TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israel Kills Sheikh Yassin (Leader of Hamas)
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]

One of the major beef I have with terrorists that they use wrong methods to achieve their goals, no matter how just or right their objectives are.

It's not just what you say, but also how you say.

quote:

The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world.

So, should we just give up and let the terrorists win?
How do we fight terrorism then?

As far as I'm concerned, if you're a terrorist, I'm all for eliminating you from the gene pool.

Cannot believe this thread is still going. Hooray, Yassin the leader of the sicko terrorist Hamas group is dead! Wonder who will step up to bat to be the next target of opportunity? Wish the sick f*cks would stop wiring teenagers and young mothers with C4 and heading them towards Israeli lines as well. Real manly group; not.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think I have made it clear (three or four times if I'm not mistaken) that I said terrorists should be appeased as tongue in cheek (ie playing devil's advocate). The reason being is that some times, the people you define as 'terrorists' have a 'point'.

If you are playing the devil's advocate when you suggest appeasement as a possible strategy, then why do you have so much trouble seeing that it doesn't matter whether or not "�terrorists� have a 'point'?"

quote:

Diginut says that terrorist's objective is to cause terror. Simply not true. Terrorists do cause terror, but that is simply a means to acheiving their stated objectives, rather than their actual objectives. They cause terror as this is the only option available to them to achieve their objectives (be that a united Ireland or an independent Chechnya) In the two cases I stated above, both the Irish (at the start of the uprising) and the Chechnyans have been oppressed and nobody will argue they dont (didn't) deserve to have their objectives. However, the only way to achieve that is through terrorism. There is simply no other way for these groups. So how would you end that particular terrorist situation? By giving them what they want cos everybody knows that is what is 'right'.

The only option available to them to achieve their objectives?

Bull Puckey!

The independence of most of the world from colonialism and the civil rights movement weren't brought about by sending suicide bombers to kill the innocent citizens of the "oppressors." They were carried out by at most conventional military versus military conflict, and in many cases through entirely diplomatic or peaceful means. Where is your proof that a united Ireland can't be brought about through diplomacy? What evidence do you have to suggest that the subjugation of the Chechens necessitates terrorist activity? Do you have an argument, or are you just going to keep making broad and unsubstantiated claims which stand diametrically opposed to available evidence instead?

quote:

Now your side to that is that it will increase the terrorist actions of other groups. Well my counter argument is that that would happen no matter what. The war on terror is an unwinable war. There has been terrorism since the first humans, and there will be terrorism till the last. Nothing will ever stop terrorism as long as there is oppression and inequality in the world. Would giving certain oppressed groups what they want increase terrorism? No. Will oppressing even more those who are oppressed decrease terrorism? Not a chance mate! In fact, in my opinion, it is the latter that will acount for the bigger increase in terrorism, not the former. But thats just mine and your opinion. Thats all it is. Neither of us can prove our theories right or wrong. I do not think terrorism should be appeased as a matter of policy. I also think that we cannot defeat terrorism. The rise in religious fundamentalism in the world (in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions) has also seen a rise in the type of terrorism that will attack for purely ideological reasons (not for defencive reasons, ie, the oppressed). This type of terrorism will attack us no matter what, nothing we can do about it. However, it can be contained by not giving them exactly what they want - a huge support base (which is exactly what you are proposing....)

That would be a very good counter argument except for the fact that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support it.

The most basic principles of human behavior disagree with the claim that people will continue to undertake in acts requiring great sacrifice when the result of their acts fails to produce the desired effect and in fact produces the opposite effect. If people actually behaved in that way, we would have gone extinct a long time ago from our own ineptitude. It is precisely because terrorists have made political headway - the widespread and irrational vilification of Israel being a prime example - that they continue to use the same tactics. If the tactics weren't having any positive effect, they wouldn't do it. It's very, very simple. What you are suggesting makes no sense at all.

History, too, disagrees with the idea that "oppressed" people will always resist violently. The expansion of many empires: those of the Mongols, the Romans, Alexander the Great, and even the Third Reich were not significantly hindered by violent resistance by the oppressed or subjugated people of the empire. If the people resisted, the resistance was put down. There were no negotiations and no careful weighing of the legitimacy of the complaint. They could submit or be killed. And do you know what they did? With very few exceptions, they submitted.

The supposed "inevitability" of terrorism is not an argument. It is a completely faith-based claim that flies in the face of all available historical and scientific evidence. In terms of validity, it holds the same amount of water as "God said so."

quote:

I have a very broad definition of terrorism yes, but I think that is perfectly justified when you look at the attrocities committed by states and non-state actors alike, and by those with 'just' causes and those with causes that are blatently 'unjust'

I don't have a problem with your definition of terrorism, per se. However, it seems to me that the only purpose that such a broad definition serves is to obfuscate the issue by equivocating blatantly immoral acts with policies designed to prevent those acts.

quote:

Sorry, who ever said that?

According to a broad definition of terrorism, a war against terrorism, which necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders, is likely to inspire some sort of terror in certain people, and therefore is terrorism.

I�m beginning to see a striking parallel between terrorist apologists and theistic apologists. Both seem to require absolute proof of any claim which stands in opposition to their indoctrinated views. Both offer little or no evidence to support their own claims. Both try to obscure the picture by interpreting relevant concepts in as broad a manner as possible.

Smokeape has got exactly the right idea: terrorist leaders are cowards. Start giving them consequences for their actions, and pretty soon they'll think twice about undertaking those risks to begin with. Without leadership, terrorism won't amount to much. Cut off the head and the body will die.

Wow you guys are really going at it, nice arguments on both sides, hats off to you. I�m just going to stick my head in for a second to make a few points.

- A parallel I see between Israel�s assassination of Yassin and Hamas� suicide attacks on civilians is that type of targets while different are chosen for similar reasons. They are both targets of convenience and they�re both highly visible to the public for maximum impact. For the Palestinians why attack well armed superior military forces that won�t get the media�s attention as blowing up a bus load of civilians. As for the Israel it�s easier to go after a cripple in a wheel chair and make quite dramatic impression, blowing him up in the middle of the street, than it is to try to track down the terrorist that are in charge of carrying out the missions.

- On the definition of terrorist: Most governments who are well armed and have the luxury of complete military superiority, don�t usually need to resort to terrorism, but some of the Israeli action walk a fine line. They describe bulldozing houses and assassinations as sending the terrorist a message. I think inflicting fear in your enemy could be viewed as a form of terror to dissuade. Even if Israel doesn�t fit the definition of terrorist, their military actions have resulted in many more civilian deaths than the Palestinian suicide attacks. The word terrorist is highly charge negative term. I�m sure you�ve heard the saying �your terrorist is my freedom fighter�.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Cannot believe this thread is still going. Hooray, Yassin the leader of the sicko terrorist Hamas group is dead! Wonder who will step up to bat to be the next target of opportunity? Wish the sick f*cks would stop wiring teenagers and young mothers with C4 and heading them towards Israeli lines as well. Real manly group; not. [[[smoke]]]

Next target should be red necks like you!

Its sad how people like Smoke-ass see the world in the way Bush and CO. want them too.

How else should they resist the occupation? These suicide bombings occur becuase Israel has implemented a military-style culture in the lives of these Palestinians. They are brought up in a very violent society. They are de-sensitized to the whole notion of murder seeing that they expect and experience it very often.

Unfortunately, you're bringing up the same fallacious arguments that have already been debunked in this thread for the most part.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow - A parallel I see between Israel�s assassination of Yassin and Hamas� suicide attacks on civilians is that type of targets while different are chosen for similar reasons. They are both targets of convenience and they�re both highly visible to the public for maximum impact. For the Palestinians why attack well armed superior military forces that won�t get the media�s attention as blowing up a bus load of civilians. As for the Israel it�s easier to go after a cripple in a wheel chair and make quite dramatic impression, blowing him up in the middle of the street, than it is to try to track down the terrorist that are in charge of carrying out the missions.

The reasons this is not a parallel are:
1. Yassin was not a target of convenience; Israel had actually attempted to get rid of him in the past but failed in those attempts. He was surrounded by bodyguards.
2. On a similar note, publicity had little to do with Israel's motivation for killing him because Israel's attempts to get rid of him in the past had been, for the most part, rather quiet.
3. Although this doesn't specifically characterize Yassin as an innocent, the clear differentiation between himself and "the terrorist(s) that are in charge of carrying out the missions" seems to make that implication. Regardless, Yassin was personally responsible for many bombings even if he himself did not "supervise" them, and Israel considered him as a target with military value, not shock value.

quote:

Even if Israel doesn�t fit the definition of terrorist, their military actions have resulted in many more civilian deaths than the Palestinian suicide attacks. The word terrorist is highly charge negative term. I�m sure you�ve heard the saying �your terrorist is my freedom fighter�.

I'll again point out that:
1. The numbers skew the truth, because in most instances it is virtually impossible for a Palestinian not to be considered a civilian because they have no military to speak of. And since Israeli policy consists of mandatory military service, many non-combatants can be considered military even though they were doing less actual fighting at the time of death than the Palestinian civilians.
2. Classification of a freedom fighter generally implies that one has exhausted other means of political rectification. Without getting into any arguments about the validity of their goals, I think it's safe to say that that although there may be some peaceful Palestinian protestors and negotiators, the average suicide bomber does not fall among those, has not attempted peaceful means of rectitude, and generally does not fit the description of a freedom fighter.
3. Again we have to be clear about the definition of terrorism we are using. Terrorist is a highly charged negative term because of its narrow definition (targeted attacks on civilians in order to intimidate a population or government to accomplish a political objective). While it may be an acceptable definition (according to some) to apply the term, to include a broader degree of violence and hence include Israel's own violence, we must then re-evaluate our own emotional response to the word and seriously think about whether that kind of "terror" might be an acceptable means of dealing with the problem at hand.

Just a few thoughts. Hope it's emotionally aloof enough for you, igottaknow. I tried to wipe the foam before I posted.

yes that was a logical civil response

yes that was a logical civil response

One thing I don't agree with is your definition of a freedom fighter. The term doesn't dictate whether they use violence to achieve their goals, which is to over throw the current regime, and thus win "freedom" for its people. All I am saying is depending on whether you favor the group will determine what word you use to describe them and whether you view their means as legitimate.

Here's an example to illustrate my point. In WWII the French and other "resistance fighters" used sabotage tactics against the Germans, which many of us view as acts of bravery. However, today in Iraq when the "insurgents" or "terrorist" use similar tactics like blowing up oil pipelines they are view by us as cowardly acts.

it worked! i've been changed!

quote:

If you are playing the devil's advocate when you suggest appeasement as a possible strategy, then why do you have so much trouble seeing that it doesn't matter whether or not "�terrorists� have a 'point'?"

If the goal of any 'war on terror' is to stop it (ie thinking of the safety of your citizens), then whether or not terrorists "have a point" is very much important. If you acknowledge this fact in a certain case, then that gives you a base for stopping terrorism (as if the terrorists do have a point then it would be you who were at fault for said terrorism. It is you who has created that situation by pursuing a certain course of action. Stop that action and you have a great chance of stopping terrorism and therefore winning your war on terror - that, is if the terrorists do have a point. Al-Qaida for example, IMO, do not have a point)

quote:

Where is your proof that a united Ireland can't be brought about through diplomacy? What evidence do you have to suggest that the subjugation of the Chechens necessitates terrorist activity?

These conflicts can be worked out diplomatically! Just not while the governments of those regions are pursing the course of action they are (have) doing. Whilest ever a government oppresses, then the oppressed have no choice but to fight by whatever means available to them (with whatever strategy they can use to have a chance of succeeding - ie not conventional force as they would be annihalated), otherwise, they wouldn't be 'oppressed' would they?!

quote:

If the tactics weren't having any positive effect, they wouldn't do it.

What possitive affects?! Israel takes an extremely hard line against terrorism - if what you are suggesting is true, that form of terrorism would have dissappeared all together. However, it hasn't, which suggests what I said about always being terrorism no matter what is true. And history also shows this (there has been terrorism since the dawn of mankind)

quote:

The supposed "inevitability" of terrorism is not an argument

Wow. Impressive. You gave me about 4 examples of where there was no resistance to a state. And you claim this is representative of the entire history of man?! I dont need to say any more do I?

quote:

However, it seems to me that the only purpose that such a broad definition serves is to obfuscate the issue by equivocating blatantly immoral acts with policies designed to prevent those acts.

Not true at all. To me, it seems you are only saying that because you actually agree with some of these "blatently immoral acts" and try to justify them. None of them can be justified under my definition, which is, I suspect, why it has been rejected by so many on this thread...

quote:

According to a broad definition of terrorism, a war against terrorism, which necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders, is likely to inspire some sort of terror in certain people, and therefore is terrorism.

Again, not true at all! If the actions during this war on terror necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders then I would not call that terrorism at all. I dont think (and if I have I shouldn't have) that I have labelled this killing of Yassin as a 'terrorist act' have I? Because I do not consider it to be so. However, if during military operations there was an unnecessary killing of civilians that could have been avoided, then yes, I would call that terrorism...

quote:

Smokeape has got exactly the right idea: terrorist leaders are cowards. Start giving them consequences for their actions, and pretty soon they'll think twice about undertaking those risks to begin with. Without leadership, terrorism won't amount to much. Cut off the head and the body will die.

Could not agree more, only if the terrorists do NOT have a point. If they do have a point (if they are oppressed) what you and Smoke are implying would give a free hand to all dictators and the like to carry on oppressing peoples and never give up...





DigiNut, nice of you to show your face again in this thread!

I do believe me and Cyrus King raised a few issues with you that you may want to reply to? Only if you want mind you...!

I LOVE ISREAL




Fuck those "spoiled little palestinian brats"

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I LOVE ISREAL Fuck those "spoiled little palestinian brats"

hehe, that made me chuckle. I stopped posting on this thread on page one, post two. You guys tired of repeating yourselves yet?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut, nice of you to show your face again in this thread! I do believe me and Cyrus King raised a few issues with you that you may want to reply to? Only if you want mind you...!

You, I stopped replying to because you're merely paraphrasing the same repetitive ideas we've already seen. I do not think it serves any purpose to continue to reply as I feel very strongly that you continue to equivocate in your arguments, and as of now we seem to be involved in a mere battle of semantics. Thus I propose you carefully read This thread and see if we can come to an agreement on an objective definition of these words, in order for the debate to actually go in some kind of direction rather than in circles.

Apologies to Kaveh for not replying; I can only post so much every day and I seem to be up to my ears in rhetoric. You did have some valid points, and I just haven't had time to think carefully and address them.

As for the water issue in particular, this sounds like a policy of Israel which I would disagree with if it's causing harm to the Palestinians in general; however I also have to point out that I just don't know the whole story - for example - is it possible that Israel actually built this water piping system and that Palestinians would be having the same problem if Israel wasn't around? I'm not suggesting that this is actually the truth of the matter, just that I don't have enough background information to actually make a judgment call. Yes, it sounds morally wrong at face value, but I don't want to resign myself to any particular position until I've heard the other side of the story. As I've witnessed several times, numbers and statistics can be used to skew the truth, so I'd like to see who came up with these numbers and how, and specifically what they mean.

Also, regardless of the entire set of facts, I would still not call the water issue "terrorism" - although perhaps oppression might be appropriate.

By the way Cyrus, I can't help noticing you spelled "Isreal" wrong.

quote:

You, I stopped replying to because you're merely paraphrasing the same repetitive ideas we've already seen

And there was me thinking you didn't reply cos we took all of your facts (sorry, "facts") and totally ripped them apart with our own "facts" (damn, done it again, I mean facts!) leaving you no chance whatsoever to reply to them!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And there was me thinking you didn't reply cos we took all of your facts (sorry, "facts") and totally ripped them apart with our own "facts" (damn, done it again, I mean facts!) leaving you no chance whatsoever to reply to them!

Sorry to disappoint you.

Do I need to add "fact" to the definition thread?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Next target should be red necks like you! Its sad how people like Smoke-ass see the world in the way Bush and CO. want them too. How else should they resist the occupation? These suicide bombings occur becuase Israel has implemented a military-style culture in the lives of these Palestinians. They are brought up in a very violent society. They are de-sensitized to the whole notion of murder seeing that they expect and experience it very often.

And I suppose Hamas would use their women and kids strapped with C4 to carry out their suicide attacks against us rednecks (one word, not two) as well. Like I said, they're a cowardly lot.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape And I suppose Hamas would use their women and kids strapped with C4 to carry out their suicide attacks against us rednecks (one word, not two) as well. Like I said, they're a cowardly lot. [[[smoke]]]

The less red necks on earth, the better....theyre a cowardly lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The less red necks on earth, the better....theyre a cowardly lot.

Apparently the rednecks are not as ignorant as your pitiful lot...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Apparently the rednecks are not as ignorant as your pitiful lot... [[[smoke]]]

HAHAH... Heart of dixie.

Ranch away cowboy! YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAW

Long live TORONTO!!!!!!!!!

Club capitol of NORTH AMERICA!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If the goal of any 'war on terror' is to stop it (ie thinking of the safety of your citizens), then whether or not terrorists "have a point" is very much important. If you acknowledge this fact in a certain case, then that gives you a base for stopping terrorism (as if the terrorists do have a point then it would be you who were at fault for said terrorism. It is you who has created that situation by pursuing a certain course of action. Stop that action and you have a great chance of stopping terrorism and therefore winning your war on terror - that, is if the terrorists do have a point. Al-Qaida for example, IMO, do not have a point)

The statement �as if the terrorists do have a point then it would be you who were at fault for said terrorism� is patently false.

Each and every individual (and we are all individuals) is responsible for his or her own choices. We are not responsible for the choices of others � at all. The only situation in which we could be responsible for the choices of others would be if those individuals possessed a lesser degree of free will than ourselves. That is, their behavior was not the product of their own choices, but rather followed as a result of your actions in a demonstrable and formally logical way. This is not the case with terrorists. They can choose to organize and carry out acts of terrorism, and they could just as easily choose not to. It is entirely within their power to do so or to refrain from doing so. Therefore, we have no responsibility for their actions, and we cannot be considered �at fault� for the consequences of those actions.

You keep repeating this mantra that if we appease terrorists who have a point, it will reduce terrorism. It may reduce terrorism from that particular group of people. But it is also likely to encourage every other group which has either legitimate or illegitimate grievances to use terrorism to advance their agenda as well. Currently, most politically dissatisfied people in the world aren�t trying to solve their problems by blowing the other side up. Liberal citizens of the United States aren�t killing random Conservative citizens because they don�t like Bush�s policy. Chinese nationalists aren�t strapping explosives to themselves and detonating them in the middle of a crowded restaurant in Shanghai in order to advance their distaste for the Chinese communist regime. Appeasement of one terrorist group, regardless of the validity of their complaints, encourages every single other dissatisfied group on the planet to consider terrorism by demonstrating it to be an effective means of obtaining redress.

The reality is that appeasing terrorism will cause more terrorism. Therefore, it does not have a great chance of stopping terrorism, and only hinders any �war on terror.�

quote:

These conflicts can be worked out diplomatically! Just not while the governments of those regions are pursing the course of action they are (have) doing. Whilest ever a government oppresses, then the oppressed have no choice but to fight by whatever means available to them (with whatever strategy they can use to have a chance of succeeding - ie not conventional force as they would be annihalated), otherwise, they wouldn't be 'oppressed' would they?!

Well, the Palestinians were somehow managing to negotiate at Camp David in 2000 even though they were � if we are to believe your position � unable use diplomatic recourse due to their oppressed condition. Your argument continues to fall back on generalizations which are easily refuted with simple counterexamples. It is an indisputable fact that the Palestinians could use diplomatic means to attempt to obtain redress for their grievances. They did use diplomatic means!

They do have a choice but to fight by �whatever means available to them.�

This logically follows. It is an indisputable logical fact � in fact almost a Boolean one.

quote:

What possitive affects?! Israel takes an extremely hard line against terrorism - if what you are suggesting is true, that form of terrorism would have dissappeared all together. However, it hasn't, which suggests what I said about always being terrorism no matter what is true. And history also shows this (there has been terrorism since the dawn of mankind)

Publicity.

Their brutal and blatantly immoral tactics have given them more publicity than they could have ever hoped for. Publicity exposes their cause to the world audience, and by doing so nets them sympathizers around the world. There are tons of other groups with just as serious a complaint against some other group as the Palestinians have. But they don�t carry out suicide attacks. They don�t kill innocent civilians in the streets. And so they don�t make headlines, and there aren�t protests around the world calling for better conditions for them.

Furthermore, terrorist attacks have repeatedly brought Israel to the negotiation table both by a desire of Israel to halt the attack and due to international pressure on Israel to negotiate which wouldn�t exist if it weren�t for the publicity garnered by the attacks.

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt022502.shtml

Clearly, terrorism is yielding positive results at relatively little cost. This needs to stop. If it does stop, so will terrorism.

quote:

Wow. Impressive. You gave me about 4 examples of where there was no resistance to a state. And you claim this is representative of the entire history of man?! I dont need to say any more do I?

You made a general claim here:

quote:

If there is a cause, just or not, that certain groups of people feel the need to figh tfor then they will, no matter what the consequences are for them or their people.

I provided four counterexamples. One counterexample is sufficient to demonstrate that the statement possesses a Boolean logical value of false. You, on the other hand, have failed to provide any example of people fighting for a cause with complete disregard for the consequences to them or their people, much less provided any evidence to suggest that current terrorist organizations meet those criteria.

quote:

Not true at all. To me, it seems you are only saying that because you actually agree with some of these "blatently immoral acts" and try to justify them. None of them can be justified under my definition, which is, I suspect, why it has been rejected by so many on this thread...

You�re absolutely right. I do agree with some acts and feel they are justified which, according to your definition of terrorism, are terrorist acts. However, my argument about the appeasement of terrorists uses my definition of terrorism. You can�t apply any of my claims or arguments to any situation which doesn�t fit my definition of terrorism, because if you do then you are guilty of a logical fallacy (equivocation).

quote:

Again, not true at all! If the actions during this war on terror necessitates attacks against terrorist leaders then I would not call that terrorism at all. I dont think (and if I have I shouldn't have) that I have labelled this killing of Yassin as a 'terrorist act' have I? Because I do not consider it to be so. However, if during military operations there was an unnecessary killing of civilians that could have been avoided, then yes, I would call that terrorism...

I�m glad you don�t consider the killing of Yassin to be a terrorist act. But you seem to be demanding impossible perfection from counterterrorist activity. The nature of terrorism as a policy carried out by cowardly, reclusive, and secretive organizations makes it impossible to avoid killing some civilians in the process of rooting them out. Is that good? No, it�s terrible. But people are going to make mistakes, poor judgments, and other errors in the process of trying to find and destroy terrorists, and it�s going to result in the �killing of civilians that could have been avoided.�

Any counterterrorist strategy which was completely unwilling to risk the killing of an innocent civilian which could have been avoided is going to be so completely impotent that it will accomplish nothing. Situations like these � where Yassin was able to be killed without significant collateral damage � are the rare exception, not the rule.

quote:

If they do have a point (if they are oppressed) what you and Smoke are implying would give a free hand to all dictators and the like to carry on oppressing peoples and never give up...

Simply not true. At any point in time they could choose to stop committing acts of terrorism. If they did so, we could then provide them with assistance against their oppressive dictator. I�ll be first in line to call for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but only when they bring about a complete and sustained cessation of all terrorist activity.

Please God just kill me now!

A few points...

Why is there still Palestinian terrorism? By your logic, there would be no Palestinian terrorism. Why? Why?

The PA negotiated at Camp David, not Hamas or Islamic Jihad

I cant be arsed to give you any examples of where there has always been terrorism throughout history. You gave me four examples of where there has not been terrorism. What the fuck, exactly, does that prove? Four examples! In the entire history of man! B-l-o-o-d-y Hell! Gi tha sen a gold star mate! I could give you hundreds of examples of where there also was no terrorism in history, but at the same time, I can give you hundreds where there were. Now I am not and never have said that an oppressed people will turn to terrorism in every situation, but there is one hell of a good chance that at the very least one oppressed group will turn to terrorism. What you are saying is that there will be no terrorism anywhere in the world even if people are oppressed - well open your fucking eyes to the world around you! Hello? McFly! There is terrorism in the world, and there always has been terrorism in the world (no matter how many expamples you give me of individual situations where there has not been) AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE TERRORISM IF PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED

quote:

If they did so, we could then provide them with assistance against their oppressive dictator

You are taking the piss right? What happened to your four magical examples?! They didn't rise up against the oppressors and what happened? They still got fucked over!

What about China? What about Iraq after the 2nd Gulf War? No Arbiter, there will be nobody to help an oppressed people unless there is something in it for an external power (see the arguments coming out of the American Administration after no WMDs were found during Gulf War 3)

You think the US is gonna get involved with every two-bit little conflict in the world...cos? It has a conscience?!

quote:

The reality is that appeasing terrorism will cause more terrorism

Says who?!?!?!?!?!?!

You've just made that up! You have no proof whatsoever. It is pure speculation.

In America, you have the least liberal laws and some of the strictest punishments in the western world. Yet you have the worst crime in the world, and American society as a whole (with all its problems) is the worst in the western world.

If that you are speculating is true, America would have one of the most crime-free societies in the world (death penalty etc) but the fact is it doesn't.

If you want to erradicate crime, or at least decrease it significantly, do you come down even harder on criminals (proven not to work) or do you tackle the root causes of crime like inequality of wealth etc?

Same with terrorism. Tackle the root problems. And part of the root problem is the way the West treats people. It plays right into the hands of ideological terrorists.





Arbiter...do you want an end to terrorism, or revenge on terrorists? Its one or the other, you cannot have both. Which one is it?

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