Because the West won't face the racial and ethnic issues driving it:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/why_well_never_win_the_war_on.php


Yesterday brought the shocking news that nearly a quarter of all terrorist suspects arrested in Britain since 9/11 have been asylum seekers. That was on the very same day that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was telling Radio 4’s Today programme that three major terrorist conspiracies had been broken up since the London Tube bombs in July.

Clearly, the police and security services are doing an excellent job. But why do they have to do it with one hand tied behind their backs?

It is now crystal clear that the asylum system is being abused by potential terrorists. A Parliamentary answer, slipped out on the last day of the session, revealed that, of 963 people arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences, 232 had lodged claims for asylum—some even after their arrest. At least 50 of these claims have been made in the past six months.

SO what do you propose?

Mark

I thought terrorism was undefeatable b/c its an abstract human notion...?

The only way to beat it would be to brainwash the entire world into a state of non-agression.

I thought terrorism was undefeatable b/c its an abstract human notion...?


It isn't that abstract. It is a method of violence which is linked to both an extreme of ideology and a disregard for majority opinion.

It isn't that abstract. It is a method of violence which is linked to both an extreme of ideology and a disregard for majority opinion.

Exactly. You can't win a war on a method of violence. You can't beat Bombing by bombing Bombing to death.

You're right though, that moral aboslutism, religious dogmatism, and a disregard for the political majority is at the root of it. If one is absolutely certain that his morality is right, and right for everyone, everywhere, at all times, and has no patience for democracy, that person is going to be prone to violence when he can't get his way. (For example, when our own morally rigid, dogmatic, conservatives didn't get their way in the votes at the UN, they disregarded it and started bombing people.)

You can't beat the concept of illegal war by waging war, especially not illegal wars.

You're right though, that moral aboslutism, religious dogmatism, and a disregard for the political majority is at the root of it.

How do you know any of those are at the root of terrorism?

How do you know any of those are at the root of terrorism?

Personal opinon based on observation.

Exactly. You can't win a war on a method of violence.


You can win a war against the people USING it.


You can't beat Bombing by bombing Bombing to death.


No, you can't, but then again, that isn't what anyone is trying to do. Its a military solution linked to a political one.

You can either FIGHT terrorists or appease them. There is no middle ground.


You're right though, that moral aboslutism, religious dogmatism, and a disregard for the political majority is at the root of it. If one is absolutely certain that his morality is right, and right for everyone, everywhere, at all times, and has no patience for democracy, that person is going to be prone to violence when he can't get his way.


And there you've just linked what a TERRORIST is, and how it is an individual or group of individuals that you can combat.


(For example, when our own morally rigid, dogmatic, conservatives didn't get their way in the votes at the UN, they disregarded it and started bombing people.)


And here you go into your crazy leftist tripe. We won the election. It doesn't matter that you didn't like it. That we GOVERN in a way you don't like is NOT TERRORISM. The UN is not a democratic body, and the UN doesn't govern American foreign policy.

And removing Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party is not equatable to decapitating a truck driver on camera.

This is how words are robbed of meaning and the collective intellect sours.


You can't beat the concept of illegal war by waging war, especially not illegal wars.

Terrorism....is not....war.

You can't beat terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence to instill fear into a certain group or groups. The only way that terrorism could ever be defeated would be to have a world in which everyone agreed on the conditions of a world society. That's not going to happen, so no, it's undefeatable.

You can't beat terrorism.


But you can beat terrorists. A "War on terrorism" means a war on terrorists.

And here you go into your crazy leftist tripe. We won the election. It doesn't matter that you didn't like it. That we GOVERN in a way you don't like is NOT TERRORISM. The UN is not a democratic body, and the UN doesn't govern American foreign policy.


I didn't say anything about Republicans governing in a way I don't like. Also, Republicans didn't win an election in Iraq, so their governing of Iraq is not democratic. Further, the UNSC is democratic. That's why your party leadership was unable to get a vote to approve of attacking and killing Iraqis in order to make money.


And removing Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party is not equatable to decapitating a truck driver on camera.


Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.

If it were self-defense, it would have a valid justification, but it's not. It's conquest.


This is how words are robbed of meaning and the collective intellect sours.


That's cute coming from a right winger.


Terrorism....is not....war.

War is political violence. Terrorism is political violence against a civilian population. Terrorism is waging war on the civilian population. For example, bombing the WTC, or dropping thousands of cluster bombs into Baghdad neighborhoods.

I didn't say anything about Republicans governing in a way I don't like.


Its what you mean.


Also, Republicans didn't win an election in Iraq, so their governing of Iraq is not democratic.


Don't be droll. An election determines which party governs the nation's foreign policy.


Further, the UNSC is democratic.


I remember Syria being on the council at the time. And China.


That's why your party leadership was unable to get a vote to approve of attacking and killing Iraqis in order to make money.


You can't honestly believe this. Only an idiot would believe what you just said. Are you a liar or an idiot?


Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.


Translation: BOO (I have say his name because he's simple) thinks there is no difference between American soldiers and Al Qaeda in Iraq.



If it were self-defense, it would have a valid justification, but it's not. It's conquest.


Are you a liar or an idiot?


That's cute coming from a right winger.


There's nothing cute about you.


War is political violence.


No, modern war is regulated armed action between NATION STATES and governments.


Terrorism is political violence against a civilian population.


Yes. So in that way its crime with a political motive.

Good job. You finally learned a concept.


Terrorism is waging war on the civilian population. For example, bombing the WTC, or dropping thousands of cluster bombs into Baghdad neighborhoods.

Translation: BOO (He's simple, and if I don't name him he'll claim this is MY opinion) doesn't see the difference between an army in the field using powerful weapons against ANOTHER ARMY and a shadowy group of people who kill innocent civilians AS A GOAL.

SO what do you propose?

Mark

Racial, ethnic and cultural separation.

Racial, ethnic and cultural separation.

So terrorist acts like the Oaklahoma City Bombing will cease to occur as well?

Terrorism is too broad a term when saying if it can be “beaten” or not.

What KIND of terrorism?

Insurgency?
Causal?
Political?
Non-local causal?

Terrorism CAN be beaten. The US government proved that in South and Central America in the early 1900s. We are at the edge of proving it now, too.

But, the thing most western nations lack is the POLITICAL desire at home to do what is necessary to destroy terrorism. Usually the west goes in for half measures, bandaids and quick fixes without really solving the problem.

They just lack the political will.

...or do you mean "terrorism" as a concept quite removed frm any particular cause?

If you mean that then you are a fool to imagine it will EVER be done away with. Human nature will ALWAYS indluge in terror.

...or do you mean "terrorism" as a concept quite removed frm any particular cause?

If you mean that then you are a fool to imagine it will EVER be done away with. Human nature will ALWAYS indluge in terror.

Exactly. Which is why its a horrifying notion to always declare war on it. Its one thing to declare war on Iraq, Afghanastan, various middle-east nations. But when you declare war on anyone who opposes you--you are crossing a dangerous threshold... And, IMO, Republicans have done this in the name of political gain.

Its what you mean.


Haha. So all this time, you actually don't know the difference between making up a straw man to lash out at, and actually arguing what someone's point is.


Don't be droll. An election determines which party governs the nation's foreign policy.


I wasn't talking about ruling THIS country. I was talking about the Republican 's Sudentenland in Iraq.

We're not talking about our foreign policy, we're talking about dictating their domestic policy. "Blowing up everyone who stands in our way," isn't "Foreign policy."

Granted, the Iraqi domestic policy sucked, but that's not something that falls under the jurisdiction of the Executive office in the United States. It's Iraqi domestic policy.


I remember Syria being on the council at the time. And China.


And they got a vote. That's what democracy is. It's representative, with individuals holding posts to represent their country, but it's still democratic. It's determined by election. Why your party failed to get what they wanted, they just ignored the will of the international community, boycotted France (fascists always hate the French for some reason), and started killing people. In fact, the first casualty of the war was a Jordanian woman in Iraq visiting family, who was walking through a parking lot when she got hit with a million dollar cruise missle. You guys spent a million tax dollars to kill that woman.


You can't honestly believe this. Only an idiot would believe what you just said. Are you a liar or an idiot?

Are you a liar or an idiot?

There's nothing cute about you.

Translation: BOO (He's simple


Why do rightwingers always, always, always resort to childish name calling temper tantrums when they talk themselves into a circle? Why do you do that? Do you think you'll ever learn to control your anger?


Translation: BOO (I have say his name because he's simple) thinks there is no difference between American soldiers and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Translation: BOO (He's simple, and if I don't name him he'll claim this is MY opinion) doesn't see the difference between an army in the field using powerful weapons against ANOTHER ARMY and a shadowy group of people who kill innocent civilians AS A GOAL.

I didn't say that. Why are you making stuff up again? Don't you think that honesty would be a better policy?


an army in the field using powerful weapons against ANOTHER ARMY


http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/photos/shock03.jpghttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0303/244f07acb4edc248c8a6.jpeghttp://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2003/09/images/pic04a.jpg



a shadowy group of people who kill innocent civilians AS A GOAL.

It's not a goal, it's a means. If it were it's own goal, it would be serial killings, not terrorism. It's political violence against a civilian population to enact social, economic, or political change. Just like when your party shot thousands of cruise missiles into Baghdad, killing tens of thousands of civilians, it was a means to remove a foreign head of state who stood in their way to global hegemony and economic gain.

You can win a war against the people USING it.



No, you can't, but then again, that isn't what anyone is trying to do. Its a military solution linked to a political one.

You can either FIGHT terrorists or appease them. There is no middle ground.



And there you've just linked what a TERRORIST is, and how it is an individual or group of individuals that you can combat.



And here you go into your crazy leftist tripe. We won the election. It doesn't matter that you didn't like it. That we GOVERN in a way you don't like is NOT TERRORISM. The UN is not a democratic body, and the UN doesn't govern American foreign policy.

And removing Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party is not equatable to decapitating a truck driver on camera.

This is how words are robbed of meaning and the collective intellect sours.



Terrorism....is not....war.


Right !

I didn't say anything about Republicans governing in a way I don't like. Also, Republicans didn't win an election in Iraq, so their governing of Iraq is not democratic. Further, the UNSC is democratic. That's why your party leadership was unable to get a vote to approve of attacking and killing Iraqis in order to make money.



Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.

If it were self-defense, it would have a valid justification, but it's not. It's conquest.



That's cute coming from a right winger.



War is political violence. Terrorism is political violence against a civilian population. Terrorism is waging war on the civilian population. For example, bombing the WTC, or dropping thousands of cluster bombs into Baghdad neighborhoods.


I think you left out the rest of the story ! Like quest to take over the world and submit it to islam every since the religian started 1400 years ago . They almost accomplised this with the Ottoman Empire . They are at it again ! :eek3: .

If the arabs are so intense about their territory and soverignity why do they not have same rerspect for the rest of the worlds territory ? Right now they have managed to invade or migrate every nation on earth . And violence follows them like stink on shiite . Take a look at Sudan . Who in Sudan is after their money ?

Thanks to Klinton for giving them the Balkans ,now they are ater Russia to . So far they have spreaded his cult to , Korea , France , Germany , America, Netherlands , UK , Africa , India , Pakastan and many other places . Either by sword or deciet .

But you can beat terrorists. A "War on terrorism" means a war on terrorists.

Really? It's possible to beat all the terrorists? That's like saying it's possible to predict the future of every single person's life perfectly right now this very minute.

Really? It's possible to beat all the terrorists? That's like saying it's possible to predict the future of every single person's life perfectly right now this very minute.wow, what a ridiculous notion. so, did we have to beat every single brit to win the american revolution?

It took Britain not being willing to use all its power to regain its colony in order for America win the American Revolution.

Terrorism is self-regenerating. As long as the risk factors exist there will be terrorism of one sort or another.

wow, what a ridiculous notion. so, did we have to beat every single brit to win the american revolution?

It took Britain not being willing to use all its power to regain its colony in order for America win the American Revolution.

As Myrddin pointed out, it was really Britain deciding that the rebels were not worth it. If you think about it, the goals of the Americans--independence through violence--were closer to that of the goal of terrorism. Strike so much fear and terror into one's enemies as to make them decide that it is not worth fighting. The British weren't terrorists, either.

wow, what a ridiculous notion. so, did we have to beat every single brit to win the american revolution?

Brittian was a state, "the terrorists" aren't. When we beat Britian, did we beat "the soldiers"? Did we win the war against colonialism? Did we win the war against war?

Of course not. We won the war against England. "The terrorists" are not a nation that can be beat and forced into a treaty. They're a reaction in individuals and groups. If you beat "the terrorists" in Baghdad, then move to Falluja to fight "the terrorists", more "the terrorists" will just show up in Baghdad.

you people are either hopeless or being deliberately obtuse. do you really believe that terrorists are just the average joe that wakes up and straps a bomb on for no reason? no. its an organized an concerted effort. its not a country in the traditional sense, but it is a group of people who share a goal and are organized. as fl stated, the revolution was won when the brits decided it was no longer "worth it" to fight. this is exactly how all wars are won. this war will be decided by one side deciding that the fight is no longer "worth it". to suggest that this war can't be won because the terrorist are not in one country is f'n retarded. can terrorism as a means ever be defeated? no. its an absurd assertion. just as war, crime, or hunger cannot be erradicated. the people who employ terrorism, can certainly be defeated, its just a matter of will.

People can be defeated, but terrorism as a concept cannot, or at least it cannot be defeated by methods which encourage yet more people to consider terrorism as an option. I am being realistic, and if you are seeing obtuseness then it might be coming from some place much closer to your location.

edit:nickitynack

no. its an organized an concerted effort. its not a country in the traditional sense, but it is a group of people who share a goal and are organized.


No, it isn't. It's hundreds of groups who each have different goals. Some of them hate each other even more than they hate Americans. Most of the groups have historically existed either to take out governments like Hussein's, which was the whole thing behind al Qaida, or to take out the government of Israel, or to take out each other. They have different ideals regarding which kind of government to set up after the fact, and are more than happy to blow each other up over it. They aren't a single group with a single goal. That's bull**** propaganda.

No, it isn't. It's hundreds of groups who each have different goals.

What groups are you referring to?

this war will be decided by one side deciding that the fight is no longer "worth it".

What's the fight over?

Some of you don't seem to realize that there are many research studies on terrorism. Some of the things you are saying contradict everything that's been found to motivate terrorist campaigns. There is one motive for every terror group in the last 100 years or so - a dispute over land.

IRA - land
ETA - land
Babar Khalsa - land
Tamil Tigers - land
Hezbollah -land
Hamas - land
PLO - land
Aum Shinrikyo - land
FARC - land
Kurdistan Workers Party - land
Red Brigade - land
Shining Path - land
Mexican Zapatistas - land

and so on.

Out of this list of the major terrorist groups active today you will not find more than a few that are not motivated by the same ideal.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/

The second result from studies on terrorists is that they almost always get what they demand.

McVeigh was part of what major organization when he did the Oak. City bombing? Remember now, he was working with them when he did it.

Land is often only the secondary goal of such organisations.

McVeigh was part of what major organization when he did the Oak. City bombing? Remember now, he was working with them when he did it.which major organization are you referring to?

i have no doubt that terrorism as a weapon will continue to be used for years and years to come. however, the specific incidences of terrorism being employed against the us can be stopped, and those with the goal of bringing down the us can be defeated.

its an organized an concerted effort. its not a country in the traditional sense, but it is a group of people who share a goal and are organized.

Okay. So it's organized and concerted. With whom was he working? Your position is that he was. Give me the name of the group or groups.

No, it isn't. It's hundreds of groups who each have different goals. Some of them hate each other even more than they hate Americans.

exactly ... 600+ known groups and their agendas are all over the map.

and new ones pop up to replace old ones

Okay. So it's organized and concerted. With whom was he working? Your position is that he was. Give me the name of the group or groups.
wtf are you talknig about? you brought up mcveigh, not me.

McVeigh was part of what major organization when he did the Oak. City bombing?

Timothy McVeigh carried out his terrorist attack singlehandedly. There was no evidence of anyone else found at the scene and one person was charged as an accomplice.

My point, jwreck, and it's not hard to grasp, is that McVeigh acted through his beliefs, and not as part of this network of organizations that you brought up. It's not hard. Can you wrap your brain around that? Read through the posts again. It's all there, multiple times.

Exactly my point, Jay GW. Thank you.

See, he doesn't fit with your argument about terrorism being a bunch of groups acting in concerted effort. Get it now?

My point, jwreck, and it's not hard to grasp, is that McVeigh acted through his beliefs, and not as part of this network of organizations that you brought up. It's not hard. Can you wrap your brain around that? Read through the posts again. It's all there, multiple times.

Exactly my point, Jay GW. Thank you.

See, he doesn't fit with your argument about terrorism being a bunch of groups acting in concerted effort. Get it now?oh, well ****. lets just lay down and die because you found someone that doesn't fit the norm. i never made the assertion that all terrorist are in organizations (although, if memory serves, mcveigh was in the michigan militia, that was a very anti-american organization). i think the difference is merely a matter of subject matter. you and jay seem to be talking about all terrorists in history with any target. forgive me for only being focused on the terrorist that are actively engaged in coming after me and mine. i never even said that all terrorist are in some global cooperative organization. however, it is quite possible to defeat terrorist who wish to destroy the us. is that clearer? is it possible to stop every attack? no. is it possible to destroy enough terrorists to keep america safe? yes. just because the groups are not in concert doesn't mean they aren't united in common purpose.

I do believe McVeigh wanted to destroy the US, and in case you didn't realize, he committed one of the worst attacks on American soil in the past decade. I think he's only second to 9/11. I can't think of anything worse than that that's happened in the past decade.

forgive me for only being focused on the terrorist that are actively engaged in coming after me and mine.


Then why are we in Iraq?

The entire top 20% of al Qaida (the group that's actively engaged in going after you and yours) were surrounded in Afghanistan, but not by US troops -- by Afghan rebels who were more than happy to take a bribe to let them walk. We were instead focusing our sights on Iraq, an enemy of al Qaida.

If you want to focus on the groups actively engaged in attack the US, then you should have expected the US Government to focus their efforts on Afghanistan, to make the comitment, to get the job done, instead of going on a bone headed adventure in Iraq.

Then why are we in Iraq?

The entire top 20% of al Qaida (the group that's actively engaged in going after you and yours) were surrounded in Afghanistan, but not by US troops -- by Afghan rebels who were more than happy to take a bribe to let them walk. We were instead focusing our sights on Iraq, an enemy of al Qaida.

If you want to focus on the groups actively engaged in attack the US, then you should have expected the US Government to focus their efforts on Afghanistan, to make the comitment, to get the job done, instead of going on a bone headed adventure in Iraq. well, imo, the war in iraq was seperate from the war on terrorism. we are in iraq because the violated the terms of the cease fire from 1991. what other use to justify this war is up to them. we are now at the point that we need to quit playing around and fight like we mean it. the longer we do this crap half-heartedly the longer we'll be there. well, unless the 60s throwbacks get their way and we pull out, then we'll be fighting here and elswhere for a long time.

When we went into Iraq in force the terrorists followed us. Now that they're there we're in a corner from which the only way out is to fight until a government that isn't sympathetic to terrorists can take this problem of our hands without it being a surrender.

Terror isn't why we're in Iraq but it's why we're STILL in Iraq and all the anti-war activists don't seem to understand that whether to stay is a different issue from whether whether we should have come in the first place.

well, imo, the war in iraq was seperate from the war on terrorism.


Well, at least we can agree on that.


we are now at the point that we need to quit playing around and fight like we mean it. the longer we do this crap half-heartedly the longer we'll be there.


Won't matter. Killing more people won't make the Iraqi's love us. The Shi'a will ally themselves with Iran, the Sunni will take much offense, the Kurds will want more independence, the Government won't want to give it to them (they have oil wells on their land), the Wahhabi will want to take over now that Saddam is gone, and the Ba'ath will want to regain power, and we'll be in the middle of it until we leave. No ammount of shooting people is going to end all of that hostility. And no number of tanks can beat down a determined enemy engaged in a war of attrition. All it takes is one sniper or booby trap a day to keep their end of the bargain, we have to spend millions a day to continue being targets.

Just bombing the hell out of Baghdad and riding in waving flags isn't going to make all those people suddenly cry out for a liberal, secular, American style government. They're going to have conflicting aims and lots of ammo to spend trying to achieve those aims.

What do we get in exchange for our $4,000,000,000 to $6,000,000,000 tax dollars per month? We get a few dead soldiers mailed back to us. Doesn't sound like the Earth shattering bargain that so many people have it worked up to be.

Because the West won't face the racial and ethnic issues driving it:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/why_well_never_win_the_war_on.php


Yesterday brought the shocking news that nearly a quarter of all terrorist suspects arrested in Britain since 9/11 have been asylum seekers. That was on the very same day that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was telling Radio 4’s Today programme that three major terrorist conspiracies had been broken up since the London Tube bombs in July.

Clearly, the police and security services are doing an excellent job. But why do they have to do it with one hand tied behind their backs?

It is now crystal clear that the asylum system is being abused by potential terrorists. A Parliamentary answer, slipped out on the last day of the session, revealed that, of 963 people arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences, 232 had lodged claims for asylum—some even after their arrest. At least 50 of these claims have been made in the past six months.the perpetual class warfare that multi-cult provide is the golden goose for the police state. Why should they get rid of something that keeps them in power?

The real question should be, do the leftist morons honestly believe that this 'rainbow' society that has such far reaching consequences is honestly being done for humanitarian reasons?

Haha. So all this time, you actually don't know the difference between making up a straw man to lash out at, and actually arguing what someone's point is.


I think you should be embarassed at your inability to correctly apply logical fallacy terms.


I wasn't talking about ruling THIS country. I was talking about the Republican 's Sudentenland in Iraq.


Yeah, my question of whether you are a liar or an idiot has been answered. Tell you what, don't waste your time with Nazi comparisons. I don't need any more evidence regarding your dimness.


We're not talking about our foreign policy


Relations between the United States and Iraq......are not related to foreign policy. Got it. Thats brilliant.


we're talking about dictating their domestic policy.


Is Iraq a foreign country? Take your time on this one. Work out the angles, feel free to try a google search. Don't lose your patience if you get confused, just work the problem.


"Blowing up everyone who stands in our way," isn't "Foreign policy."


No, "Blowing up everyone who stands in our way" is the way an idiot describes a foreign policy he doesn't agree with.


Granted, the Iraqi domestic policy sucked, but that's not something that falls under the jurisdiction of the Executive office in the United States. It's Iraqi domestic policy.


Well gee whiz, why not apply this dim witted argument to ANY war? Did the GERMAN PEOPLE elect Clement Atlee to run their domestic policy? For that question, maybe you should get a friend to help you out.


And they got a vote.


Which is irrelevant.


That's what democracy is.


Syria is not a democracy. (Checks watch)


It's representative, with individuals holding posts to represent their country, but it's still democratic.


The United States is not obligated to OBEY Syria and China, no matter how you would prefer that. Your love for the enemies of the United States has no appeal to thinking human beings.


It's determined by election.


LOL Its an election with portions already predermined by region, and then its REALLY done by turn. So in an 'election' to the Security Council where you are choosing a member from a major nation from the Middle East, you have Israel (Which is unpopular in the Middle East), Lebanon as a Syrian puppet, Iraq which was the subject of the Security Council's attention, and Iran which is developing nuclear weapons.

So congrats in the COIN TOSS the Syrians won to beat out the Saudis. :rolleyes:


Why your party failed to get what they wanted, they just ignored the will of the international community,


We already had a security resolution.


boycotted France (fascists always hate the French for some reason)


You're unbelievably dull.


and started killing people.


The innocent Republican Guard, fresh from the killing fields, minding their own business.


In fact, the first casualty of the war was a Jordanian woman in Iraq visiting family, who was walking through a parking lot when she got hit with a million dollar cruise missle.


The Republican party targetted that woman?


You guys spent a million tax dollars to kill that woman.


Think about what you just said. Did we spend a million dollars....TO KILL THAT WOMAN?

My god, man, try some critical thinking.


Why do rightwingers always, always, always resort to childish name calling temper tantrums when they talk themselves into a circle?


You've called us Fascists, you've suggested we went to war to MURDER Jordanian women and compared us to Nazis.

When I say you're an idiot, I'm being sincere....and more importantly, accurate.


Why do you do that?


If you didn't say idiotic things, I wouldn't think you were a lackwit.


I didn't say that. Why are you making stuff up again?


Why allow you any shreds of dignity? You don't deserve it.

Sulla the Dictator:

And removing Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party is not equatable to decapitating a truck driver on camera.


Here I say that soldiers are not terrorists. Boo then said:

Boo Radley

Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.

He says there's no difference between terrorists kidnapping a truck driver and holding him down as they saw his head off with a knife in front of camera and an American soldier (Who is in his late teens or early twenties) using his ordinance.

Read what he said.



http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/photos/shock03.jpghttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0303/244f07acb4edc248c8a6.jpeghttp://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2003/09/images/pic04a.jpg


Thanks for the visual aids. Do the pretty pictures help you to feel as though you have a grasp on the issue?


It's not a goal, it's a means.


It is a goal. Just as with the NKVD and the Red Guard, the path to power requires the extermination of one's political enemies.

This has IDEOLOGICAL satisfactions.

Go to dictionary.com to work all that out, btw.


If it were it's own goal, it would be serial killings, not terrorism.


It is POLITICAL serial killing. Its POLITICAL CRIME. Thats what you don't seem to get through your thick....empty....skull.


It's political violence against a civilian population to enact social, economic, or political change.


By an EXTREMIST MINORITY. LOL Looks like he finally looked up the definition of terrorism, btw.

About ****ing time.


Just like when your party shot thousands of cruise missiles into Baghdad, killing tens of thousands of civilians, it was a means to remove a foreign head of state who stood in their way to global hegemony and economic gain.

This lackwit refers to my NATION as 'my party' in order to equate war and terrorism. He does it because he's not that bright, but more importantly he does it because he's desperate.

Since armed conflict between IRAQ and the UNITED STATES was between nation states, that properly fits within the term 'war'.

Murderers detonating bombs in an Iraqi market to encourage sectarian violence are terrorists.

Do you get it yet? Read my post slower.

Really? It's possible to beat all the terrorists?


Thats inane. You don't have to beat 'all the terrorists' any more than you need to 'beat all the soldiers'.

They're part of organizations that YOU CAN beat.


That's like saying it's possible to predict the future of every single person's life perfectly right now this very minute.

:eek7:

Actually....its nothing like saying that.

People can be defeated, but terrorism as a concept cannot, or at least it cannot be defeated by methods which encourage yet more people to consider terrorism as an option. I am being realistic, and if you are seeing obtuseness then it might be coming from some place much closer to your location.

edit:nickitynack

Terrorism is just like "crime". Can you defeat "crime" complitly - you can't. Can you lessen it, should you do your best to fight it - yes, and yes.
And this is perfectly clear.

Looks like this intire subject of "unbeatable terrorism" is serving political reasons.

My point, jwreck, and it's not hard to grasp, is that McVeigh acted through his beliefs, and not as part of this network of organizations that you brought up. It's not hard. Can you wrap your brain around that? Read through the posts again. It's all there, multiple times.


And how many attacks on the scale of Oaklahoma City have been done by single nuts?


See, he doesn't fit with your argument about terrorism being a bunch of groups acting in concerted effort. Get it now?

So what? The exception isn't the rule. MOST large terrorist attacks are done by groups.

Terrorism is just like "crime". Can you defeat "crime" complitly - you can't. Can you lessen it, should you do your best to fight it - yes, and yes.
And this is perfectly clear.


Unless your methods for reducing this crime was generating more crime which is the case with Bush's methods of fighting terrorism. In such a situation success is less than clear.

I think you should be embarassed at your inability to correctly apply logical fallacy terms.

You constantly use strawmen. You read what someone wrote, then add something to it to attack. We've been going over that for two pages in another thread.


Yeah, my question of whether you are a liar or an idiot has been answered. Tell you what, don't waste your time with Nazi comparisons. I don't need any more evidence regarding your dimness.


This is getting old. If you can't make a point, then don't post.


Relations between the United States and Iraq......are not related to foreign policy. Got it. Thats brilliant.


You people are claiming that the reason we attacked Iraq is because Hussein was a brutal dictator. That doesn't have anything to do with relations between Iraq and the United States. That's between Iraq and Iraqis. That's Iraqi domestic policy, and it's not under George Bush's jurisdiction.


Is Iraq a foreign country? Take your time on this one. Work out the angles, feel free to try a google search. Don't lose your patience if you get confused, just work the problem.


Which is exactly why their domestic policy doesn't fall under the "leadership" of George Bush. Take your time on that one. Try using google or a dictionary to uderstand the word "foreign". (Hint: It means "not the United States" to you.)


No, "Blowing up everyone who stands in our way" is the way an idiot describes a foreign policy he doesn't agree with.


Actually, it's what's used to describe blowing up everyone who gets in our way.


Well gee whiz, why not apply this dim witted argument to ANY war? Did the GERMAN PEOPLE elect Clement Atlee to run their domestic policy? For that question, maybe you should get a friend to help you out.


Was Iraq occupying Poland, Czechylslovakia, Austria, France, Holland, and Russia? Don't be so simple.



And they got a vote.

Which is irrelevant.


Votes are irrelevant to whether or not a body is democratic? Wow. That's a new one.


Syria is not a democracy. (Checks watch)


Again with the strawman. I didn't say Syria was a democracy. Try to stick to what I said if you want to prove what I said was wrong.


The United States is not obligated to OBEY Syria and China, no matter how you would prefer that. Your love for the enemies of the United States has no appeal to thinking human beings.


Oh, christ. You just can't resist, can you?


LOL Its an election with portions already predermined by region, and then its REALLY done by turn. So in an 'election' to the Security Council where you are choosing a member from a major nation from the Middle East, you have Israel (Which is unpopular in the Middle East), Lebanon as a Syrian puppet, Iraq which was the subject of the Security Council's attention, and Iran which is developing nuclear weapons.

So congrats in the COIN TOSS the Syrians won to beat out the Saudis. :rolleyes:


Do I have to explain to you what the UN is, and what we agreed to when we joined it, or are you just pretending you don't know?


We already had a security resolution.


We didn't have a security resolution to attack Iraq and replace the government. I've already read the talking points on it, where you pretend that the resolution requiring Saddam to disarm can be read through a magic decoder ring and it secretly also says that we can attack Iraq and replace the government if we feel like it, but it's not there.


The innocent Republican Guard, fresh from the killing fields, minding their own business.


That, as usualy, isn't what I said. We've killed at least 30,000 civilians. You already know this.


The Republican party targetted that woman?


As much as Saddam targeted the people he killed. He didn't pull the trigger personally, but it was his order. The Republicans ordered the military to shoot thousands of bombs into Iraq in a nearly random firing.


Think about what you just said. Did we spend a million dollars....TO KILL THAT WOMAN?


Yes. It cost us a million dollars to kill that woman. Well, roughly. I'm not sure of the exact price of the cruise missle we used to kill her, but it's around a million bucks.


My god, man, try some critical thinking.


Says Sulla. Oh, my.


You've called us Fascists, you've suggested we went to war to MURDER Jordanian women and compared us to Nazis.


Why should you expect any better? You compare us to terrorists, call us communists, and say we "love the enemies of the United States". Then, all of the sudden, you don't like hyperbole when it's coming back at you. Why in the world would anyone be more respectful to someone like you? Why do you expect any better?

Which leads to your next "point" . . .


When I say you're an idiot, I'm being sincere....and more importantly, accurate.

If you didn't say idiotic things, I wouldn't think you were a lackwit.



Why allow you any shreds of dignity? You don't deserve it.


. . . says the guy who's complaining about being talked down to. Oh, my.

You can't honestly expect people to consider you a rational adult when all you do is ad hominem attacks, lash out at strawmen, argue red herrings, and make insane accusations about everyone who disagrees with you. I mean, not unless you're extremely dishonest with yourself. But then . . .


Thanks for the visual aids. Do the pretty pictures help you to feel as though you have a grasp on the issue?


You said that we were using powerful weapons against soldiers in the field. THat's not what happend. We carpet bombed whole cities. Why don't you adjust your mistaken argument, instead of trying to dodge it with a silly quip?


It is a goal. Just as with the NKVD and the Red Guard, the path to power requires the extermination of one's political enemies.


Then it's a means, not an ends. That you for making my point for me.


It is POLITICAL serial killing. Its POLITICAL CRIME. Thats what you don't seem to get through your thick....empty....skull.


No kidding. I didn't say it wasn't. Stop flailing that strawman. I said it was a method, not a goal. I am right.


By an EXTREMIST MINORITY. LOL Looks like he finally looked up the definition of terrorism, btw.

About ****ing time.


I know. I should have posted it for you a long time ago. Would have saved you some confusion.

That it's an EXTREMIST MINORITY doesn't change the fact that it's a means to an end. You're arguing everything except your own point. Then again, if I were you, I'd avoid trying to argue my own points, too, since they're all so insane.


This lackwit refers to my NATION as 'my party' in order to equate war and terrorism. He does it because he's not that bright, but more importantly he does it because he's desperate.


Your party managed to take control of my nation, and then your party started a war against Iraq in order to bolster it's own wealth, power and influence.

Unless your methods for reducing this crime was generating more crime which is the case with Bush's methods of fighting terrorism. In such a situation success is less than clear.

Some methods can be less succesfull, but it does not change the rule.
Buch methods is different subject, you can judge them this way or another - but even if they are bad - this no way means that "terrorism is undefeatbe".

Some methods can be less succesfull, but it does not change the rule.
Buch methods is different subject, you can judge them this way or another - but even if they are bad - this no way means that "terrorism is undefeatbe".
Hack the head off a hydra and you make an impact on it, but it grows the head back. Terrorism regenerates unless you attempt to address the causes of it, not just shoot at people who are already terrorists.

Hack the head off a hydra and you make an impact on it, but it grows the head back.

It's right when you talk about the hydra, that exists only in the world of imagination - and that's for a reason...

Thats inane. You don't have to beat 'all the terrorists' any more than you need to 'beat all the soldiers'.

They're part of organizations that YOU CAN beat.


And sometimes just cutting of their supply of money can do wonders.

If terrorists are ordinary people from a population with a common complaint - how would you defeat them? Owing to the fact that most terrorist campaigns are successful the odds are nowhere near in favor of "winning" any war against it.

The terrorists require recruits to replace their "martyrs", and it's not easy to convince someone to blow themselves up.

If you look at the aftermath of the Jordan bombing you'll see protests against terrorism and a terrorist leader from their own country. The day before many of those same people may have been supportive of or ambivalent towards him.

If they continue to attack soft targets they will systematically alientate the populations they rely upon for recruits. Wars like the one in Iraq have the opposite effect, so we should stick to methods that are either defensive or won't produce collaterall damage and the terrorists may well destroy themselves.

Wars like the one in Iraq have the opposite effect, so we should stick to methods that are either defensive or won't produce collaterall damage and the terrorists may well destroy themselves.

European governments have always used defensive and targeted methods and it's accomplished nothing in fighting the Ira or Eta among other terrorists. The Israeli government has used targeted methods against individuals for 50 years. Is that successful too?

Why would things be different if the United States did it?

European governments have always used defensive and targeted methods and it's accomplished nothing in fighting the Ira or Eta among other terrorists. The Israeli government has used targeted methods against individuals for 50 years. Is that successful too?

Those organizations are primarily political rather than ideological, they use terrorism merely as a tactic to achieve their goals.

international terrorists like al qaeda see their struggle as the end in itself and death to be success even if they don't achieve anything. That's a very different situation.

I think you left out the rest of the story ! Like quest to take over the world and submit it to islam every since the religian started 1400 years ago . They almost accomplised this with the Ottoman Empire . They are at it again ! :eek3: .

If the arabs are so intense about their territory and soverignity why do they not have same rerspect for the rest of the worlds territory ? Right now they have managed to invade or migrate every nation on earth . And violence follows them like stink on shiite . Take a look at Sudan . Who in Sudan is after their money ?

Thanks to Klinton for giving them the Balkans ,now they are ater Russia to . So far they have spreaded his cult to , Korea , France , Germany , America, Netherlands , UK , Africa , India , Pakastan and many other places . Either by sword or deciet .

YOU GO GRRL! :nice:

BTW, was the stink on shiite, a joke? :bowrofl:

....

If there is one thing Iv come to realize, its that those who think that we can fight terrorism with our brute force and truly in the end 'win' in anyway are far more likely to accomplish the goals of the terrorists then the terrorists themselves...

European governments have always used defensive and targeted methods and it's accomplished nothing in fighting the Ira or Eta among other terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/26/nireland.arms/


The Israeli government has used targeted methods against individuals for 50 years. Is that successful too?

Why would things be different if the United States did it?

They keep doing raids of whole towns and camps, to make sure the violence never ends. They also relocate their civilian population onto land they've "liberated". Two major no-no's if you ever want peace.

As I said before, those organizations are much different than Al Qaeda in that they mostly measure success by progress towards a political objective. They view terrorism merely as a tactic to be used.

For Ideological terrorist like Al Qaeda the struggle is an end in itself, for them it is a victory to die fighting irrespective of whether it accomplished anything.

For Ideological terrorist like Al Qaeda the struggle is an end in itself, for them it is a victory to die fighting irrespective of whether it accomplished anything.

Al Qaida's goal is to reestablish the old Islamic Caliphate, with themselves in the seat of power.

Al Qaida's goal is to reestablish the old Islamic Caliphate, with themselves in the seat of power.

yes but they find fulfillment in the struggle not in tangible progress.
They don't use terror because it's effective so much as because it fits well their concept on martyrdom.

And how many attacks on the scale of Oaklahoma City have been done by single nuts?

That include masterminds? Well, 9/11 was apparently the fault of bin Laden. After all, we went after al Queda and him because that organization, which he headed, contained the soldiers, he was the head. Or how about the Beltway Sniper? Just two guys. Plenty of examples outside of the loop.

So what? The exception isn't the rule. MOST large terrorist attacks are done by groups.

Sure, but these groups are headed by single individuals who are working for their own agenda. Leaders who convince people to be the soldiers (but in reality only are fodder).

It's right when you talk about the hydra, that exists only in the world of imagination - and that's for a reason...
*Yawns*, you dont understand metaphors? *pat* *pat*.

Al Qaida's goal is to reestablish the old Islamic Caliphate, with themselves in the seat of power.Ironically, those are the same goals of the liberal multi-cultists.

Ironically, those are the same goals of the liberal multi-cultists.

Of course. In fact, yesterday, when I got my issue of Liberal Multicultist Weekly, there was a great article on reestablishing the islamic caliphate with themselves in power.

Just because we haven't found ways to defeat it doesn't mean we can't defeat it. The United States lack of collective will and determination on that matter is the real reason it won't be defeated any time soon.

Of course. In fact, yesterday, when I got my issue of Liberal Multicultist Weekly, there was a great article on reestablishing the islamic caliphate with themselves in power.

Did you get your prayer mat Boo? I got mine at the Liberal Islamofascist meeting last week. You feel like a steak? Let cut a cows throat together.


(I think I have covered the main conservative tinfoil hat talking points there, did I miss any?)

Just because we haven't found ways to defeat it doesn't mean we can't defeat it. The United States lack of collective will and determination on that matter is the real reason it won't be defeated any time soon.

You're saying that we can defeat an ideology that has existed since long before the US. It's older than Christianity, than Judaism. It's been around since the cradle of civilization.

Did you get your prayer mat Boo? I got mine at the Liberal Islamofascist meeting last week. You feel like a steak? Let cut a cows throat together.


(I think I have covered the main conservative tinfoil hat talking points there, did I miss any?)

I missed that meeting. I was at the Homosexual Muslim Athiest Bushhater Workshop -- the one on how to help the enemies of freedom destroy the West through fascist communist revisionism in activist courts and secular leftist extremist indoctrination centers (the ones run by welfare families of limousine liberal elitist professors).

(I go every week to practice my moral relativism. Gotta keep that up so you can do a good job of hating America and hating the troops.)

I missed that meeting. I was at the Homosexual Muslim Athiest Bushhater Workshop -- the one on how to help the enemies of freedom destroy the West through fascist communist revisionism in activist courts and secular leftist extremist indoctrination centers (the ones run by welfare families of limousine liberal elitist professors).

I missed those, I was at the Bring Out Your Inner Woman seminar and had to attend my How to Make a Fetus Smoothie class. I was also knitting a red socialist flag for my gay feminist professor who was in prison for raping a chicken. I don't blame him though, we all know Allah tells people to rape things.
Oh well, I have to pare some crucifixes down to make dildos for that Know Thy Clitoris class I am teaching at the girls elementry school. See you at the next McDonald's burning!

*Yawns*, you dont understand metaphors? *pat* *pat*.

Metaphora is no prove.

You're saying that we can defeat an ideology that has existed since long before the US. It's older than Christianity, than Judaism. It's been around since the cradle of civilization.

War of any kind is just strength of will, the determination to outlast your enemy. In the end it's that simple. The solution is out there and I'm sure in a thousand years someone will be writing about it.

War of any kind is just strength of will, the determination to outlast your enemy.

What are you, the little engine that could?

You seem to be displaying comprehensive ignorance of warfare and conflict.

War of any kind is just strength of will, the determination to outlast your enemy. In the end it's that simple. The solution is out there and I'm sure in a thousand years someone will be writing about it.

True. However, terrorism as a war of ideology exists to this day. It hasn't died, the players have changed. That's all.

What are you, the little engine that could?

You seem to be displaying comprehensive ignorance of warfare and conflict.

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

They were fighting against an occupation, though. The advantage was theirs, as far as determination goes. Our question was, do we stay and fight, or do we go home. They didn't really have that choice, because they already were home. Same in Iraq.

They were fighting against an occupation, though. The advantage was theirs, as far as determination goes. Our question was, do we stay and fight, or do we go home. They didn't really have that choice, because they already were home. Same in Iraq.

Truth be told, the home team almost always wins.

You constantly use strawmen. You read what someone wrote, then add something to it to attack.


No, I accurately respond to both your argument and its subtext. Your inability to defend yourself doesn't imply the use of a logical fallacy.


This is getting old. If you can't make a point, then don't post.


:blahblah:


You people are claiming that the reason we attacked Iraq is because Hussein was a brutal dictator.


True, that was areason we attacked Iraq. We also attacked Iraq because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction, which was a threat we couldn't leave unchecked in a post-9/11 world.

And gee whiz, I remember the US invading Haiti in the 1990s for the very same reason. I remember us bombing the Serbs for the same reasons. I remember us landing 20,000 marines in Somalia to prevent famine.

Where was your insipid mewling then?


That doesn't have anything to do with relations between Iraq and the United States. That's between Iraq and Iraqis.


When the vileness of the Iraqi regime radiates out into the Middle East, it does have something to do with us.

And by the way, luckily for us YOU have nothing to do with what defines foreign policy. Now that you finally found dictionary.com, let me refer you to this:

foreign policy
n.
The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.


Which is exactly why their domestic policy doesn't fall under the "leadership" of George Bush.


Well geez, it SURE SOUNDS like policy for THIS nation's interaction with another nation.....

....Oops, look. It is.


Actually, it's what's used to describe blowing up everyone who gets in our way.


No, its just an idiotic description of a policy you disagree with. And how uninformed your view is is reflected by the simplistic nature of your analysis.


Was Iraq occupying Poland, Czechylslovakia, Austria, France, Holland, and Russia? Don't be so simple.


LOL Except that you have the narrative of the war wrong. Britain didn't declare war on Germany for invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, Holland, France, or Russia. I suppose its no one's fault, really. Why should you know more about history than you know about anything else?

Germany merely did to Poland what it had already done to Czechoslovakia and Austria. Why does an occupation of Poland allow Britain to run the DOMESTIC POLITICS of Germany?


Votes are irrelevant to whether or not a body is democratic?


The UN is about as democratic as the Holy Roman Empire.


Again with the strawman. I didn't say Syria was a democracy.


You claim the UN is a democratic body. If Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussollini, and Hirohito sit at a table and VOTE on a course of action, you'd call them a democratic body.

You seem to be able to tentatively grasp the concept of 'voting', but you don't seem to understand the SPIRIT of democracy.


Try to stick to what I said if you want to prove what I said was wrong.


I've already proved you wrong.


Do I have to explain to you what the UN is


Apparently I need to explain it to you. The UN is, in fact, a negotiating body which served as a no man's land for the USSR and the United States in averting nuclear holocaust in the Cold War. Its secondary function was whats stated in its charter. Thats its primary function today, and its not much better than the League of Nations.

Indeed, the UN was more effective fighting the American effort to enforce UN resolutions and remove a dictator than it was stopping the Rwandan genocide or Serbian ethnic cleansing.


and what we agreed to when we joined it


We agreed to:

save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

And we've done these things by removing Saddam Hussein and his fascist appenix known as the Ba'ath party.

Of course, people like you are easy to understand. The American people disagree with you, so its time to go around them. You prefer foreign control of American policy because you prefer their policies to ours.

Not unusual, really. History is littered with heaps of fifth columnists. They just usually seem more...competant.


We didn't have a security resolution to attack Iraq and replace the government.


It isn't the UN's job to micromanage its edicts. Enforcing UN mandates often falls to us, as we do the heavy lifting for every alliance we're in.



That, as usualy, isn't what I said. We've killed at least 30,000 civilians. You already know this.


WE killed the 130 people murdered in terrorist attacks a couple of days ago?

Terrorists you feel morally equal to our soldiers in the field? If they're the same as 23 year old kids serving their country, why don't they share any responsibility for the people they kill?


As much as Saddam targeted the people he killed. He didn't pull the trigger personally, but it was his order. The Republicans ordered the military to shoot thousands of bombs into Iraq in a nearly random firing.


We'll add strategic and tactical bombing to the laundry list of things you know nothing about.

Why would anyone think you're an idiot when you consider the Republican party similar to Saddam Hussein?




Yes. It cost us a million dollars to kill that woman.


So...in your INTOXICATING STUPIDITY....you would have us believe that the military targetted that woman?


Says Sulla. Oh, my.


I'm a better authority on any question than the ANSWER pamphlet you get your ideas from.


Why should you expect any better?


Because I'm rational and you are not.


You compare us to terrorists, call us communists, and say we "love the enemies of the United States".


Not 'us', you. You compare our soldiers to terrorists, our legitimate democratic groups to dictators, and our policy to Nazis.

You're ignorant. And in your ignorance you seek to succor the worst elements of the modern world. You are a hateful person, you see, and admire those who share your level of hatred for Americans.

You see where our enemies are coming from. You share their disapproval. You just lack their nerve...which might be why you secretly aren't too fond of yourself.


Then, all of the sudden, you don't like hyperbole when it's coming back at you.


I'm pretty spot on, whereas you're in the weeds.


. . . says the guy who's complaining about being talked down to. Oh, my.


YOU can't 'talk down' to me. It simply doesn't work.


You said that we were using powerful weapons against soldiers in the field.


"The field" is a military/historical term referring to battle space.


THat's not what happend.


Here we go.


We carpet bombed whole cities. Why don't you adjust your mistaken argument, instead of trying to dodge it with a silly quip?


And here's where Boo does a google search to discover that the Iraqi army stationed its military assets, command and control facilities, government leadership buildings, and communications bunkers in civilian areas.

You see, your friends felt that the United States would be too soft to risk civilian casualties by taking out these elements. But its the person who parks his T-72 next to a school that is responsible for civilian deaths, not the nation which destroys it.


Then it's a means, not an ends.


No, you don't seem to understand....again. The goal of a terror group, or a secret police organization, is to bring a society into conformity with their extremist vision. Almost universally, they are of the opinion that the only thing keeping their vision from being realized naturally is the presence of outside or internal elements which subvert the 'natural order'.

Exterminate these elements and your vision is achieved, automatically. The end is the extirpation of these groups. The MEANS by which you extirpate them is terrorism. The end goal of that terrorism, however, is their removal. Terrorism is a means in the way that if they were in black stormtrooper uniforms and created camps for them is a means.

Their removal, however, is an end.

Your objective isn't a 'means'. Thats what makes the slaughter part of the ideology. Their goal isn't to convince people of the importance of a Caliphate or a fascist state. They believe people already know. Their goal is to eliminate those elements who have forced them to ignore it, or have tricked them into disbelief, or force them to deny.

One important part of extremist ideology is the belief that the majority of people would agree with them if they 'only knew the truth'. Hey, doesn't that sound familiar to you? "If only FOX news wasn't there"....eh Boo?


No kidding. I didn't say it wasn't. Stop flailing that strawman. I said it was a method, not a goal. I am right.


Was killing Jews the Nazi's 'method' or their 'goal' in the Holocaust?


I know.


LOL You know that you finally looked up the definition of terrorism? Good.


That it's an EXTREMIST MINORITY doesn't change the fact that it's a means to an end.


No, what you don't get is that it is PART OF THE ENDS. Cleansing your society of undesirable elements is part of how you attain a CLEAN SOCIETY from an extremist point of view.

If your neighbor's end goal is a world where you no longer exist, and he SHOOTS you, his objective has been met. That he used a gun is his means.


Your party managed to take control of my nation, and then your party started a war against Iraq in order to bolster it's own wealth, power and influence.

Boorish idiocy.

They were fighting against an occupation, though.


Strange how such a popular insurgency had to be filled with North Vietnamese troops or draftees taken at gunpoint from rural villages.

My god, Sully. That was pathetic. The whole thing is so incredibly stupid it's just not worth persuing any more. The creepy part is that you think you're making points, somehow. Feel free, though. If that's what it take to keep you going . . .

My god, Sully. That was pathetic. The whole thing is so incredibly stupid it's just not worth persuing any more.


LOL Bye bye.

Those organizations are primarily political rather than ideological, they use terrorism merely as a tactic to achieve their goals.

What's the difference between an organization that's political versus one that's ideological?

international terrorists like al qaeda see their struggle as the end in itself and death to be success even if they don't achieve anything. That's a very different situation.

Where did you get the information that Al Qaeda's goal is not to achieve anything but just to fight the West indefinately?

What's the difference between an organization that's political versus one that's ideological?

An organization to drive the British from north Ireland or Israel from..well anywhere that chooses to use terrorism because they think it's the most effective tactic to achieve a concievably achievable objective would be political.

A group that uses terrorism not because its the best choice of tactics but because it offers a chance to kill themselves in Jihad are ideological.
They also tend to have very vague and non-specific reasons for fighting the way they are and objectives that aren't feasible. (a Caliphate? seriously?)

Where did you get the information that Al Qaeda's goal is not to achieve anything but just to fight the West indefinately?

It's not that they don't hope to achieve anything, but that whether they actually win anything or not by doing so they consider dying in pursuit of their cause a victory or success.

They attack and kill themselves even when they have no clear reason to think it will achieve something and proclaim victory.

It's not that they don't hope to achieve anything, but that whether they actually win anything or not by doing so they consider dying in pursuit of their cause a victory or success.

They attack and kill themselves even when they have no clear reason to think it will achieve something and proclaim victory.

Where did you get the information that Al Qaeda doesn't believe they'll achieve something through their attacks?

Where did you get the information that Al Qaeda doesn't believe they'll achieve something through their attacks?

Individual, minor and medium sized terrorist attacks do not produce easily quantifiable, or concrete objectives of any significance to their overall vision.

Individual, minor and medium sized terrorist attacks do not produce easily quantifiable, or concrete objectives of any significance to their overall vision.

They spent, if I'm not mistaken, about $2 million on the WTC & Pentagon attacks, and they've cost us over a quarter of a trillion dollars, at least. Probably, if you count all the economic fall out, also, probably a half a trillion. They drew us into a war where they can hide in the shadows sniping at us, and as long as they do it, we can't leave, and it costs us millions a day. They want to wreck our economy, because they think our economic and military manipulation of their governments are a root cause of them failing to obtain their objectives.

Individual, minor and medium sized terrorist attacks do not produce easily quantifiable, or concrete objectives of any significance to their overall vision.

What overall vision?

What overall vision?

Islamic theocracy throughout the middle east? destruction of U.S. prescence in the region? Caliphate?

All pretty much unachievable.

Originally posted by BooRadley
They drew us into a war where they can hide in the shadows sniping at us, and as long as they do it, we can't leave, and it costs us millions a day.

The war is a result of decisions made in reaction to the attacks not an innescapable result of the attacks themselves.

Islamic theocracy throughout the middle east? destruction of U.S. prescence in the region? Caliphate?

All pretty much unachievable.


How do you know they are not achievable?
Iran getting nuclear weapon - passing this to El Quida.

Or Islamists getting in power every where in middle east and arab word - united - have nuclear power.

Both scenarios not imaginable.

The west still see itself as strong behing any real danger to it's way of live - it can change very soon.

The war is a result of decisions made in reaction to the attacks not an innescapable result of the attacks themselves.

Everyone knew what would happen. Everyone knew the reaction would come. They baited us into something that hurts us and helps them.