VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:04:34 03/13/03 Thu
Author: WarCore
Subject: Commentary
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "here's a suggested solution to all this..." on 12:21:28 03/13/03 Thu

>>>First of all, let me point out that Mahatma Gandhi's movement occured *before* the advent of the sub-machine gun. That kind of peaceful movement would not work today IMHO (re: Tiananmen Square).

But his movement wasn’t before rifles, or knives. It was amazing the things he did through peace just as it was amazing what Martin Luther King Jr. did. Peaceful movement’s work if not in the present tense, definitely the point is made on the future.

>>>>Secondly, let me point out (yeah, I repeat myself a LOT when I'm tired) that I never for one moment said that terrorism was a good thing -- merely that people don't always do it out of abject malice. Some do. For example, Osama Bin Laden. Others do it for a greater cause. You may not agree with their cause, and even if you did, you may not agree with their methodology - nor am I asking you to. But as pointed out before, terrorism is not a nation, but a concept -- how can you declare war on a concept? Only if the terrorism is being committed by a nation, such as Israel and Palestine (and here we see the US taking sides).

Actually, Osama’s hasn’t been out of outright malice, he himself has stated the reasons for his actions are justified based on what the United States has done to their people. Terrorism is a action based on a radical concept, yes and the notion of War on Terror is in the hopes of eradicating such things. IE: The War on Drugs or The War on Cancer and so forth.

>>>>Thirdly, the initial stages of the American war of independence did involve terrorism, as it did terrify colonial British citizens. No, they didn't go over to the UK and bomb Big Ben, but that's because they lacked the resources -- but that doesn't mean that what they didn't wasn't a form of terrorism just because it was comparatively more technologically primitive. I mean, can we say that what happened on September 11 shouldn't be considered a form of terrorism compared to the billions of people who could die from a single blast from the Death Star?

Continue to blur the idea of terrorism and you’ll get it to the point of anyone who scares you is a terrorist. Fundamental Christians who say that there is only one way to heaven and that is through Christ and that all others are on the Road to Perdition should then be accused as terrorists. Environmentalists with their doom-speak of melting polar caps and unprecedented disaster should also be accused as terrorists. Teachers who threaten you with failure in school are then terrorists.

Please. Look at the facts and you realize what terrorism is, is not this watered down idea which you’re prescribing the notion of people being scared. You bring up the American Revolution and forget to mention even the Rules of War back then were different from now. One side fires. The other side fires. The British were, according to your definition, more terrorists when they went through the country side killing the rebels and burning homes.

The term "Terrorism" is being slung around today. That must piss of the anyone taking part in a jihad, I’m sure.

>>>>Fourthly, if all forms of terrorism are evil, does this include terrorism committed by the United States? War of independence aside, what about the US's current war against drugs, and the innocent people who are suffering from it? For example, US forces have been covering fields in Columbia with chemicals designed to destroy crops. Sure, it destroys all the drug crops, but at the same time, the Americans are also destroying all the FOOD crops too. Thus innocent people are starving. Doesn't that count as a form of chemical terrorism?

I kind of made a commentary on this and how "terrorism" is being wrongly used in some cases, but we’ll talk about the War of Drugs especially in Columbia. The Columbian government itself has asked for assistance and in fact, take part in flights where they shoot down planes which don’t say who they are. It’s a joint-effort (number 1) and there is food and moneys being infused into the Columbian nation (number 2) as a relief effort. Spraying flights are done in areas which have been demarcated as areas where the wrong kind of crops are grown.

>>>>Fifthly, a terrorist may not be committing an act of terrorism out of hate. Often, terrorism is committed out of desperation. For example, a Palestinian suicide bomber would be blowing up an Israeli bus, not necessarily because he hates Jews (although I'll admit that he'd most likely hate Jews -- but let's pretend for a moment that he doesn't), but because he feels that there is no other way to repel the Israeli forces encrouching along the West Bank. What else are the Palestinian people to do? Surrender? They can't take on a US funded and armed Israeli army head on. He may feel that the only way to secure a future for his children is to strike at the only place that he can strike -- he cannot attack the military, so he attacks their civilians. He hopes that the deaths of these civilians will persuade the Israeli government to negotiate peace and stop the further deaths of more civilians -- Israeli or Palestinian. At least, that's what would be motivating a Palestinian suicide bomber in a more ideal world anyway. In reality, he's just another anti-Semitic guy who needs to kill some Jews.

You take a person and from very young train them a certain way to be willing to do such an act and you have a weapon more lethal than any gun. It doesn’t care for itself and frankly, it doesn’t care for those around it since it wouldn’t commit the act even in some warped desperate sense to protect it’s children because it would understand that the action would result in immediate repercussions. Vikings would cut them selves and use axes and no shield and run at gathered soldiers and the soldiers would run. These terrorists apparently see that in their so called desperation they wouldn’t attack a strong force they would attack a weaker one.

The logic is self defeating. A point would easily be made in the world arena when people stand up to an oppressive army. We saw that in Tienamin Square. The lesson the terrorists keep showing the world repeatedly is 1) once you lower your guard we hit you, 2) we’ll do it again…we promise and 3) terrorist action results in military action.

Come on…completely self defeating. But I won’t disparage your defense of terrorism or terrorist actions…it was a good one.

>>>>Right now, Iraq has taken NO aggressive action against another nation. Okay, Saddam may be oppressing his own people, but he's not attacking any other country. If he has any illegal weapons of mass destruction, he's currently not using them.

UN Resolutions state he has them…its just proof that he has destroyed them is what we’re looking for, which he hasn’t supplied and continues to deny…but I’m repeating my earlier posts.

>>>>If Iraq goes to war, Saddam will most likely use his weapons of mass destruction -- which is supposedly the one thing that the US is trying to stop Saddam Hussein from doing in the first place!! Those missiles that we want him to disassemble... they're not being fired. If we attack Iraq, chances are that they WILL be fired!

And this is the point. He has no qualms about using them. Most sane governments wouldn’t do such a thing but he is willing. Let sleeping dogs lie is a good saying, but what if the sleeping dog is rabid? In other words, he hasn’t used them yet but it’s only a matter of time until he gets a nice and lovely nuke going and then what? We have Hitler with a nuke, the will to use it and Kuwait and Israel are open to the taking. But let’s appease him, he doesn’t bother us unless we bother him, right?

As has been said before, this hasn’t worked in the past (oversimplified yes, but the point is valid, I would say).

>>>>Furthermore, as I pointed out before, Iraq and Al Qaeda currently have no form of allegiance with each other, but if attacked by Allied forces, then the two factions may unite against a common foe.

Currently have no form of known allegiance with each other, true and perhaps they may unite. Good thing Al Qaeda isn’t SD6 and part of a multi-governmental conspiracy or we would really have problems. ;)

>>>>At the moment, Tony Blair seems unsure about whether or not he'll still press on with backing the US if they launch an unauthorised attack. John Howard has pledged full loyalty to the US and it seems certain that Australian troops will be deployed alongside US forces with or without UN approval. If the US and Australia are willing to defy the mandate of the United Nations, then what is the point of being a signatory of the United Nations? Why continue to be a member of the UN if you're not even going to respect its authority? And if the US and Australia are to go against the UN, then how would that not make them rogue nations? By international law I think it would -- and both Bush and Howard would be eligible to stand trial as war criminals in the International Crimes Court.

While your asking that to the US can you please ask Russia and China that same question. Thanks.

And it’s a great thing to have Tony Blair as our 2nd Vice President. He’s great….love the accent.

>>>> having my head shaved tomorrow to raise money for leukemia research... I've raised over $700 so far. Goodbye hair

Good luck man, that’s a great cause.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.