thoughts on NYU Gore Speech? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

nanofever · 05-28-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The difference Nano is that the goal of the School of the Americas is not to train terrorists to target civilians. It happens but that is not the goal.

Terrorists have been created by almost every military organization in existence. Does that mean they are terrorist organizations? No.

Were the flight schools in Florida terrorist organizations because they enabled the hijackers? No, because their intent was not to kill innocent civilians and spread terror. Their intent was to train pilots.

and

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

His point (and it's one that I agree with) is that there is no room to disagree over the fact that terrorism is unacceptable. It is not acceptable to target innocent civilians. It is not acceptable to stand idly by while others do so. It is especially not acceptable to enable those who wish to kill innocents. Terrorism stands in direct opposition to civilization.

There is no room for "well terrorism is ok in this situation". There's no "understanding" to be given to those who choose this path. This isn't some theoretical discussion about how everyone's opinion should count and hold validity. Those who believe in terrorism should not be accepted in world society. That is the essence of the message.

So basically, you are saying that terrorism is horrible and has no purpose. Except that every military, ever, has used it with purpose including the United States. Getting caught in a bind by your own previous statements hurts a lot, I know from experience, next time you might want to think about your statement and its ramifications before advocating a particular policy.

"Terrorists have been created by almost every military organization in existence. Does that mean they are terrorist organizations? No." Either "you are with the terrorist or against the terrorism" and those military organizations seem to be closer to terrorist than not.

"Were the flight schools in Florida terrorist organizations because they enabled the hijackers? No, because their intent was not to kill innocent civilians and spread terror. Their intent was to train pilots" Really, how is this a response to what I said? The School for the Americas seems to train militants in terrorist tactics, not how to fly a bloody sand piper.

boatin · 05-28-2004, 04:48 PM

onetime2 doesn't need the help, but:

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever

Except that every military, ever, has used it with purpose including the United States.

and

Quote:

onetime2

Terrorists have been created by almost every military organization in existence.

are not even close to equivelant statements. The second says that bad people do bad things with training provided by existing military organizations.

Your middle paragraph is where you seem to be making your point. But it's fuzzy. And I don't think it can be drawn from what he is saying...

Don't try so hard.

The school of americas can be hung on it's own petard without twisting words around.

Jesus Pimp · 05-28-2004, 07:55 PM

I caught the entire speech on C-SPAN. I thought it was a great speech. Gore has come a long way as a public speaker. He hit a lot of points that I agree the American people and congress need to address.

onetime2 · 06-01-2004, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
and

So basically, you are saying that terrorism is horrible and has no purpose. Except that every military, ever, has used it with purpose including the United States. Getting caught in a bind by your own previous statements hurts a lot, I know from experience, next time you might want to think about your statement and its ramifications before advocating a particular policy.

"Terrorists have been created by almost every military organization in existence. Does that mean they are terrorist organizations? No." Either "you are with the terrorist or against the terrorism" and those military organizations seem to be closer to terrorist than not.

"Were the flight schools in Florida terrorist organizations because they enabled the hijackers? No, because their intent was not to kill innocent civilians and spread terror. Their intent was to train pilots" Really, how is this a response to what I said? The School for the Americas seems to train militants in terrorist tactics, not how to fly a bloody sand piper.

It's statements like these that turn me off to this forum. Your assertions that I haven't thought about my statements and that you've somehow caught me because military's have used terrorism in the past are discourteous and the latter isn't even applicable. The express purpose of military organizations is not to train terrorists. In some cases it happens but it is not their goal, unlike the training camps found in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless your assertion is that guerilla tactics are the same as terrorist tactics (which I define as the intentional targeting of innocent civilians to forward a political change) then I can't imagine how you can equate the two.

onetime2 · 06-01-2004, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
Not sure where to go here. To call the worlds support a veneer is more cynical than I choose to be. I would have called it a great first step, with the possibility of others being taken.

When the next step is a slam in face, forward progress is reversed. Bush is either making it better, or making it worse. There is no overnight magic, the world doesn't love us completely (or hate us totally) because of one thing. It's a process.

Choosing to ignore world treaties, ignoring the geneva convention, saying things like the quote we are discussing, and other actions move us away from the worlds respect.

Nowhere do I blame bush alone for the existing problem. Nor do I say the world will embrace us if Bush leaves. But I do say no one has the impact on that relationship that the President does. And the choices he has made have not helped. And I see no reason why. Except short sightedness, and lack of understanding that it's ok for people to disagree without being disloyal.

What are you defining as the "slap in the face"? And who exactly was slapped?

France, Germany, Russia, et al had their own very economic reasons for going against the US invasion of Iraq? Was the slap in the face our decision not to honor their obviously biased objections?

The US acts in it's own interests as every other country does. For some reason the US is expected to act more nobly than others and risk lives and spend money to help everyone even when our interests aren't involved. The Middle East is a hotbed right now and our attempts to change the contributing factors of terrorism (targeted primarily at us) are pointed to as "evil" because we don't also go into the dozens of other countries run by brutal dictators. How many of our "allies" in the UN have been on our side for anything in the last couple of decades? When was the last time France and Germany stood up for us? Have they contributed in our times of need or have we been expected to handle it alone? The world loves us when we're there to give money and aid with no strings attached but god forbid we want anything in return. I guess I'm just not convinced that the world loves us as some claim. Too many are ready to jump and point to our errors and too few ever point to our many successes.

05-28-2004, 07:55 PM	#43 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	I caught the entire speech on C-SPAN. I thought it was a great speech. Gore has come a long way as a public speaker. He hit a lot of points that I agree the American people and congress need to address. __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.