We need a solution!

[system]

@DISCO STU

Often times, Vulcan, their “members” haven’t been illegally detained. They have been rightfully detained, but they want them out anyway. Why should we stop giving weapons to Israel? They fight to keep their land. Palestinians haven’t ever had a country. They are refugees. And not israeli refugees. Most of them are from Iran and Saudi Arabia originally. They just aren’t allowed back in because it gives them an excuse to “fight for their holy land”. I’m glad Israel is tough on them. They basically have targets picked out and when every 5 or so Israelis die, someone gets bombed to ****. If we aren’t proactive, we’re going to have another Hitler or Saddam, or Lenin. “Oh, they aren’t doing anything THAT bad (ie killing their own people, but not many of ours), and it doesn’t affect us yet, so lets just stay out of their way until they really do something bad”. Screw the UN.
Terrorists aren’t fighting for peace. They are fighting for either a) their leaders aspirations of power, or b) their leaders delusion of a “world under Allah”. Michael Moore might tell you otherwise, but he’s a proven manipulator (http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahrenheit.html).
Cheers

I see 2 very recent examples of “members” being illegally detained. Guantanamo (the detention in itself wasn’t illegal as such, the way they were being detained was, however) and any prison in Iraq where men are sent in because. Because what? Because. That’s it. About 80% of the prisonners in Iraqi prisons didn’t commit any kind of crime. Any. It was just prevention, as G.W. (Bush) put it. Put me in jail, you never know, I might commit a crime next year.
About Israel… lol. They fight to keep their land? Whose land? The one they were given by the exact International Organisation you spit upon in 1948? Or the land previously known as Palestine (and mind you, I’m Jewish, so don’t give me the antisemitic bullcrap i’m so used to)? Do you know how many people arrived in Israel AFTER 1948? And do you know where they are from? Sure you do, we all do. They’re from all over the world, that’s diaspora for you. So what’s up with the “refugees” bull****? How many camp survivors came to Israel because they lost everything in Europe? They are refugees too. I’m amazed, really. You do know the matter is much more complicated than just “They’re from Saudi Arabia originally”. Screw that. I do agree though that Palestinians aren’t exactly behaving the way they should, but to think it’s entirely their fault would be so moronic… Israel is not such an angelic nation either (and Sharon is a far worst plague to peace in the Middle East than Arafat).
Now, terrorists, by definition, are not fighting for peace. Or at least, not for your peace. It just depends on what you define as terrorists. To you, they’re terrorists, to others, they’re freedom fighters, it’s just a matter of point of view (and I’m aware we’ve had that discussion before, yes, but people seem to forget…). They could also be fighting for c) independance (Corsica Nazione, or the ETA) or d) their Christian God (IRA) or e) another government whose goals are socially closer to theirs (The FARC fighting against Uribe, an extreme nationalist, for example, but pick any African country, you’ll find armed terrorist militias all over the continent) though it’s close to independance… There are other examples, but those are the mainstream terrorist groups I found in 3 minutes’ thinking. To believe the base of a terrorist unit does not think on their own is foolishly simple. It takes out all human factor out of terrorist actions. They don’t obey blindly, they pursue a higher goal, and it’s often NOT their leader’s aspirations of power (but read Machiavelli on how to put a tyrant in stead of a tyrant)
STOP WITH MICHAEL MOORE, that’s scapegoating (and your site is funky, I’m sure I could apply most of the “rules” in there to any politician’s speech)

@KIRUPA

Also, when terrorists demand land or something, I’m sure the gov’t may have negotiated compromises in those cases. When the demands are something such as death to Americans, death to Israelis, etc., appeasing does not become feasible.
Besides, I don’t miss any sleep from having bombed the taliban and having them out of power. We should have done that a while back, but oh well.
Disco - about the UN comment, the way I see it, GW (Washington) way back then said he didn’t want the US to become a part of any entangling foreign alliances. The UN seems like such an entangling foreign alliance.

Just to tease K, you couldn’t have bombed the talibans a while back, they were too useful in getting rid of Communists…
And as omenic as Washington might have been, he could not have forseen such mondialisation 150 years back, so your comment makes no sense to me (to ME, mind you, others might be drawn into your same conservative misconception of the world… )

@JAVI

If “hell” does exist, how can this be good? Perhaps a placebo effect (because its nonexistant) causing people to have better morals and ethics in fear of burning after life for eternity? Lets see, when was the last time there was peace in the world? Hmmmmm, try never.
I didn’t draw any relation between muslims/islam and terrorism. However, it just so happens that the majority of contemporary terrorists are in some form related to radical forms of religion, and the majority of the majority are beleivers in Islam.
I don’t know, maybe you were high when you wrote your comment.

Or you could have read “hell, even peace” like “oh, even peace, why not push our luck that far”. It’s an interjection, not a choice… lol.
The majority of terrorists are not related to Islam, they’re just the one getting the most attention (which is the goal of any terrorist faction: to get attention)
And I only smoke when I have to vectorize a photography, it helps me concentrate all night long.

@DISCO STU

Radical Islam is only the “foremost” form of terrorism that we have to deal with today. They are the ones that are a threat to us at the moment. The main problem is that they don’t have rational demands, and also, they can willingly die for their cause because they think something better is coming.
These aren’t “Iraqi freedom fighters” or “Minute Men” either, as Michael Moore would have you believe. (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID…23-094344-1804r) There are quite a few foreign fighters, as well as outside terrorist influences taking advantage of Iraqi minds and telling them they need to “fight the oppressor”. Last I checked, we were trying to help out the people by establishing a functional government. What the hell do they want? To be screwed by Saddam again? No. This is not the “Iraqi Population” speaking here. It’s the Islamic militants that polute the minds of kids by making them believe we just want to steal their land. Then, when we give it back, they think our troops need to leave, so that anybody with a militia can just come along and seize power. What are the troops doing that is so bad in Iraq?

Like I said, not the foremost, just the most mediatized. I’ll tell you. North Korea is much more of a threat to the US than Al Qaeda, but your government hasn’t turned its nose towards the far east. You are all getting so brainwashed, it’s amazing… mmh, yeah, just like your parents (and I don’t mean YOU, disco, I mean YOU, Americans) with Communism I guess…
STOP WITH MICHAEL MOORE, scapegoating is bad.
About “fighting the oppressors”, lol, stick your head in geopolitics. If I were a shiite, I’d be pissed to death to see foreign troops attack the nevralgic center of my religion (cf. Nadjaf). Last I checked, you were trying to get your paws on oil, not land as you seem to think (yes, I’m teasing again, I can’t help it, but it all goes down to why you started a war in Iraq when you had a much heavier load of crap on your hands). I’m not in the head of millions of Iraqi, but I’m quite sure many are happy that American troops are in Iraq, just as many others are unhappy that American troops are in Iraq. Again, it’s not the troops that are doing a bad job, it’s the ones pulling the strings BEHIND the troops (ie: the US govt. who is doing a pityful job).
Sorry for the blahblah, back to topic, I guess.

@RussianBeer

I think first of all we must define terrorists, because if we clumb all terrorists of the world together we wont know how to deal with them, we will apply wrong tactics and strategy.

Thats a start…

Oh, no. Don’t bother. Islamists are all terrorists…

[system]

Sweet Jesus monkey balls, here comes one hell of a reply…

I see 2 very recent examples of “members” being illegally detained. Guantanamo (the detention in itself wasn’t illegal as such, the way they were being detained was, however) and any prison in Iraq where men are sent in because. Because what? Because. That’s it. About 80% of the prisonners in Iraqi prisons didn’t commit any kind of crime. Any. It was just prevention, as G.W. (Bush) put it. Put me in jail, you never know, I might commit a crime next year.

Could you get me an article? I haven’t heard about this. (not doubting it, I’m just interested) Also, with Guantanamo, what are we supposed to do? Foreign prisoners don’t have the rights that american citizens do. They also could have valuable national security data. Every other nation in the world is far more harsh on prisoners than we are (with the occasional exception, of course).

About Israel… lol. They fight to keep their land? Whose land? The one they were given by the exact International Organisation you spit upon in 1948?

I dislike the CURRENT UN, yes. They weren’t “given the land” either. Britan was in charge of the area (like tons of other places), and they helped establish funds and houses for people fleeing Hitler. In 1845, there were 12,000 Jews in British-controlled “Palestine”. By 1945, there were 200,000. This is before they were “given” anything. The palestinians weren’t “kicked out” of the area either. The UN planned on dividing the country into Arabs and Israelis, but a league of Arab nations disliked it and tried to exterminate Israel. The UN plan never got off the ground, and it caused a year long war. Around 200,000 Jews moved into the area during this time. Afterwards, around 200,000 palestinians stayed in the new “State of Israel” and the rest moved to refugee camps in neighboring countries (~600,000-800,000) mainly due to dissent with the Israelis. It was a weird situation, but I wouldn’t say it was “given” to them completely. Both cultures have just as good an excuse to take the land: It’s a holy place in both religions.

Israel Or the land previously known as Palestine (and mind you, I’m Jewish, so don’t give me the antisemitic bullcrap i’m so used to)? Do you know how many people arrived in Israel AFTER 1948? And do you know where they are from? Sure you do, we all do. They’re from all over the world, that’s diaspora for you. So what’s up with the “refugees” bull****? How many camp survivors came to Israel because they lost everything in Europe? They are refugees too. I’m amazed, really. You do know the matter is much more complicated than just “They’re from Saudi Arabia originally”.

As I said above, there were around 600,000 to 800,000 that moved to refugee camps. There are now around 8.7 million. So when I said most are from Saudi Arabia and Iran, they are.

Israel is not such an angelic nation either (and Sharon is a far worst plague to peace in the Middle East than Arafat).

Sharon is only a plague to peace because he exists. If Israel didn’t exist, I’m sure it would just be another Arab nation. But Israel IS a country now, and they have a right to defend themselves. Due to propaganda and crap from militant groups, the palastinians don’t want peace (atleast the ones who are fighting). They want to exterminate the infidels and take back their holy land. The general population of Palestinians just wants a place to stay and not get hurt, just like the typical Israeli. I haven’t seen Israeli’s mount attacks on Palastinian dance clubs on purpose. In recent years they have bombed some hospitals and such, but not to blatently kill civilians (minus the disaster in '94 in Qana, Lebanon). It’s to send a message and cripple the attacker.

Now, terrorists, by definition, are not fighting for peace. Or at least, not for your peace. It just depends on what you define as terrorists. To you, they’re terrorists, to others, they’re freedom fighters, it’s just a matter of point of view (and I’m aware we’ve had that discussion before, yes, but people seem to forget…). They could also be fighting for c) independance (Corsica Nazione, or the ETA) or d) their Christian God (IRA) or e) another government whose goals are socially closer to theirs (The FARC fighting against Uribe, an extreme nationalist, for example, but pick any African country, you’ll find armed terrorist militias all over the continent) though it’s close to independance… There are other examples, but those are the mainstream terrorist groups I found in 3 minutes’ thinking. To believe the base of a terrorist unit does not think on their own is foolishly simple. It takes out all human factor out of terrorist actions. They don’t obey blindly, they pursue a higher goal, and it’s often NOT their leader’s aspirations of power (but read Machiavelli on how to put a tyrant in stead of a tyrant)

I never said they don’t think on their own. They are probobly deep in their feelings, and often “right” in their own minds (maybe not the case with the African gang militias). I’m just saying many of them are manipulated to believe what they are doing is right by people who are either delusional, or people who are seeking their own gain. (I’ve read Machiavelli’s work too. Good stuff, for the most part)

STOP WITH MICHAEL MOORE, that’s scapegoating (and your site is funky, I’m sure I could apply most of the “rules” in there to any politician’s speech)

I’m not scapegoating. It’s just that everyone I know bases everything political on Farenheight 9/11 and accepts it as the ten commandments.

Like I said, not the foremost, just the most mediatized. I’ll tell you. North Korea is much more of a threat to the US than Al Qaeda, but your government hasn’t turned its nose towards the far east. You are all getting so brainwashed, it’s amazing… mmh, yeah, just like your parents (and I don’t mean YOU, disco, I mean YOU, Americans) with Communism I guess…

I’d disagree. North Korea knows that they will get owned if they start anything. Al Qaeda is more of a threat because of it’s anonymity and passion. They won’t stop fighting, as long as they pass on their values and remain cell based. As soon as someone gets a hold of a dirty bomb, things are going to get bad. North Korea is brainwashed, but can realize the truth easily. No one likes starving to death there, and they will surrender like the Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm. Dissillusioned soldiers are much easier to fight than people who fight for religious passion.

STOP WITH MICHAEL MOORE, scapegoating is bad.

Sorry, but his stretching and bending the truth is causing an uprising in america that is based on mis-information. (Ironically, that’s what his fans think of people like me). We’re going to elect a leader that has ditched 80% of his senate votes, just because “anyone is better than Bush”.

About “fighting the oppressors”, lol, stick your head in geopolitics. If I were a shiite, I’d be pissed to death to see foreign troops attack the nevralgic center of my religion (cf. Nadjaf).

I’d probobly be more pissed if Saddam painted his face on it, and exterminated 300,000 of his own people in a mass grave.

But yea, I guess foreign fighters trying to kill some guys who have been preventing them from leaving and giving the country back to the people would piss me off a bit… /sarcasm

Last I checked, you were trying to get your paws on oil, not land as you seem to think (yes, I’m teasing again, I can’t help it, but it all goes down to why you started a war in Iraq when you had a much heavier load of crap on your hands). I’m not in the head of millions of Iraqi, but I’m quite sure many are happy that American troops are in Iraq, just as many others are unhappy that American troops are in Iraq. Again, it’s not the troops that are doing a bad job, it’s the ones pulling the strings BEHIND the troops (ie: the US govt. who is doing a pityful job).

Again, whoever thinks we went into Iraq for oil needs to check out exactly how much oil is acquired in Iraq. Not a ton. Nothing close to Saudi Arabia. Why wouldn’t we wipe THEM out? Hell, we’d have a better reason. A couple terrorists came from that country, and they harbor them occasionally. But wait, Bush is in bed with them right? He let Osama’s family go back there! Hold on, this just in! John Clarke confirmed that he made that decision alone, and never even briefed the president about it until the next day.

I’m just saying, the war wasn’t about oil. If you can find cold hard facts about Bush or anyone benefiting in a significant way from Iraqi oil, please tell me.

Pomme, I don’t dislike you in any way either. I just disagree.

[system]

In recent years they have bombed some hospitals and such, but not to blatently kill civilians. It’s to send a message and cripple the attacker.

Thats a fine bit of doublethink that you employ there… Is that a form of justified terrorism?? Is terrorism okay, when its done to send a message?? I’m confused, maybe you can tell me which forms of murder are acceptable, and which ones are bad…

[system]

If terrorists aren’t fighting for peace or what they think needs to be done, they are fighting for something. Look at the Taliban or many of the current terrorist groups in Iraq. If the Taliban wasn’t plotting the demise of US embassies, boats, buildings, etc. they were out there killing their own women in public executions, having tribal warfare, etc. Several of the top militant groups in Iraq, while fighting the US now, fought Saddam earlier.

If the terrorists had a noble cause besides fighting for something that they were told to believe in, the Middle East would not be in the situation it is now. With the exception of a few countries, most of the ME is socioeconomically backward and controlled by fundamentalists intent on using violence and religion to increase their power at the expense of other, normal people.

Yes - I am focusing on the Middle East for that is where most of the world’s focus is on right now. And yes, I also think the UN has gone off track and needs to be reformed or made obsolete. The UN has systematically failed to bring peace in a timely fashion to those who need it, and I’m looking at the Sudan crisis for an example of that.

EDIT: If a mosque happens to be housing terrorists or somehow “miraculously” lobs a warhead out of its ornately shaped windows, it is no longer a sacred building

:ninja:

[system]

Justification is in the eyes of the beholder. How do you justify a guy who kills himself on a bus that kills 40 of your citizens? You know someone sent him, but you can’t exactly get him back for it or anything. I’m not saying Israel is right, but the Palestinians aren’t either. What are you supposed to do?

Edit: Well said Kirupa! (and Pomme… I just disagree)

[system]

What are you supposed to do?

I think we should arm both sides (not just one), let them eradicate eachother, and then count the profit we made from perpetuating their conflict… (its fool-proof)

[system]

Besides, I don’t miss any sleep from having bombed the taliban and having them out of power. We should have done that a while back, but oh well.
Perhaps it would have been better to not train them and supply them weapons in the first place, but oh well.

Why should we stop giving weapons to Israel?
Well I read that the Russians are pissed at the US for buying pirated AK47’s for half the price, so they can’t even supply weapons the right way.

Perhaps if the US stayed out of things and just let them kill each other the US wouldn’t have to worry about terrorists.

Plenty of countries have gone through their own wars and revolutions, even the US fought itself. Perhaps it’s better to let themselves sought it out instead of butting in.

But then when there is a profit to be made, one way or another people are going to want in on it.

I think that perhaps we should also consider that these are hot dry arid regions. The NT Northern Territory in Australia is the hottest driest part of our country, and has the highest suicide nut case ratio. Perhaps it’s just all the heat frying their brains !

we were trying to help out the people by establishing a functional government. What the hell do they want? To be screwed by Saddam again?
They had a functioning government, perhaps we didn’t like it, and perhaps they didn’t like it. But perhaps it was for them to have a revolution to change things without outside interference. Who are we to decide what’s better for them? But then the only reason we are there is to put a government in control, that we control, so that we can get the oil.

[system]

Perhaps if the US stayed out of things and just let them kill each other the US wouldn’t have to worry about terrorists.

Plenty of countries have gone through their own wars and revolutions, even the US fought itself. Perhaps it’s better to let themselves sought it out instead of butting in.

But then when there is a profit to be made, one way or another people are going to want in on it.

But then the only reason we are there is to put a government in control, that we control, so that we can get the oil.

DING DING DING DING DING, we have a winner!! 100% agreed…

[system]

Countries are allowed to have screwed up gov’ts, but when they start funding terrorist groups that have the potential to attack us, they better be prepared. Afghanistan and to a lesser degree Iraq, should not be surprised that they were attacked.

Vulcan - true, but you could consider that a form of appeasement

If we let people kill each other and not do anything about it, that would make us just as selfish as those who are doing the killing. Being a superpower comes with responsibilities. If the US did not do anything, then there will be threads in here blaming the US for not doing anything about the killing in X country here.

Also, I think we let the Taliban go around killing people for about 12 years without doing anything about it. That didn’t work well.

[system]

How do you justify a guy who kills himself on a bus that kills 40 of your citizens? You know someone sent him, but you can’t exactly get him back for it or anything.

Kill his family and friends, perhaps he values their lives more than his own. It’s one thing to go on the bus to kill yourself to hurt your enemy.
It’s another thing to do it when you know they will kill everyone you know for doing it.

Nothing wrong with and eye for an eye in my book…

[system]

@The_Vulcan

Kill his family and friends, perhaps he values their lives more than his own. It’s one thing to go on the bus to kill yourself to hurt your enemy.
It’s another thing to do it when you know they will kill everyone you know for doing it.

Nothing wrong with and eye for an eye in my book…

If the guy acted alone, fine. What if he was just a drop in a bucket full of many others willing to do the same thing funded by a well-organized terrorist group? Would it not be better to go after the main terrorist group’s leaders instead?

That is what Israel has done. They’ve pretty much gotten headshots (UT term!) on each of the Hamas leaders as they’ve spawned.

:hugegrin:

[system]

Oh man… here it goes again. Isolationist policy DOESN’T WORK. Please refer to the last 1000 years of history to learn this. By assisting countries, we work in our own national interests. We acquire allies, who will in turn help us out. If we let Israel go, it’s not going to be some “even war”. The Islamic countries are going to fund the Palestinians, and turn the tides. In 1948, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq all fought against Israel. They fought them off with the help of the British and French. The US actually STOPPED Israel from taking over Egypt in 1956. Then they started providing aid.

Well I read that the Russians are pissed at the US for buying pirated AK47’s for half the price, so they can’t even supply weapons the right way.

… I shouldn’t even going to say anything. Where do you think the palastinians are getting their guns? They’ve got the Turkish AK-47 knock-offs too.

They had a functioning government, perhaps we didn’t like it, and perhaps they didn’t like it. But perhaps it was for them to have a revolution to change things without outside interference. Who are we to decide what’s better for them? But then the only reason we are there is to put a government in control, that we control, so that we can get the oil.

It’s hard to have a regime change when your government isn’t set up to be run by the people (like here). If there was any mention of insurgency, you and probobly your whole family was executed by Saddam. I don’t think that leaves much room for “revolution”.

I’ll quote myself:

Again, whoever thinks we went into Iraq for oil needs to check out exactly how much oil is acquired in Iraq. Not a ton. Nothing close to Saudi Arabia. Why wouldn’t we wipe THEM out? Hell, we’d have a better reason. A couple terrorists came from that country, and they harbor them occasionally. But wait, Bush is in bed with them right? He let Osama’s family go back there! Hold on, this just in! John Clarke confirmed that he made that decision alone, and never even briefed the president about it until the next day.

I’m just saying, the war wasn’t about oil. If you can find cold hard facts about Bush or anyone benefiting in a significant way from Iraqi oil, please tell me.

Thats what I think about this “blood for oil” crap.

Kill his family and friends, perhaps he values their lives more than his own. It’s one thing to go on the bus to kill yourself to hurt your enemy.
It’s another thing to do it when you know they will kill everyone you know for doing it.

Nothing wrong with and eye for an eye in my book…

Soooo… what if an attacker blew himself up fighting for X country, and killed your entire family on a bus. Later, one of your best friends from high school is killed in another bombing a couple weeks later. You think killing the father of the man that killed himself will do anything? Then his brother kills you a week later for killing the father. There is a reason we don’t have “eye for an eye” laws anymore. Each party can be justified in their own right. But none of it is fair.

Even if there was the “we are going to kill your family if you attack us” thing going on, that doesn’t matter. In radical Islam, if you die for your religion, you pretty much get “hooked up” in heaven. And if you aren’t Islamic, you might as well be dead anyway. They don’t care about their families because they think they are going to heaven too. Why should you be executed for something your brother did?

[system]

Countries are allowed to have screwed up gov’ts, but when they start funding terrorist groups that have the potential to attack us, they better be prepared. Afghanistan and to a lesser degree Iraq, should not be surprised that they were attacked.
Afghanistan was for Bin right ? Well he got his money from Sudia Arabia, shouldn’t we be bombing them an seizing their bank accounts ?

Oh wait that’s right, the Bin family are bum chums with Bush and own a chunk of the US.

After watching Moore’s film, I no longer think that the US will get Bin, I think his freedom has been bought.
I mean seriously…. They knew where he was a few times, claimed special forces just missed him. My arse !
I haven’t heard a single thing about Bin being hunted since the war started.
I mean when they closed down the US after 9/11, but let all the Bin family leave. Do you really think the US is going to kill one of their family. If his own family didn’t like Bin he wouldn’t be given money. They have known for years what he is like, they could have tried to stop him if they wanted, but they don’t care if he attacks the US.

If we let people kill each other and not do anything about it, that would make us just as selfish as those who are doing the killing.
I don’t think so…… Sure I would rather no one died, but unless these countries have their wars to the end, there will never be a end and the killings will just go on. Going in and picking sides only makes things worse in the long run because the matter was never settled.

Being a superpower comes with responsibilities. If the US did not do anything, then there will be threads in here blaming the US for not doing anything about the killing in X country here.
I think that this is a bit of brain washing…… The US is not responsible for what other countries do. The US has no right to interfere with what other countries do.
Believing that as a Super power the US must intervene in other countries affairs is just brain washing your government has done to justify their actions.

Rather than giving crap about how we must intervene because we are so all and mighty and powerful. How about just using the truth.

We are so all mighty and powerful, we want your oil and there is nothing you can do about it, give it to us or we will flatten you.

But how does the US do it ?

You need our help, you may not know it, you may not want it, but we are going to help you anyway. But incase that’s not a good enough reason we will pretend to look for WMD that we know you don’t have.

First we will come in with our army and flatten your country…. Then we will stick around to rebuild it, making billions for our companies. We will put men we can control in power, so that we can have easy access to your oil recourses.

We don’t want to do this, but it is our responsibility as a superpower.

Also, I think we let the Taliban go around killing people for about 12 years without doing anything about it. That didn’t work well.

No it did work well, for 12 years the Taliban killed who the US didn’t like. Just as Saddam killed other dictators the US didn’t like with weapons and plains for chemical weapons that the US provided.

Lets not forget that the US put these men into power, trained them and provided them with weapons.

[system]

No harsh feelings DiscoMan, I’d hate it if everyone thought like me, I couldn’t be able to argue anymore…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15492-2004May10.html , but the Washington Post is known to be left-lenient…
About Guantanamo, I thought the subject was closed, but hey… There’s something called the Geneva Convention (I’m sure you’ve heard of it, you’re far from being stupid, or un-informed - misinformed, maybe, uninformed, I don’t think so…) that the US of A has signed and agreed to comply on. The prisonners there are war prisonners, and as such deserve the treatment (and rights) granted to them in the above-mentionned Geneva Convention. Those rights were not given to them, and the treatment poorly applied, on the basis that they were not war prisonners, but terrorists. The US govt since backed down on that and actually has started to give them international law-biding prisoners’ life.
And I count very few countries that have foreign war prisoners on their grounds, so that “war prisoners are treated better than in most part of the world”-statement is false…

About Israel, it deserves a thread on its own… This is just not the place, and I still don’t agree. heh.

The next few paragraphs, up to Michael Moore, just stop using him as a counter excuse not to look into your faults, and pro-Moore will also start looking for better excuses… But hey, I don’t give a ****, I have my own opinions, I don’t need a fat film’s director to back me up… (and yeah, imo, anyone is better than W. Bush, even Jack in the Box)

About N.Korea. They recently displayed to the world a missile capable of going from North Korea all the way to New-York (and if it can go that way, it can also reach LA from the pacific ocean) and they also have nuclear capabilities. Mix the 2… How do you mess with a nation capable of launching a nuclear attack that’ll make 9-11 seem like a mosquito bite?

About Iraqi oil, read again. I said I was teasing. Though in 5 years from now, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the US benefited from most of Iraqi oil… but I’m no seer.

[system]

If the guy acted alone, fine. What if he was just a drop in a bucket full of many others willing to do the same thing funded by a well-organized terrorist group? Would it not be better to go after the main terrorist group’s leaders instead?

I always believe that killing those at the top should be done first. If I was to attack the US, it wouldn’t be the pentagon, or military bases I would go after first. It would be the white house.
But even if you kill their leaders, one of them will just step up so you really have to get them all.

You think killing the father of the man that killed himself will do anything? Then his brother kills you a week later for killing the father. There is a reason we don’t have “eye for an eye” laws anymore.

Hence why I said you kill his family and friends…… You don’t leave anyone behind that cares.

Why should you be executed for something your brother did?

Tough luck…… The thought that your bother will be killed for something you did should deter you.
The fact that if your bother does commit a terrorist act, you will be killed for it should be enough for you to stop him, or tell someone who can.

[system]

you don’t kill innocents because of the guilty brother. That’s not democratic, that’s ruthless, insane and lawless. We might as well stone women and dress them in burkas…

See Vulcan, that’s the exact extension that radicals use.

“Some Americans seek power and won’t let the others play the game, some Americans are greedy and keep all the money to themselves and they get fat and ugly. Let’s kill all the Americans.”

• But, daddy, some Americans are poor, just want to have a garden, a kid on a bike and a dog, they’re skinny and don’t eat much. Actually, MOST Americans just want that.
• Ha. But they’ll be killed for something their fellow Americans did. That should deter them all from being greedy. LET’S KILL THEEEEEEM AAAAAALL!

Rad!

[system]

How do you mess with a nation capable of launching a nuclear attack that’ll make 9-11 seem like a mosquito bite?

Make sure you have a working missile defense system in operation. Attack them while they only have a few.

The US has a number of options it can use to stop a missile attack. Especially if they know it’s coming.

Thing is, if Korea did launch a nuke at the US more than likely none would get through. Even if they did, the US wouldn’t launch nukes back, it would wipe Korea of the face of the Earth. The US would go in and take control of the country using conventional weapons.

And I don’t care if a country wan’ts to make nukes it’s their rigth to.

[system]

you don’t kill innocents because of the guilty brother.

I am not for it… It’s very wrong… You would have to be insane to think otherwise…

I am just saying things that would have to be done to have a impact on them.

[system]

here’s the bottom line:
you can NEVER stop terrorism
EVER.

think about it…if your government is overtaken by communists, its like Germany during the two World Wars, if you speak out against the government, you’re dead
period. no questions asked, just a bullet through your head
(thank god the communists are out of Germany)
same thing with Russia during that horrible period of time

if America is overtaken by communits, or ANYONE, if you have a violent act against the government, you’re a terrorist.
in the colonial age, Americans were terrorists
we actually dumped British goods into the Massachusettes Bay…:thumb:

but seriously, anyone with an opinion that doesn’t go with what the majority says can be called a terrorist

if every terrorist is sent off to the moon (EVERY ONE), then it will only be a matter of time before someone on Earth becomes a terrorist

[system]

And the US will not invade Saudi Arabia because this is a case where a lot of the powerful Saudi leadership is not hostile to the US. I would be worried if nothing were being done, but the US and Saudis do arrest individual terrorist groups within Saudi Arabia all the time. It may not be as quickly as I like, but they are allies. That’s like invading France because we found a few terrorist cells in Paris, and yes we do a lot of trade with the French also. We would never do that…we love you guys

I disagree with you on killing someone because of their brother/family may have been a part of it. Blatantly (as in not accidental) killing someone who is probably innocent is wrong in my view. If the US or any nation did that, I would not support it.

Prit covered nicely a large part of what I was about to say. Appeasement simply will not work. Very rarely will you have a mass murder/violence that does not overflow to the shores of the US or another nation. This isn’t an isolationist world. The US is a part of Nato, UN, etc. where they and other countries are obligated for each others’ defense. Also, Saddam is a smart guy. The very classic political theories that a few of you mention, I wouldn’t be surprised if he read those himself. I am certain that he knows how to prevent people from overthrowing him, for I wouldn’t be surprised if he understood or looked into why other dictatorships failed.

Also, I think you are wrong in saying that the US knew there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to actually going there. You have British MI6, the CIA, Russian Intel, and other sources saying that Saddam had WMDs. Putin went on the record and said the same thing a few months ago. The UN weapons inspectors said that they were denied access to interview key scientists. There was plenty of evidence. Now that evidence seems to have been faulty, and if you look through any of the credible reports that came from the various investigations in Britain or the US, you’ll see that the gov’ts of either the US or UK did not force themselves to a war without any reason. There are much cheaper ways for either countries to spend billions besides having a war.

Now, was the Iraq war mismanaged? In my view, yes.

I wouldn’t doubt our capture of Bin Laden. People said the exact same thing about catching Saddam, Uday, and Qusay. We caught the first one and killed the last two. Those hellfire drones are up there for a reason…if anything, just so I could mention them in this sentence!

Also, the washingtonpost is a great site for news.

:beam: