State sponsored crime

[Gurdur]

If you want to define the instinct to survive as "the ultimate in international moral relativism" I quess I would have to agree with you.

I see.

You see, others seem to be able to manage respecting international treaties while still being able to survive. What makes the USA so different ?

[infamous]

What makes the USA so different ?

We choose to survive under our own terms, not those imposed upon us by dictators, or terrorists. You'll squeeze no apology out of me, no matter what effort you may be willing to apply. Enough said??

[Gurdur]

We choose to survive under our own terms, not those imposed upon us by dictators, or terrorists. You'll squeeze no apology out of me, no matter what effort you may be willing to apply. Enough said??

Who is trying to squeeze an apology out of you ?

And just how did 9/11 affect the survival of the USA in any meaningful way, anyway ?

I couldn't care less if you want to ignore international treaties and the reasons why they exist, but you do not speak for the USA, either.

[infamous]

Who is trying to squeeze an apology out of you ?

And just how did 9/11 affect the survival of the USA in any meaningful way, anyway ?

.

That is a question you should ask the loved ones of those that died on 9/11. Or dosen't the death of 3000 people at the hands of madmen cause you any grief? Gudur, I've made my point here, if you care to continue ranting and raving, you'll have to find someone else that cares to listen to your views. I for one am finished with trying to plant a little sanity within your consciousnes...................................good day.

[Biochemist]

Again a fine line, is a tax collector a combatant? ......To pretend that it will go away or it can be eradicated, is about as futile as trying to revert to "gentlemanly combat" with tea breaks and spectators.

No one is pretending terrorism will go away. But some do pretend that this approach to poltical gain is "just another perspective". The longer we think that, the longer it stays.

 

It is not a different perspective. It is killing civilians. It is organized, premeditated murder of innocents. These are not freedom fighters. Sociopaths are people too, but we do not condone their violence. Why do we try and justify terror as being a different perspective? This is not tolerance. It is a lack of clarity.

[C1ay]

Why do we try and justify terror as being a different perspective? This is not tolerance. It is a lack of clarity.

It is not a matter of justifying it, it is a matter of understanding their perspective. Understanding their perspective does not mean their perspective is right, it just means you have a better understanding of the problem to be solved.

[Fishteacher73]

You and the "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" crowd see eye to eye. As you say, "The only difference is perspective." Instead of taking a chance that the prisoner you take and later release becomes the next killer, let's adopt a policy of killing everyone in a combat zone.?.!.?? At least the people in Gitmo still have their life AND as others have noted here, some apparently innocents have been released.

 

 

I really have no idea where you draw your thinking from. My statements are in fact, the inverse of your conclusion. I have no problem in detaining combatant POW's , but many detainees are gathered by heresay and "informants" (which have continued to be unreliable) and hold them indefinately. This seems VERY un-American in my eyes and only serves to add kerosene to the fire.

[Biochemist]

It is not a matter of justifying it, it is a matter of understanding their perspective. Understanding their perspective does not mean their perspective is right, it just means you have a better understanding of the problem to be solved.

Let's back up. The quote was "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is lack of clarity, not understanding.

 

We attempt to understand sociopaths in order to catch them and stop their dangerous behaviors. We can even examine causality of sociopathy. But they are not "just like us", but with a different perspective.

[C1ay]

The quote was "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is lack of clarity, not understanding.

Are you trying to say that our definition of terrorist is everyone's definition of terrorist? If there are those that believe they are freedom fighters I think it would benefit us to understand their view even though we disagree with it.

[Harzburgite]

Unless this is the law of the land. Which it is.

Not my land, thank God.

 

However I would be proud to be part of Fishteacher's land

This seems VERY un-American in my eyes and only serves to add kerosene to the fire.

Even if he is from Arlington (Carrolton is so much nicer.)

[Gurdur]

That is a question you should ask the loved ones of those that died on 9/11. Or dosen't the death of 3000 people at the hands of madmen cause you any grief? Gudur, I've made my point here, if you care to continue ranting and raving, you'll have to find someone else that cares to listen to your views. I for one am finished with trying to plant a little sanity within your consciousnes...................................good day.

I asked you just how 9/11 actually affected the survival of the USA in any meaningful way.

You refuse to answer, then accuse me of ranting and raving?

Good heavens. ;)

Tsk³.

[IrishEyes]

So as long as an attack on our soil doesn't actually endanger every single person of our country, it's ok? As long as one or two of us 'survive', it's not affecting our survival?

Are you on crack?

The terrorist attacks that happened in the US on September 11, 2001 affected virtually every single person that lives in this country, and many others that don't. I didn't lose a family member, but I still suffered. I had fellow service members that were killed in the Pentagon. My best friend's husband was on the platform behind our COC when he made a speech from there. I had just gotten out of the military, as had my husband, and we were both debating on whether or not we should re-sign or just wait to get called back. My mother almost had a heart attack, as she knew my husband was supposed to be in DC that day. My children were terrified, as they couldn't turn on the tv without seeing what had happened, and they missed school for a week, as our town sits 2 miles from a major military installation. My oldest child still will not get on an airplane. All this from a family that was not 'directly affected'.

Did it affect our survival? Well, we're still breathing, I guess. Our kids are still safe. My husband still works. But we are not the same. And we never will be. There are over 3,000 people that will never come home. Many of those were civilians.

I don't condone many of the things that the US has done in the past, but this 'war on terror' has my full support. Do I think we are perfect? Far from it. But I believe that after countless lives are taken in what amounts to a massacre, we are more than justified.

If our total population was 4,000 would it then be ok for us to seek retribution? How many lives need to be lost, compared to the total population of the country, before it is ok to defend yourself from the people that want nothing more than your total destruction?

[Boerseun]

I don't condone many of the things that the US has done in the past, but this 'war on terror' has my full support.

Irish, as a point of interest, how do you think the 'war on terror' will proceed? If you stamp one cell of 'Al Qaida' out, a new cell of 'X' will hit you where you least expect it. In my mind, for the 'war on terror' to succeed, it'll have to be a permanent feature of global society, until the proverbial end of the world. I can't see any effective means of stopping one crazy suicidal freak from blowing himself up, taking others with him/her.

 

Here at home in SA, a new thing stuck its nasty head out recently: Someone wants to commit suicide (no political connotations at al, just straightforward suicide), goes out and drinks himself into a stupor, and decides to take everyone else with him. Kills the kids, the wife, the neighbours, and when the cops arrive, he takes a couple of shots at the men in blue for good measure and then blows himself away. Going out in a blaze of glory, in his tiny little mind. That's where we should start, I reckon. This is a symptom of a sick society, which needs to be healed if we ever want to stop it. And what sickens society so that things like this happens? I have a strong suspicion that the popular media might have a finger in the pie here. Turning human lives and sexuality into sellable commodities, as in countless US-made television series (Oz, MTV, soft-porn series comes to mind) isn't helping at all, there are a lot of magazines selling sexuality and reducing humanity to the lowest common denominator, and all of this is protected as 'Freedom of Speech'. Which we shouldn't tamper with - we should just use our collective power as consumers and stop buying this trash. Publishers and film companies tend to go where the money is. But, being 'forbidden fruit', there'll always be a market for this, unfortunately.

 

But I digress.

 

Terrorism, as such, might be comparable to the above in that its a symptom of a very sick society. And we should look for the cause, and then root that out in such a way as to not aggravate the potential terrorists any further. Sounds like turning belly-up? It might. But blowing them up will only piss the survivors off enough to carry out their plans.

 

Money has always been a very good incentive to turn bad guys into good guys. If there's a substantial reward for any info leading to the arrest of cell-leaders, I reckon quite a lot of potential terrorists will turn their buddies in.

 

In South Africa we had the 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission', where you get amnesty if you spill the beans. There was a cut-off date after which no amnesty will be given, everyone arrested for crimes on both sides of the armed struggle after that date would be prosecuted and punished with the full might of the Law. Maybe there's something of use in a similar process here. Let a potential terrorist turn in his explosives and spill all the beans before a certain date, and he receives amnesty. After that date, go balls to the wall in getting to those that are still out there.

 

It might be idealistic. But heck. It worked for us.

 

If we see it as a colossal battle of two opposing religions, there will never be any winners. The only way an Islamic terrorist will cease his actions, will be when he acknowledged that Islam is wrong, and Christianity is right. And that will never happen. And it should never happen, either - I think you should know by now what my opinion of any religion per se is. And for the US to proceed, increasing suspicion towards Muslims would be unavoidable. Which is also wrong.

 

I return once more to the Gordion knot...

Do I think we are perfect? Far from it. But I believe that after countless lives are taken in what amounts to a massacre, we are more than justified.

If our total population was 4,000 would it then be ok for us to seek retribution? How many lives need to be lost, compared to the total population of the country, before it is ok to defend yourself from the people that want nothing more than your total destruction?

Justification is very subjective. And retribution is one thing, but... against who and what? It's always okay to defend yourself - but in your words "before it is ok to defend yourself from the people that want nothing more than your total destruction", how is this sentence to be interpreted from the Islamic terrorist-to-be's point of view? If it is in the West's best interest to root this phenomenon out, you are seeking their 'total destruction'?

 

I would say what we need to do is to get in their heads; get behind the issues that's causing this - and then tackle the issues. Treating cancer's symptoms won't take the cancer away.

[Harzburgite]

Boerseun, I may have to stop reading your posts. I work my way through a thread, noting points I wish to take issue with or expand upon, then, I find one of yours - and you've done the work for me. Spooky.

[Gurdur]

So as long as an attack on our soil doesn't actually endanger every single person of our country, it's ok?

Who said it was "OK" on any way ?

Are you on crack?

To whom are you talking ? Is that meant to be a real question ?

The terrorist attacks that happened in the US on September 11, 2001 affected virtually every single person that lives in this country,

I spent my childhood in a country where people regularly died from poverty.

A childhood friend of mine, his father was killed -- murdered -- by a parcel bomb. Terrorist attacks have just killed a person personally known to another friend of mine in London.

I personally have friends in the USAAF.

So: can I ask my questions to Infamous without being slurred by silly questions and strawmen ?

Did it affect our survival?

If you read my replies to Infamous, you will see I was getting at the unilateral actions by the USA, and its willful ignoring and breaking of international treaties it itself has signed.

Now, the point that I wanted to get to was that the actions of the present USA admin have not increased the security of the USA, their actions have actually decreased the security of the USA, to wit they've now lost over 1,700 USA armed forces members inside Iraq for no real tangible benefits, they've turned Iraq into a terrorist training camp, a terrorist rallying cry, and a shooting range against USA armed forces personnel, and all that without any benefits.

Anfd 9/11 did not affect the actual survival of the USA in any way, yet the present USA admin used it as an illegitimate excuse to create a massive ball's-up in Iraq.

before it is ok to defend yourself from the people that want nothing more than your total destruction?

Is it OK to bring some rationality into this discussion, without me being accused of various things woefully untrue ? Is it OK to ask if you are defending yourselves intelligently and productively ?

Or will I simply be asked if I am on crack again ?

 

And BTW, since I'm annoyed by the silly accusations, let me point out yet again the USA is hardly the only people under threat, so enough of the arrogant selfcenteredness already. Get over yourselves. This kind of arrogance is already responsible for so many massive mistakes the present USA admin have made directly decreasing the security of the USA.

[IrishEyes]

I am rolling after reading your posts.

Sometimes it's just too easy...

[Gurdur]

I am rolling after reading your posts.

Sometimes it's just too easy...

*sigh*

I guess there is no actual answer forthcoming from you, then ?

 

Always a mystery to me, just how bulletin boards, theoretically created for discussion, actually kill it so often.