Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by mark

You know reading through this thread (and im aiming this at universal mind here) its no surprise that alot of the world hates America.

Meh continue with your double standards if you like and having read the utter ignorance of your posts im sure you will, but put your self in their shoes those people you hate so much are just you but acting for the other side.

The people I hate so much are oppressors and terrorists who want to kill YOU. Support of stopping further terrorist attacks on our soil (which has been done successfully) is not acting for the other side. Supporting taking down terrorist governments is not acting for the other side. Supporting reducing insurgent frequency, which has happened, is not acting for the other side. The truth is that you are looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and you don't really give a damn about the other side or their intended targets. Your outlet for acting like a jerk toward those who actually do want to make this a better world is what matters to you the most. I see straight through you.

What "double standards" are you talking about? Try not to be so vague.

Originally Posted by mark

Question.... if roles were reversed and it was your country invaded for a natural resource would you not pick up a gun and fight off the invaders?

You are making an unfounded assumption about the reasons for our wars, and you are ignoring the actual realities we are dealing with which are there even if your assumed accusation is correct. Are you sure you have read this thread? Look harder at why I support taking on terrorists. It is so common for people who act like you to jump to conclusions and overlook what people have said.

Originally Posted by mark

See the problem with people like you, you will argue and fight against oppression without ever realizing that all your doing is forcing your opinion on them and in doing so you inflict that same oppression you hate so much

Yes, my opinion is that oppression is out of the question, and I am willing to force that view on the entire world. If a man beats his kids, I will work to get him in jail if I know about it, even though I would be "forcing my opinion" on him. If I lived in the late 1800's, I would have spoken out very strongly against slavery and expressed major support for the Union without any problem with the fact that I was "forcing my opinion". Are you indifferent to oppression and think it's a person's right to oppress? I am nowhere near agreeing with that view.

Originally Posted by mark

You talk about their culture having issues (which like all cultures it does) as if yours does not, need I remind you of the New Orleans disaster and the way people were treated by your government or the fact the it was the original bush who funded osama bin ladden in the first place.

As if mine does not? Uh, no. You are seeing things again. I was a Katrina victim, and I blame nothing on Bush. My local government handled things very well and called for federal assistance ahead of time. The fact that the Louisiana government was pathetic in preparing for Katrina and did not request federal assistance until after the hurricane happened and that every one of the few routes into New Orleans had been demolished by the hurricane does not mean that foreign cultures of poverty and despair that breed terrorism should not be improved. Try to stay off the bizarre tangents.

Originally Posted by mark

All im saying here mate is open your eyes there are rights and wrongs on both sides. The way to solve this issue is understanding not war.

Good luck trying to get Islamofascist dictators and suicide bombers to be understanding, mate. Have you read Bin Laden's letter to America? You sound like you have not. Read the answer to Q2 and tell me how much Al Qaeda and like minded terrorists are willing to be understanding...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The truth is that you are looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and you don't really give a damn about the other side or their intended targets. Your outlet for acting like a jerk toward those who actually do want to make this a better world is what matters to you the most. I see straight through you.

I really don't think mark is against making the world a better place; he is disagreeing on the methods used, as so many of us are.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was a Katrina victim, and I blame nothing on Bush. My local government handled things very well and called for federal assistance ahead of time. The fact that the Louisiana government was pathetic in preparing for Katrina and did not request federal assistance until after the hurricane happened and that every one of the few routes into New Orleans had been demolished by the hurricane does not mean that foreign cultures of poverty and despair that breed terrorism should not be improved. Try to stay off the bizarre tangents.

Being from England, mark probably doesn't know the systems of state and federal government. What I see betwen the lines of his post is that from his viewpoint, our government spends a lot of money "saving" the Iraqis from themselves, while our own people are neglected. I'd have to agree with him about that. I guess you can blame the poor and indigent people of New Orleans, LA for not having the excellent choice in leadership that the state of Mississippi had, but it does appear that they got screwed. Even if you are OK with how it was handled, I imagine some of them have a little ill-will towards the incompetent Bush-appointed leaders who are supposed to take care of disasters. What if that had been a terrorist attack instead of a natural disaster? They are so far from prepared, it's a joke. But we have plenty of billions of dollars to send over to Iraq, right? Borrowed from China, by the way, because we don't want to have to piss anybody off by raising taxes and actually paying for some of this stuff as we go--better to let our kids take care of that.

Mark makes another good point that we are somewhat to blame for the current state of affairs. We supported the Taliban for many years when they were fighting the Russians; we didn't care a bit about their terrorism, lack of tolerance, and violent ways back then. I believe the spring of 2001 was the last of the Taliban's big payments from our federal government (I forget how much, but it was in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, I think). Not to mention the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families. Same with Saddam and his previous alliance with our government. Funny how our leaders' friends so quickly become "our" enemies, and it is our soldiers and their civilians which pay the price.

There's no money to be made in disaster relief. In going to war they get to borrow billions upon billions from the federal reserve and then pay it all back at interest with tax dollars. War and reconstruction companies that are outwright bribing these politicians with campaign contributions and in return get no bid contracts to build oil pipeline, and practically replace Iraq's economy so that it becomes little more than a colony to these corporations where, because of the small worth of their currency, these companies cn save money by overriding supply and demand. It makes life worse for our people and their people, and its against freetrade and the intent of the Founding Fathers. It breaks every principle this country claims to hold dear. But those in favor of the war like to sit behind colorfully painted curtains and look at them all day as talking point promoting a slanted view of reality blare in their ear teaching them there's no reason to objectively see the otherside of the story through ridicule.

My two cents, which would have been worth 3.5 cents before Bush was president.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really don't think mark is against making the world a better place; he is disagreeing on the methods used, as so many of us are.

When people act self-righeously insulting on a personal level without attempting a civil dialogue first, I know how much they care about civility and peace.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

IBeing from England, mark probably doesn't know the systems of state and federal government. What I see betwen the lines of his post is that from his viewpoint, our government spends a lot of money "saving" the Iraqis from themselves, while our own people are neglected. I'd have to agree with him about that. I guess you can blame the poor and indigent people of New Orleans, LA for not having the excellent choice in leadership that the state of Mississippi had, but it does appear that they got screwed. Even if you are OK with how it was handled, I imagine some of them have a little ill-will towards the incompetent Bush-appointed leaders who are supposed to take care of disasters. What if that had been a terrorist attack instead of a natural disaster? They are so far from prepared, it's a joke. But we have plenty of billions of dollars to send over to Iraq, right? Borrowed from China, by the way, because we don't want to have to piss anybody off by raising taxes and actually paying for some of this stuff as we go--better to let our kids take care of that.

You are addressing what was an irrelevant tangent of his.

Getting federal help into New Orleans was extremely difficult. Have you ever been there? It has an enormous lake on one side of it, the second widest river in the world on another, and a river basin next to the ocean on another side. There are swamps and creeks all over the place around it. The few bridges that lead into the city were destroyed. However, Bush did send in helicopters to rescue people from the flood waters. Guess what happened. The helicopters got shot at. I have no idea how that situation could have been handled well. I don't think anybody else does either.

Katrina tore up Jackson too. I had no electricity for a week, my water was undrinkable for a week, all of my appointments were cancelled, I did not have enough gas in my car to sit in line for four hours and get gas, and the population of my city had doubled in one night and become cluttered with all kinds of trash from New Orleans that drove straight up I-55 to the first big city. I did not blame Bush for any of that. None of that means that the Middle East cannot be vastly improved so that the poor and primitive despair climate that breeds terrorism should not be handled.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Mark makes another good point that we are somewhat to blame for the current state of affairs. We supported the Taliban for many years when they were fighting the Russians; we didn't care a bit about their terrorism, lack of tolerance, and violent ways back then. I believe the spring of 2001 was the last of the Taliban's big payments from our federal government (I forget how much, but it was in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, I think). Not to mention the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families. Same with Saddam and his previous alliance with our government. Funny how our leaders' friends so quickly become "our" enemies, and it is our soldiers and their civilians which pay the price.

I am going to say what I have probably said more than anything else I have said in this forum. Alliance is not synonymous with complete support. We allied with the Hussein regime against Iran. We allied with the Afghan fighers because the Soviets had to be dealt with. The future of the world was depending on it. We allied with rotten people because we had a common enemy. Their country had been invaded by a force that was out to take over the world and oppress it. It did not mean we agreed with everything the Afghans stood for. We also allied with the Soviets in WWII. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am going to say what I have probably said more than anything else I have said in this forum. Alliance is not synonymous with complete support. We allied with the Hussein regime against Iran. We allied with the Afghan fighers because the Soviets had to be dealt with. The future of the world was depending on it. We allied with rotten people because we had a common enemy. Their country had been invaded by a force that was out to take over the world and oppress it. It did not mean we agreed with everything the Afghans stood for. We also allied with the Soviets in WWII. Go figure.

So where does it end? Did you read what I said? We paid the Taliban millions of dollars and gave them weapons. One of their own was responsible for 9/11. They shot at and killed our soldiers with our own guns. It's complete insanity.

Just how do we pick our sides? We picked Saddam, but you have said over and over that he was evil incarnate? What the hell is the point of siding with someone who is going to retaliate like the Taliban or like you say Saddam was going to with his WMD? Are the Soviets and the Iranians worse than the Taliban and Saddam? Evidently not; neither of them has attacked us lately. Maybe places like Iran wouldn't have reason to attack us in the future if we pick sides. There are no winners here.

Sometimes allies turn into enemies. In hindsight, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime. However, we should have allied with the Soviets in WWII and the Afghans during the Cold War. All of them are scum, but sometimes it is necessary to side with scum to defeat a common enemy. Taking down the Soviet Union might be the most important thing that has ever happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sometimes allies turn into enemies. In hindsight, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime. However, we should have allied with the Soviets in WWII and the Afghans during the Cold War. All of them are scum, but sometimes it is necessary to side with scum to defeat a common enemy. Taking down the Soviet Union might be the most important thing that has ever happened.

It seems that a lot of our allies turn into enemies, doesn't it? I don't see how gambling that the Soviet Union wouldn't go ahead and take over the whole world after they invaded Afghanistan was better than arming people like bin Laden and the Taliban. Or propping up Saddam and making him what he was only to end up in two wars with him was better than letting Iran take him. It doesn't seem to work out to well (for our soldiers anyway) when our leaders "side with scum". It also doesn't look like we are really concerned about human rights and freedom when we do that; more so that we will do absolutely anything to protect our financial interests, including arming religious fundamentalists like the Taliban.

The Soviet Union collapsed because their system was inefficient; it had nothing to do with us keeping them out of Afghanistan. We weren't trying to keep them out of Afghanistan to prevent them from "taking over the world", we were doing it because we wanted to keep the country safe for an oil-pipeline. The countries that made up their union are independent states now. Afghanistan would probably have been a much different place now if we had allowed the Soviets to take it, who knows? It couldn't have been any worse than what we have now, could it?

You buy what they are telling you about spreading democracy, and we argue about it as if were true. What's funny is that's just a cover story anyway; they don't really care if the people of Iraq get to vote or not, it's all about oil and it always has been--in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So you believe in a lie which wouldn't work even if it were true.

You know, we are not any different than the Soviets at this point. They believed that their system of government was the best, and they spread it by force thru countries whose resources that they wanted.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Wars are not solely fought to advance religions or forms of government, UM. Sometimes, they are fought only to resist countries that make war for their own interests, not to advance a different set of interests. As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.

You made a blanket statement against war.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It seems that a lot of our allies turn into enemies, doesn't it? I don't see how gambling that the Soviet Union wouldn't go ahead and take over the whole world after they invaded Afghanistan was better than arming people like bin Laden and the Taliban. Or propping up Saddam and making him what he was only to end up in two wars with him was better than letting Iran take him. It doesn't seem to work out to well (for our soldiers anyway) when our leaders "side with scum". It also doesn't look like we are really concerned about human rights and freedom when we do that; more so that we will do absolutely anything to protect our financial interests, including arming religious fundamentalists like the Taliban.

The Soviet Union collapsed because their system was inefficient; it had nothing to do with us keeping them out of Afghanistan. We weren't trying to keep them out of Afghanistan to prevent them from "taking over the world", we were doing it because we wanted to keep the country safe for an oil-pipeline. The countries that made up their union are independent states now. Afghanistan would probably have been a much different place now if we had allowed the Soviets to take it, who knows? It couldn't have been any worse than what we have now, could it?

You buy what they are telling you about spreading democracy, and we argue about it as if were true. What's funny is that's just a cover story anyway; they don't really care if the people of Iraq get to vote or not, it's all about oil and it always has been--in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So you believe in a lie which wouldn't work even if it were true.

You know, we are not any different than the Soviets at this point. They believed that their system of government was the best, and they spread it by force thru countries whose resources that they wanted.

What we have here is way better than totalitarianism. The world deserves freedom, and no government has a right to be totalitarian. They are two completely different things. You are damn lucky the U.S. did not let the Soviets get their way. You would not have the freedom to get on the internet and trash your country if they did.

We needed to ally with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Don't you agree? So sometimes allying with scum is necessary.

What you keep saying about it how it is ALL about oil is an assumption, and an unfounded one. My agreement with the war rationales you talked about is not rooted in automatic belief in somebody's word. It is about reaching the same conclusions as the policy makers because of what makes sense to me. Why do you automatically believe the oil conspiracy lies?

It's hard to argue against the dogged belief that democracy spread by force can change the world for the better. Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.

Killing a person is the ultimate form of oppression. If a person kills an oppressor, it is not murder only in the case of self-defense. Of course, for the enterprising parser, that is a loophole you could march an army through, with every step exclaiming belief in a fantasy that the entire Earth must be saved, that the number of innocents saved will always be far larger than the number killed, and no amount of killing would be unjustified in the pursuit of some goal, whether it's Communism, Islam, or Democracy.

Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.

And they are wrong.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.

Absolute passivity guarantees the complete absence of all three.

From Universal Mind
Absolute passivity guarantees the complete absence of all three.

Wars are not solely fought to advance religions or forms of government, UM. Sometimes, they are fought only to resist countries that make war for their own interests, not to advance a different set of interests. As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.