Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

I was not saying that every country that has elections is a true democracy. Even the Hussein regime had elections, but Hussein got 100% of the votes. I am talking about real democracies, and I am talking about after they have had time to reap the benefits of being true democracies. There will be some corruption in all of them. There is corruption in ours. But that corruption will diminish over time.

When I said we should not try to liberate nuclear nations, I of course was not talking about Britain and France. There is no reason to go to war with them in the first place. It would be absurd. We benefit each other instead.

Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.

OK. I can make the first one at least.

When thirty years are up, we'll just apply the 3-part accountability test:

(1) If the situation is good: it's our fault. Our war made things good.

(2) If the situation is bad: it's ______'s fault. If ______ hadn't ruined everything, the war would have made things great by now.

(3) If the situation is ambiguous: Wait for a clearer picture to emerge that shows (1) or (2) is true.

Must we govern global affairs like children? I wouldn't trust an official who advocated such a transparent retreat from accountability.

I can understand if people are bored or frustrated from this debate, though.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

When thirty years are up, we'll just apply the 3-part accountability test:

(1) If the situation is good: it's our fault. Our war made things good.

(2) If the situation is bad: it's ______'s fault. If ______ hadn't ruined everything, the war would have made things great by now.

(3) If the situation is ambiguous: Wait for a clearer picture to emerge that shows (1) or (2) is true.

Must we govern global affairs like children? I wouldn't trust an official who advocated such a transparent retreat from accountability.

I can understand if people are bored or frustrated from this debate, though.

It is not about a public official's full argument. It is an interesting idea that I hope you will engage in with us. Are you saying you don't like the idea of talking about this in thirty years? I think it's a great idea. I am not talking about having a conversation then about who's fault is what. I just think it would be cool to talk about how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out thirty years from now. Don't you?

Since when did constitutional monarchies become democratic? As for Vatican city, I'm sorry to inform you but it is a country that is controlled by a theocratic monarchy.

I don't care whether you say the thread isn't about one world government or not; your arguments almost perfectly mirror the arguments that are made in favor of unifying world government in to one all encompassing entity. If you slapped a little blurb pushing the North American Union on the end of your every post, they would make a lot more sense.

Why is it that this country only feels the need to step in and over throw dictators when it is in our best interest? Why do we do nothing about mass genocide in countries with no bankable resources?

I'm all for patriotism, but its the people who blindly believe everything they are told about the motives of our government that give this country a bad name, and are ruining freedom for the rest of us. If you think our country's administration is worried about freedom and justice while they are tapping phones, committing unconstitional torture, allowing unchecked private military forces to commit atrocities under our country's banner, unlawfully arresting American citizens and stripping them of their constitutional rights, and who knows what else that no one has found out about yet then you are allowing yourself to be deluded by propaganda and false hopes of righteousness.

Terrorism is a brand that is applied by our government to vilify its enemies. Isreal commits the same sort of atrocities as any group that has been labeled a terrorist organisation, but they are our allies. They bomb civilians, commit daily shootings in the streets,and have killed or maimed close to 10,000 children in the last 7 years.

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." I argue that our own government uses violence and threats of violence to intimidate and coerce the people of this country in to believing whatever they want us to believe. We have relinquished many of our rights in the last 6 years, and all for the sake of safety from unknown enemies. We have accepted faulty explanations for attacks on this country, including a list of terrorists that flew planes in to buildings that includes at least 7 people that are still alive and therefore could not have been on any plane that crashed and exploded, one of which was identified because his passport miraculously survived a 747 crashing and the resulting inferno unscathed and was somehow recovered mere moments after officials arrived on the scene.

I know you want to believe that our country is run by good people, but there is a reason why virtually no one in this thread agrees with you and its not because we are all idiots like you would like to believe.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Since when did constitutional monarchies become democratic? As for Vatican city, I'm sorry to inform you but it is a country that is controlled by a theocratic monarchy.

England is not run by the royal family any more. They have barely any power at all now. Parliament and the prime minister have the power. That's why I think it's silly the royal family even make the news.

It is such a stretch to call Vatican city a country. Why don't they call it Vatican Nation? People can leave its tiny premises voluntarily without trouble. It is not some oppressed nation that needs to be liberated. This is silly.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't care whether you say the thread isn't about one world government or not; your arguments almost perfectly mirror the arguments that are made in favor of unifying world government in to one all encompassing entity. If you slapped a little blurb pushing the North American Union on the end of your every post, they would make a lot more sense.

Well you can stop your conclusion leaping here because I am all for having just as many countries as we have right now.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why is it that this country only feels the need to step in and over throw dictators when it is in our best interest? Why do we do nothing about mass genocide in countries with no bankable resources?

Because war is a very serious decision. Bankable resources have not been sole justifications either.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm all for patriotism, but its the people who blindly believe everything they are told about the motives of our government that give this country a bad name, and are ruining freedom for the rest of us. If you think our country's administration is worried about freedom and justice while they are tapping phones, committing unconstitional torture, allowing unchecked private military forces to commit atrocities under our country's banner, unlawfully arresting American citizens and stripping them of their constitutional rights, and who knows what else that no one has found out about yet then you are allowing yourself to be deluded by propaganda and false hopes of righteousness.

If you think I have no problems with the U.S. government, then your conclusion leaping is way out of hand. I think the 4th Amendment has been walked all over, and I think it is virtually nonexistent when it comes to automobiles. I also think the war on drugs is a major outrage. However, I still consider the U.S. a free country and recognize that we have been the greatest force for global freedom in history. What country has been better for it? That is true even in the face of the imperfections. I don't agree with all of your accusations against the government.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Terrorism is a brand that is applied by our government to vilify its enemies. Isreal commits the same sort of atrocities as any group that has been labeled a terrorist organisation, but they are our allies. They bomb civilians, commit daily shootings in the streets,and have killed or maimed close to 10,000 children in the last 7 years.

Israel has a policy of mindlessly targetting civilians? False.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I know you want to believe that our country is run by good people, but there is a reason why virtually no one in this thread agrees with you and its not because we are all idiots like you would like to believe.

No, you don't know that. You made another false accusation. I think politicians are just really talented used car salesmen. But to keep their power, they know they have to do what the people want in the long run, though not necessarily in the short term.

You also don't have reason to believe I think the people who disagree with me in this thread are idiots. I have said nothing like that. You just assume one thing after another. The regular posters in this forum are almost 100% liberals. That is why everybody disagrees with me. It's not like the poster pool in this forum is representatives of real world demographics. Lucid dreaming attracts liberals, almost exclusively. Go figure.

Damn, you really typed a long post full of bizarre assumptions. You might want to know what you are talking about next time.

Actually the only assumption I made was that you want to believe that our country is run by good people. You don't want to believe that? Fine. I guess there really are some people out there that want to believe that their country is run by bad people. Mostly, the ones profiting off of the current state of affairs.

Everything else I said directed at your state of mind was accompanied by plenty of "If's." If you harbor certain thoughts, which your posts show evidence of, then certain conclusions can be drawn. If you don't have those thoughts then much of what you have said here is a mystery.

As far as Israel is concerned, the only word you chose to use that I have a problem with is 'mindlessly.' I'm not sure why you chose to use it; perhaps only to undermine the intelligence of those you label terrorists. Israel and the organisations labeled terrorists both very pointedly and deliberately target civilians, and I'd like to see any scrap of evidence you could drudge up to the contrary since you originally chose to deny me without any supporting information. There is nothing mindless about the civilian casualties that Israel routinely inflicts on Palestine.

I have a few questions for you; A) what evidence do you have of the liberal/conservative demographics for this forum and B) What does being liberal have to do with disagreeing with our government's actions and motives? I personally would not describe myself as a liberal, and aside from a misguided conservative attempt at an insult; no one else would either, yet I still disagree with you. From where I stand, the original conservative republican stance on foreign and domestic policy is that the government should have as little effect on our daily lives as possible and that we should avoid world conflicts at all costs; two things that are quite obviously not being done. There was a time when the Democrats were seen as the big spending war mongerers; although I know its hard to see it that way when only focusing on the current state of affairs.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually the only assumption I made was that you want to believe that our country is run by good people. You don't want to believe that? Fine. I guess there really are some people out there that want to believe that their country is run by bad people. Mostly, the ones profiting off of the current state of affairs.

No, you assumed I would like to think that the other posters in this thread are idiots. Your ifs were stated as counterarguments to my points, thereby illustrating your assertion that they were true. And I do want to believe that our country is run by good people. I just don't believe it. That is another assumption you made. I think politicians suck, but I think it is unfortunate that they do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as Israel is concerned, the only word you chose to use that I have a problem with is 'mindlessly.' I'm not sure why you chose to use it; perhaps only to undermine the intelligence of those you label terrorists. Israel and the organisations labeled terrorists both very pointedly and deliberately target civilians, and I'd like to see any scrap of evidence you could drudge up to the contrary since you originally chose to deny me without any supporting information. There is nothing mindless about the civilian casualties that Israel routinely inflicts on Palestine.

If Israel targets civilians, they are way out of line. I know they target Palestinian soldiers and key government places. Whatever it is, at least it is not mindless. It is about protection of Israel from those who are terrorists. Israel is being well preserved, so the military strategy is successful. It is not about pure rage ventilation or a quest to screw virgins. That would be terrorism. Calulated, intelligent, effective military strategy for the greater good is not terrorism. Blowing up a coffee shop to make God happy is.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have a few questions for you; A) what evidence do you have of the liberal/conservative demographics for this forum and B) What does being liberal have to do with disagreeing with our government's actions and motives? I personally would not describe myself as a liberal, and aside from a misguided conservative attempt at an insult; no one else would either, yet I still disagree with you. From where I stand, the original conservative republican stance on foreign and domestic policy is that the government should have as little effect on our daily lives as possible and that we should avoid world conflicts at all costs; two things that are quite obviously not being done. There was a time when the Democrats were seen as the big spending war mongerers; although I know its hard to see it that way when only focusing on the current state of affairs.

A) My history of posting here. The only people with conservative foreign policy views I have ever seen post in here at all are myself, Oneironaught, Hominus Feralis and the alterego he took on after he got banned, Tdkyo, that guy who used to get severely offended over every single atheist argument in the religion forum, and one other guy who posted in here for like a month. That is a total of six people. Maybe there were like two others who were extremely temporary, but that's it. I am talking about my entire history of posting in here. The list of people with liberal foreign policy views who have posted here is in the hundreds.

B) It's the specific disagreements. They are liberal in nature. It is the left that wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq and that believes we should have never gone to war in the first place. Moderate leftists supported the war in the beginning, but now they do not. Far leftists have been against it the entire time. Plus, we have a long list of people in this forum who believe in the 9/11 inside job conspiracy, who despise Bush on a deep personal level, who support socialism, and so forth. The posters in this forum are almost all liberals. I don't hold that against them personally, but it is a fact.

That is not what is so important to my earlier point any way. What is really relevant is that the posters in this forum are very against the war in Iraq and disagree majorly with the government's rationale for why we have a terrorism problem and how it should be handled. The consensus here is very unrepresentative of the real world demographics. That is why I am completely alone in arguing my view in here.