How to stop muslim terrorists - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zeld2.0 · 07-21-2003, 11:21 PM

Well thats the point that I didn't mention / forgot in my other reply.

The reason isolationism was gone was due to WW2 and its aftermath <<-- key!

Because of the crumbling of the old European empires and nations, there was suddenly a huge power vacuum. Before the 20th century one could see numerous empires in contention.

Now suddenly after WW2 there was a power vacuum and two nations emerged that were powerful - the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Because of its duties in the war, the U.S. realized it could NOT just sit out and not help those nations devastated by war.

The Soviets for their own reasons (mainly Stalin being the one here) decided to take their share.

Now don't get started on the starting of the cold war -there are literally thousands of books out there on who and what exactly started it and theres always a differnet explanation.

But the key IMo is the aftermath gave the U.S. little chance to go back to isolationism - they realized they couldn't.

But if you think about it, had there not been a Soviet Union (mainly had their leader Stalin not been a wacko IMO) things might be a lot different. Had they had a guy like say Gorbachev who was willing to have peaceful co-existence, hell even trade and what not, things would be quite differnet and isolationism might actually be appealing.

Zeld2.0 · 07-21-2003, 11:23 PM

OH yeah its almost customary to add this part to any discussion on the start of hte cold war (or mention!)

:

"There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from differnet points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans...[E]ach seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hand the destinies of half the world."- Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835.

Dragonlich · 07-22-2003, 12:57 AM

Zeld2.0, you say that WW2 came upon us because of a power vacuum. Now, suppose the US were to return to it's isolationist ways... wouldn't that create an even larger power vacuum, which would lead to world-wide chaos?

For example, with the US gone, what would stop North-Korea from invading the South, China from invading Taiwan, Israel's neighbors from invading them? The US is a source of stability in these areas of the world, and with them gone, all hell would break loose.

Of course, I could also point out (and do now) that isolationism can't possibly work in today's world, with all the interlinked economies, global mass communication and cheap air transport to and from the US. It simply won't work, because the US needs the world, and the world needs the US.

The_Dude · 07-22-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
I don't recall any in this country who are actually blowing people up, unless you count individuals like the toad who was bombing abortion clinics and stuff. Not being an expert on terrorist groups I wouldn't know, I can say for certain I haven't heard of any christian groups on the news killing people.

In any case, what I was saying was genocide on christians wouldn't solve the muslims problems, because for one, they think the jews are bigger terrorists then we are, and jews aren't christians, and two, not all anti-terrorism folks are christians. Lets say you did kill all the christians in the world, would we still be at war with terrorists, kicked the talibans ass and continued to bring our shizzle to their grizzles? Yes. If all the muslims in the world were dead, would there be any muslim extremists left over to blow people up? No.

what about the olympic park bomber, he considered himself part of an "army of god". oh yeah, he also bombed 2 abortion clinics n a night club.

if you dont remember, a lot of members in saddam's govt were christian and if you think that saddam's govt supported terrorism.....

----------------------

i dont know how you can even THINK of genocide as a solution to terrorism. that thought never even remotely crossed my mind.

there are a lot of jewish terrorists in isreal that carry out attacks (no, not the isreali govt, but independant groups that counter-attack).

so, we should do what hitler did?

archer2371 · 07-22-2003, 09:28 AM

Whoa, whoa, and whoa. I think that we have established the fact that genocide was a BAD idea and the guy who suggested it got his ass handed to him. The thing about Christian terrorists is, there are militant groups out there, look at Ireland for one. Now the Olympic park bomber was a nut, completely crazy, an isolated incident. The KKK is not in the preparation stage by the way, they're in the falling by the wayside stage, their heydays are gone, people have become more intelligent and more accepting and have seen the KKK for what it is, an idiotic group that thinks the South did secede and that they can do whatever the hell they want. And, The_Dude needs to chill, cuz the information we got about Saddam's whereabouts when we almost got him and quite a few other things came from the Christian within his government. Stop making things so personal. Education is the key to solving the problem of Muslim Extremists, if we teach these guys that they don't have to blow themselves up to make themselves heard or change something that they don't like, then the Al-Qaeda network will go down like the KKK has. Also, whoever said that the governments need to take responsibility for their citizens is completely correct, that's how we stopped the KKK, by the FBI hunting the guys who were causing trouble and setting them straight and denouncing them as criminals, we effectively put a stop to something that could have become extremely ugly. If the Muslim nations that harbored these terrorists did this, I guarantee that the memberships in these groups would go down heavily. And that my friends is how you stop Muslim terrorists.

Zeld2.0 · 07-22-2003, 09:36 AM

pretty well said archer2371

papermachesatan · 07-22-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Gentlemen,

This thread needs to get a lot less personal.

Moderate yourselves or be moderated.

Sorry.

Phaenx · 07-22-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
what about the olympic park bomber, he considered himself part of an "army of god". oh yeah, he also bombed 2 abortion clinics n a night club.

if you dont remember, a lot of members in saddam's govt were christian and if you think that saddam's govt supported terrorism.....

----------------------

i dont know how you can even THINK of genocide as a solution to terrorism. that thought never even remotely crossed my mind.

there are a lot of jewish terrorists in isreal that carry out attacks (no, not the isreali govt, but independant groups that counter-attack).

so, we should do what hitler did?

www.dictionary.com

Please look up the word "facetious," as well as re-reading my other posts.

inkriminator · 07-22-2003, 02:43 PM

We cannot stop "Muslim Terrorism". Stopping it, would be paramount to saying we can establish one world-view, which is unfeasible as well as unwise.

The terrorists are politically motivated. The fact that they are muslim is incidental. The terrorist activities are the only way that they can see their goals being achieved. It's a horrible way to look at it, but history proves that it's also a very effective way. Look at Chechnya. During Clinton's time we heard about them, then nothing. It took the Chechans capturing 1000 some people for their political agenda to be put back into the public sphere. For an even more striking, and woefully unknown example look at Israel. Very few realize that a key development to the emergence of Israel was Israeli terrorism against the British. This prompted the Brits to hand over the matter to International Arbitration and allowed Israel as we know it to be born.

These Muslim terrorists, if you take time to listen to what they are saying often do not even hide their naked political ambition. This makes "muslim terrorists" such a horrible misnomer. Not only does it villify Islam, but more importantly it overlooks the goals of the terrorists. Goals, that if realized, would cause a cessation of violence.

If you seek to curb "Muslim Terrorists" you need to be wiling to compromise on their political demands. Yet when people view political ambition through a distorted view of religion, it makes the conflict far more "good v evil" and a resolution far less achievable.

Dragonlich · 07-23-2003, 10:55 AM

inkriminator, we *cannot* compromise in this instance, simply because compromise with extremists is impossible. They want it all, and won't stop before they get it. How do you compromise with a man like Bin Laden, who wants the whole world to become Muslim before he'll stop his campaign???

No, giving in to terrorism is *never* the answer. You should give in to groups that do not use terror instead. Talk to the more peaceful extremists, because they are the ones that might be willing to compromise. And more importantly, they're not the ones that are murdering your people.

If you do give in to terror, you're basically telling them that they'll get their way eventually, which might lead to *more* terrorism in the long run - after all, it worked once, so why not another time?

inkriminator · 07-23-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

How do you compromise with a man like Bin Laden, who wants the whole world to become Muslim before he'll stop his campaign???

That's simply untrue. He wants the infidels [Americanos] out of Saudi Arabia; a Palestinian State; A Chechan state; A kashmiri state; Jews out of Jerusalem; America out of Iraq; Saddam out of Iraq; The Sauds out of Saudi Arabia; The king of Egypt deposed....and the list goes on and on.

It is dangerous to simplify one's enemy because then it is much harder to understand why they do what they do.
Compromising is not condoning. Compromise can be used to stop senseless violence. Israel/Palestine for example. The aims of the terrorists are understood by all but the utmost right. They want a Palestinian state, not to kill all infidels. You can stop the terrorism by compromising in the political arena, which is what these people want.

Why do they resort to terrorism? Because they feel politically impotent. It seems pretty simple to stop the terrorism would be to help in their political ambitions...assuming that they are reasonable of course. Something like a Palestinian state for sure, Kashmiri as well and if one would want to stretch it Chechnya

jbrooks544 · 07-23-2003, 04:26 PM

The way to stop Bin Laden is to give him exactly what he wants - that would take the wind out of his sails. We give him what he wants, but on our terms.

What he says his goals are:
1. U.S. Troops out of Saudi Arabia. Hey, we already did this - we just needed to take over Iraq so we'd have a place to put them! Wahoo!
2. What the hell else does he want anyway? I think his real gripe is with Saudi, et. al. not being democratic. Well, Saudi has already said they will institute some democratic measures and democracy is headed for Iraq and hopefully Iran too.

He will lose support from his supporters if all that he has been calling for is also what we want and he can no longer trumpet for them

Abdul · 07-23-2003, 04:59 PM

jbrooks544: U.S. Troops out of Saudi Arabia. Totally awesome. We probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that was his major point of contention to begin with. For the second point, that's a good question. But doesn't it seem ridiculous that he would want democracy?

As far as his supporters go, remember that he's a very rich man, and he'll continue to have supporters as long as poor Arabs continue to desire money. I mean, families are being paid to send their kids to explosive deaths for a comparative pittance in Israel. The situation is destitute.

inkriminator · 07-23-2003, 07:52 PM

Abdul you are getting mixing up a lot of your terrorist groups/supporters up to clarify:

Osama is NOT a rich man. His family is exceedingly rich, but his fiscal ties have been cut and his assets frozen. He does not have money, and when he did he did not support "poor Arabs" doing suicide bombing. What he did support was the Afghanistan resistance against the Russians. The American gov't, as I'm sure you well know, also helped finance him at this time. What you are thinking of is the supposed 25,000 award that goes to the family of a suicide bomber which was sponsered by Saddam.

Again, it is very important to know thine enemy.

07-22-2003, 09:28 AM	#45 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Whoa, whoa, and whoa. I think that we have established the fact that genocide was a BAD idea and the guy who suggested it got his ass handed to him. The thing about Christian terrorists is, there are militant groups out there, look at Ireland for one. Now the Olympic park bomber was a nut, completely crazy, an isolated incident. The KKK is not in the preparation stage by the way, they're in the falling by the wayside stage, their heydays are gone, people have become more intelligent and more accepting and have seen the KKK for what it is, an idiotic group that thinks the South did secede and that they can do whatever the hell they want. And, The_Dude needs to chill, cuz the information we got about Saddam's whereabouts when we almost got him and quite a few other things came from the Christian within his government. Stop making things so personal. Education is the key to solving the problem of Muslim Extremists, if we teach these guys that they don't have to blow themselves up to make themselves heard or change something that they don't like, then the Al-Qaeda network will go down like the KKK has. Also, whoever said that the governments need to take responsibility for their citizens is completely correct, that's how we stopped the KKK, by the FBI hunting the guys who were causing trouble and setting them straight and denouncing them as criminals, we effectively put a stop to something that could have become extremely ugly. If the Muslim nations that harbored these terrorists did this, I guarantee that the memberships in these groups would go down heavily. And that my friends is how you stop Muslim terrorists. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

07-22-2003, 02:43 PM	#49 (permalink)
inkriminator Insane	Perspective? We cannot stop "Muslim Terrorism". Stopping it, would be paramount to saying we can establish one world-view, which is unfeasible as well as unwise. The terrorists are politically motivated. The fact that they are muslim is incidental. The terrorist activities are the only way that they can see their goals being achieved. It's a horrible way to look at it, but history proves that it's also a very effective way. Look at Chechnya. During Clinton's time we heard about them, then nothing. It took the Chechans capturing 1000 some people for their political agenda to be put back into the public sphere. For an even more striking, and woefully unknown example look at Israel. Very few realize that a key development to the emergence of Israel was Israeli terrorism against the British. This prompted the Brits to hand over the matter to International Arbitration and allowed Israel as we know it to be born. These Muslim terrorists, if you take time to listen to what they are saying often do not even hide their naked political ambition. This makes "muslim terrorists" such a horrible misnomer. Not only does it villify Islam, but more importantly it overlooks the goals of the terrorists. Goals, that if realized, would cause a cessation of violence. If you seek to curb "Muslim Terrorists" you need to be wiling to compromise on their political demands. Yet when people view political ambition through a distorted view of religion, it makes the conflict far more "good v evil" and a resolution far less achievable.

07-21-2003, 11:21 PM	#41 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Well thats the point that I didn't mention / forgot in my other reply. The reason isolationism was gone was due to WW2 and its aftermath <<-- key! Because of the crumbling of the old European empires and nations, there was suddenly a huge power vacuum. Before the 20th century one could see numerous empires in contention. Now suddenly after WW2 there was a power vacuum and two nations emerged that were powerful - the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Because of its duties in the war, the U.S. realized it could NOT just sit out and not help those nations devastated by war. The Soviets for their own reasons (mainly Stalin being the one here) decided to take their share. Now don't get started on the starting of the cold war -there are literally thousands of books out there on who and what exactly started it and theres always a differnet explanation. But the key IMo is the aftermath gave the U.S. little chance to go back to isolationism - they realized they couldn't. But if you think about it, had there not been a Soviet Union (mainly had their leader Stalin not been a wacko IMO) things might be a lot different. Had they had a guy like say Gorbachev who was willing to have peaceful co-existence, hell even trade and what not, things would be quite differnet and isolationism might actually be appealing.

07-21-2003, 11:23 PM	#42 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	OH yeah its almost customary to add this part to any discussion on the start of hte cold war (or mention!) : "There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from differnet points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans...[E]ach seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hand the destinies of half the world."- Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835.

07-22-2003, 12:57 AM	#43 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Zeld2.0, you say that WW2 came upon us because of a power vacuum. Now, suppose the US were to return to it's isolationist ways... wouldn't that create an even larger power vacuum, which would lead to world-wide chaos? For example, with the US gone, what would stop North-Korea from invading the South, China from invading Taiwan, Israel's neighbors from invading them? The US is a source of stability in these areas of the world, and with them gone, all hell would break loose. Of course, I could also point out (and do now) that isolationism can't possibly work in today's world, with all the interlinked economies, global mass communication and cheap air transport to and from the US. It simply won't work, because the US needs the world, and the world needs the US.

07-22-2003, 09:36 AM	#46 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	pretty well said archer2371

07-23-2003, 10:55 AM	#50 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	inkriminator, we cannot compromise in this instance, simply because compromise with extremists is impossible. They want it all, and won't stop before they get it. How do you compromise with a man like Bin Laden, who wants the whole world to become Muslim before he'll stop his campaign??? No, giving in to terrorism is never the answer. You should give in to groups that do not use terror instead. Talk to the more peaceful extremists, because they are the ones that might be willing to compromise. And more importantly, they're not the ones that are murdering your people. If you do give in to terror, you're basically telling them that they'll get their way eventually, which might lead to more terrorism in the long run - after all, it worked once, so why not another time?

07-23-2003, 04:26 PM	#52 (permalink)
jbrooks544 Addict	The way to stop Bin Laden is to give him exactly what he wants - that would take the wind out of his sails. We give him what he wants, but on our terms. What he says his goals are: 1. U.S. Troops out of Saudi Arabia. Hey, we already did this - we just needed to take over Iraq so we'd have a place to put them! Wahoo! 2. What the hell else does he want anyway? I think his real gripe is with Saudi, et. al. not being democratic. Well, Saudi has already said they will institute some democratic measures and democracy is headed for Iraq and hopefully Iran too. He will lose support from his supporters if all that he has been calling for is also what we want and he can no longer trumpet for them

07-23-2003, 04:59 PM	#53 (permalink)
Abdul Upright Location: Pacific NW	jbrooks544: U.S. Troops out of Saudi Arabia. Totally awesome. We probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that was his major point of contention to begin with. For the second point, that's a good question. But doesn't it seem ridiculous that he would want democracy? As far as his supporters go, remember that he's a very rich man, and he'll continue to have supporters as long as poor Arabs continue to desire money. I mean, families are being paid to send their kids to explosive deaths for a comparative pittance in Israel. The situation is destitute.

07-23-2003, 07:52 PM	#54 (permalink)
inkriminator Insane	Abdul you are getting mixing up a lot of your terrorist groups/supporters up to clarify: Osama is NOT a rich man. His family is exceedingly rich, but his fiscal ties have been cut and his assets frozen. He does not have money, and when he did he did not support "poor Arabs" doing suicide bombing. What he did support was the Afghanistan resistance against the Russians. The American gov't, as I'm sure you well know, also helped finance him at this time. What you are thinking of is the supposed 25,000 award that goes to the family of a suicide bomber which was sponsered by Saddam. Again, it is very important to know thine enemy.