Terrorist... or not...?

[Ender]

Originally posted by LeHah
How about we just abolish all religion around the world?

Logic has no place in politics.

 

[LeHah]

Though I'm forced to agree with Aries, I think if we just tossed religion as a whole, the world would be much better off. It tends to cause more problems than it's worth, it conflicts with logic, science and it's about as outdated as the dinosaur and about as intelligent as Ghost over there. (Sorry, had to get a dig in somewhere)

In any case, lets not turn this into some stupid religion debate thread. Anyone who responds directly to this gets a slap on the back of the head from me.

 

[Ghost]

It conflicts only if you want, do you think that all the scientist are atheist?
Normal people can diferenciate both and have a happy life.
And about the Gost thing that you wrote, don´t worry that is a common answer of people that don´t know how to debate, only insult the other guy insted of attacking the idea, but nobody expect more of you.

 

[Quarto]

I'll slap both of you if you don't stop . Religious debates have hijacked enough threads already, so don't try it. You're free to start up your own thread if you want, though.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Mystery muppet
Terrorism
An act (a threat, direct violence, whatever) undertaken with the purpose to inspire fear in the population somewhere. Usually meant to cause general chaos, or to line the terrorist's own pocket with gold (ransom).

Hmmm...well for me, terrorism is an act perpetrated against innocent people, and I cannot stress innocent enough, to cause fear, or terror.

Originally posted by Mystery muppet
(Heh, by that definition, George W Bush and christian priests are the archterrorists of archterrorists! (With bin Ladin close behind, ok, ok.) We've all heard Bush's threats about bombing Iraq if Hussein doesn't allow UN's inspectors to operate at full efficiency, and about the christian priests... Do I need to mention more than hell?)
I look forward to read your definitions.

Well...the thing with Iraq is that there is probably still the big scare over the scud launchers. You remember those, don't you? As for Christian Priests, well being religious (but not going to church), I know of the Ten Commandments. However, most people will go through life breaking nearly every one of those commandments. I'm not saying that these people will go to hell, or that hell is a myth. I don't know. Which is why I rely on faith.

Originally posted by Aries
well, my definition of a terrorist is a cowardly subhuman whose *ONLY* right (regardless of what country he/she is in or from) is the right to an immediate and violent death (three 9mm bullets to the head works just fine)

Oh sure. I mean, it's certainly important to know why terrorists become terrorists, and trying to prevent it from happening (outside of anything from Minority Report), but you ask any decent human being and no matter how much they try to justify terrorist actions, I think you'll find that they will agree that the hope of some terrorists to cause murder on a scale of which has never been achieved before (the terrorists behing the Bali bombings want to destroy Australia. That's 18, 19 million people) are lower than whale shit.

Originally posted by LeHah
Countries recognized by the UN don't comit acts of terrorism. Policing Actions? Yes. Covert Ops? Yes. War? Yes.

However, the point of terrorism is to create terror and unbalance in an area or against certain people. What Bush is doing isn't terrorism, it's an ultimatium.

Very good thoughts.

Originally posted by Newcommanderondablock
Mystery Muppet, be careful in what you say on here. One wrong post and your history. Tread carefully with political topics here, you might never know who browses these boards...

If I can just speak freely for a second, that's a fucking good piece of advice to give. And in reply to the posts on Homeland Security, ASIO and what not, I think it's more in line with extreme left and right wing fanantics, terrorist sympathisers and, yes, those who just want to shut you up, but not government. You know, someone who'll try to send you a virus, or, more extreme, actually go after you. I don't think this has happened, or even if it's possible, but you get what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Napoleon
I am quite frankly appalled that someone as immoral as aries exists. seriously a "terrorist" today is someone's george washington tomorrow. IN fact georgy boy, and all the american revolutionaries qualify as "terrorists" if palestinian groups do.
interestingly enough i fail to see why a "terrorist" is any different from a soldier? they both see the need to murder people they are both murderers whose job is to kill and get killed.

The diffirence between a soldier and a terrorist? The diffirence is, you're still breathing because soldiers have fought for your right to badmouth them. Terrorists would take that right from you. As well as your life, in all likelihood.

Originally posted by Skyfire
I dunno about that. Revolutionaries during that time period didn't blow up homes and hotels and businesses in an effort to convince the British that they should be freed, I don't think you can draw such a correlation effectively. They both might be freedom fighters, if you wanted to see it from the Palestinian viewpoint, but you can't say that the Revolutionaries were terrorists when they didn't try to strike terror.

That's right. Innocent people. Innocent people. Innocent people. That's the thing you have to look at with any action. Who is the target? Innocent people?

Originally posted by LeHah
What Bush is providing isn't prepetuating terrorism, he's telling an inevitability. As the United States is a recognized body politic by the rest of the world, we cannot attribute aggressive attacks on our part as terrorism. However, Bin Ladin, that dirty fucking gopher-in-hiding that he is, is neither in charge of a government, working with a government or in charge of a recognized military force on behalf of a rebellion.

I quite agree, and I'll post that article I put up in one of the other threads as well.

Originally posted by LeHah
That's not our problem. As I see it, as an individual bent on survival by instinct, I want us to do whatever it takes and then-some to make my survival possible from cowardly militant religious radicals of all types.

So would Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher, had similar beliefs, and was who Ralgar Nor Hallas was named after.

Originally posted by LeHah
Theres a big difference between Washington and Bin Ladin or Hussain. Washington did not target civilians...

That's right. Innocent people. Are they the targets of terrorists?

Originally posted by Aries
1st, how do you figure that i am immoral? just cause i say that terrorists should be killed. so you say that all we should do is give these bastards what they want, all to avoid killing someone who kills our people and is happy about it?

And they are. You look at how filled with joy they are by the deaths of INNOCENT people, regardless of race of nationality. Terrorists, not soldiers or freedom fighters, are indiscriminate. If you want to prove me wrong on that count, go ahead. I dare you to.

Originally posted by Aries
3rd, the difference btwn soldiers and terrorists is that a true soldier trains for war, but wishes that his profession will never be called on, but when it is, he does his job. a terrorist kills just because they don't like someone. soldiers only kill soldiers (yes some civilians do get killed, but every attempt is made to avoid that) terrorists directly target civilians, seldom targeting the military.

Quite right, and I'm glad everyone is picking up on this. Innocent people. Innocent fucking people. That's the decider.

Originally posted by Ghost
Many US *incursions* in the world weren´t justified or for a good reason, and most of them were tragic or with bad results at long time, i doubt that always or often the US was right or just.

Unfortunetly, I think in some cases, America couldn't have known.

Originally posted by Ender
We may have all the world's ethnicity represtnted, but it is not proportional to various ethnicity's percentage of the world's population. Niether is the political clout of any ethnic group in the US truly a reflection of their numbers.

I ask, would all of you be more willing to support anti terror if it was carried out by an international special forces team, one that has global juristiction and multicultural recruiting policies to seperate it from "American Imperialism"? I personally love the idea.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by LeHah
...Darwin obligation to smash with hellish impunity whichever culture, people, religion or socilogical view threatens our lives and way of living. It's called survival. If you don't like it,

Quite right. You don't have to like this shit, God knows I don't, but the world has to fight terrorism. That's it. The end. Full stop.

Originally posted by LeHah
I hate to tolerate the fact that there are pesudo-pacifist people whom believe war and violence can be constantly usurped with 'logical' or 'moral' standards.

They can be, but war, as in war on terrorism, is all about timing. The ideal solution to terrorism is a peaceful surrender of the terrorists. But that is not always possible. And it is terrorists who make that choice.

Originally posted by Ender
I do not see why anyone would dispute that finding a way to avoid getting your soldiers killed is preferable to putting young men and women in harms way every time some dictator in a funny hat pops up. That said, I recognize the neccesity of war in some circumstances. I recognize the importance of the armed forces, and I hold no ill-will towards those who have chosen to wear my country's uniform.

Good.

Originally posted by Ender
One last thing, I am not a pacifist, I used to call myself one, but realized that I would rather retain the ability to defend those that I care about.

Same here.

Originally posted by ChrisReid
I really don't care what you guys are talking about here.. but I always think it's funny when people say they have the right to free speech on the internet.. Hell, even in the US you don't have unlimited right to speak.

That's true. Race hate, rape, child pornography, these are all catagories that, if abused, are not considered free speech.

Originally posted by LeHah
Yes and these older white men were voted into office. They represent the most diverse populace on the planet as they are voted into office by the most diverse populace on the planet

And that's important to remember. The Taliban were not.

Originally posted by LeHah
Am I saying that I don't want a peaceful sollution? No. It would be nice, but we can't trust Saddam because he's about as slick as a happy seal and Bin Laddin is about as shady as a cul-de-sac in
the lower Bronx.

And let's face it, Binladen does not want peace. There was peace until September 11. So what is he talking about when he whines "leave us alone"? We did, until he launched an UNPROVOKED attack on INNOCENT people.

Originally posted by LeHah
You do not have any right to speak. It is a honor that you live in a country at this time and are allowed the ability to speak your addeled mind whenever you wish.

Yes, under the Taliban, you would not have that right. In fact, if the Taliban did gain control of America, this is what would happen. If you were American, you'd be killed. If you were Western, you'd be killed. If you were from the East and did not support or believe Allah and the Jihad, you'd be killed. If you were the ideal poster terrorist for a myter and you spoke out against it, you'd be killed. Get the picture?

Originally posted by Ghost
Then is sure to assume that Saddam and Laden also want to *survive* and if for them the mean to survive is bombing with ¨hellish impunity whichever culture, people, religion or socilogical view threatens their lives and way of living¨ the US or another country, i don´t think that you have the right to complain,cry. If you want to play with those rules you must accept the other play with the same rules too.

It also works the other way around. If Binladen wants to play the game, and I think September 11th is a subtle hint that he does, then he has to play it to the end, not whine when we, as a united effort against terrorism, attack.

Originally posted by Ender
I have no quarrel with them. I do have a quarrel with those who would send them to kill or be killed for self-serving means.

Like, say, Tolwyn, who, in the novel, is more or less portrayed as using other people for his own gain.

Originally posted by Ender
I can however think of one thing that may keep history from repeating in fifty years:
A foriegn policy that is designed to last longer than the next election cycle. Stop passing the buck from one politicial to another. Deal with the problem, it may not win re-election, but it might keep at least one group of people from hating our guts.

Unfortunetly, that's the way government is structured. Politicians the world over pass the buck.

Originally posted by Ender
I agree that with Saddam and Osama, we are beyond the point of negotiation. However burning the places they live to the ground and sowing their nations with salt will not ensure the long term security of the US. It will only piss off the next generation of terrorists.

It might. But how are we to know that such a strong action will not make terrorists decide against committing terrorist acts?

Originally posted by ChrisReid
I think Lehah's point was that these are civil rights, not human rights. Even in the US, those rights have and are suspended in many situations. However, on the whole, you're permitted substantially greater freedoms in the US than the other places in question.

Yes, I'm sure this is what he was saying.

On the other things you said, I think it has much to do with the power of the day. The Japanese Emperor had his armies bomb Pearl Harbour. The current leader of Japan is interested in peace and global unification. Big diffirence in sixty years, ne?

Originally posted by Ripper
Right. Like they're going to like us if we DON'T kick the shit out of them.

Yes, how can we know they won't see those who fight terrorism as soft and launch terror acts of their own?

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
These fools encourage, and in some cases endorse going into public places (malls, churches, schools, etc) and killing as many *civilians* as possible. Turn about is fair play. While I feel we should target the "terrorists" only, I feel wasting time, resources, and manpower to imprison these jokers is insane, idiotic, and potentialy suicidal. Anyone who claims to be one should be executed, in public, and aired on international T.V. like a sport. They should make Stickdeath.com's Al-Queda-Cam a reality. Sure, they'll lie about their terrorist orientations, but a man afriad to be a terrorist is better than one who professes in public IMO.

I doubt executions will ever happen outside of a terrorist controled nation, but I agree that if you want to kill 3000 of our people, then we will go over and kill 3000 of your people WHO ARN'T INNOCENT, ARE TERRORISTS AND ARE WAVING GUNS ABOUT.

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
P.S. A grenade to Osama's mouth is too easy a let off. It has to be painful and dragged out. Years of medical research in the "perfectly painful death" must be done first.

Yes, I've been subject to these feelings as well. Have Operation Just Reward and Cat's Lair mods and Binladen skins for Rogue Spear. But I just want the needless murder of innocent people to stop.

Originally posted by Ender
I love how our solution to terrorism is to beat these twisted bastards at their own game.

They kill 3,000 of our civilians, lets kill ten thousand of theirs.

Moral high ground? You can't get there from here.

Not innocent people in my view, but those who moan about giving their life to Allah, volunteers for suicide bombings, people who make and distribute anthrax, those sort of people.

Originally posted by Manic
Turnabout is fair play... but only if used properly. Blasting double(or triple) the number of people out of existance isn't the way to do things...

No, it's not.

Originally posted by Manic
At any rate... there is no right or wrong... but bombing the crap out of them isn't going to fix things. That's just firing a bottle rocket into a hornet's nest. You want to fix things? Seal the borders off from all immigration, cease trade outside the country(except for Japan. Let's face it, no other country can make better games with the exception of Chris Roberts himself). Isolationism is the only, I repeat, only way to stop this problem. Seal ourselves off and stop pestering other countries. Let them see what it's really like without the US scrambling around like "Aunt Gracy", trying to keep everyone happy with each other... they'll be screaming for help inside of a month.

I agree with Aries on this topic. I'll quote what he said below.

"thats what they want..the US out of world affairs. if we do that, then the terrorists will just turn their attention to some other country until the whole world is one big islamic state-which is what they want"

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by LeHah
If you want to make an omlette, you gotta break some eggs. If Bush gets the war he wants, guess what, civies are gonna die. That's totally acceptable to me, since I care about my own survival over anyone else's. To care about another culture's survival is to be humane, to care about your own is to live and survive.

I want both, if at all possible.

Originally posted by LeHah
Two wrongs do not make a right.

I don't think this is your quote, LeHah, but I'll pass comment. We are not bombing innocent people as innocent Americans have been bombed. Remeber what I said about innocent people? Well, if terrorists have such a massive raging hard on to bring down a government, then why do they attack innocent people? As it is, they look like hypocrites.

Originally posted by Ender
Oh, I am doing my part. It just happens to be opposed to what you believe, so in the fine tradition of "patriots" such as yourself-either learn to live with dissent-or move to Iraq. They don't like people to speak their minds there either.

Oh, that picture is very bad.

And LeHah, that comic strip was even worse.

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
It was actualy in reference to unfair tactics. Some group blows up several thousand of our civilians with unconventional means. Al-Queda claimed they did it like it was some sort of contest. They want to hit bellow the belt, we can do the same: execute prisoners who claim affiliation. Now, this may not be as dastardly as bombing civvies with impunity, but it's slap in the face of every humanitarian hippy this side of the 60's.

Better yet, play the same mind games that were used in Vietnam. Have terrorists sitting cross legged outside their homes, their heads in their laps, a smoking joss stick through the eyes. Nasty? Sure, I agree. Unprincipled? It will cause terror to terrorists. If Binladen wants to play this game, then let's show him what real terror is. Or probably not. Do we have the stomache to sink this low?

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Terrorists should not be rewarded,

Damn fucking straight.

Love the pic, Starkey.

And here's a docuement that some of you may have already read, but I'll repost it here.

Commentary Concerning Aftermath of Afghanistan

Tamim, a writer and columnist in San Francisco is originally from Afghanistan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.

But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."

It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering.
Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done.
Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
Destroy their infrastructure?
Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban-by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

In Peace,

Tamim Ansary

 

[Aries]

well, arn't we long winded today

 

[Ender]

"It might. But how are we to know that such a strong action will not make terrorists decide against committing terrorist acts?"

Well fifty years of reprisals against terrorists in Israel and the occupied territories have only led to the current Intifada.

Also, I don't think we can call a terrorist, a terrorist until they have actually participated or aided in some way a terrorist act. If someone is guolty before the fact then please let me know so I can put tin foil lining in all my hats.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Aries
well, arn't we long winded today

Helps me forget the WC nightmare I had. Yes, crazy as it may sound, I actually still do suffer these.

Originally posted by Ender
Also, I don't think we can call a terrorist, a terrorist until they have actually participated or aided in some way a terrorist act. If someone is guolty before the fact then please let me know so I can put tin foil lining in all my hats.

What you say is true. We can't just go off like we were in Minority Report or something. But we have to be able to stop terrorism before it strikes.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Helps me forget the WC nightmare I had. Yes, crazy as it may sound, I actually still do suffer these.



What you say is true. We can't just go off like we were in Minority Report or something. But we have to be able to stop terrorism before it strikes.

well, we all want WC back but this is the first i've heard of nightmares about it (course we are living in a nightmare. with the exception of UE, no new WC for a long time)

and you can add a big hell yeah to that last part

 

[Quarto]

Ack... there's a lot of things you said that are just plain wrong, Phillip, but I really don't feel like keeping this thread going .