack, maim and kill enough innocent civilians through
terrorist activities we should meet the terrorists demands so they'll stop.
Again, that was an ASSUMPTION of what I thought she meant by her post and I was shocked by that so I posted incredulously my question.
Originally Posted by classicman
Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?
Again - it was not a statement of my opinion at all - It was a question asking her if that is what she meant. Got it now?
And I am still awaiting HER response.
Maybe you should tell us what your did mean by this then before I go any further.
Nope - wanna try again? Or are you willing to admit that I never posted my opinion, you made an assumption of it and it was your view of me that was narrow?
See, I didn't have the same reaction to her post at all. Maybe she didn't explain it well enough, but I got the gist of what she was saying, because I don't hold the view of terrorism that you seem to as shown by the definition you chose to give. I like to look beyond that...to the why of it...trying to put myself in the shoes of a terrorist, so to speak. What I think Sugarpop was trying to say, is if these people just has their needs taken care of beforehand, maybe they wouldn't have to revert to terrorism.
Of course, it would be much more difficult for me to take such a broad-minded view if I was a victim of a terrorist act.
Nope - wanna try again? Or are you willing to admit that I never posted my opinion, you made an assumption of it and it was your view of me that was narrow?
????
But you just did...:rolleyes:
Maybe she didn't explain it well enough ~snip~
What I think Sugarpop was trying to say
See - You are ASSUMING you know what she means - I chose not to do that and instead asked a simple question.
But you just did
Nope - again - not my opinion, just a question.
LOL. You are funny Classic.
I understood your point Classic, and I'm pretty sure sugarpop will be happy to elaborate too.
I think people need to consider the historical reasons for the problems in Ireland before making too many assumptions though. In the begining, as far as most Irish Catholics (that is, the original Irish people) were concerned, the IRA were the good guys for trying to eject the people they saw as the invaders.
We know that it wasn't even a case of 'settling' or immigrating to Ireland by the British. It was a bunch of lords that decided they wanted to rule the peasants (in a nutshell). It wasn't till later that British and Irish people became more equal in their social status (apart from the British servants that came with the gentry, and in most cases, those British servants were given more status than the Irish ones anyway).
It was colonialism at it's finest really. No wonder the original inhabitants were pissed off.
Pierce - How exactly is my logic flawed? Especially since it is a question posed to a previous poster?
Your logic is flawed because you placed all acts of terrorism into one group. You said sarcastically "Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?" in response to Sugarpop claiming that Britain should allow Northern Ireland to be independent. By saying the word
all you are lumping all terrorist actions into one group and by sarcastically saying "lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want" you obviously go against giving terrorists whatever they want. So by taking that together you seem to be against giving into any terrorist's demands.
My point is that we cannot clump all terrorists actions into one group and each situation should be looked at individually to see what would be the best course of action. In this situation, from what DanaC has suggested, it would not be best to give in to terrorists demands and allow Ireland to be independent but other situations, such as my theoretical civil rights movement, it would be best to give into terrorists demands.
Not to burst your bubble, but there were actually some violent blacks during the Civil Rights Movement era. As well as others who thought groups such as SNCC needed to embrace direct action in the form of violent instead of passive resistance.
My bubble has not been burst. I am aware of the difference between non-violent and violent movements and the split in the civil rights movement because of these two different philosophies. I was just making an example to show how states should give in to some demands made known by violent actions.
But yeah you're right the violence of a few does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the non-violent majority and their legitimate concerns.
While that is true in many instances that was not my point. My point is that there are situations where demands be given whether the movement is violent or non-violent. If the civil rights movement was violent and the majority of blacks supported that violence, the state should have given blacks just as many rights because the state was wrong in the first place.
Overall, if the oppressor is obviously wrong they should ideally give in to the reasonable demands of the oppressed whether they used violence or non-violence.
WIZARD
...(spoken) Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of
things that aren't true. We call it - "history."
(sung) A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist...
I like that sheldon, and you're right. It is applicable here.
Oh yeah, and I don't support terrorism either, but the relatively modern history of the situation in Ireland should help people understand things better.
What kind of gay man would I be if I couldn't apply a musical to everyday life?
A non-musical one?
I've known a couple. It was a tragedy.
Although we get the nasty news here, I don't think I'd be too far out of line if I said that there's been nary a rumble about ongoing issues with The Troubles since the truces were signed. So, can our Brit friends bring us up to speed on what's been going on since then, and why this is coming to a head now?
That was my response to sugarpops post of, paraphrasing here, "why don't we just give them what the want?"
What I read was akin to saying, if a terrorist group is violent enough and attack, maim and kill enough innocent civilians through terrorist activities we should meet the terrorists demands so they'll stop.
Again, that was an ASSUMPTION of what I thought she meant by her post and I was shocked by that so I posted incredulously my question.
Again - it was not a statement of my opinion at all - It was a question asking her if that is what she meant. Got it now?
And I am still awaiting HER response.
All this fuss over little ole me. gee whizz! :blush:
I hope I have explained my position sufficiently in the posts following your remark. I didn't answer you directly because the question really seemed rhetorical to me.
The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles.
It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen...
When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace.
The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door.
These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.
Thank you Dana for explaining it to me. Since it is a few people making trouble after most everyone else reached a peace agreement, then I have to agree with you. In this case, according to what you've said here, it really does sound like a few troublemakers.
I wonder what they want though? I can't imagine they really want continued war. Who wants that? Honestly, and I mean this from every fiber in my being, I really don't get why people can't live together - live and let live, you know?
In the case with Israel and Palestine, I have to say the Palestinians definitely have a legitimate beef and reason for fighting though.
You placed all acts of terrorism into one group. By saying the word all you are lumping all terrorist actions into one group
Incorrect.
and by sarcastically saying "lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want" you obviously go against giving terrorists whatever they want.
again incorrect.
So by taking that together you seem to be against giving into any terrorist's demands.
ahh another assumption. . .Again
Well now, I've been taken out of context. I
assumed that since
SHE went off of this particular issue and into terroristic attacks
IN GENERAL, I followed suit. I again did not state that I believe we should or should not take any particular course of action.
I ASKED if that was what SHE WAS SUGGESTING.
Well now, I've been taken out of context. I assumed that since SHE went off of this particular issue and into terroristic attacks IN GENERAL, I followed suit. I again did not state that I believe we should or should not take any particular course of action. I ASKED if that was what SHE WAS SUGGESTING.
How were you taken out of context? I don't mean to pursue this but Sugarpop either pointed out particular terrorist groups or said the word generally while you put in an absolute. Also, there seemed to be a high level of sarcasm and you presented a strawman.
Edit - Explain your last post, don't just say incorrect because I have no idea why you believe I am incorrect..
Edit - Explain your last post, don't just say incorrect because I have no idea why you believe I am incorrect..
OMFG! I ASKED A FUCKING QUESTION BASED UPON HER POST -
I NEVER STATED MY OPINION!
For you to say that I did is incorrect, hence my last post.
classic, it seems clear that although you didn't actually spell out your opinion....it was stated clearly by contextual inference.
i gathered that a) you don't like sugarpop and b) you dont think we should grant the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others.
but then, i'm pretty fucking perceptive.
I have nothing but the highest respect for sugarpop and her opinions. I certainly disagree with some of them, but that is irrespective of the point being made here.
My opinion remains unstated and the question I originally asked still goes unanswered. A simple yes or no would suffice.
oh, that seems honest. i'll buy it!
Good, cuz I'm serious - I have no problem with her - at all.
This helps reflect the opinion of people in Northern Ireland.
Yes, it is a British website, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. And Ireland (which I have always called Eire due to my heritage) is geographically part of the British Isles.
I am half Irish in the way Americans assess things. I was brought up Catholic - and only my brother and I have no faith. And I don't mean Christmas and Easter, I mean weekly Mass and fasting on Holy Days and denying yourself through Lent and reflecting through Advent and all the kit and caboodle. No, I don't believe a word of it, but if you're going to do it at least commit to it. And I heard not a word of support for the IRA from any of the priests or Nuns I was taught by.
I am far less tolerant than Dani. I already know that. I have admitted before that although I truly mean my liberal ideals, I am aware they are a veneer that can be scratched away. And I fight it. But even fighting it I have no acceptance of terrorists. We were set an assignment in Religion Education in class once, about how we would feel about the Romans if we were Jews - I was one of only two people that said they would not kill them. I might want to, but wouldn't. Because of my personal experience of terrorism
I know I am being reactionary here. I admit it. Of course I don't hate every pale skinned red-headed person. Or black headed person with wiry hair and freckles. Or anyone called Doyle.
Literally, that is my family. And me (if I'd got the hair colour I deserved). But I hate people who kill innocents to get their way.
In my mind the bell tolls for the armed forces and the soldiers. But also for the pizza delivery mean. The builders. The taxi drivers. The people in pubs. The OAPs in Enniskillan who shined their medals up for Remembrance Day. The Dads out shopping with their kids for Mothers Day.
You had one attack in America.
How would you feel? How would you feel if it was your Grandad celebrating surviving WWII? Your Mum going into Woolworths in Omagh? Your sister's boyfriend in a pub in Birmingham? Your friend who was a pizza delivery man right up until last weekend?
I'll leave it to people more intelligent and balanced than me to argue the politics. I hate the fucking murderous bastards. Death is never a poltical tool , unless it's suicide (and even that I query).
I've posted this before. You might roll your eyes. But it was shown here at the time (in advance of the film Rattle & Hum). And I think it shows the true voice of the Irish. It was originally an atrocity by the British forces. So was Amritsah (look it up). But so was American treatment of fellow Americans who happened to have different coloured skin. We are all guilty by our ancestry. But those of us who do not believe we are damned by the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) can say, "I'm so sick of it!"
Bono on Enniskillan.
[youtube]_k4ULln7IkU[/youtube]
I have no acceptance of terrorists.
I hate people who kill innocents to get their way.
Quite clear and well put ... depending upon the definition of terrorist.
We are all guilty by our ancestry.
I disagree with that - I am not guilty of anything that another human did. Especially what was done during a different time an place in the world. Things have changed so much so rapidly, especially the last 20-50 years, that to hold me somehow responsible for something someone else did seems ludicrous to me. But hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine.
But hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine.
Tagline!
Ohhhh thanks! Been thinkin bout a new one!
I disagree with that - I am not guilty of anything that another human did. Especially what was done during a different time an place in the world. Things have changed so much so rapidly, especially the last 20-50 years, that to hold me somehow responsible for something someone else did seems ludicrous to me.
Hypothetically speaking,
if Madoff's kids weren't involved with defrauding billions from investors, but they clearly benefited financially, are they guilty of anything? What if they don't return the money once they find out about the fraud? Are they guilty then? They don't know exactly how much was ill gotten and who is owed what. Are they guilty to keep it, if they weren't involved in the original fraud? Are they guilty at all for living high on the hog for all those years? Assuming they didn't know?
Hmmm, without guilt then, there is no sense of responsibility to others. Huh.
Glatt - I was referring to my ancestors, sorry for any confusion on your part.\
Pico - Put your stick elsewhere, mkay?
Its my stick and I'll play with it if I want to...
Oh Wait...I dont have one.
Glatt - I was referring to my ancestors, sorry for any confusion on your part.
There was no confusion. At least not on my part.
I asked you about Madoff and his kids because the question is whether the guilt of the fathers is passed on to the sons. You say it isn't in your case, and I was asking if it is in Madoff's case. Assuming the sons weren't in on the fraud. It's a hypothetical question.
Hypothetically speaking, if Madoff's kids weren't involved with defrauding billions from investors, but they clearly benefited financially, are they guilty of anything?
No
What if they don't return the money once they find out about the fraud? Are they guilty then?
No
They don't know exactly how much was ill gotten and who is owed what. Are they guilty to keep it, if they weren't involved in the original fraud?
No
Are they guilty at all for living high on the hog for all those years? Assuming they didn't know?
No
This is very similar to a conversation I believe you and I have already had in another thread . For the record, you asked very specific questions which I answered.
Hey Classic, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not sure what other thread you are talking about, but it's possible we've talked about something similar before.
I didn't expect you to answer the way you did for one part, that the kids wouldn't be guilty to keep the money their dad had stolen. I figured you would find them guilty in some way if they did that. But it fits with what you were saying before about not feeling guilty for anything your ancestors have done.
I personally have a feeling that if we benefit somehow from bad things that our ancestors have done, then we share some of the guilt. I find it's not enough to do anything about it, but I acknowledge that it's there.
None of this has anything to do with the different groups of Christians killing each other over their differences in how they follow Christ.
SG, I'm glad you don't hate people by the name of Doyle. I'm only one generation away from being a Doyle. ;) Or is it two? My Nana was a Doyle, that made my Dad half Doyle, so I'm a quarter, but my Mum has Doyle's on her side too but they're a generation back.
That being said, I don't consider myself Irish in any way even though that's where they came from. Australian all the way for me. It's really the only culture I identify with.
Hey Classic, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not sure what other thread you are talking about, but it's possible we've talked about something similar before.
I didn't expect you to answer the way you did for one part, that the kids wouldn't be guilty to keep the money their dad had stolen. I figured you would find them guilty in some way if they did that. But it fits with what you were saying before about not feeling guilty for anything your ancestors have done.
I personally have a feeling that if we benefit somehow from bad things that our ancestors have done, then we share some of the guilt. I find it's not enough to do anything about it, but I acknowledge that it's there.
Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.
There is a difference between guilt or remorse and empathy. If someone was wronged by my great grandfather, for example, thats on him not me. What could I have done about it? I wasn't there I wasn't born yet. I feel no responsibility for the actions of someone else, what difference does it make if they were/are a distant relative or a complete stranger? If my cousin kills someone, should I go to jail?
I disagree with that - I am not guilty of anything that another human did. Especially what was done during a different time an place in the world. Things have changed so much so rapidly, especially the last 20-50 years, that to hold me somehow responsible for something someone else did seems ludicrous to me. But hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine.
Its usually never that simple.
Lets take glatt's example and expand on it. Lets say you are the son of someone who made a living off stealing money from others and your father never got caught. Now, because of the money your father stole, you were able to go to private school with a tutor, go to a nice college and get a good paying job (CEO lets say) while the families that your father stole from could not pay for college or even apply for loans and their children now had to work for you in a working class job.
You would at least have to acknowledge the fact that everything you have now is the result of your father's actions along with everything that the other children do not have. By exploiting the immoral actions of your father, how are you any different? If I steal a car and give it to you is it still not a stolen car? Do you still not bear some responsibility for it?
To go off in a tangent, this is the best reason why I do not believe in ideal justice. There is no good solution in this situation. Honestly, the best solution in my opinion would be for you to acknowledge that everything you have is the result of crime and not think yourself any better then the people that work for you, especially the children that your father stole from because the situation could easily have been switched.
Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.
That brings me to this. If you still knowingly benefit from the fact that your lifestyle is the result of past crime, how you can not argue that you do not share at least some responsibility. Would you not feel bad if I robbed an old lady and then bought you a candy bar from that money? I mean....you didn't actually rob the old lady...
According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has? Every employee, vendor and anyone else even remotely associated with his organization then, according to you, shares in the responsibility of this one mans (or small groups) actions? Where do you draw the line? When does the responsibility end? With the janitor, window cleaners, the guy that delivered pizzas? Where??? All that was presumably bought and;/or paid for with "dirty money."
I am by no means saying that I am right or more importantly that you are wrong, just asking how far you are willing to go with the responsibility or guilt?
You need to read more carefully.
Key words:
knowingly benefit
Key phrase:
There is no good solution to this problem
Also, I'm really curious how you got "take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has" from?
Would you not feel bad if I robbed an old lady and then bought you a candy bar from that money? I mean....you didn't actually rob the old lady...
I didn't think this part was serious. My response:
I might feel bad for you after I beat you within an inch of your life, stuff that candy bar you bought up your ass and then held you down so the "old lady" could kick you repeatedly in the balls till the police arrived. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but only for a moment.
But again, thats just me.
I'm really curious how you got "take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has" from?
I took it to the extreme - Now, where do you draw the line?
You need to read more carefully.
According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has?
You too - see the question mark?
I didn't think this part was serious. My response:
I might feel bad for you after I beat you within an inch of your life, stuff that candy bar you bought up your ass and then held you down so the "old lady" could kick you repeatedly in the balls till the police arrived. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but only for a moment.
But again, thats just me.
Don't be stupid. You are fully aware that the point was to show that it can be possible to be guilty from actions of your predecessors when you KNOWINGLY BENEFIT from them. That was the point then and that has always been the point.
I took it to the extreme - Now, where do you draw the line?
A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical. I try my best not to knowingly benefit from crime but that is still a load of idealistic crap. Take it how you want.
You too - see the question mark?
What? Just because you have a question mark there doesn't mean you don't imply something. For example
Person A - I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Person B - Do you believe we should start giving heroin away as well?
As you can see, even though Person B asked a question, it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.
In your comment, you made an implication that I was getting at a point where everyone that was around Madoff should be stripped of everything they have, which is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, the implication is also a straw man.
This happened earlier in this tread as well. Don't make ridiculous statements and hide behind the fact you put a question mark there.
I'm still curious of where you got that from.
I have nothing but the highest respect for sugarpop and her opinions. I certainly disagree with some of them, but that is irrespective of the point being made here.
My opinion remains unstated and the question I originally asked still goes unanswered. A simple yes or no would suffice.
And I respect yours. Honestly though, I thought I had pretty much anwered the question in all my other posts, and that my opinion about this was pretty clear. I will state it again though.
I think, when people are desperate enough to turn to terrorism, they do so because they are
not being heard. I believe people use those kinds of tactics,
usually, because they do not have the resources of the people they are fighting, so they turn to radical methods to make a point. I believe that, in places where terrorism is common, people need to find
common ground or they will never solve the problem. In order to DO that, you have to be willing to LISTEN to the people who are committing terrorism. You know, sometimes, they have a legitimate beef. Both sides have to be willing to make concessions. That means sometimes you have give terrorists some of what they want in order to gain peace.
Personally, I do believe you can
fight terrorism, especially using conventional military means. If you could, Israel would be the safest country on earth.
Everyone is guilty of something. :D
Don't be stupid. You are fully aware that the point was to show that it can be possible to be guilty from actions of your predecessors when you KNOWINGLY BENEFIT from them. That was the point then and that has always been the point.
I'll try not to be stupid. lol
I got your point. I disagree with you. Have you gotten that yet? I don't know what my great grandparents did and if I found out today that they supplied guns to martians or some other illegal shit I AM STILL NOT GUILTY!
If you find out tomorrow that your education is/was being paid for with drug money from your long lost uncle/father/mother/sister.... Are you responsible or guilty in some way with this newly acquired knowledge?
A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical.
That is why I took the argument to both extremes. Good job! Welcome aboard.
What? Just because you have a question mark there doesn't mean you don't imply something. For example
Person A - I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Person B - Do you believe we should start giving heroin away as well?
it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.
You're paranoid. Actually I see that as "Do you think we should legalize heroin too?"
You have twisted the scenario a bit. Nice try.
In your comment, you made an implication that I was getting at a point where everyone that was around Madoff should be stripped of everything they have
FALSE. No implication intended. Perhaps my post was not as clear as I thought it was. As I have said that was to establish a point of where the line is drawn. Since you now agree that there can be no line drawn, this has become moot.
This happened earlier in this tread as well. Don't make ridiculous statements and hide behind the fact you put a question mark there.
I'm still curious of where you got that from.
I'm not hiding. With respect to the earlier reference with sugarpop. As I stated previously, my intention was to have
her clarify what she was saying. You may choose to believe me or not.
This helps reflect the opinion of people in Northern Ireland.
Yes, it is a British website, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. And Ireland (which I have always called Eire due to my heritage) is geographically part of the British Isles.
I am half Irish in the way Americans assess things. I was brought up Catholic - and only my brother and I have no faith. And I don't mean Christmas and Easter, I mean weekly Mass and fasting on Holy Days and denying yourself through Lent and reflecting through Advent and all the kit and caboodle. No, I don't believe a word of it, but if you're going to do it at least commit to it. And I heard not a word of support for the IRA from any of the priests or Nuns I was taught by.
I am far less tolerant than Dani. I already know that. I have admitted before that although I truly mean my liberal ideals, I am aware they are a veneer that can be scratched away. And I fight it. But even fighting it I have no acceptance of terrorists. We were set an assignment in Religion Education in class once, about how we would feel about the Romans if we were Jews - I was one of only two people that said they would not kill them. I might want to, but wouldn't. Because of my personal experience of terrorism
I know I am being reactionary here. I admit it. Of course I don't hate every pale skinned red-headed person. Or black headed person with wiry hair and freckles. Or anyone called Doyle. Literally, that is my family. And me (if I'd got the hair colour I deserved). But I hate people who kill innocents to get their way.
In my mind the bell tolls for the armed forces and the soldiers. But also for the pizza delivery mean. The builders. The taxi drivers. The people in pubs. The OAPs in Enniskillan who shined their medals up for Remembrance Day. The Dads out shopping with their kids for Mothers Day.
You had one attack in America.
How would you feel? How would you feel if it was your Grandad celebrating surviving WWII? Your Mum going into Woolworths in Omagh? Your sister's boyfriend in a pub in Birmingham? Your friend who was a pizza delivery man right up until last weekend?
I'll leave it to people more intelligent and balanced than me to argue the politics. I hate the fucking murderous bastards. Death is never a poltical tool , unless it's suicide (and even that I query).
I've posted this before. You might roll your eyes. But it was shown here at the time (in advance of the film Rattle & Hum). And I think it shows the true voice of the Irish. It was originally an atrocity by the British forces. So was Amritsah (look it up). But so was American treatment of fellow Americans who happened to have different coloured skin. We are all guilty by our ancestry. But those of us who do not believe we are damned by the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) can say, "I'm so sick of it!"
SG, I understand. I do. And I can honestly say I don't know how I would feel if we were under attack all the time. I can only say that I would hope I could overcome the hate in order to look at the issue objectively. Having said that, I do believe my country played some part in our being attacked, because of our foreign policies in other countries. I believe in cause and effect. Things do not happen in a vaccuum, and the actions we take in other countries have consequences for those of us here at home.
By the same token, the way we chose to handle the whole thing, by starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack, I believe ultimately that decision may come back and bite us on the ass. While Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, he did help stabalize that part of the world. In the end, I have to wonder if, after we finally leave, the very people we helped will turn on us. Because let's face it, that is exactly what happened with both Saddam Hussein and also with Osama bin Laden. If that does happen, I think we will have to examine our part in creating that reaction. But most people in this country, when talking about this issue, they don't want to look at where we are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur, because they don't want to think we are ever guilty of anything bad.
1) Don't quote the entire post.
2) Don't quote the entire post and then make an mostly unrelated point.
3) You don't know what the hell you're talking about, so consider not posting at all.
[Marv Albert] And in comes Undertoad with the backhand from downtown![Marv]
@ Sugar, your post delves into my area of interest/degree major of history and how it's done. You should look into John Gaddis' book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map The Past. It goes into detail of how chaos and complexity theory determines how we should view events in history. War is a great example of a complex system in which the macro-level behavior of the system as a whole is non-linear, meaning that there are so many variables that are so interdependent that calculating their effects on the course of the whole is near impossible. What if Cleopatra's nose had been ugly, would history have been different? Etc. "We are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur" is a particular generalization that relies upon the idea that all the phenomena within this complex system of The War on Terror is linear in nature, when in reality as said before, macro-level behavior of a complex system is in fact non-linear.
1) Don't quote the entire post.
2) Don't quote the entire post and then make an mostly unrelated point.
3) You don't know what the hell you're talking about, so consider not posting at all.
1) I quoted the entire post out of respect to SG.
2) It was related, it's not my fault if you're too dense to connect the dots.
3) Whatever dude. I have a right to express my opinion, and I believe my opinion is VALID. Only stupid people don't learn from history.
[Marv Albert] And in comes Undertoad with the backhand from downtown![Marv]
@ Sugar, your post delves into my area of interest/degree major of history and how it's done. You should look into John Gaddis' book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map The Past. It goes into detail of how chaos and complexity theory determines how we should view events in history. War is a great example of a complex system in which the macro-level behavior of the system as a whole is non-linear, meaning that there are so many variables that are so interdependent that calculating their effects on the course of the whole is near impossible. What if Cleopatra's nose had been ugly, would history have been different? Etc. "We are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur" is a particular generalization that relies upon the idea that all the phenomena within this complex system of The War on Terror is linear in nature, when in reality as said before, macro-level behavior of a complex system is in fact non-linear.
I will check it out when I get a chance, thanks.
I don't believe I was necessarily talking about linear vs non-linear though. I was talking more about human nature, cause and effect, and the clash of civilizations that have very, very different belief systems. When you don't take the time to try and understand or respect the other side and where they are coming from, you will never get anywhere.
One other thing about history- it is written by the winners. You can learn a lot by looking at it from the other side, because the winners will always write history so it is favorable to their actions and beliefs, so it is never completely accurate. Just look at how certain people are trying to rewrite the past 8 years...
I cant speak to the Brit's "homegrown" terrorist problem, but I do believe the US approach to terrorism has been woefully misguided for the past eight years.
IMO, a "war on terrorism" is no better than a 'war on drugs".....bombastic rhetoric that has no underlying strategic response and far too great a focus on military force...ie, the invasion/occupation of Iraq which by many measures only increased the world-wide recruitment by terrorists organizations.
The Rand Corp, a DoD contracted think tank published a report last year on "How Terrorist Groups End."
[INDENT]The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather,
most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.
....military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.
Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:
* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.
Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.
How Terrorist Groups End
[/INDENT]
The other focus that deserves far more attention IMO.....understanding and responding to the root causes of terrorism.
Hey look, it's a peace sign.
but I do believe the US approach to terrorism has been woefully misguided for the past eight years.
2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.
2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.
Not quite as long as the number of days between the first World Trade Center bombing in '94 and 9/11/01.
I attribute it to better policing and intel, including implementing many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (with all its faults) and certainly not as a result of our "war on terrorism" in Iraq, which was the focus of US anti-terrorist actions from 2003-2008.
You may recall how Bush/Cheney initially opposed the 9/11 Commission and the creation of a Dept of Homeland Security.
added:
I also think the FBI/NSA/DHS
"terrorist watch list" which is now over 1 million and increasing at a rate of 20,000/month, needs to be more carefully monitored to respect individual liberties and protected constitutional rights.
1)
3) Whatever dude. I have a right to express my opinion, and I believe my opinion is VALID. Only stupid people don't learn from history.
Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas. I believe
you believe that if we all just try hard we can all get along and make the planet a hunky dory place, but unfortunately interpersonal and international interactions don't quite work that way.
Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas....
You mean like the Bush administration, most notably Dick Cheney (
"overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida"), insisting that Saddam Hussein had some nebulous connection to al queda and thus a role in the 9/11 attack?
As late as this week, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, in an exchange with Chris Mathews:
[INDENT]Fleischer: "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance
that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."
Matthews: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument...and the American people are too."[/INDENT]
Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas. I believe you believe that if we all just try hard we can all get along and make the planet a hunky dory place, but unfortunately interpersonal and international interactions don't quite work that way.
No. I KNOW that there are some people who, no matter what, will CHOOSE to continue fighting. I am not stupid. I know how human nature works. It's messy, and complicated, and things are rarely as simple as they seem. I am not trying to warp anything to fit my ideals. I am trying to look HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY at how OUR ACTIONS cause certain results. If people aren't ever willing to look at their own behavior, then how smart are they? I would say, not very.
You know how Albert Einstein defined insanity?
2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.
Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there? And if you recall, Osama bin Laden's target was our financial district. He even said, all they had to accomplish, was to get us to bankrupt ourselves, which we have done. We collapsed our own economy, which was his goal. We helped recruit more terrorists than he ever could have done without us. Fighting smart means getting your enemy to do to themselves what would be too difficult to do yourself. Isn't that part of the Art of War or something?
Redux: "The lack of attacks on US soil has nothing to do with the Iraq war."
sugar: "Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there?"
You two now get to work that one out.
:rolleyes: Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? Hello!
Redux: "The lack of attacks on US soil has nothing to do with the Iraq war."
Right...that was my point exactly.
It's a shame (bordering on criminal) that the Bush administration made a connection between the two..or between Saddam and al Queda...and still does.
And for 5+ years now, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been at the center of the so-called "war on terrorism."
:rolleyes: Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? Hello!
I dont think he read the rest of what I wrote either. :headshake
Everything else you said was weak, silly rhetoric that I've heard 1000 times before and am not interested in addressing.
LOL....ok.
Have it your way.
I guess you wont bother to read the Rand report or several of the NIE's for Bush that raised serious concerns about the impact of our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq as a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements.
You two don't want to work that one out? You were directly at odds with each other.
You two don't want to work that one out? You were directly at odds with each other.
From reading the posts, I think sugarpop and I are in agreement that the use of military force, particularly an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, is the least effective way to respond to terrorism.
And many defense, national security and anti-terrorism experts agree.
I wasn't talking to you dux, but if you like, bringing Iraq into it was kind of strawmanning. If you believe that the WoT and WoIraq were not connected, don't be all busy connecting them.
What I noticed immediately about the report was that
#1 Politics
#2 Policing
#3 Victory
#4 Military
Assuming we don't care for #3, what I noticed is that #4 makes #s 1 and 2 available to us, in places where they are not previously available.
In Pakistan, they are available. In Iran and southern Lebanon, they are not. In Iraq, they were not... but are now.
What I noticed immediately about the report was that
#1 Politics
#2 Policing
#3 Victory
#4 Military
Assuming we don't care for #3, what I noticed is that #4 makes #s 1 and 2 available to us, in places where they are not previously available.
In Pakistan, they are available. In Iran and southern Lebanon, they are not. In Iraq, they were not... but are now.
Thats quite an interpretation of the report as well as the facts on the ground.
I simply disagree.
From reading the posts, I think sugarpop and I are in agreement that the use of military force, particularly an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, is the least effective way to respond to terrorism.
That wasn't exactly the question. The question was, 2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil, why?
Part of your answer was "certainly not Iraq". sugar's number-one answer was, "Iraq".
And, really, I agree with most the report and with your belief that Iraq became a cause celebre. I don't know that it increased recruiting -- will need a good cite for that. I know that it caused a bunch of people to jump in their cars and drive to Iraq to have a shot at the great satan, but there are morons everywhere.
That wasn't exactly the question. The question was, 2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil, why?
Part of your answer was "certainly not Iraq". sugar's number-one answer was, "Iraq".
Here is what I saw in sugarpop's post:
By the same token, the way we chose to handle the whole thing, by starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack, I believe ultimately that decision may come back and bite us on the ass.....
And I agree.
As does, to some extent, the 06 NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism" prepared by the US intelligence community:
[INDENT]*T
he Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
*Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
*The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
*Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
[/INDENT]
I agree particularly with the first finding that
"the Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."
Yet, our actions (by invading and occupying a sovereign country that had no connection to 9/11 nor posed no direct threat to the US) created that scenario and have often been counter-productive (see Gitmo, torture, extraordinary rendition to countries with no respect for human rights...) and have turned many Muslims against the US.
Or the finding that
"the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."
IMO, an interpretation of that to mean "many Muslims love the West and want to be more like us" is also misplaced and counter-productive.
2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.
Yup and this garlic keeps away vampires.
C'mon toad. You know that's no proof that we're doing any better at anti-terrorism than pre-911.
What better measure do you have?
You two don't want to work that one out? You were directly at odds with each other.
No, we weren't. The Iraq War had nothing to do with the attacks against us on 9-11, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. WE supplied al qaeda, who DID attack us, with plenty of US targets in the form of young US soldiers, in Iraq, when we attacked without cause. The whole reason al qaeda wants to wage war with us is to bring us down economically, hence the target of the World Trade Center, which we have effectively now done FOR them, without them having to DO anything. What exactly don't you get?
Let's see. The first attack on the WTC happened on February 26, 1993. The second one happened on September 11, 2001. That is 8 1/2 years apart. From what I've read or heard from experts, al qaeda takes a long time to plan out their attacks. Who is to say whether Bush has kept us safe or not? For all we know, there are sleeper cells here just waiting for the right time. I pray you are right UT and I am wrong, but I fear it is only a matter of time before we are hit again. I do not believe that is a reason to give up OUR freedoms though. You can't not live your life because of something that might happen.
You can't not live your life because of something that might happen.
That is a prescription for failure. So we shouldn't wear seatbelts because we
might get in an accident? Or smoke because we
might get cancer .... ? ? ?
That is a prescription for failure. So we shouldn't wear seatbelts because we might get in an accident? Or smoke because we might get cancer .... ? ? ?
That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We can choose to live life, or to live life in fear. The difference between the examples you give, are those are things we have control over. You have control over whether you want to smoke, or not, regardless of whether it will give you cancer. Personally, I hate cigarettes, but I know some people like smoking them. That is their choice. Some people are stupid enough to ride motorcycles without a helmet, even though it might kill them. That is their choice.
But we can't control whether a terrorist attacks us. Yes, we can do things to make our country safer, like having stricter policies about illegal immigration, and making sure chemical plants and nuclear facilities are well guarded, but I am not willing to give up my personal freedoms because I am afraid. A lot more people are killed every year in car accidents than were killed in the WTC on 9-11, but we don't give up driving. We accept there are certain risks involved. Would you rather live in a police state and be safe? Or live free with the possibilty that one day some whacko may or may not kill you? It's probably more likely you'd be killed by a serial killer or an angry alligator than be killed in a terrorist attack on US soil.
It's probably more likely you'd be killed by a serial killer or an angry alligator than be killed in a terrorist attack on US soil.
Hmm
That is a prescription for failure. So we shouldn't wear seatbelts because we might get in an accident? Or smoke because we might get cancer .... ? ? ?
I think the point is that we can and should provide the best possible homeland security in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.
That means we shouldnt:
[INDENT]wiretap citizens w/o a warrant (or notification of a FISA court if timing is essential to national security)
or hold citizens in custody w/o a charge or access to counsel
or subordinate first amendment speech and press rights
or conduct military operations on US soil[/INDENT]
...all of which were "justified" in those
DoJ memos to Bush that were recently made public.
2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.
Which accomplished what it was supposed to do.
Sting the bear on it's nose.
The bear then comes out of it's cave, stumbles and thrashes about the whole forest, pisses off all the other critters, and loses it's whole honey stash.
Why sting it again?
That sounds about right, Bruce.
So you guys figure al Qaeda is responsible for the economy, and not bad valuation of toxic mortgages causing several major banking failures leading to a credit crunch?
Hint:
-- cost of entire Iraq war: $3 trillion -- and everybody agrees that is far, far too much
-- cost of bank recovery and economic stimulus bills: $1487 trillion -- and many think it is not enough
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests between 1st and 2nd WTC events,
source:
4 October, 1993 Eighteen US servicemen killed in Somalia
25 June, 1996 US military base in Saudi bombed 19 servicemen killed
7 August, 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
12 October, 2000 Attack on US warship in Yemen kills 17 sailors
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests after 9/11:
18 June, 2004 US engineer beheaded in Saudi Arabia
So you guys figure al Qaeda is responsible for the economy, and not bad valuation of toxic mortgages causing several major banking failures leading to a credit crunch?
Hint:
-- cost of entire Iraq war: $3 trillion -- and everybody agrees that is far, far too much
-- cost of bank recovery and economic stimulus bills: $1487 trillion -- and many think it is not enough
I think al qaeda was hoping we would do something stupid, like spending trillions of dollars on a war with a country that did not attack us. If we hadn't had such wreckless policies over the past 8 years, and the housing still manged to crash, we might have been in a much better place to be able to handle it.
And where are you getting the figure $1487 trillion? That number is wrong.
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests between 1st and 2nd WTC events, source:
4 October, 1993 Eighteen US servicemen killed in Somalia
25 June, 1996 US military base in Saudi bombed 19 servicemen killed
7 August, 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
12 October, 2000 Attack on US warship in Yemen kills 17 sailors
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests after 9/11:
18 June, 2004 US engineer beheaded in Saudi Arabia
You said, specifically,
in this country.
Here are more attacks by terrorists, some linked to al qaeda since 2001:
2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004 - June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
- Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.
2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when
Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when
Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the
Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians.
At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
Here is another list of suspected al qaeda attacks. It's too long to list, so just go and look. There are DOZENS listed.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html700 + 787?
That is billions, not trillions. Silly man. :p
My original question was about why no attacks in this country, my point was to note that al Qaeda was plenty busy with the desire to hurt American interests and now it is either not interested or not able.
And that includes in Iraq: 3 combat deaths so far this month.
How about a billion an hour this year?
My original question was about why no attacks in this country, my point was to note that al Qaeda was plenty busy with the desire to hurt American interests and now it is either not interested or not able.
Do you know exactly what Al Qaeda's interests were? I am going to try to put myself in Al Qaeda's shoes for this one.
The first step is ask ourselves what is Al Qaeda's main interests? We know Al Qaeda is made up of a very small minority of Muslims in the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia, and their actions are considered radical among the surrounding communities. I have heard many "goals" of Al Qaeda and all of them need one large factor to be accomplished, more members. A small minority of people will not have enough influence to accomplish their goals so they will need more members.
Now the question is how can Al Qaeda get more members? Without direct US intervention it is really hard to convince people that US imperialism is negative enough for radical action so a direct intervention by the US is needed.
How can Al Qaeda get direct US intervention? 9/11.
So, following the logic, after 9/11 we would expect the United States to use direct military action in the Middle East and with that direct military action more members should have joined the resistance cause.
While I do believe the financial reasons Sugarpop brought up is valid, I would think the self-interests of these people were the primary factor for 9/11. This also explains why no other attacks on US soil has happened by Al Qaeda since. Copy cats using terrorism for other rasons are a different factor and the lack of their actions
can be attributed to increased security. If someone did want to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, which is easily possible BTW, it is extremely harder to do now since 9/11 has happened.
So you guys figure al Qaeda is responsible for the economy, and not bad valuation of toxic mortgages causing several major banking failures leading to a credit crunch?
Hint:
-- cost of entire Iraq war: $3 trillion -- and everybody agrees that is far, far too much
-- cost of bank recovery and economic stimulus bills: $1487 trillion -- and many think it is not enough
I didn't say that, but since we're on the subject... there's nothing like an irresponsible government throwing money around to distract everyone from Wall Street shenanigans, and make even normally astute people believe Medoff could produce normally unbelievable returns.
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests between 1st and 2nd WTC events, source:
4 October, 1993 Eighteen US servicemen killed in Somalia
25 June, 1996 US military base in Saudi bombed 19 servicemen killed
7 August, 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
12 October, 2000 Attack on US warship in Yemen kills 17 sailors
Al Qaeda attacks on US interests after 9/11:
18 June, 2004 US engineer beheaded in Saudi Arabia
But until 9-11 none of them made the bear come out. Mission accomplished.
I'm not saying there are, or aren't, groups that wish they could do the same, but I wouldn't credit anyone for stopping something I have no proof, or even reasonable suspicion of, having happened.
there's nothing like an irresponsible government [COLOR="White"]throwing money around [/COLOR]to [COLOR="White"]distract everyone from Wall Street shenanigans, and[/COLOR] make even normally astute people believe Medoff could produce normally unbelievable returns.
I wouldn't credit anyone for stopping something I have no proof, or even reasonable suspicion of, having happened.
. Once we eliminate wacko extremists (the dumbest extremists) definition of Al Qaeda, then the question becomes obvious. Most organizations entitled Al Qaeda are only domestic groups fighting for their own country. Ie participants in civil war. Iraq was never about Al Qaeda. Iraq was a civil war created by America.
A mythical Al Qaeda terrorist has no interest in attacking America. But when your government is chock full of routine liars, then Al Qaeda is hiding under every bed - sleeper cells just waiting to attack.
Since they could not find any real Al Qaeda, then even torture is necessary to find (invent) mythical attacks on the Prudential Building and the Golden Gate Bridge. We must even hold in secret 700 innocent men in Guantanamo. Mythical terrorists don't attack America. No wonder terrorist attacks are down.
Of course, the threat would be even less had we stopped trying to inspire so many into becoming terrorists.
With few to no terrorists, America had to protect the few real terrorists so that Americans would fear. And again the question that extremist fear to answer - "When do we go after bin Laden" - the real terrorist threat.
Who more than George Jr protected bin Laden? We have met the enemy and he is us? Mythical terrorists do not execute attacks.
Cheney is still warning us of the
terrorists hiding under out beds.:headshake
lol@tw
and S123 - - - unless he's right. :eek:
What better measure do you have?
As my joke indicates, it is very hard to measure a negative outcome.
How many cavities didn't you get because you flossed better this year?
How much heart damage did you avoid because you started working out last year?
How many terrorist incidents didn't occur due to changes in US security?
If you want to talk specific policies, I'll guess along with you, but we won't know for sure.
How many jobs were saved - not created? The hedge has begun.
Oops, wrong thread - as you were.
It's a good point dar. (I'm gettin schooled in this thread) What amazes me is how little it would take to disrupt the economy further. A single sniper in Wash. D.C. area meant the whole area went into paralysis for a while. Ten snipers, one in each major city, could reduce economic activity 5%, easy and cheap. I don't get why they don't do something like that.
Maybe they're terrible shots?
I blame the camps; if they spent less time on those monkey bars, and more time shooting Jihad-Cola cans, they could get it together.
It's a good point dar. (I'm gettin schooled in this thread) What amazes me is how little it would take to disrupt the economy further. A single sniper in Wash. D.C. area meant the whole area went into paralysis for a while. Ten snipers, one in each major city, could reduce economic activity 5%, easy and cheap. I don't get why they don't do something like that.
Yes, if terrorists really wanted to hurt the United States they would attack the water and food supply. What would you do if there was a possibility that anthrax was in the water supply or biological weapons were released in random grocery stores? Riots of unseen sizes would occur in less then a week.
That would have been possible pre-9/11 (the latter is still possible today) and it would require even less planning. You would need a few people to work at water treatment plants and a steady source of biological weapons and you would be set. As my Water and Wastewater Treatment professor told me, he could wipe out an entire city if he wanted too.
For the reason, I still believe the main point was to get the United States to have direct conflict in the Middle East so Al Qaeda membership would grow.
They couldn't count on the US attacking the Middle East, but they were assured a #1 (with a bullet?) spot on the list of many splintered terrorist groups for interested Islamic Radicals to sign on with.
Although the snipers would have an economic effect, we have too many of our own homegrown snipers for them to stand out in the big publicity picture.
You're right, my bad!
:D *smooch*
madoff, it's MADOFF, as in, he MADE OFF with my money! :D
Yeah, you're right. I was think of an OB/GYN I know. :o