Solution for terrorism
-
wolfbinary wrote:
So then then all people from a country, such as the US, are collectively responsible for every action every person in their country makes?
Certainly Al Qaeda holds that view. In Osama's own words we (Americans and Europeans) are jointly and individually guilty because, as democracies we select the leaders that carry out the policies the he takes offense to. This was his justification of the 911 attacks and later the Madrid and London attacks. Civilians were legitimate targets for this reason.
Rob Graham wrote:
This was his justification of the 911 attacks and later the Madrid and London attacks.
But are you sure you want to find yourself in agreement with Osama - or even worse, with Stan?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
So then then all people from a country, such as the US, are collectively responsible for every action every person in their country makes?
wolfbinary wrote:
So then then all people from a country, such as the US, are collectively responsible for every action every person in their country makes?
Yes.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Why do you say such inflamitory things like that and please don't resort to 'because it's true'?
Because I think being inflametory is a legitimate response. There is way too much "oh, why can't we all just get along" in western society. I think that kind of candy ass attitude on our part is as much a part of the problem as is anything else we are doing. I believe that we need an overtly hostile stance on the issue of Islamic terrorism. Thre is nothing to understand, there is nothing to accomodate, there is nothing to consider. They simply need to be made to understand that we hold them collectively responsible for violence done in the name of their goddamned religion. Once they get everything under control like normal civilized people do, then we can all set down and have a nice civilized conversation over a cup of tea.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
So what you're saying that if they fight using capitalism, say raising oil prices to screw the US economy, then that's okay, otherwise it's a no-no? Of course we know that's also not true. All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small. The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high. Money is the issue. And if they were to all get rich such that the US becomes a third-world nation in comparison (through legal means), you can bet the US and anyone else will bomb the shit out of them. Nobody likes being poor. Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things. If a woman is willing to drown her kids because "God" told her so, a few hundred people, who's relatives have been killed, can be convinced to blow themselves up. People are always looking to find out who does these things, but never why. The why is unacceptable to people like you who like the status quo as it is. What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind? Then we can focus our efforts on mankind advancement instead of which fucking OS or programming language is better. Why give a shit?
-
I am writing this with deep frustration. I was thinking about a possible solution for terrorism. But i have no clue. Like many here in India,I never had interest to connect terrorism with any religion. Terrorists are traitors of their religion. I guess it's been over 3 years since I started a thread here supporting adnan siddique which got carried away by the other CPians who were reular in soapbox.After that one year before there happened the train bombings in Mumbai which killed over 200 people. That time I realized Adnan's anger towads India. When everybody here in CP were expressing their condolence, adnan was trying to spread his hatred towards India . I stayed in office the whole night replying to his messages and threads(I remember Vikram Punathambekar also said the same thing as eply to one of his comment). He was creating multiple threads over different Indian political Issues. Now moving from adnan,we are in deep sorrow after the mumbai attack. Analyzing the pattern of the attack it is obvious that the terrorists were higly trained and there is obvious support from external forces. India is not saying Pak government directly send these militant. But militants based from Pakistan with the support of forces like al-quida or Dawood Ibrahim must be behind this. There are many evidences to prove this. Police had found the troller that is used by the terrorists totravel from karachi. There are many eyewitnesses who have seen terrorists coming out of the troller. And the whereabouts of the arrested terorrist is the bigger evidence. Now the biggest problem is pakistan is acting as if they have not seen these evidences and asking for evidence. It's clear that Pakistan itself is sufferring heavily by terrorism. It would have been welcomed by everyone, if pakistan showed it's support for a joint investigation. The early signs from Pakistan was encouraging when the Pak president agreed to send the ISI chief to New Delhi but he latter took a U-turn after a discussion with the army. Natuarally we will be sceptical about the pakistani civiian governments control over the army. if everybody is like adnan then how could we sove this issue. They will keep on asking evidences which is as clear as daylight. If the world did not control this monster of terrorism it will distroy many places including pakistan. And one could imagine the situation if it had been got into the hands of the terrorists since pakistan being a nuclear state. We have a feeling that majority of the people are peace loving and they love hu
-
Greenpeace is a foreign interest, except in Amsterdam. The US Government defines a foreign interest as: Any foreign government, agency of a foreign government, or representative of a foreign government; any form of business enterprise or legal entity organized, chartered or incorporated under the laws of any country other than the US. or its possessions and trust territories, and any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Was Oklahoma City/Maury building attack terrorism, or not? If so, what was the foreign interest? If not, what do you call activities that are done for the express interest of terrorizing a population?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
5 - you're right, if we could fight poverty then people would have hope in this life and not place their hope in promises for the next made by cynical leaders looking for bomb fodder. Although one wonders if Adnan, for example, is poor, or just stupid.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
At least in Israel, most bombers have not been from the lower, uneducated, poor classes. Those people are put down and believe it. It is the more intellectually exposed and better nourished people who can see past their current position, and who believe they can make a difference, who are likely to act.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Injustice and poverty.
Bullshit. Most of these terrorists are more wealthy and free than are the people they murder. Terrorism is the consequence of a fundamentalist cultural mind set. It exists in all cultures and all societies regardless of wealth or liberty. Some societies have developed social and legal infrastuctures sufficiently robust to prevent such inherent violence from bubbling out of control. Others have not. Those societies which have done so are under no legal or moral obligation to tolerate violence from those which have not. They have every moral and legal right to use force to compel change from those societies which produce the terrorism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
IMHO. Terrorism - no simple answer. To defeat terrorism, you have to correctly identify each brand of terrorism and establish to the best of your abilities the reason for that brand of terrorism. Once you have that basic information, then, you can prepare to address the reasons for the terrorism. You don't bomb, bomb and bomb these terrorists just because of the heat of the moment, you need a proper series (or sequence) of actions, perhaps escalating, to defeat these terrorists based upon your perceived understanding of the basic issues. When you fully have this information, you are better placed to defeat that brand of terrorism, irrespective if it is home-brewed, by proxy, or some international terrorism. Some terrorism is directed directly at you. Other terrorism is directed at a.n.other via you (by proxy). If poverty is a reason, remember there is a vast difference between financial poverty, political poverty, social poverty, and not to forget another brand of terrorism, namely, religion authorized terror tactics, and each needs a different approach to solving the problem(s). One size (solution) does not fit all. Terrorism that is a grievance against a.n.other is perhaps both political and social and may indeed become religious when other kinds fail. A casing point is the plight of the Palestinians. An argument for their brands of terrorism is their distrust of all things Jewish as portrayed by the State of Israel, and by proxy, the United States of America. This can be answered by the resolutions at the United Nations that involve Israel and Palestine but such resolutions have been vetoed by the United States, thus, the problems do not get addressed and consequently grievances grow and grow until such time that terrorism is perceived as the only viable method to make the world sit up and take notice. Yes, Palestine has at least 2 factions, one of which is Al Fatah, and in recent times, have been the desiring peace whereas, Hamas, is located in the Gaza Strip and is hard-lined and not wishing peace until Israel is wiped off the map. So, two different types of Palestinians. You could negotiate with one but never the other. This has to be addressed. How you address it remains largely a mystery. But if you attempt to have a greater understanding, you may in fact find a probable solution. But it takes time and commitment yet bombing or bulldozing peoples houses does not help the situation. Having said that, terrorism should always be condemned wherever it occurs. But trying to understand the cause(s) will help
-
I think the answer to that question is largely environmental. People don't wake up and decide to commit suicide, they are taught those attitudes. I also think that at least part of the problem is that Muslims in Palestine, for example, have a clear enemy who causes their poverty, making it easier for them to hate.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Muslims in Palestine, for example, have a clear enemy who causes their poverty, making it easier for them to hate.
If you are a palestinian Arab, what do you call someone who herds you into internment camps and teaches you to blame someone else for doing it? "Arab Brother" If the Arab nations treated the palestinian Arabs like the Israel treats Jews displaced from Arab nations, the palestinian Arabs would be much better off. Instead, the leaders of the Arab nations paint all the palestinian Arab's problems (and those of their own citizens) as being the Israelis' fault, while denying the palestinian Arabs a chance to integrate into their society and earn a real living.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Was Oklahoma City/Maury building attack terrorism, or not? If so, what was the foreign interest? If not, what do you call activities that are done for the express interest of terrorizing a population?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
In Osama's own wor
That's why I asked. We cannot resort to the extremes of society as legitamate foriegn policy. There are cultural differences that far out weigh any religion differences here that are in play. The middle east and much of Africa, from what I know (not much admittenly), have been killing each other for quite a while without us there. Are all Christians responsible forever and ever for the crusades? When do we stop perpetuating the cycle with rationalizing bad behavior with worse behavior of our own? Are you saying, Stan, that we are to wipe them out completely?
Given Al Qaeda's stated objectives, it is at least likely that the destruction of either Islam or Judeo-Christian faiths (and the subjugation of all others) is the only ultimate solution. To say this is not about Islam is just to ignore what the primary ideological leaders of Al Qaeda (which include Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri) are telling us in no uncertain terms. They see Islam as more than just a religion but as an all inclusive way of life that includes law and governance. The western concept of a secular government is anathema to them. It is their stated goal to expel all western influence from muslim lands, and re-establish the Ummah, a single islamic nation under sharia law. This includes the destruction of Israel. It could be an "us or them" choice, because the will brook nothing less. Ignoring the central role of Islam in this is foolhardy, for it is likely that only Muslims can prevent this by expunging the radical elements, and only if they develop a will to do so that is not presently evident. Failing that, Stan's approach may be the only course remaining, and it is uncertain which culture will prevail if things continue as they are. This is not to say all Muslims believe in or support this, but certainly the extremists in the various terrorist movements do, as do all too many others with great influence in the Islamic community. Unchecked, extremists on one side or the other will prevail.
-
I believe the root cause lies in the concept called religion. World would be a better place if we all snub religion and just believe in God, give him any name you like. "It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
"It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
Ahem: What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Shakespeare sounds best in the original Klingon, of course, but that's the original English. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Terrorism is caused by poverty and injustice. Right
No, poverty and injustice create the situations in which terrorism can be created. It's not a direct link, or all poor people would be terrorists. But, rich people, or even people with a hope for the future, are harder to convince to blow themselves up.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But poverty and injustice has nothing at all to do with the global economy?
Not sure how the economy came into it. The people targetted for terrorism are usually people who are being oppressed themselves and want to fight back, not just people who live in a trailer park and don't work.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If so, what do you suggest we do about poverty and injustice? How do we resolve the issue?
Well, withdrawing us support for Israel until they stop oppressing their neighbours would be a place to start. But, I was not suggesting that it's your fault personally, or that there's much you can hope to do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
withdrawing us support for Israel until they stop oppressing their neighbours would be a place to start
OK, what is Israel doing to oppress their neighbors? You have an argument for them oppressing 'palestinian' Arabs inside the 67 borders, or maybe even those Arabs who are being held in internment camps by the Syrian, Jordanian and Lebanese governments (and the UN). But how are Egyptians being oppressed by the Israelis? The Egyptian government, yes, but how by the Israelis? Or, for that matter, what about the Lebanese, Syrians or Jordanians (you know, the country most of Palestine belonged to before Israel took it over)? It looks like most of the oppression is being done by their own governments, who are using Israel as an excuse to do the oppression.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
This was his justification of the 911 attacks and later the Madrid and London attacks.
But are you sure you want to find yourself in agreement with Osama - or even worse, with Stan?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I don't think I have a choice. What I might prefer isn't an available option. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but rather one of recognition.
-
I believe the root cause lies in the concept called religion. World would be a better place if we all snub religion and just believe in God, give him any name you like. "It doesn't matter by what name we call a rose, it would smell as sweet"
-Suhredayan
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God. So a rose may cause them ill health either through the smell or through the thorns. So what then if only a singular God is to be believed in. Persecute those that refuse to believe. Persecution was tried by the various religions in their respective histories. And persecution is another form of terror(ism).
-
So what you're saying that if they fight using capitalism, say raising oil prices to screw the US economy, then that's okay, otherwise it's a no-no? Of course we know that's also not true. All countries fight for their interests using whatever means possible. The total number of Muslim fundamentalists compared to those that aren't is astronomically small. The number of poor compared to filthy rich princes and oil sheiks is astronomically high. Money is the issue. And if they were to all get rich such that the US becomes a third-world nation in comparison (through legal means), you can bet the US and anyone else will bomb the shit out of them. Nobody likes being poor. Poverty, combined with no education, hunger, and mental instability caused by years of oppression and depression can cause people to do crazy things. If a woman is willing to drown her kids because "God" told her so, a few hundred people, who's relatives have been killed, can be convinced to blow themselves up. People are always looking to find out who does these things, but never why. The why is unacceptable to people like you who like the status quo as it is. What the f*** is wrong with sharing and working to better all of mankind? Then we can focus our efforts on mankind advancement instead of which fucking OS or programming language is better. Why give a shit?
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor. Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all. What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
-
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God. So a rose may cause them ill health either through the smell or through the thorns. So what then if only a singular God is to be believed in. Persecute those that refuse to believe. Persecution was tried by the various religions in their respective histories. And persecution is another form of terror(ism).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What of those in this world, and I presume there are millions, who do not believe, and refuse to believe in any God.
Sounds like a pretty demanding religion. Maybe it should be what he calls "snubbed," too?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I don't think I have a choice. What I might prefer isn't an available option. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but rather one of recognition.
Rob Graham wrote:
What I might prefer isn't an available option.
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions. When Osama - or Stan if he ever gets any power - stops hiding behind "my victims drove me to do it," then they will have earned the right to walk on their hind legs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor. Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all. What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
Rob Graham wrote:
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor.
I never said that is needed, and don't agree with that.
Rob Graham wrote:
Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all.
True, and the average number of hands or feet per person is less than two by the same logic. :)
Rob Graham wrote:
What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
I agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population. I really have no answers. However, the status quo is off IMO. Just because it is what it is and people are used to it, it doesn't mean that any other way is wrong or wouldn't work. Those who are benefiting from it right now are probably the most likely to fight against change. However, if a different capital system got implemented correctly, a few generations from now, the people of that generation will claim that it is the perfect system yet again, even if another change is necessary with the times.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Unfortunately, killing the rich will not make the poor wealthy, nor even not poor.
I never said that is needed, and don't agree with that.
Rob Graham wrote:
Divide the total income of the world by it's population, and the result is a sub-poverty income for all.
True, and the average number of hands or feet per person is less than two by the same logic. :)
Rob Graham wrote:
What is required, sadly, is either a very unlikely economic miracle that results in far more total wealth, or far fewer people. I leave it to you to guess which one is more likely to happen in the next few generations.
I agree with you on this. I've always wondered if maybe some sort of capital caste system is required. Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population. I really have no answers. However, the status quo is off IMO. Just because it is what it is and people are used to it, it doesn't mean that any other way is wrong or wouldn't work. Those who are benefiting from it right now are probably the most likely to fight against change. However, if a different capital system got implemented correctly, a few generations from now, the people of that generation will claim that it is the perfect system yet again, even if another change is necessary with the times.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
Mathematical impossibility. As soon as you allow for even a little random variation you end up with 1% of the population being richer than 99% of the population. Or 10% who are richer than the remaining 90%. I don't believe that there is a perfect system, not in a world with limited resources.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Then you can be richer than others, but not so rich that you're richer than 90% of the world population.
Mathematical impossibility. As soon as you allow for even a little random variation you end up with 1% of the population being richer than 99% of the population. Or 10% who are richer than the remaining 90%. I don't believe that there is a perfect system, not in a world with limited resources.