TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- At least 186 killed in Madrid bombings.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

quote:

If I say "I want to be the coolest person on earth," what does that mean? Do I not mean the entire earth?

Actually, you have just picked a sentence at random and added the phrase "on Earth" in the middle of it without really thinking about haven't you? You used the word "coolest" which means the "most cool" meaning it cannot be beaten. Therefore, by using a term that cannot be beaten, in your sentence, the phrase "on Earth" would mean the entire Earth.

The term "on Earth" means just that - ON EARTH

Only when (like yourself) do you add other words around it will it change its meaning. The sentence in which the phrase "on Earth" originally appeared (in al-Qaida's aims) does not contain any other word that could change the meaning of the phrase, therefore, it still means simply ON EARTH (and you will have by now actually done me the decency of reading that quote I gave you that says al-Qaida's aims are only for the Islamic world)

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew wow, you are really stuck in your thoughts

What if I said the same thing about you? I'm not sure why this thread is deteriorating like this, but its turning from a political discussion to a personal attack on belief systems. Not my intention, and not much fun.

quote:

they are just using another way to reach their goal. they think in ANOTHER WAY. at least, TRY to think how they think, perhaps we know what's right and what's wrong, but that doesn't really matter, the people in those poor countries won't know, they will think that you are assholes who thinks that you know better etc, and you have crated yourself more enemies.

I realize they think in another way, as I said before. Their ideas of right and wrong are completely different from mine, I agree. I also really don't care if a poor middle easterner thinks I'm an asshole. A junkie will think I'm an asshole if I take away their source of addiction, but I will try to do it, because to me their views of what is best for them are distorted as well as harmful. When I see someone blinded by their religion, acting in a manner that compels them to kill non-believers, remove human rights and dignity and oppress women, then I do have something wrong with that. I realize their system of right and wrong is different, but that does not mean I am going to change what I believe to be right and wrong so it can fit theirs, nor will I be tolerant of blantant human rights violations.

quote:

I also love it that now I'm talking about "all Muslims." Thanks for clarifying that since up until this point I was talking about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I believe this entire thread, past being about the Spanish terrorist attacks, was about dealing with terrorism, namely al-Qaeda. I have never called for the elimination of Islam, or all Muslims, but al-Qaeda. Now who's "interpretated [what I have said] that way because that is what you want to believe cos it fits nicely into your opinions?"

Yes I will apologise. I think I have been confusing your views for some of the others who have been talking about Muslims (not specifically al-Qaida) So, soz ard!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes I will apologise. I think I have been confusing your views for some of the others who have been talking about Muslims (not specifically al-Qaida) So, soz ard!

No problem, it seems this thread is getting overly heated for my tastes. I guess I need a nap.

Interesting, Yoepus. Thanks for the input.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I've already given my suggestion. And not a lot of it is based on pure military force or action. Rather the threat of its use, and simply rallying around it. ...

In order for the threat to be credible, however, it must be actualized. So the question becomes, how much force is necessary in order for others to take future threats from you seriously? I'm not sure of the answer, but my estimate -- somewhat verified by world events -- would be that almost constant force is necessary. Collectively, entire peoples have very short attention spans and memories, so you would have to "remind" them very often.

And this ties into the violence begets violence idea, of which I am positively sure. Are the 'hawks' on this board also convinced of this? Based on their policies and ideas (your ideas, I should say), I think not.

If we start using force to solve these things, or even threat of force (which is not much different -- see my note below), the problems will never be solved. They may morph into other, different problems which may even be worse.

Think of it this way -- if someone slaps you, what are you going to do? Slap them back! And if not, if for some chance you are of a higher understanding and development as a person, you will not slap them back. But we know that mobs work on the lowest common denominator. You "slap" a mob (or people, or nation), and they will retaliate.

Now, what happens if you merely threaten? Let's say someone says, "You better move, or I'll beat you up." Is this any better? No, it's the same thing. You'll respond, "Oh yeah? Well come and try!" etc. etc. And the analogy extends through to the mob. You cannot threaten a mob. They'll only get enraged, and might even start the violence themselves!

Yoepus I must admit that I don't really know every single detail of the policy the west has been taking on the middle east, so I myself wouldn't say, "Continue on the policy in a 'purer' way," which I agree is nonsense.

You are definitely right in that a different concept is needed for solving the "problem" of the middle east. I'm sure that the current policy is useless. But it's not an ideal one, it's not even half an ideal one. It's not even practical in any way. The way I understand it, the current policy on the middle east is a lot like sticking one's head in the sand, which is not what I and others are advocating.

We *do* need to take action, but not military action nor the threat of such an action. IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What if I said the same thing about you? I'm not sure why this thread is deteriorating like this, but its turning from a political discussion to a personal attack on belief systems. Not my intention, and not much fun.

no, that's not fun, but since my view on this is that you must understand their thinking, i must make you understand it... if you know what i mean sorry if you was personally hurt...

quote:

I realize they think in another way, as I said before. Their ideas of right and wrong are completely different from mine, I agree. I also really don't care if a poor middle easterner thinks I'm an asshole. A junkie will think I'm an asshole if I take away their source of addiction, but I will try to do it, because to me their views of what is best for them are distorted as well as harmful. When I see someone blinded by their religion, acting in a manner that compels them to kill non-believers, remove human rights and dignity and oppress women, then I do have something wrong with that. I realize their system of right and wrong is different, but that does not mean I am going to change what I believe to be right and wrong so it can fit theirs, nor will I be tolerant of blantant human rights violations.

no, i understand that you just want them to do well.. BUT they don't so you will get new enimies, you will get new terror attacks, and that is what we DON'T want, that's what the discussion is all about, eliminate terror.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Okay, so in N. Ireland you're saying that it has helped, not solved the problem.

it has helped more than the meaningless killings that the "war" brought before...

quote:

In Chechnya things are still "fucked up" as you put it.

yes they live in a coutnry where most of the cities are bombed to nothing, they have been in war for a long time, yes they are rather fucked up and there is always people there who wants more war, it takes some time for a country that has been in war so long to get back to a normal state, on the other hand, if they had used the diplomatic approach from the beginning, it had probably been much easier.

quote:

Lybia was scared into their current practices by the US invasion of Iraq

i don't think that lybia felt scared by the war in iraq. they must know that US cannot afford another war right now. they have also been under economic pressure for a long time and must come out of that in some way, this is one.

and of course, there is nothing wrong to use force as a threat when it comes to diplomacy.

quote:

and Iraq is an obvious example of diplomacy not working through the UN.

if i don't remember completely wrong, they let the weapons expectors into iraq but you attacked them anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You can't starve them out of their caves unfortunatley, but the world could actually co-operate in this war, and confiscate all fiances. You realize Al Qaeda is probably a billion dollar organization or some high million figure. Where is all this money coming from? And why isn't it stopping?

hmmm, most of the world are actually freezing their fiances. but they seems to already have a rather good capital available

quote:

Fustration is not the cause for terrorism. If fustration was the cause, well we would see terrorism in far worse ways in other areas of the world that are fustrated, such as South America, AFRICA, Asia, and did I say AFRICA?

i think you answered that pretty much by yourself. they simple do not have the money for it. a lot of arabs are reeealy rich and can afford this international operations. there IS terror in south america, just that they keep it for themselves, they do not have the capabilities to do something against the US. And of course it is also the religion/coultural differences, south america is much closer to america when it comes to that. same thing goes for africa...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Wow. I must say I am impressed. You gave me a link defining 'Jihad' from somebody who is criticising Islam. Wow. .... YEARGHAA!

Wow, Georgey has just pulled a Dean.

Simmer down now there Georgey, get over your denial and let your anger out...

To be constructive though, I won't get between your little love affair with NeoPhon, but let me add this point for either of your arguments.

Wheter the Islamo-facist have declared they want to spread Islam over the entire world, or just some of it, they are expanding beyond their traditional Basins.

Islamo-facisim has spread into Europe (Balkans, and a small but growing momvement in France), Checnya, Africa (think how radical Niger has become in the past 10 years), Indonesia, Malaysia... etc

So they are defintely not limiting themselves to the "traditional" middle eastern countries, and expand the world over. Whether this is their goal or not is another matter, but the facts are quiet nicely written on the wall for us if we want to look.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Interesting, Yoepus. Thanks for the input.

Glad at least some people can debate civilized here, even if they have diametrically opposed views

quote:

Collectively, entire peoples have very short attention spans and memories, so you would have to "remind" them very often.

Tell you true, if the USA invades one more country, even if done with pseudo-randomness (or they could just attack Korea), I believe the rest of the nations will play-dead or do whatever the USA asks them to for at least the next 15 years.

The downside of that is not necissairly violence begets violence, but violence begets military hardware. If they USA goes lose canon, many nations,especially those with friendlier relatiosn with the USA are going to balance out the USA with a force built up.

quote:

And this ties into the violence begets violence idea, of which I am positively sure. Are the 'hawks' on this board also convinced of this? Based on their policies and ideas (your ideas, I should say), I think not.

Look, if we honeslty believed violence begets violence we wouldn't champion this way of thinking. Violence doesn't always begets violence, violence is a very good solution. If it wasn't proof enough for the past 6000+ years of human civilized history we have used war and violence to positively settle our disputes, than I don't know what is. If violence did not work, we wouldn't use it, its that simple.

Let me illustrate this with your example:

quote:

Think of it this way -- if someone slaps you, what are you going to do? Slap them back! And if not, if for some chance you are of a higher understanding and development as a person, you will not slap them back. But we know that mobs work on the lowest common denominator. You "slap" a mob (or people, or nation), and they will retaliate.

What if the guy that slaps you has a gun?

You see my point now, would you slap back a guy with a gun?

Because the USA has a gun, and the "middle eastern mobs" don't, they have a peashoter.

And carrying your analogy further this is how I see it. The "middle eastern mob" has a pea shoter, and they slap the USA, the USA has a gun but doesn't show it to them.. it only slaps them back, they slap back. I say its about time the USA shows them its carrying a gun.

As loud as many attempted to speak up against the U.S led invasion of Iraq, the world needs to be just as vocal protesting in every nation to say no to the scum of terrorists acts. How many more bombs must go off in the name of freedom fighters and innocent blood sheds before humanity is disgusted with these beastial acts of murder. Sadly there will always be those who find justifications for such acts as in Madrid's train bombing.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan As loud as many attempted to speak up against the U.S led invasion of Iraq, the world needs to be just as vocal protesting in every nation to say no to the scum of terrorists acts. How many more bombs must go off in the name of freedom fighters and innocent blood sheds before humanity is disgusted with these beastial acts of murder. Sadly there will always be those who find justifications for such acts as in Madrid's train bombing.

Sorry, who exactly has been justifying these attacks? I dont think you'll find many who do, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (outside Islamic circles). IIRC, there was only one country in the entire world that did not condemn and speak out against the 11/9 attacks, and that was Iraq...

You seem to think that it is only America who cares about terrorism (and even America/Americans only really started to care after 11/9...where do you think the IRA got all its money and support from?)

quote:

Yoepus: "Wheter the Islamo-facist have declared they want to spread Islam over the entire world, or just some of it, they are expanding beyond their traditional Basins."

If their goal is to overthrow the Middle East governments and try and force the West out of the Islamic world then of course they will not restrict themselves to fighting in the Middle East. Thats what terrorists do...

Palestinians attack Israel proper, yet they dont want to control that. Likewise, the IRA used to attack mainland Britain, but they had no desire to conquer and rule the UK did they?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If their goal is to overthrow the Middle East governments and try and force the West out of the Islamic world then of course they will not restrict themselves to fighting in the Middle East. Thats what terrorists do... Palestinians attack Israel proper, yet they dont want to control that. Likewise, the IRA used to attack mainland Britain, but they had no desire to conquer and rule the UK did they?

these are not just "attacks" in niger, bosnia, chechnya, indonesia, etc. it is with the intent of overthrowing the set government at those places.

quote:

these are not just "attacks" in niger, bosnia, chechnya, indonesia, etc. it is with the intent of overthrowing the set government at those places.

Yes, they are all Muslim countries...(or countries where Muslims make up a large proportion of the population)

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode And this ties into the violence begets violence idea, of which I am positively sure. Are the 'hawks' on this board also convinced of this? Based on their policies and ideas (your ideas, I should say), I think not.

i will speak up and say that violence does not nessicarly begit violence. and the inverse is also wrong, that peace begits peace.

violence can occur in peaceful times, revolutions and civil wars based out of differing philosophies. look at haiti for example although the country is dirt poor, they have been in peace since 1994 but now the people are fed up and started to violently protest the current government.

and sometimes violence stops further violence from happening. in the case of the american civil war, after the war a set base of government was agreed upon (agian by force) and that put an end to the fighting

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes, they are all Muslim countries...(or countries where Muslims make up a large proportion of the population)

but they are not in the middle east

Damn! I seem to have been rumbled by a student of geography!

Er...anyway...oh yea, that was it...so?

The Islamic world = Islamic countries! (And there are a fair few Islamic countries outside the Middle East...)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The Islamic world = Islamic countries! (And there are a fair few Islamic countries outside the Middle East...)

i missed that point, guess i deserved that insult, hehe

but anyways most of those countries have only recently become part of the islamic world, and although im not saying islamo-facist extremism was the cause of this, it is now a base of operation for such factions.

No surprise here! Govt. of Spain confirming members of an Islamic terror cell have been arrested in connection with the bombing.

Media now reporting 5 members arrested, mostly from Morocco. The rest from Indian Kashmir.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i missed that point, guess i deserved that insult, hehe but anyways most of those countries have only recently become part of the islamic world, and although im not saying islamo-facist extremism was the cause of this, it is now a base of operation for such factions.

North Africa has been Muslim as long as anywhere else I think and SE Asia has been Muslim for a long time. I dont think countries all of a sudden turn one religion or another, they must have been like that for a fair while.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley North Africa has been Muslim as long as anywhere else I think and SE Asia has been Muslim for a long time. I dont think countries all of a sudden turn one religion or another, they must have been like that for a fair while.

Places like Checneya, Niger, and Kosovo have swifted dramatically to be muslim dominated in the last 20 years. The chief reason for this is the islam-facist attacks on non-muslim to scare them away (see violence works) or force them to convert.

You can look at the Christian populations of these regions for the past 30 years and see their sudden and dramatic decline. I chiefly attribute this to the increasing ferocity and determinism of the islamo-facists to expand their borders to places they weren't as traditionally islamo-facist as they have become. Even Afghanistan is a good example of this, despite being a predominatly muslim country, it was not radically such till the invasion of the Islamo-facist. After their invasion all non-mulsim minorities almost completely disappeared.

I don't know though why you would think the Islamo-facist are content in containing themselves or why their philosophy has no expansionist tendencies, but hey whatever gets it up for you

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry, who exactly has been justifying these attacks? I dont think you'll find many who do, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (outside Islamic circles). IIRC, there was only one country in the entire world that did not condemn and speak out against the 11/9 attacks, and that was Iraq... You seem to think that it is only America who cares about terrorism (and even America/Americans only really started to care after 11/9...where do you think the IRA got all its money and support from?)

I will once again reiterate my point, the world needs to take a vocal stance against any form of terrorism. Innocent people blown to pieces on their way to work does not provide a solution for anything. By the way Mr. Smiley spare me the lecture on what I seem to think, this is one American who tries to speak from a global perspective because that is how I feel about humanity and justice in our world. What my statement implied is that when will people start having respect for our fellow humans be they American, Iranian, Iraqi, Palestinian, European, etc. Morever if there are people in Islamic circles who justify the bombings in Madrid is it any less atrocious, I think not.

Well, al Qaeda is looking more and more like the real bomber here. Just crossing the wires now.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Well, al Qaeda is looking more and more like the real bomber here. Just crossing the wires now.

stop watch fox news, it makes you stupid!

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=167817

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.