too hard?

[liquid_dreams]

hey guys do you ever think that were being too hard on them terrorists? now now i know what your think i'm crazy but come on have you ever wondered that we never try to look at it from there point of view? i mean there just very realigous people its just that their beliefs say to kill but if were that realigious are we in the wrong aloso? i'm not saying that there should be more killings and bombings it just that i kinda think that were just blinded by the meida propaganda.... what is your thoughts on the matter?

[Tickford]

Ohhh dude... you have opened a big can of worms with that one...

Im not saying what they do is right, but peoples ideas are so twisted around by the media. Im sure that we are viewed as the bad guys from other countries point of view....

[Miranda]

Yep lotsa worms. Yum.

I believe we have NO right to judge whether their actions are right or wrong. Their world consists of an entirely different culture and religion. Very few people can claim to truly understand their world because they have not lived in it all their lives. These people know nothing else.

I remember when they apparently "killed" Saddam Hussein's sons they were parading their bodies all over the news and newspapers - and I remember thinking; these guys could have done terrible, atrocious crimes - and maybe they deserved what they got - but they (the media, government whoever) have absolutely NO right to be so GODDAMN happy about it!!

It truly sickens me.

[liquid_dreams]

WOW thanks for such a enlightend thought that also sicked me perading bodies around its just a sick and twised as ever but according to the media its not right to perade american bodies around in such a manner. you guys have helped this thred out allready by not saying that i'm not being a patorite THX a lot

keep postin

[lurkette]

I think it's one thing to try to understand the terrorists' mindset and their grievances (that's just good strategy), but completely another to in any way condone their methods.

I think, if anything, it should make us (Americans) that much more vigilant about what our country is doing in our name that makes us all complicit and therefore makes us all targets. I'm not saying in any way that we "deserved" the attacks, just that we can either look at it as a call to war that will prove their point, or we can look at it as a wake-up call and think about the world we want to live in and how best to attain that vision.

I definitely think we're blinded by media propaganda, and by group-think that refuses to acknowledge that Amurrica is the best goddamned country in the world that can do no wrong, love it or leave it. My country, right or wrong . But we're also distracted by some of the completely apeshit stuff that's come out of the left wing of the peanut gallery. I think there has to be a middle ground by which we acknowledge our own part in "causing" the attacks but ensure our safety and bring those who attacked us to justice.

[fuzzix]

I don't have any sympathy for terrorists, they are misguided no matter how you look at it. Their religion is also misguided, they are about as muslim as fundamentalist christians are christian - they may share one or two vague ideas and make up the rest with bullshit. Anyone who's ever read the Koran will be able to tell you that these terrorists are NOT a proper representation of muslim beliefs. I can see why people hate the US, capitalism and western society, I can't see why they think bombing the hell out of it will make matters any better however :/

[Grothendieck]

This thread reminds me of some school of philosophy (I hate myself for not remembering which, maybe someone like MacHeath might know who I'm thinking of) that asked whether it is right/possible for us ("the Western culture") to judge other cultures. May we apply, e.g. human rights, to China? Etc.

I believe that we must do our best to understand other cultures. That we should seek meeting points. BUT: If we have deep beliefs about something, and others have totally opposite views, there will have to be either a synthesis, or a winner/loser (see ARTelevision's Sun Tzu thread).

Also, you speak about terrorists being very religious, and beliefs "saying to kill". All world religions are opposed to killing. Most terrorists are not primarily religiously motivated.

I have to agree strongly with those who mention the hypocrisy in the so-called war on terrorism.

[Macheath]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about moral relativism Grothendieck.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...elativism.html

I do believe that there are some values that you cannot compromise.

Both sides can be "guilty" of moral relativism. For every dove who is called a traitor for wanting to investigate the terrorists' motives, there is a hawk who thinks it is acceptable to act immorally to win the war.

Here's a good article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0816/p11s01-coop.html

[Grothendieck]

Thanks for saving me Macheath.

By the way, that is Tom Waits in your avatar, right?

[WhoaitsZ]

.....

i know this path will lead to self destruction. next thread...

[Sapper]

Terrorism is for pussies. That easy.

[spectre]

We're dealing with extreme, idealogical people who can't be reasoned with. They want us dead, make no mistake about that. Understanding won't prevent another attack. Everyone has their beliefs, but just because it's their belief that we should die doesn't make it acceptable.

[rainheart]

There's a lot of false assertions underlying a lot of these mindsets, just be aware of what you think.

[Phaenx]

I understand them just fine, my only regret after one of them dies is they didn't live long enough to see their cause destroyed, leaders humiliated and their beliefs crushed. We're going far to easy on them.

[crow_daw]

I agree that no matter what their beliefs may be, their actions are wrong in every sense of the word, and I cannot possibly see this matter in any other light. They deserve every bit of what they get.

Every motherfucking bit.

[Wax_off]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Remember that during the revolutionary war, American colonists used tactics that were considered unethical and against the rules of war. Attacking on Christmas? Hiding behind walls and shooting at the British soldiers in neat lines? Refusing to engage in face to face battles? But the colonist engaged in those tactics because they couldn't hope to win in a battle run by the British rules. To the British the revolutionary soldiers were criminals. To us, heros.

Same story with the terrorists. They're unhappy with American influence in the world, can't fight by our rules, so they're using other tactics, terrorism. And those tactics, however immoral by our standards, are effective. So why shouldn't they use them?
Is anyone going to tell me that if their way of life was threatened, they wouldn't fight using any weapon they had, however immoral.

Athough the terrorist/American revolutionary war soldier parallel isn't perfect, it does illustrate my point in a way that hopefully people can understand.

[onetime2]

No we are not being too hard on them. If it wouldn't just cause more terrorism, I would say we should kill all terrorists and anyone who liked them. In the end it will take more than just warfare to defeat terrorist tactics, it's a combination of war, politics, religion, and economics.

To say that we can't judge their actions because we don't live in their culture is assinine and naive. A friend from college lost two brothers (twins) in the Pan Am 103 explosion over Lockerbie. How anyone can believe that the purposeful targeting of innocents to spread fear is an acceptable way to achieve political, social, or economic agendas is beyond me.

[homerhop]

Originally posted by onetime2
How anyone can believe that the purposeful targeting of innocents to spread fear is an acceptable way to achieve political, social, or economic agendas is beyond me.

Because fear over a geneal population is the best weapon anyone can ever have

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Wax_off
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Remember that during the revolutionary war, American colonists used tactics that were considered unethical and against the rules of war. Attacking on Christmas? Hiding behind walls and shooting at the British soldiers in neat lines? Refusing to engage in face to face battles? But the colonist engaged in those tactics because they couldn't hope to win in a battle run by the British rules. To the British the revolutionary soldiers were criminals. To us, heros.

Same story with the terrorists. They're unhappy with American influence in the world, can't fight by our rules, so they're using other tactics, terrorism. And those tactics, however immoral by our standards, are effective. So why shouldn't they use them?

Hiding in bushes and refusing to fight the British soldiers "face to face" is quite different than flying a commercial jet full of innocent civilians into an office building of more innocent civilians. As for the effectiveness of terrorist acts aimed at civilians, ask anyone being held at Guantanamo Bay how effective they think it was.

[Sledge]

omg yeah im 2 hard. great pix

Shit. What forum am I in?

[onetime2]

Originally posted by homerhop
Because fear over a geneal population is the best weapon anyone can ever have

Fear is short lived. People who live in constant fear become accustomed to it. It's a bad plan and will not lead to a successful outcome.

[Wax_off]

Originally posted by seretogis
Hiding in bushes and refusing to fight the British soldiers "face to face" is quite different than flying a commercial jet full of innocent civilians into an office building of more innocent civilians. As for the effectiveness of terrorist acts aimed at civilians, ask anyone being held at Guantanamo Bay how effective they think it was.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to attack the weakest part of my argument (the part I admitted was weak, but you didn't include that in your quote) without addressing the rest of it. That's lame. C'mon, you can do better.

I bet those 200(?) guys at Gitmo would say that the attacks were extrememly effective. And so would the other 200 million militant extremist supporters. Look, if we keep fighting without understanding what we're fighting and why, we're never going to win. Get it? Remember how and why we lost the war in Vietnam?

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by Wax_off
Yeah, it's pretty easy to attack the weakest part of my argument (the part I admitted was weak, but you didn't include that in your quote) without addressing the rest of it. That's lame. C'mon, you can do better.

I bet those 200(?) guys at Gitmo would say that the attacks were extrememly effective. And so would the other 200 million militant extremist supporters. Look, if we keep fighting without understanding what we're fighting and why, we're never going to win. Get it? Remember how and why we lost the war in Vietnam?

Is that a problem? You advocate the attack on the weakest part of our society to prove a point don't you?

As I said we understand just fine, and we're going far too easy on them.

[Mango]

**

[Thraeryn]

I tend to take a Libertarian, Wilsonian view on the whole situation. We stay out of things until we're brought into them.

Remember the last time someone successfully mounted a large-scale attack on US soil? Remember what Roosevelt did?

Japan's surrender was practically immediate.

We should have gone in and reduced them to a nuclear wasteland, then had done with it. You hit me, I reduce you to rubble immediately and completely so that you learn your lesson, then we make up and you become such an economic power that you end up buying major sections of me.

Edit: Oh, fuzzbuckets. It was Truman that dropped the damn bomb. What with FDR having the stroke and all, I always get confused. Point still stands: Japan surrendered six days after the bomb was dropped. Now we do so much business with them that it borders on the ridiculous.

[spectre]

Originally posted by Mango
Extra large can o worms.

A couple thoughts. 'mercans aint angels, what goes around comes around, payback's a bitch (witness WTC).

I hope your government doesn't fuck up and cause WW3.

No government is above reproach, but it's sickening to hear people say we deserved it. So, if we disagree with your country's political structure, and then bomb the shit out of several city blocks of purely civilian targets, only with the purpose of killing non-military personal, does that make it okay?

[lurkette]

Originally posted by Thraeryn
We should have gone in and reduced them to a nuclear wasteland, then had done with it.

Bad idea, dude. You can't compare Japan in the 40s to these terrorists.

1. Who do you bomb? This wasn't undertaken by a sovereign nation, and going after Afghanistan was shaky enough - sure they harbored Al Qaeda, but that doesn't make a sovereign nation a target for a nuclear attack. Saudi Arabia? Riiiiiight...let's bomb the shit out of Mecca and see who comes after us next.

2. Nobody else had the bomb, as far as I know, when we bombed Japan. If none of the Arab Islamic nations (or the terrorist groups they harbor) have them now, you can bet your ass they'd have them within a few years.

3. You think the kamikaze were a problem? Try reasoning with people who think martyrdom in the jihad means they're going to heaven to fuck with virgins for eternity. Death is not a deterrent, obviously. Death on a massive scale only confirms their fanaticism.

Glad you don't have the keys to the Big Red Button

[Thraeryn]

Originally posted by lurkette
Glad you don't have the keys to the Big Red Button

You probably should be. I have a feeling I'd use them more often than not. It doesn't matter what corpses believe in or if they have retaliatory tools.

[Mango]

**

[Wax_off]

Originally posted by Phaenx
Is that a problem? You advocate the attack on the weakest part of our society to prove a point don't you?

As I said we understand just fine, and we're going far too easy on them.

You're just like the other guy. Lamely fail to address the main point. And where did you get the idea that I'm advocating for an attack on civilians? Huh? I'm trying to point out that things are not as simple and black and white as some would like to believe (or have us believe). Are we going too easy on them? Maybe. But we're in a bad situation. How to identify terrorists from ordinary civilians? If we go around killing a lot of innocent civilians, isn't that going to breed more hatred of Americans and more terrorism? Fear of being killed clearly doesn't stop terrorist.

I don't have the answer. Just trying to point out that it's a complicated situation where easy knee jerk reactions (like "just bomb the fuckers") don't acomplish anything, in fact probably make the situation worse. Remember, like another poster said, this is not an easy to identify nation that we're attacking, it's a loose group of people. The rules of warfare don't fit very well here.

And no one has addressed my original point, would you resort to terrorism if your American way of life was being taken away from you and you had no other weapons?

[liquid_dreams]

well the idea of this being a open minded thing is shot...

seems that arguement is the decideding factor here as well

i'm a american and personally i dont think that we deserve it and i dont think that were innocent either. and here to play a hipricrit and a devils advocate.... you cant say japan was a terrorest because well its under the whole country that wanted it. Japan is a country not an idea so thats shot down. terrorests have the mind set that fear is the ultimate weapon! and we cant just bomb all the middle east cuz well who are we killing and whats it creating? more terrorests were killing kids and wemon not just raticals. there thats my 2 pennyes in the matter yell at it all ya want but thats the way i see it.

DAMN MEDIA PROPAGANDA..... FUCK YOU CNN

[ratbastid]

Originally posted by Thraeryn
We should have gone in and reduced them to a nuclear wasteland, then had done with it. You hit me, I reduce you to rubble immediately and completely so that you learn your lesson, then we make up and you become such an economic power that you end up buying major sections of me.

Nice.

I can hear the conversation in the Oval Office now: "Hey, Osama's up in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere. And hey, there are only a few million perfectly innocent Afghanis (and Iranians and Pakistanis and Tajiks and Chinese and Uzbeks) within the fallout radius. And heck, we'll probably save dozens of US servicemen's lives! Colin! Bring me the button! And a bag of pork rinds!!"

[raeanna74]

We have to be hard on the terrorists. Not because we believe or don't believe what they did was right. When we as a country searched for those responsible for the attacks it wasn't PURELY for revenge. These people attacked once and will do it again without remorse. If we intend to protect out country and our population then we have to hunt down those who harmed us. A criminal who kills even if he just believes that he is killing for a just cause will be hunted down by those whom he is most likely to target again.

I personally don't want those terrorists allowed free. If we killed them so be it. They would resent us for not killing them and letting them go to their "heaven". As for those who SENT the terrorists. I believe they are truely responsible and should be dealt with as harshly as we can. These people "brainwashed" their pawns to believe that they would receive such blessing for doing this "holy" thing and their only motive for sending these men into our country to their death was personal and political gain.

I believe that when we stop respecting life that we might as well kill ourselves because we are of no value to anyone or anything. These people have no respect for the life of anyone not even themselves. I don't offer them any respect either.

[pocon1]

You have to be able to judge actions and be able to judge right from wrong. That is why we have laws, standards, and judges. Now over time, the worlds standards have changed, but no one condones the mass slaughter of people. Religious extremists are not balanced people who have the capability to discern right from wrong. And yes, we do have the right to judge that.
People always like to try to knock Americans down a peg or three.
For instance, the French have vilified us for thirty years. It was the French who got us into Vietnam. The French fucked around with Africa and India for longer than anybody. They want to call us imperialists? What were Fench doing supporting Iraq and supplying them with materials? The point is, no country is perfect. But we as Americans try to make a difference. One way we try to help is to support democracy worldwide. There are no democratic governments in the Middle East except for Turkey and Israel. That is why we are involved over there. There is no free press in the Middle East. That is why we are there. Half of their population is in slavery(women). That is why we are over there. There is no religious freedom. That is why we are over there. We may get distracted by dictators and terrorists and oil occasionally, but our true reason for being in the Middle East, our guiding doctrine is Democracy. We started working in the Middle East when Communist Russia started manipulating governments in the Middle East. Nobody blames Russia for the shitstorm that they started forty years ago.
If countries in the Middle East had democracies, we would not be over there. We also would not have terrorists bothering us either. But when power is concentrated in the hands of a few religious nutjobs, they will hate us for what we are, and what they are not.

[torgone]

These particular terrorists want you dead.
They want your children dead.
They want your way of life dead.
Do you want your children to die?
Do you want your way of life to die?
We have to defend ourselves against those who want to destroy us.
It doesn't matter who is right.
Or wrong.
Or more holy.
Or more justified.
It just doesn't.
If you want to survive, you have to fight those who want to destroy you.