Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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?

From Universal Mind
You made a blanket statement against war.

I applaud your brevity, but I'm afraid you've misread the post. Perhaps it would help if the relevant phrases were in bold text:

From R.D.735
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.
...
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.

Then, my response to your post:

From R.D.735
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.

Since I'm against the initiation of war, it is easy to misinterpret this as being also against self-defense, which is not the case. This takes us to a central idea of the offending post:

From R.D.735
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...

Having a reasonable degree of humanity, I wish self defense were always unnecessary, but I know that is an ideal, not reality. Realistically, self defense is sometimes necessary. Whether in the ideal or not, however, aggression is always unnecessary. The problem we have is that some cannot distinguish between the two when other interests besides safety are at risk.

This is how all wars are begun: one group begins a war to advance interests that they believe are connected directly to their safety, rather than waging war in order to preserve their safety. In the process, safety is made secondary to interests indirectly connected to safety. Thus, the priorities of aggressive war are the exact opposite of the rational for defensive war, and the result is similarly opposite: safety is sacrificed to promote interests instead of interests being sacrificed to promote safety.

This is what war-profiteering represents. This is what violent Islamic Jihad represents. It's what Hitler spread across the world, what Spanish conquistadors tried in the New World, what the Romans accomplished in Europe, what the US was trying to accomplish in Vietnam, and what Soviet Russia was trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. Each one had an idea, some ideology, that would supposedly make the world a better place if only everyone shared it, and the presence of any other idea was a threat. Every single effort was immensely destructive and evil, even when success was achieved. In a supposedly more civilized age, we recognize that those ideologies were only desperate rationalizations of naked aggression.

Sorry about the long post. Brevity is apparently not my strong point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I didn't say that I thought totalitarianism was better than what we have here. I'm not going to go back to the argument we've already had about whether Iraqis and the Middle East in general even want democracy. Have you heard how they've started killing the Christians in Iraq now? They are going to be such a model society of tolerance and freedom. After the terrorist-vaccuming is over, I mean.

I'm not trashing my country, I'm trashing the administration who works for the interests of coporations using our tax money and soldiers' blood for profit, and the people who stand by and let them do it. So you think anyone who disagrees with the government is "trashing their country"? That's a low blow--sounds a little totalitarian to me, and it makes me think you don't really have a good response to what I am saying, so you resort to insulting my patriotism. Maybe you think I shouldn't have the right to say it at all? So by thinking that the president should have to follow the constitution and not do whatever the hell he wants, and that we shouldn't cause an enormous amount of suffering for no end other than making his friends richer, I am committing some sort of offense? I think they are destroying our country, honestly, and we are going towards fascism, and it's people like you who accuse people who disagree with you of "trashing their country" that will let it happen.

Do you know about NSPD-51, and the plan to suspend the constitution in case of "catastrophic emergency"? What constitutes a catastrophic emergency is conveniently defined by the president. I think people who think we are safe from a coup in this country may get a surprise someday. That's the kind of thing that people who "trash their country" are trying to prevent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

That analogy is so absolutely inaccurate it's ridiculous. So you think that uniting with the Soviets to defeat Hitler from taking over the world is the same as us funding the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe for our pipeline? It's laughable. So, no I don't agree, because you don't know what you are talking about.

I really don't think you have much knowledge of the events leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and what really happened in Afghanistan. If you did, you wouldn't constantly compare it to WWII.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

Let's see...what are all those many reasons you are always talking about that made us choose Iraq as the first place to liberate in our policy of spreading freedom to the masses of the world? Let's see, the first one was our ex-friend Saddam, the next one is...what was that again?

You know, a lot, I'd say the majority, of people don't really think about what is going on in the middle east, and as long as they are not inconvenienced and gas is cheap, they'll go along with anything, and they don't care why we are there. Then there are people who are outraged, and don't want to contribute to never-ending violence and suffering, just so they can drive an SUV. Then there's a small minority of oil executives, other corporate leaders, and politicians getting rich on it, and they are all for it, and are actually the ones telling the lies. But there are very few people who pay attention, and actually accept the lies at face value.

So I'm assuming you are heavily invested in oil. Nothing else could explain your thought processes.

R.D., more brevity. You said this...

Originally Posted by R.D.735

War destroys all three.

The "three" are peace, prosperity, and justice. That is the blanket statement I have been talking about.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I didn't say that I thought totalitarianism was better than what we have here. I'm not going to go back to the argument we've already had about whether Iraqis and the Middle East in general even want democracy. Have you heard how they've started killing the Christians in Iraq now? They are going to be such a model society of tolerance and freedom. After the terrorist-vaccuming is over, I mean.

You equated the spreading of democracy and the spreading of totalitarianism. They are completely different things. One is a form of oppression, and the other is a moral obligation.

Once again... You cannot judge the future of Iraq based on bad things that happen during the transition phase. How many times do I need to say that?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

II'm not trashing my country, I'm trashing the administration who works for the interests of coporations using our tax money and soldiers' blood for profit, and the people who stand by and let them do it. So you think anyone who disagrees with the government is "trashing their country"? That's a low blow--sounds a little totalitarian to me, and it makes me think you don't really have a good response to what I am saying, so you resort to insulting my patriotism. Maybe you think I shouldn't have the right to say it at all? So by thinking that the president should have to follow the constitution and not do whatever the hell he wants, and that we shouldn't cause an enormous amount of suffering for no end other than making his friends richer, I am committing some sort of offense? I think they are destroying our country, honestly, and we are going towards fascism, and it's people like you who accuse people who disagree with you of "trashing their country" that will let it happen.

You trashed our policies of present day and past, and I'm sure you would admit that what you have to say is pretty viciously insulting. You did not just disagree with them. What I said was not meant as an attack on you. It was relevant to the point I was making, a point you did not even address. My point was that you would not have the freedom to insult your government if the Soviets had gotten their way. Do you remember that part of the point? I have no idea where you get the idea I think you should have no right to say it at all. You sound pretty passionate about that matter. Then why do you equate spreading freedom and spreading totalitarianism? Spreading freedom gives people the right to say derogatory things about their governments. Spreading totalitarianism takes it away. You sound like somebody who should despise totalitarianism. I know I do. Why don't you?

Do you think the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should have the right to speak out against their goverments? You sound pretty passionately in favor of that right. You do believe that others should have that right too, don't you? Or do you think only we Americans should have that right? I think the whole world is entitled to it. How about you?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Do you know about NSPD-51, and the plan to suspend the constitution in case of "catastrophic emergency"? What constitutes a catastrophic emergency is conveniently defined by the president. I think people who think we are safe from a coup in this country may get a surprise someday. That's the kind of thing that people who "trash their country" are trying to prevent.

You are really wrapped up in that part of my point instead of the point itself. Why? You know what you said. I trash our government too sometimes. Have you forgotten? It is not the important part of my point. Put your own politically correct terminology in there if it makes you feel better and respond to my actual point.

Suspending the Constitution is someting I consider out of the question. I have issues with a lot of the current administration's domestic policies and ideas.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That analogy is so absolutely inaccurate it's ridiculous. So you think that uniting with the Soviets to defeat Hitler from taking over the world is the same as us funding the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe for our pipeline? It's laughable. So, no I don't agree, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Are you okay? You are acting very hysterical and missing my points by a few miles. Therefore, you have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that sometimes alliances with scum are necessary. You also know I don't agree with your pipleline conspiracy hypothesis, and you know what I think about what I deem Cold War necessities. You need to calm your nerves and try to make sense.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really don't think you have much knowledge of the events leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and what really happened in Afghanistan. If you did, you wouldn't constantly compare it to WWII.

You know that ad hominem is a fallacy, right? Ad hominem is the use of personal insults without the use of relevant debate points. You are going to have to use real debate points to have a real debate.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

ILet's see...what are all those many reasons you are always talking about that made us choose Iraq as the first place to liberate in our policy of spreading freedom to the masses of the world? Let's see, the first one was our ex-friend Saddam, the next one is...what was that again?

Exactly. You don't pay much attention to what I write, yet you are going nuttier and nuttier over it. I have only explained it to you about forty times. Make sure you know what I have said before you start chirping about it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You know, a lot, I'd say the majority, of people don't really think about what is going on in the middle east, and as long as they are not inconvenienced and gas is cheap, they'll go along with anything, and they don't care why we are there. Then there are people who are outraged, and don't want to contribute to never-ending violence and suffering, just so they can drive an SUV. Then there's a small minority of oil executives, other corporate leaders, and politicians getting rich on it, and they are all for it, and are actually the ones telling the lies. But there are very few people who pay attention, and actually accept the lies at face value.

So I'm assuming you are heavily invested in oil. Nothing else could explain your thought processes.

What is happening to you? That is probably the dumbest point you have ever made here. Read at least a few of my hundreds of posts about Iraq, for once, and then maybe you can understand my argument. You just admitted twice in one post that you don't even know what it is. Think about that.

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.

The war against terror should be waged against the George W. Bush and the many "men behind the curtain"