this thought occured to me after the release of the tape found after the spain bombings.

a few news reports quoted it as saying "more blood will flow" but one quoted it fully and showed it to be more saying something more like; if the war crimes and wars don't stop then more blood will flow.

this got me thinking about how we perceive al qaeda. i guess alot of people are givent he impression that they are a bunch of psychpaths trying to convert the whole world to islam. but i just don't see that anymore. it's like the saying about one mans freedom fighter being another man's terrorist. i'm now seeing them as freedom fighters and well..... more likeable. instead of seeing them as "fanatical fundamentalist terrorists" i see them as "dedicated deeply religious freedom fighters."

as well as this change in opinion other what they are i guess i've went a little further.

seeing now that they're were no wmd's in iraq after being shown the evidence that was given to the UN. which included supposedly emphatetic evidence of their existence through satallite photos which people must question now how they could possibly be wrong unless they were faked and if they were correct why couldn't the coordinates they were taken from followed too? also how the protests of millions of people were ignored to go ahead with the war and how the UN made useless.

when protest's become useless and politicians lie and betray the public they're are limitied options to take. there are politics but elections now can't be trusted in the US now they aren't internationally monitored. their's the law and international courts but america no longer obides by the geneva convention and won't join the world court making it impossible to try for war crimes.

or there is the last option. and sadly it is violence. i used to be pacifist but now i see no other option. if the world is to change then direct action is required. it's a sad fact that i think it has no came to this but at the end of the day i know that i'd rather fight against britain and america and britain than for them.

i believe now the only action open to people who truly what change but seek not to be terrorist is direct action. attacks on legitimate but not civillain targets such as the armed services and american interests (which are not occupied).

sorry if this was a bit of a rant and might be controversial but i think it's best if people know how other people are now feeling and what can be done to stop it growing and prehaps reverse it.

if this thread does get stopped which i imagine will happen i'm sorry for the upset.

sorry if this was a bit of a rant than

While I do agree that every person's goals and actions depend on someone's perspective to them, I still can't deem anything Al Quada has done as "likeable" or even justified. The taking of innocent lives to prove a political point is evil. It doesn't matter how lofty your goals may be, it's still evil in my book if people are killed for no reason besides, they were in the way or had it coming when really, they had little to nothing to do with a matter. All terrorists that kill innocent people, are just villians. They are not freedom fighters because life, in my opinion is the ultimate freedom, and to take someone's life is completely out of the question.

This goes not just for Bin Laden and company, but any group of people who use fear and violence to invoke their beliefs on others. Peace, and understanding is the best way to fix the world. Not killing and blowing everyone up if you cannot have your voice heard.

I do predict you'll meet with some harsh criticism of your post, but if you keep it civil and everyone does keep an open mind, this thread should stay open.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cloud No.9
instead of seeing them as "fanatical fundamentalist terrorists" i see them as "dedicated deeply religious freedom fighters."

---

Dedicated maybe, but I don't know if deeply would be the right word - if they were, they wouldn't consider things such as 9/11 in the first place. I think they've misunderstood something in the religion, which is what makes them extremists, and possibly quite rightly, terrorists, in the first place.

Quote:

---

i believe now the only action open to people who truly what change but seek not to be terrorist is direct action. attacks on legitimate but not civillain targets such as the armed services and american interests (which are not occupied).

---

I think such attacks would be a far better way of going about doing things too. Political targets would be good too - after all, they're the ones in control and more responsible of what's going on that's despisable, not the general public.

about the whole killing thing. a study showed that only 2% of soldier shot to kill in the second world war. it's believed that this was because all human beings intinctively don't want to kill their own species for obvious reasons. it begs the question then as why do people kill on such a mass scale such as sept 11th or the holocaust. i guess then that too kill people you have to either feel under threat yourself, insane or are deeply dedicated to your cause.

just though i'd make my thoughts clear on that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cloud No.9
a study showed that only 2% of soldier shot to kill in the second world war.

---

Where did you get that number from? Can you show me a link to back this up?

No one does anything in battle but 'shoot to kill'. You're preserving your own life there, not to mention whatever you're fighting for. I mentioned this 'statistic' to my dad (who fought in Vietnam) and it gave him quite a laugh.

As usual, this overall topic is rather disgusting. Do I think the U.S. should perhaps listen to these people more? Sure. But killing innocent civilians is never right. Murder is murder, whether it's for some great religious cause or psychotic ramblings. If I went off and murdered some kids because God told me to, it'd still be murder, and it'd still be wrong.

During WWII, I imagine time spent in basic training was minimal, and no near as well developed as it is today. War was different then. The US didn't aid the war with strategy and good technique. It aided the war with sheer manpower. We entered a war of attrition and had more people when the day was done. While 2% seems a little low, I'd imagine many of the soldiers (at least late in the war) were new, green recruits fresh off a minimal basic training, and thrown into combat stressful enough to make the bravest of people break down and cry. I can understand that a majority might not have the heart to kill. My history books paint WW2 as a classic example of a small elite force (Germany) taking on a much larger, but less efficient force (the Allies). Most of the time, movies and novels opt for the small force to win, but in this case, the Axis forces were completely outnumbered. Between Russia and the US, Germany couldn't produce soldiers fast enough.

Cloud No. 9, if you truly believe what you say you believe, then you're about as evil as they are. I'll leave it at that, for the sake of civility, though I don't really believe your beliefs warrant civility.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Cloud No. 9, if you truly believe what you say you believe, then you're about as evil as they are. I'll leave it at that, for the sake of civility, though I don't really believe your beliefs warrant civility.

---

Well said.

All terrorist groups believe they are fighting for some legitimate cause. Land, power, religion, some combination of the above.
However, no "cause", regardless of how righteous it is, can ever justify the murder of innocents. This applies to freedom fighters, terrorists, and governments alike.
That's just about all I've got to say.

It is unfortunate that religion and war historically go hand in hand, I don't remember anyone going to war because they did not believe in god. Again, finding Al Quada liekable is like saying Hitler was a good guy except for all those people he had killed. I'm sure there must be some benefits to their beleifs and I'm also sure that the media has done their best to make us all see just the bad components of their organization but anything that promotes mass murder I will not be personally endorsing.

the 2% should have read 20%. more info about that can be found here

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...y/killing.html

i don't believe in al qaeda's methods of mass civillian killings but i do agree with many of their beliefs that seem to have not been told to make them appear like crazed murders. and i do believe that the direct acion that i discussed that would prevent more civillian casualites may be the only way to achieve certain goals.

Cloud No. 9 - be glad that you live in a country where you can say things like that. Then try to remember exactly why you can say the things you do.

Where DOES Cloud no. 9 live, anyhow?


And has someone noticed that Unne has been talused more and more?

i live in britain. and i have the right to say what i'm saying becuase people fought for it. and i don't expect such civil liberties to be "suspended" to me which all too much seems like the words that were used in 1933 Germany.

Ah, I thought Francy was trying to pull a Constitution. :D

And what's that supposed to mean... uh... guy from... Finland?

They're not freedom fighters. The US wasn't invading them. The Al Qaeda are not evil, now, and I believe that's how the US often portrays them. They don't have reason, they're just attacking because they're evil. End of story. Of course that's bull, they have their reasons. No one acts without reason, even if it is one we consider insane. Understanding that reason instead of just acting with violence would end this better, I think.

However, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists or whatever asinine policy they've adopted, so that's unlikely. "We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.

Not that the Al Qaeda don't have twisted policies. I really can't think of any that aren't. They may be extremists, but they're not insane. Frenzied, and psychotic, yes.

I think with political matters like this it's imperitive to do some talking. You can't kill all of the Al Qaeda, or people who think like them, and as long as they live, they'll continue to hate the US, and probably keep trying to attack them. Better would be to attempt discussions, and keep attempting them. With guns as back up. I'm not a complete pacifist, but as long as that group, culture, whatever continues to teach people that the US is wrong, terrorism will continue. Forcing a society to change is not the way to go about it. It just makes people angry.

My soapbox is getting so much use lately.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
However, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists or whatever asinine policy they've adopted, so that's unlikely. "We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.

---

If a serial killer mowed down tons of people because God told him too, and then wanted to come after you and your family, would you try to sit down and reason with him or fight back?

Terrorists are the serial killers and we aren't going to let them push us around. I'm pretty disgusted with the sympathy some of you show for terrorists.

The Al Qaeda are not evil, now, and I believe that's how the US often portrays them. They don't have reason, they're just attacking because they're evil. End of story. Of course that's bull, they have their reasons. No one acts without reason, even if it is one we consider insane. Understanding that reason instead of just acting with violence would end this better, I think. --Emerald Aeris

Everyone has reasons for what they do. I doubt anyone would argue that terrorists aren't after something. Question is, whether their reasons justify murdering people. (Answer, is no.)

"We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.

So you would prefer that only the terrorists use violence? Since the terrorists aren't "evil", and "have their reasons", after all, as you say; terrorists are apparently justified in using force, according to yourself, since it's not "evil" of them to do so. And yet the people who fight terrorists, though they also have their reasons (namely, wanting not to be exploded by terrorists), aren't justified in using force to stop force from being used against themselves, or against innocent people in their own countries.

Your views aren't at all consistent.

"Question is, whether their reasons justify murdering people. (Answer, is no.)"

Did I say they were justifed? My point was that they're not just evil, and are people with reasons for doing things, not that those things were right. Evil, I think, in this context summons up fantastic images, as I'll explain later. I think what they did was wrong, definitely, but not evil. I suppose my use of the word evil was misplaced, since it can also mean simply a bad thing. I'll explain this a bit later.

"So you would prefer that only the terrorists use violence? Since the terrorists aren't "evil", and "have their reasons", after all, as you say; terrorists are apparently justified in using force, according to yourself, since it's not "evil" of them to do so. And yet the people who fight terrorists, though they also have their reasons (namely, wanting not to be exploded by terrorists), aren't justified in using force to stop force from being used against themselves, or against innocent people in their own countries."

I didn't say that only terrorists should use violence. It just seems rather hypocritical of the US to say that the terrorists shouldn't use violence to implement change, and then use violence to implement change themselves. Also, did you not read this part of my post? " Better would be to attempt discussions, and keep attempting them. With guns as back up. I'm not a complete pacifist"
Fighting back, and defending yourself is necessary, of course, but I don't think it's wise to only fight, and actually make it a policy to not attempt any sort of peaceful discussion at all. I didn't say that terrorists are justified anywhere.

I'm being misunderstood, so I'll clarify. My point there was that they aren't "just evil". The media tends to portray them as evil villains, like in a video game. No feelings, no morals, no reason for killing people, they're just evil! So it's ok to kill them. I've heard people who feel frighteningly close to that about it. This isn't a game, they aren't evil. They have families. They were raised to be like that. They know no other way of living. War means taking thousands of human lives! And you won't even consider talking to them? That is just as disgusting as them. They're misguided, ignorant and crazed from a lifetime of religious propaganda. What's the State's excuse?

I'm not saying the US should've done nothing. They are justified in hunting down Osama, and arresting all who are responsible. But going on a mass terrorist hunt isn't going to stop them. Violence first is just a waste of human life. War should always be the very last option, in this situation, it was the first. Do you even know why they attacked the two towers?

And Talus, the reason it's different from serial killers is because serial killers ARE insane. Serial killers aren't thousands and thousands of people, they aren't political, they don't have the support of other countries. This is not a private matter. It's political, and global, which makes it very different from a serial killer. It's vastly not as simple as arresting a serial killer. If discussions worked, lives of American soldiers, innocent lives, and terrorists could be saved. Why isn't that worth trying persistantly? Why do we just give up because they killed people? Is fighting and killing them going to bring those people back, or stop them from killing more people before they die?

Everything happens for a reason; reason is NOT the same as justification, though I'm getting tired of repeating that in every thread on these topics. [q=Talus]I'm pretty disgusted with the sympathy some of you show for terrorists.[/q]Ronald Reagan supported Central American terrorists who murdered innocents; many citizens of the US and elsewhere backed the Vietnam war in spite of the hideous atrocities commited by foreigners fighting in that conflict. I guess they're all evil, too:p

Lots of people have very serious issues with American foreign policy, and the US's willingness to use violence to enforce its views and interests within other nations. The attitude that "I am right in all things, it is my place to decide what is acceptable and what is not" is making a lot of people very afraid for their independence, even their lives. Extremists repond to this fear or perceived threat with extreme, unreasoning and intolerable acts of violence. More... sane people react by voicing their fears and criticisms. However, those fears and criticisms are similar to the fears and criticisms possessed by the terrorists, thus making it easier to shriek "OMG terrorist sympathiser" whenever someone disagrees with the 'dominant culture'.

Edit: Typos.

I think what they did was wrong, definitely, but not evil. --Emerald Aeris

This is the only definition of evil that I know. So yeah, I misunderstood.

I don't think the terrorists are JUST evil. I don't think they're mindless animals or something. I don't think they're completely devoid of all humanity. I do think that they hold certain beliefs which ARE evil, and that those beliefs are evil enough to invalidate everything else. Maybe Osama loves his mom and kisses her good-night every night. Maybe he has kids and buys them presents all the time. Those things just don't matter when held up against the fact that he kills innocent people for a reason which isn't justifiable to anyone but himself. I think it's completely pointless to even look at for good qualities. His good qualities don't matter because his bad qualities are so bad.

Violence first is just a waste of human life. War should always be the very last option, in this situation, it was the first.

They attacked us first. Did we go ram a plane into Afghanistan before 9/11? No we didn't. Did we do something to make them mad? Maybe. Very likely we did, in fact. Did we do anything to make them mad enough that it's justified to kill innocent people in our country? I certainly don't think so.

You yourself say that violence should be a LAST resort. That's a nice rule to follow. However, the terrorists didn't attempt to communicate with us. They just killed people. So they've refused to play by your rules; now what? Should we continue to play by your rules of non-violence, while they happily continue to murder office buildings full of people? Should we bend over backwards trying to spare the poor terrorists, while they've already proven with their actions that they won't do the same in return?

I, for one, don't think I have a duty to reason with someone when they have a gun to my head. I don't think I have a duty to sacrifice my well-being and possibly my own life just for the possibility of saving the life of someone who's proven himself a killer. I don't think the life of the person who initiated violence is any longer worth as much as the life of the person who has had violence initiated against himself.

Do you even know why they attacked the two towers?

This kind of question makes it seem like you think it's possible that their reasons are justifiable. There is no justification for an initiation of violence. I will agree with you; violence is justifiable only in retaliation to violence. And because there is no justification for uninitiated violence, and because they've opted to use such violence, who cares what their reasons are? Maybe their reasons are really great. Maybe they want to defeat America so they can take our wealth and build hospitals and buy everyone puppies. It doen't matter. Their reasons are invalidated by their actions.

Is fighting and killing them going to bring those people back, or stop them from killing more people before they die?

Yes, it's going to stop them. Anything less, and you're relying on the good nature of the murderers. Why should we take the chance? Why should we gamble with innocent lives, to spare the lives of murderers?

"Those things just don't matter when held up against the fact that he kills innocent people for a reason which isn't justifiable to anyone but himself. I think it's completely pointless to even look at for good qualities. His good qualities don't matter because his bad qualities are so bad."

Again, I wasn't justifying their actions, nor saying you thought that, but that's how the media portrays him. As if it's ok to kill people who are "evil" without a trial.

"They attacked us first. Did we go ram a plane into Afghanistan before 9/11? No we didn't. Did we do something to make them mad? Maybe. Very likely we did, in fact. Did we do anything to make them mad enough that it's justified to kill innocent people in our country? I certainly don't think so."

No, the US definitely didn't deserve the attack, but I think it's important to understand why they would do such an awful thing. Maybe there's something about your country that needs addressing, maybe there's something about theirs? Who knows. An eye for an eye is not a good way to run a country. Like I said, peace talks should be combined with defense, and bringing the guilty party to justice.

"You yourself say that violence should be a LAST resort. That's a nice rule to follow. However, the terrorists didn't attempt to communicate with us."

Two wrongs make a right?

"Should we continue to play by your rules of non-violence, while they happily continue to murder office buildings full of people?"

I didn't say complete non-violence anywhere.


"I, for one, don't think I have a duty to reason with someone when they have a gun to my head. I don't think I have a duty to sacrifice my well-being and possibly my own life just for the possibility of saving the life of someone who's proven himself a killer."

That works if you're talking about one person, but we're not. It's the same with the serial killer analogy. No, you're right that you don't have a duty, but it's not that simple. Can you say for sure who's holding the gun? Can you justify killing innocent people because you're pretty sure they have the gun, or even because they say they do?

"I don't think the life of the person who initiated violence is any longer worth as much as the life of the person who has had violence initiated against himself."

You have a point.

"This kind of question makes it seem like you think it's possible that their reasons are justifiable."

No, I think it's important to understand why people do things that horrible. It will stop them from happening again.

"Their reasons are invalidated by their actions."

A mentally disabled child kills a man. Who cares why or who? Kill the kid. Obviously this is extreme, but you've said yourself that the best way to test logic is to take it to the extreme. Reasons ALWAYS matter. Although yes, none of their reasons are good enough to kill people, but are they good enough to get angry over? I've heard people speak of economic problems coming from the US being one of many reasons they hate them. Now, please don't argue the validity, 'cause I'm really not sure. So hypothetically speaking let's say that's the reason. It's not a valid reason to kill people, of course, but if the US was responsible for economic strife, isn't that something that should be addressed?

"Yes, it's going to stop them. Anything less, and you're relying on the good nature of the murderers. Why should we take the chance? Why should we gamble with innocent lives, to spare the lives of murderers?"

Is it going to stop the people there from raising more terrorists? Should we just kill them, and kill their children eventually too? And keep killing everyone who comes at us without thinking that maybe there's a problem here that needs to be solved with something other than killing? It's a vicious circle. Don't you see that?

I'm not relying on the good nature of murderers. I'm not saying invite Osama to the whitehouse for tea. Messages could be sent, SOME sort of negotiation, something.

No where did I say that the US shouldn't be hunting the terrorists. In fact I said they should, so I don't know why you keep acting as if I've said that. I suppose that could be derived from where I said that violence should be the last option, but it's hard to explain. There's a difference between defending yourself, but also trying to make peace, and what the US is doing. The US doesn't seem to want peace, they just want them dead. The "no negotiating" policy exudes that.

Terrorism is evil. Terrorism is defined by deliberately attacking innocent civillians in an attempt to instill terror in the populace. How could that not be evil?

That's not what terrorism is. Terrorism is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.", from dictionary.com.

This is just what I mean. Terrorism has become only associated with evil, bomb wielding, baby killing criminals. With the above definition, even Green Peace can be considered terrorists.

Quote:

---

I didn't say that only terrorists should use violence. It just seems rather hypocritical of the US to say that the terrorists shouldn't use violence to implement change, and then use violence to implement change themselves.

---

I believe this follows the "He started it!" way of thinking.

It's pretty obvious that foreign relations in the 21st century require a more nuanced understanding of the world than the "hit me and I'll hit you back" policy we seem to have in the US these days. Then again, the intelligence people in the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration that they needed to watch out for Al Qeada and impending attacks from them. The Bush administration said "um, no" and decided Saddam Hussein was a much more important target, so that gives you an idea of how much of a grasp our policymakers have of the world these days.

Well, we are hitting back, but that's not all we're doing. We're also improving things over there so that they don't feel the need to hit us any more.

Emerald Aeris: that definition is exactly what I said terrorism is, just in different words. And dictionary.com is always the end-all source for knowledge in the known universe.

I agree that rebuilding and fixing Iraq/Afghanistan/etc is good, but there is also the problem that the whole attitude of "let us come in and fix your problems/show you the way" is very insulting to many people of the world. Now granted, the fallen pride that Islam feels and it's unhappiness at the lack of prominence of Islam compared to Christianity and the West is something that these people will have to come to terms with, but you do need to recognize that we aren't going to be seen as saviors and embraced wholeheartedly.

Education, Education, Education. That's what Iraq needs more than a forced democracy. If and when Iraq and its citizens understands exactly what the rights and responsiblities of having a democracy is, then I think they'd be better off. America should brush up on this topic too.

Hypothetical:

If Iraq gets the power handed over to them in June, then vote for a Religious Leader, who would possibly institute a theocracy, to govern the country, would America be in the right to reject this election?

I believe that if the Iraqi people are given a real education on various ideals, not just American beliefs, but just general tolerance towards others, then they will see that mixing religion and law isn't the way to really go and actually be able to create a stable government that preaches tolerance not just among all religions, but among all people, women included.

Just one person's opinion.

Take care all.

[q=DocFrance]Terrorism is evil. Terrorism is defined by deliberately attacking innocent civillians in an attempt to instill terror in the populace. How could that not be evil?[/q]That's exactly what the allies did to countries such as Germany and Japan during the Second World War.[q=DocFrance]Well, we are hitting back, but that's not all we're doing. We're also improving things over there so that they don't feel the need to hit us any more.[/q]That, and inadvertently killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the process, then refusing to be accountable for their deaths, in spite of the fact that they're not only foreseeable but expected. Imagine if Al Qaeda said that the World Trade Center buildings were their real target, and the people inside were merely "collateral casualties" and not a real concern... don't think anyone would feel better.[q=eestlinc]I agree that rebuilding and fixing Iraq/Afghanistan/etc is good, but there is also the problem that the whole attitude of "let us come in and fix your problems/show you the way" is very insulting to many people of the world.[/q]Definitely. Some US leaders, be they political or military, are fond of observing that only their country knows how things "should" be done, and that anyone else just doesn't have a clue.

"Bringing tolerance and unity to the world" won't be achieved by forcing everyone to become the same; that'll just breed more discontent.

On a side note... actually, this's related to the thread's original topic:

Suppose someone thinks that Chechnya should be given independence. Is that person "evil"? After all, they are expressing the same views as Islamic terrorists...

Talus: Compare terrorists to serial killers if you want, but may I remind you you can actually fight back a serial killer, but fighting back a concept such as terrorism is not as easy. Terrorism is a concept, not tangible, it's not on a place, there is not a country called "terrorism" you can take over. And the current US policy uses violence that creates, death, that creates hate that creates terrorism. 11-S happened because the US was acting like it was acting, and even if it was by no menas justifiable, it was something that was going to happen, sooner or later. Cause, you know, this is not the end of history, and hegemonies are always condemned to fall. Well, not always, let's not be dogmatic: Hegemonies have always fallen until modern days, and the US is very likely to fall too. Don't ask me how, I just hope Oppenheimer wasn't too right when he quoted Rig-Veda saying "I am the destructor of everything".

A mentally disabled child kills a man. Who cares why or who? Kill the kid. Obviously this is extreme, but you've said yourself that the best way to test logic is to take it to the extreme. --Emerald Aeris

If it's possible to stop him without killing him, sure, lock him up instead. If he's running through the streets killing people though, and if killing him is the only way to do it, then yeah, he needs to be killed.

I'm not in favor of shoot first and ask questions later. That's not what the US does anyways. We captured Saddam; we could've killed him, but we didn't. He's going to get a trial. I'm sure that whenever it's possible to try to capture terrorists without killing them, we make that effort. But if it involves putting our troops at risk, there's just no reason to do so just to save the terrorists.

You seem mostly to agree with me, so I don't understand what you think the US is doing that's wrong.

I agree that rebuilding and fixing Iraq/Afghanistan/etc is good, but there is also the problem that the whole attitude of "let us come in and fix your problems/show you the way" is very insulting to many people of the world.

Tough crap if people are insulted. Some peopel deserve to be insulted. You go around torturing and murdering your own citizens, you deserve much more than insults. The Iraqis didn't fix their own problems. They should've. Once their problems start spilling over into the world at large, then it's our problem, and at least we're willing to fix it.

Education, Education, Education. That's what Iraq needs more than a forced democracy. --The Captain

That's why dictators keep their citizens stupid by any means necessary. So when the Taliban outlaws education for women, what do you do? Wait for the Taliban to change their minds, and then introduce democracy? Freedom is necessary for education. Freedom is necessary for human rights in general.

"That's why dictators keep their citizens stupid by any means necessary. So when the Taliban outlaws education for women, what do you do? Wait for the Taliban to change their minds, and then introduce democracy? Freedom is necessary for education. Freedom is necessary for human rights in general."

How do you know what freedom is, unless you have an education though?

Take care all.

Terrorists can and must be negotiated with. look at what happened in ireland. the fighting and bombing never stopped until the good friday agreement. the war on terrorism isn't one that can be won by surrender or invasion and we can't kill all of them. the only possible conclsuion to such a war would be that both sides make an agreement as the IRA did. do't be deluded into thinking there is anyway of beating terrorism by force. the answer to the worlds problems are by compromises and compromises alone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cloud No.9
the answer to the worlds problems are by compromises and compromises alone.

---

You must live in some magical utopia, if you think force is never necessary you have too much faith in the human race.

That may be true, but I hope that force is always the last method used, not the first. When people of the world begin to force each other before anything else, that will spell only more death and destruction.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talus
You must live in some magical utopia, if you think force is never necessary you have too much faith in the human race.

---

You people jump to conclusions too much. He didn't say force is never necessary.

I think what he meant was that you're not going to kill terrorism out of existance. It's too widespread. It won't stop until both sides agree to stop. All he said was that it won't stop until then, not that we shouldn't ever fight.

Saying you can't kill all the terrorists doesn't mean a thing. You can't catch all criminals yet we still have police. Just because a task is difficult doesn't make it not worthwhile.

My point is that killing them all isn't a solution. It's not going to stop them. Killing all the terrorists shouldn't be the goal, peace should. Which means discussions will be necessary, just JUST force. Are you saying killing all the terrorists is worthwhile?

Only three months after the first IRA bombing, Westminster was negotiating with them. Now, if they'd followed America's more recent example, they'd have started bombng "terrorist targets" all over Northern Ireland rather than trying to talk. In stead of peace, we'd now have a situation where desperate survivors from devastated Irish towns willingly accept assignments to strike back at the murderous force that killed and oppressed so many of their kin. Britian would keep responding to each new attack with fresh retaliation; in short, we'd have a miniature - or not-so-miniature - version of what's being repeated around the world.

You have to understand who you're dealing with, in order to determine if negotiations are worthwhile. Why is the enemy fighting you? In the case of the IRA and the UK, the IRA fought for goals that could be reasonably accomodated. Territory and independence are compromisable. In the case of Al Qaeda, I'm under the impression that they won't back down untill the US is an Islamic theocracy much in the image of Iran or Taleban Afghanistan. That's not compromisable. Israel and Palestine are in a conflict of the sort that should in theory be negotiable - questions of independence and territory are theoretically easily solved. In short, some enemies are worthy of negotiation and compromise, and others are not, and even if compromise should be simple, it often isn't, once ego's get in the way of rational thinking.

Some people are worthy to talk to, and others you just kill? That's pretty wrong, to say that least. You're "under the impression" of a reason that can't be compromised, so you skip talking peace and shoot to kill? You don't even know! You could at least know for sure without deciding. Besides who knows what they'll say! You have no clue at all what would happen if you tried negotiations. I think that's a pretty sick viewpoint to be honest. These are people's LIVES. You are talking about killing people, and probably innocent ones along with the guilty. And you're suggesting just skipping peace talks because you're under the impression that they won't talk? This isn't a game of Risk. People are going to die as a result of that decision. I don't think it should be based on that you're under the impression of anything, or ever pretty sure. Be completely sure that peace talks won't work before giving up. Not even attempting them is warmongering.

Quote:

---

You must live in some magical utopia, if you think force is never necessary you have too much faith in the human race.

---

"Opening a school is closing a prision"
-Victor Hugo

You have to understand who you're dealing with, in order to determine if negotiations are worthwhile. --Garland

I still say that even if a terrorist's goals are extremely easy to fulfull, they don't deserve them. If I blow up a train full of people, then put a bomb in another train and say "Give me a sandwich or I'll kill more people!", are you saying I should be given my sandwich and sent on my way? No. I should be hunted down like a dog for being a killer.

Making a deal with someone requires that both sides of the deal are entering the deal willingly. When one side has a bomb planted next to the other side, there is no willingness. Making a deal with someone requires that both sides have good faith that the other will honor that deal. When one side shows that they have no regard even for the lives of innocent people, how can you trust ANYTHING they say, or say they'll do? When a "deal" is initiated by violence, by definition no "deal" is possible. To attempt to reason with someone like that, to rely on their honor or their word, is stupidity of the highest degree. What happens when they decide the deal isn't good enough any longer and they want more, and they happen to have more bombs? And you've already proven that you're willing to submit to force with no resistance; why SHOULDN'T they keep using force? How much are we willing to give, for the sake of "peace"? Can you even call that peace; surrendering to your enemies, and trying to keep him happy enough so he doesn't murder you?

Do we live in a world where you can get anything you want if you have enough bombs to scare people into giving it to you? I certainly hope not.

These are people's LIVES. You are talking about killing people, and probably innocent ones along with the guilty.

If innocent people die during the hunt for terrorists, blame the terrorists for STARTING the violence to begin with. If there was a guy with a nuclear bomb on in a briefcase, and he was sitting in a room full of babies making demands, if I had a clear shot at killing that guy, I'd do it in a second, no matter how many babies I killed. Even if I had to shoot every baby in the room. And it wouldn't be my fault in any sense. If you let the bad guys dictate the terms, and let them use your own views and values against you, you're as good as defeated. You're giving the bad guys power over yourself. How much are you willing to sacrifice? Because there is no limit to how much an evil person is willing to take.

In Vietnam apparently they used little girls as snipers. In some wars apparently they sometimes strap bombs to little tiny children and send them after the other side. In Iraq they'd often house troops in hospitals and schools and schools, from what I know. Would you just sit there and die, because you have to kill an innocent person? And when all the "good" people are dead, for fear of hurting innocent people, then what? If killing innocent people is necessary to get rid of evil men who have, can, and will kill even MORE innocent people, then it's your DUTY to kill innocent people if necessary to stop those evil men. Only if necessary. Do no more than you have to, but definitely do no less.

This reminds me of the old fairy tales where a dragon is in a cave and demands 10 virgin daughters from the nearby village every year, or else he'll destroy the whole town, and so the villagers do it. THAT attitude, that surrender to evil, is what makes me sick. Willingness to sacrifice everything that should be dear to you, for example your own safety, your own values, your own right to exist without living under the threat of violence, that makes me sick.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Do we live in a world where you can get anything you want if you have enough bombs to scare people into giving it to you? I certainly hope not.

---

Notice how many of the "Axis of Evil" (or whatever you're calling the states you bomb because wars can be reported whereas covert action cannot) began to co-operate after the US's show of force in Iraq? I wonder why that was? Of course, when we do it it's okay because we have Democracy and God on you sides, right? We're completely different from those crazy fundamentalists!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
If innocent people die during the hunt for terrorists, blame the terrorists for STARTING the violence to begin with.

---

Hmm, I see. Terrorists are actually to blame for their enemies actions. WOW THAT MAKES LOADSA SENSE. Yet, looking at it from the terrorists persepctives, surely WE are to blame for their actions? Since you could argue that our killing of people in their countries is what moved them to act against innocent people? I know, you're thinking "But they have other reasons as well!" Well, so does the US. Besides that, is attacking a nation an adequate response to the actions of individuals? Doesn't seem to make any sense, physimaster

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Would you just sit there and die, because you have to kill an innocent person? And when all the "good" people are dead, for fear of hurting innocent people, then what? If killing innocent people is necessary to get rid of evil men who have, can, and will kill even MORE innocent people, then it's your DUTY to kill innocent people if necessary to stop those evil men. Only if necessary. Do no more than you have to, but definitely do no less.

---

Okay? Was that a piece of satire? If so, it was exquisite! Otherwise....

Congrats! You're an extremist! You probably have more in common with the terrorists than the moderates on your own side! Now go blow up a hospital because you have Good/God/something else on your side!

I also find it funny, you expect the terrorists to be perfectly reasonable when we attack them, and when they attack us, they're EVIL. What the ****?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
If killing innocent people is necessary to get rid of evil men who have, can, and will kill even MORE innocent people, then it's your DUTY to kill innocent people if necessary to stop those evil men. Only if necessary. Do no more than you have to, but definitely do no less.

---

I don't know if I can even comment on that. Anyone thinking it's their duty to kill innocents because they used their own (flawed human) logic to come to that conclusion is a terrorist to those innocent groups you feel you must kill.

KILL THE FANATICS!

If it's going to save lives, give them the damn sandwich. If you're killing innocents to get to the bad guys, aren't you just as bad as them? Just because you were attacked first doesn't mean that you're not killing people!

I think we should focus on the preservation of life, you seem to think we should stand up to evil at all costs. That's the difference between our views.

Edit: I think it should be handled like a hostage situation. You don't just barge in, because then lives will be lost. You handle the situation delicately and negotiate. Also with a little force at the right moment to arrest the criminal. Barging in and killing the criminal and the hostage isn't a very good way of going about things.

Sure if you take out the bad guy and lose the hostage in the process you know no more lives will be lost that MIGHT have been lost, but the hostage is definitley dead. I don't think killing innocent people to prevent deaths that might happen is right.

Notice how many of the "Axis of Evil" (or whatever you're calling the states you bomb because wars can be reported whereas covert action cannot) began to co-operate after the US's show of force in Iraq? I wonder why that was? --Duo

Faulty analogy. Did the US plant bombs on trains and say "Do what we say or we'll kill innocent people on purpose"? No. The US said "Attack us and we'll defend ourselves". Did the US go attack France because they didn't aid us? Did we go kill random innocent French people? Obviously not.

I wonder why that was? Of course, when we do it it's okay because we have Democracy and God on you sides, right?

I'm not sure who you're talking to now, since no one has said anything similar to that. "Attacking a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking." is the name of the particular logical fallacy you're using.

Hmm, I see. Terrorists are actually to blame for their enemies actions. WOW THAT MAKES LOADSA SENSE.

Whoever attacks first is to blame. Say someone starts a high-speed chase with the police, and the police wreck and hit a school bus in the process and kill little kids. Would you blame the policemen for being murderers? No, you'd blame the criminal who made the police chase NECESSARY.

Say the car was full of explosives and headed for a school building, and the cop has a choice; ram the car off the road, and possibly kill one or two innocent people standing there, or do nothing and let far, far more almost certainly be killed. The cop doesn't KNOW what will happen if he lets the car go. He only has his judgment; he knows it's extremely likely that letting the car go = thousands dead, and ramming the car = 2 dead.. Should the cop say "I can't purposefully kill innocent people! It's wrong!", and so do nothing, and let thousands die? Or should he make his best effort to minimize death?

Should we tip-toe around, being sure not to hurt anyone but evil people, and in the process, through not giving our best effort, allow those evil people to escape and kill even MORE innocent people in the long run?

Yet, looking at it from the terrorists persepctives, surely WE are to blame for their actions? Since you could argue that our killing of people in their countries is what moved them to act against innocent people

If terrorized the terrorists without provocation, we would be to blame, and they'd have the right to defend themselves. We haven't.

Congrats! You're an extremist! You probably have more in common with the terrorists than the moderates on your own side! Now go blow up a hospital because you have Good/God/something else on your side!

Feel free to show me how I'm wrong instead of resorting to mockery and name-calling. It doesn't help your argument.

I also find it funny, you expect the terrorists to be perfectly reasonable when we attack them, and when they attack us, they're EVIL. What the ****?

I expect people not to attack us to begin with, and then they'll be left alone. If they do attack us, I expect them to die, or be captured and thrown into prisons.

I don't know if I can even comment on that. Anyone thinking it's their duty to kill innocents because they used their own (flawed human) logic to come to that conclusion is a terrorist to those innocent groups you feel you must kill. --Guu

You're saying I should let terrorists kill me if they happen to be ruthless enough to use innocent people as tools to kill me. So you believe that being the most ruthless and evil person in a conflict should decide the victor? And you believe avoiding killing one person in the short-term is OK, even if a thousand more will die in the future because of inaction?

So logic is automatically flawed because it's human? Then I can safely disregard your comments. Thanks.

If it's going to save lives, give them the damn sandwich. --Emerald Aeris

How do you know it will save lives? You have exactly ONE piece of evidence to lead you to that conclusion: the guy with the bombs tells you if you appease him, he'll be good. You have no guarantee other than the word of a murderer.

Kill the guy, and you are 100% guaranteed he will do nothing. Why are you willing to gamble with innocent lives?

If you're killing innocents to get to the bad guys, aren't you just as bad as them? Just because you were attacked first doesn't mean that you're not killing people!

I would be killing people because I was forced to do so. It would be no different than if someone put the gun in my hand and pulled the trigger for me.

I think we should focus on the preservation of life, you seem to think we should stand up to evil at all costs.

No, I also focus on the preservation of life. I believe that standing up to evil at all costs saves more lives in the long run than letting the world be run and overrun by criminals.

I think it should be handled like a hostage situation. You don't just barge in, because then lives will be lost.

Absolutely. All effort should be given to avoid innocent deaths. But in hostage situations, the bad guy DOES get taken down eventually. He is never let to go free. And if he DOES start shooting hostages, and he has more in there with him, then the cops DO barge in and start shooting, don't they? They don't go on a rampage and kill every innocent person they see. But neither do they tiptoe in and let themselves be killed because they're too hesitant to do what needs to be done, or just sit outside and hope nothing bad happens, or give the bad guy whatever he wants and pretend everything will be OK now. Taking innocent life is something that absolutely should be avoided at all costs, but to say it's never, ever justified is wrong. And to say that it's the fault of the people who are being victimized by the bad guys in the first place is also wrong.

I don't think killing innocent people to prevent deaths that might happen is right.

Your "might happen" is very weak, if a terrorist has already killed people, and has the means and the will to do so again. I don't know how much more certain you can be that the threat is real, and the chances of more innocent deaths at the hands of terrorists is almost a certainty.

Negotiations should be between recognized politicians. If I had a say in how these issues were handled, no terrorist would be negotiated with. Nor would any other criminal be able to negotiate his cause. Some people don't deserve the privelages being "human" supposedly brings. Terrorists will never be right in their point of view because they're terrorists. Being a terrorist makes you wrong. However, the endeavor for "human rights" has gone so far, that the criminal has more rights than the victim, and rather than endanger the precious life of a terrorist, we'd prefer to pay them off at a negotiation table. If the terrorist kills an innocent hostage, it's not his fault - he was driven to that point by the evils committed by the victims. I don't understand why we try so hard to "understand" terrorists. I'm glad I don't understand them. If I could understand and rationalize what they do (and even excuse it as right?), I'd probably be one. As long as I can declare myself above them without any hesitation, I know my morals are in the right place.

"Faulty analogy. Did the US plant bombs on trains and say "Do what we say or we'll kill innocent people on purpose"? No. The US said "Attack us and we'll defend ourselves". Did the US go attack France because they didn't aid us? Did we go kill random innocent French people? Obviously not."

No, but we did go into Iraq when it had nothing to do with terrorism, so a similar analogy can be made if you compare us to how we went about ending terrorism, by invading a country that had nothing to do with the events. Iraq was ripe for the picking, let's be honest. Saddam had no allies in other nations, so if we toppled him we wouldn't have to pay the piper to any of his allies. In my best guess, that's why we haven't gone after Saudi Arabia yet, because they have alliances and we'd definitely provoke something much bigger if we attempted to go in there.

If America's goals truly were benevolent, why haven't we tried to topple every dictator there is in the world? Why stop at Iraq? What about North Korea, Cuba, and other countries whose citizens are oppressed? I think the reasons we went in were truly mixed in the first place. Our hands haven't been clean for centuries when it comes to helping other nations. We stood by when Hitler was killing millions, and even when he had begun to dominate Europe, we only barely came in at the end. We don't attack usually, until provoked, which is also what made the "pre-emptive" strike on Iraq so shocking. It was a drastic shift in policy.

I believe if 9/11 hadn't occured, terrorism wouldn't have ever been an issue with this administration. We'd have invaded Iraq for one reason or the other because the cabinet was SO set in going there anyway, and we'd all be discussing why terrorism is such an issue but is never mentioned.... yet, here we are anyway, even though we're supposedly at war with this concept.

To jump back on to topic now, I think there is a very big distinction between terrorist and "Freedom fighter". I think that both are sometimes mistaken for the other, but the differences are very important. A terrorist functions solely to create terror and destrcution, in order to create chaos out of a government they disapprove of. A "Freedom fighter" is someone doesn't resort to terror to invoke their will. Sure, they may use violence, but not terror. They direct it right at the party they seek to overthrow, not at innocents who are viewed just as potential targets for attacks. In short, no terrorist can ever be justified for their actions, but you can possibly make a case for a "freedom fighter".

Let's bring the troops home and send the Bush Administration into Iraq to keep it safe!

Take care all.

Isn't it possible that the ends can justify the means? I agree that the preemptive strike on Iraq was wrong. I don't think preemptive strikes are ever right. However, looking at the results, and seeing that Saddam Hussein (who I hope even the most ardent terrorist apologists can agree is a psychotic dictator) is out of power, and the people are at least in theory, safe; the preemptive strike doesn't seem quite so wrong. My only criticism of the whole matter is the lying. If Bush had said flat out, "I want Saddam dead or jailed for life, and here's how I'm going to send the army to make it so", I'd have admired his ambition. Instead, I'm embarrassed that my president was caught in a rather large and useless lie.

lol everyone shut up already, if this was 20 years ago, you'd probably be supporitng the Mujahideen and talking about how Russians are terrorists or evil

Cloud_no9's reasoning is justified. What they're simply doing is assisting in fighting off a colonizing super power, they have a right to.

It doesn't matter what we would be saying 20 years ago. This is the present. If this was twenty years ago, I'd barely be able to gurgle out a few spit bubbles.

You say they have "the right" to commit these acts of terrorism just because you think they're being "colonized?" Even if that were true, would that still give them the right to kill whoever they want?

The minute you start attacking and killing innocent civillians is the minute you cross the line from being a freedom fighter to a terrorist.

That's a good point. Resisting a military occupation through force is, sometimes, arguably a legitimate fight... but then, innocents from both sides are inevitably caught up in the fighting. "Freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are often interchangeable, depending on perspective.

Anti-Marxist fighters in 1980s Central America = 'Terrorists' to many; 'freedom fighters' to those opposed to communism.

Anti-apartheid fighters in 1980s South Africa = 'terrorists' to the South African government of the time, 'freedom fighters' to everyone else in the world.

There are countless other examples, too - the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, present-day militants in Chechnya... the list goes on.

However, 'fighting for freedom' can't ever justify the slaying of innocents - anyone's innocents - in my opinion.

Moxie, who exactly is your post directed towards? Besides, Russians can't be terrorists, they just can't afford it. Just kidding.

Take care all.

it's nice to see this is back on topic. as has been pointed out views on people change on perspective. and while docfrance attacking civillians may be wrong it is a last resort in any persons book. america's elections are no longer internationally monitored and so are open to corruption which could prevent politics being an option to change things. america refuses to recognise the world court and has said it will not allow itself to be tried for war crimes and so the law can not be used against them. civil rights are being "suspended" to an extent where as i'm not sure if the stuff i'm writing here right now is legal. so freedom of speech and protest could also be rendered useless. what other choice do people have? i've already outline a "legal" war which could be fought which i believe is the only way for the people to win a system in america that not only works for it's people but for the entire world.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Since when have US elections ever been internationally monitored, and how would that prevent corruption? The US is its own country. You say that politics are no longer an option to change things? Why do you say that, or are you just saying that to rock the boat? You say that you're worried about what you say here being illegal, and that there's no more freedom of speech? Like I said, you're blowing everything way out of proportion.

I'd like to see some solid evidence on any of these matters. If they're true, and I know they're not, then it means I'm not doing my job.

If you don't live in the US, then you are greatly misinformed about this country. If you do, than you must live in a cave, because I don't see how anyone could come to such extreme conclusions about the state of living in the US.

All countries have their flaws, America's are just the most prevelant because our actions have repercussions everywhere, even places we might never visit. Still, we are guaranteed certain liberties, which I enjoy using to its fullest extent, and for that alone, I am grateful that I was born here. Yes, we have corrupt politics. When the creater of a voting booth that will be used in the upcoming elections, says he wants "George Bush to win", that could spell corruption, but sadly, it's everywhere. The question is, what will we actually do about it? I'm happy I can actually ask these questions, and attempt to find answers.

Take care all.

Originall posted by emerald aeris:
[q]
They're not freedom fighters. The US wasn't invading them.
[/q]

Actually you are wrong. There was a very interesting documentary on bbc the other day which investigated the real osama bin laden and his past and all that. The reason why al qaeda started up was because american troops were setting foot on what they saw as their "holy land". This was years ago when american troops entered saudi arabia (i think it was saudi arabia anyway). Whatever country it was, it contained the two most important cities in their religion (two holy cities, dont know what they are called but their religion states that certain holy events happened in these cities in the past). Their entire goal was to get america off this holy land. It is not something american culture can really understand but its the truth. Osama bin laden made repeated threats to america to stop tresspassing unrespectfully on this holy land and eventually these people saw what america was doing as a declaration of jihad or "holy war". In their minds, america started the war and it is their duty to fight america according to their religion. The point im making is that yes, al qaeda really do see themselves as being right.

The thing is that the american media is extremely biased in their reporting. Over here, sky news has some agreement with CBS and we get to see CBS's news reports. Compared to the media over here, we can see how CBS only gives one side of every story. I can guarantee you that americans would be amazed to see some of the unbiased stuff we get over here. We also get to see ABC's reports through the bbc and its the exact same situation.

Just to clarify, i have no sympathies for al qaeda. I think that the way they choose to express their point is entirely wrong. They should not kill innocent people, but america probably should have had more respect for the islam religion and culture and stuff.

But we didn't INVADE Saudia Arabia.

Well the point is that the troops were there to fight and they were there to fight on holy land. That was all that mattered to al qaeda.
Anyway, just out of interest, what do americans feel about the biased reporting thing. Do ye realise whats going on? Are there people who are against this. Do the general public take it all in. Do ye have ways of getting the full stories behind events?

Al Qaeda'a major gripes are with the widespread influence of the US's culture and moral values throughout the Middle East, as well as international military action and interest in the area.
On the first count, they could simply choose to ignore western literature and music; on the second count, they should leave it up to individual governments to deal with military matters. As it stands, Saudi Arabia was quite happy to host US military personnel, yet Al Qaeda directs most of its hatred outward.
As with any group of religious fundamentalists, they won't be happy as long as there are forces in the world that don't share their extremist views. Fanatics look down on anyone with different views; Al Qaeda doesn't have a problem with killing liberal Muslims.

Of course, there are reasons for Al Qaeda's actions, and they believe their cause is righteous, but none of that vindicates their actions.

In all honesty, all media will be baised one way or the other, because they are run and reported by human beings. It is impossible to remain completely objective forever on every single issue, so every once and a while a story might have a bit of personal opinion involved. That being said, I find the best balancing act is to read and watch news from several points of view. I'm a die hard New York Times reader, but I also read papers from England, Spain, Australia, the Middle East and the like because it gives different perspectives on matters. I think by getting all different accounts, then you can really see the whole picture. If every single paper says the same thing, then I'll take it as being more or less true and not so much baised in view. However, if a certain detail is different or opposing, then it really pays to see both sides before passing any sort of judgement.

Take care all.