Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

My God. A long line of responders. There is way too much to repond to bit by bit, so I am going to cover the key areas.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15730707

Sometimes mistakes are made. Innocents do get killed. But if we were Al Qaeda, we would be seeking masses of people for their innocence. That is what terrorists do. They also do it even if it has close to no chance of helping their cause. Killing people to make Allah happy is the sort of thing that separates the terrorists from us. Al Qaeda would never take the first step toward minimizing civilian deaths. They are all about aiming at civilians to spew rage and screw imaginary virgins.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. We couldn't. Why couldn't we? Because every nation on the planet would turn against us; the American people at large would turn against our government; foreign relations would take a severe hit (both in terms of economically and the possibility of any allied forces, in future military campaigns), and our government, in the eyes of the entire world, would be the same "terrorist organization" that we have just labeled the Iranian Republican Guard.

That is right. We would never stand for that now. That is what I am saying. And any foreign backlash would be small compared to the fact that we would own all of the oil in the Middle East. Imagine how many customers we would have. And nobody is going to be stupid enough to invade us. We don't use Al Qaeda style tactics because we are much better people than they are. We would not keep anybody in office if they tried such junk.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hardly the fate of the world is at stake, it seems your government randomly picked out a country that was totalarian and made an excuse that was a lie and then invaded.

That is incorrect. See the Iraq threads for my arguments about the necessity of fighting in Iraq. There is a long list of good reasons.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The world does not depend on you people if anything the american government is fucking the world over and making the world a more unstable place as a result that is fact.

In terms of foreign policy it looks like to me the US hasnt changed much...remember the attemped coup in Venezuela largely beleived to have had American backers involved.

The U.S. has liberated more people than any other country in history, and we lead the world in the giving of foreign aid. We prevented the Soviet Union from taking over the world, majorly helped prevent the Nazis from taking over the world, and are the biggest deterrent in the world to invasions of countries like yours right now.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I heard today that the Blackwater operants who allegedly badly botched an operation and killed many innocents were just given immunity from prosecution. This before most of the facts of the case were even unearthed. Looks like this organization that has absolutely no oversight and answers to no laws now has the right to do whatever they please, including killing whomever they like without fear of prosecution. The Iraqi government that we are claiming to help is certainly not happy about this.

What happens when we decide it's ok for private sector vigilantes to operate like this at home?

Edit: News link

It looks like the military oversight saw that a mistake was made and national interests to protect by not getting into the business of prosecuting every military person who accidentally killed what turned out to be civilians. War can't work that way.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The main problem with the idea that it is better to kill 999 innocents to save 1000 that would have otherwise died is this: how is it possible to quantify how many people a terrorist will kill? How is it possible to say 1000 would have died instead of, say, 50?

I was using a hypothetical to illustrate the legitimacy of wars that are necessary. Of course the exact numbers cannot be predicted.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It is also important to realize that, when reasoning this way, a suicide bomber can only really be guilty of a single murder, since killing himself makes up for killing all but one of his victims.

Huh? I am totally lost on what you mean by that. What mass of people is the suicide bomber saving?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Finally, as has been pointed out before, killing 999 innocents to save 1000 creates 999 x N new terrorists, where N is proportional to the number of people who can be moved to action by the murder of a loved one.

Killing 999 innocents to save 1000 is much closer to immoral than killing 1 to save 1000 because of the lack of certainty of the numbers. Also, you need to take into account the fact that we are killing and capturing terrorists like flies, and you need to consider that we are changing the political landscape to take the region out of the third world. The idea there is to create a much better future, one where people do not become suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Those terrorists would kill many times over the number of people the original terrorist would have killed, and would justify the killing of even more innocent people, and the cycle continues. In order for this method of rationing lives to work, a great many people must be expected to watch their families die by the hands of a foreign army and to not seek revenge. The sectarian violence works in the same way.

Taking away two Islamofascist governments and the power they could provide from the face of the Earth put a big dent in that plan. Taking them out of the third world is going to have a further positive effect.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I am not simply talking about pissing off terrorists. The terrorists aren't simply pissed off because they have nothing better to do. Usually their reactions are a retaliation to our killing of innocent people. That is why I keep stressing that you cannot compare our relationship with terrorism and the middle east with a criminal/police anology in a neighborood setting, it simple isnt the same and to think of it in that matter is an oversimplification.

We have done countless things in the middle east that are unjustifiable and evil. We not meaning you and I but our nation, and it usually happens behind the peoples back or without the people's say.

I have told you why I disagree with that.

Originally Posted by jaasum

IAnd to answer your final question, every post I have made is radically and passionately against terrorism. It just isn't the hyped up emotional faux patriotism that the "Have you forgotten 9/11" right agenda pushes. No I haven't forgotten 9/11 and no I do not side with terrorists I hate them just as much as you do.

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

Folks, there is way too long a line for me to respond to long posts at this point. If you want me to respond to points and quesions, please be very brief.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I heard today that the Blackwater operants who allegedly badly botched an operation and killed many innocents were just given immunity from prosecution. This before most of the facts of the case were even unearthed. Looks like this organization that has absolutely no oversight and answers to no laws now has the right to do whatever they please, including killing whomever they like without fear of prosecution. The Iraqi government that we are claiming to help is certainly not happy about this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It looks like the military oversight saw that a mistake was made and national interests to protect by not getting into the business of prosecuting every military person who accidentally killed what turned out to be civilians. War can't work that way.

I think you're missing the point on this one. Blackwater is not a part of the military! They are private Rent-a-Goons that do not have to follow military law. This is exactly the problem, because this means they do not have to be held to the same standards as the armed forces. They can run around over there, ignore basic protocol and US military planning, and create a relations disaster.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

Actually, I didn't see that question until now, but I have already stated how I've felt about the terrorists in other conversations with you. I will add to it, though, by saying this: (and whether or not you want to respond is up to you. I'm simply stating my opinion.)

The reason that I spend more of my time outlining U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy is because these are the people that represent us. These are the people we trust to be fair, supportive and representative of the will (and morals) of the very best aspects of American society. The idea of the methods and tactics of the radical-islamists (and all terrorists), as being completely vile and asinine, is completely obvious. Their disregard for human life (in response to their enemies) is completely obvious. Turn on any mainstream media outlet and (no matter how much "America Bashing" is going on) it is easily seen. It is talked about 24/7. I don't think there is any one of us that actually supports what is being done by the terrorists. Do not confuse our disdain for U.S. foreign policy as any sort of a refusal to acknowledge the evils of the "radical Islamist movement."

On the other hand, the U.S. government (taking into account what I said about them, above) lies to us constantly to promote their agenda. A "need to know" basis has been in place, in the military, for as long as the military has existed. The same goes with government. I feel it is more important, as an American, to do what I can to open peoples' eyes to the injustices that are being imposed upon not only us, but people all over the world, by our "representatives," than to continuously regurgitate the obvious condemnation of what the terrorists are doing. So many people want to try to act like we bear absolutely no responsibility for what is going on. The government wants us to believe that we have absolutely no responsibility for what is going on. The government wants us to believe that its actions are completely benevolent; that it is 100% ethical; that it does not violate human rights; that everything we do is justified. It wants us to believe that there are no secrets kept that (should they be known to the American people) would provoke outrage. It is swallowed daily, by many Americans, and the public is so quick to defend the government on a sheer "this is my family" basis than try to look at things objectively, and see that we have been (and still are) committing many wrong-doings in the world stage. I am more passionate about having us all realize that our government plays us all, on a daily basis, than I am about stating the obvious; that the terrorists that kill civilians to make a point are primitive, savage nut-cases that should be stopped. That goes without saying. Everyone knows that. What everyone doesn't know is that there are immoralities committed by our government that can be compared to what the terrorists do, most realistically, and I feel, unequivocally, that it is a truth that should be voiced rather than ignored.

From Universal Mind
Killing 999 innocents to save 1000 is much closer to immoral than killing 1 to save 1000 because of the lack of certainty of the numbers. Also, you need to take into account the fact that we are killing and capturing terrorists like flies, and you need to consider that we are changing the political landscape to take the region out of the third world. The idea there is to create a much better future, one where people do not become suicide bombers.
...
Taking away two Islamofascist governments and the power they could provide from the face of the Earth put a big dent in that plan. Taking them out of the third world is going to have a further positive effect.

Perhaps the reason we are capturing and killing terrorists like flies is because there are so many of them. It's as if the War on Terror hasn't had any effect at all, unless you count the NIE's statement that the number of terrorists is growing, despite all of the killing we're doing. It's almost as if more terrorists are created than we are destroying. Is it so far-fetched to think our actions are exacerbating terrorism rather than tamping it down?

Any action, no matter how vile, can be justified by arguing that things will get better in the future for the victims, and that will make it all worthwhile. The future will always be better than the present at some point, regardless of what atrocities take place, and such an justification takes advantage of that inevitability.

I'm not sure what 'plan' you're referring to when you say the war put a big dent in it. If the plan was for the cycle of murder and revenge to continue indefinitely, then it is certainly moving along as planned. If you are referring to terrorist plots to gain political power by inciting chaos, that's going along well, especially since the only secular dictatorship in the Mid-East is gone. What plan are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

No, because HATING terrorists and write pages of why isn't going to do an ounce of good. I would rather spend my time supporting something like the Ron Paul movement which I firmly believe could eliminate the motive of terrorism. I choose not to be so emotionally wrapped up and blind with hatred. You will say I don't care, but you are wrong. Because caring the way you do results in supporting people like Guiliani who's every second word out of his mouth is Terrorists or 9/11.