Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
The goal is to prevent attacks in America and the rest of the world if we can. We can't control what happens in the rest of the world, although we keep getting accused of trying, no matter what we do.
|
If this is the case, then we are failing miserably on the latter and still do not have satisfactory conditions for the former according to the 9/11 Commission report (which is not an entirely perfect document, but serves for the purpose of this argument). The truth is that we don't know when or if we will be attacked again. Al Queda takes its time and works very hard to engage in sudden, coordinated attacks often spaced years apart.
Oh, and "accused of trying" to control the world is the rhetoric that you use that flies in the face of the evidence. We definitely interfere in world affairs, especially in the Middle East as of late. Two invaded countries, saber rattling with the rest, attempts to control resources all qualify in the interference category.
Quote:
|
You are welcome to try to understand terrorists who attack hospitals, shield themselves behind civilians, and willingly blow up innocent children. Unfortunately, when their stated aim is to kill everyone who does not follow their version of "religion," understanding them leads to the logical conclusion that only death will stop them. Which they have said, and demonstrated via their indiscriminate bombing tactics.
|
We have attacked hospitals in the war on Iraq, we have used napalm-like weapons in residential areas, we have unleashed tons and tons of atomized depleted uranium on a population, we have refused to count civilian deaths, we have privatized a country's resources wihout the consent of the people (see also Paul Bremer's conditions of sovereignty..they're quite unfair and give little wiggle room), we have tortured prisoners who may not have even been guilty, and we have engaged in collective punishment in Iraq. Would you say that under these conditions that the Islamic fundamentalist shouldn't even consider understanding us? At some point, someone is going to have to be the better peoples and stop this madness. I am not given to "kill 'em all" speech because such speech predicates every horrible violent event in human history. We should be above such pejoritive simplicity.
Quote:
|
With the exception of mindless fundamentalism, a great many areas of the world (Latin American, sub-Saharan Africa and others) have the same problems you mentioned, and they aren't bent on destroying everyone who doesn't chant "Allah Akbar."
|
This is not true. The Sudan and many other sub-Saharan African countries have been completely destabilized, violent, oppressive, and full of suffering for a great while. Al Queda is present in many of these countries and conduct operations there like any other place. Remember when we bombed the Sudan? That was direct action against Al Queda. In Central and Latin America, upheavals (often spurred by US intervention, see also Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina) have been responsible for many paramilitary incursions who practice terrorism in an attempt to preserve ideology for tin-pot dictators who engage in terrorism to subjugate their populace into complaince with the trade policies of wealthier nations that prop them up.
Quote:
|
I have yet to witness an instance of someone changing the mind of a confirmed religious fundamentalist, whether they be Islam, Christian, or anything else. Until you can provide a proven successful method of doing so, I'll rely on a bullet through the brain of a terrorist as a much better, and more effective negotiating technique than yours.
|
Fundemantalism doesn't get the recruits....oppression, hopelessness, misery, and revenge do. Religion only serves for sloganeering and rationalization. Mind you also, that American General Boykin has asserted his own fundamentalism by asserting that "our god is greater than their god", so such language can also be construed as religious rationalization for the invasion and oppression of the Middle East. the truth is that both sides have acted deplorably, but religion is a thin vaneer over the overacrhing strategic and economic reasons for this war.
As asserted upthread with two examples, terrorism has been curtailed by negotiation but not brute force both in Ireland and in Palestine (back when there was a peace process) and tentatively, Spain, who used the method of removing motivation for terrorism. This is not appeasement; it is treating one's enemy as a human being, no matter how we are reviled by their practices. Believe me, they are quite reviled by ours.
I am highly suspicious that either you did not read what I had posted above or are deliberately ignoring it. The truth is, one method has worked in the past and the other has never worked at all. Even though the evidence is shaky, there is still more supporting evidence for my hypothesis than yours because I have actually mentioned examples. As many have noted on this thread, a bullet to the head does not make any of us feel safer because it doesn't work. The empirical evidence supports that assertion, as well.
I have seen no supporting evidence for your hypothesis at all. I find it rather unfair that, in light of no evidence, you are demanding that I "prove" my assertion without even raising a legitimate counterpoint. Proof is a two-way street, and I would be more than happy with anecdotal examples rather than have you go off on an extensive google search.
ON EDIT: Thank you for the parry, StanT. You beat me to the "submit" button.