Thoughts on terrorism

R

RedvsBlue

CAGiversary!
After seeing the video that ABC news has been playing I just have to ask why? I suppose this is more of an observation of terrorism in general rather than this case in particular but why do they kill innocent people that have nothing to do with government policy? It seems pretty counterproductive to me actually. They will never get people to be sympathetic to their cause by killing their friends and family. All they will do is harden those people and make them fight against it even harder.

Some people will say that the reason the terrorists are killing us is because we are killing them in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The only problem with that is that our justifcation behind that is because they attacked us. Its a vicious circle that keeps going around. Besides, if the terrorists are killing innocents as a retribution for their innocent's deaths, doesn't that make them no better than us, and therefore their message is also lost as well.

Which side is right or wrong is not what I'm getting at here, but rather if both sides keep pointing fingers and killing then it will never end.
 
While people have unlimited potential, and contain greatness within them, they are still some of the most vile, wretched beings in existance.
Humanity itself is a study in contradictions.
 
I forget the origin of the quote, but it goes like

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Remember, these people who not consider themselves terrorists. They consider themselves freedom fighter with very limited resources. Recognizing that their opponent has nearly unlimited resources to protect vital targets in comparison, they have to select targets that will not be as heavily fortified -- yet still have their message be heard by making sure the targets chosen have meaning to the opponent.

Thus the reason people are being killed who have nothing to do with government policy is because they are the only targets the self-proclaimed freedom fighters can reach given their limited resources to make a maximum impact with their political statement.

I'm not trying to justify it or say it's OK by explaining it away, but it helps to understand that there is more than one side to what's going on when looking for resolution.
 
why do they kill innocent people that have nothing to do with government policy?
Click to expand...
Fear, intimidation. They want to scare people into not associating or helping Westerners and its working. They want to scare people away. They want everyone to be afraid, because if they'll kill this person or that person, then you or anyone could be next.

When we first went into Baghdad, a woman was happy and waved a white flag as they passed though, the image was on TV a lot and most people saw it. She was later hanged. Look at how effective that was.

Terrorism and preying on the innocent is wrong, but you can't deny that its effective.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Iraq never attacked us, yet we have killed 100,000+ of their civilians, half of which are women and children.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

If you don't understand why many in the world hate the US, you don't read enough newspapers, the same problem Bush suffers from.[/quote]

I never said I don't understand why people hate the US. I do understand, fully. Just saying that though almost legitimizes their killing of innocents. Is it really Bob's (any person that used to work in the World Trade Center) fault that America has exploited the middle east for their oil? The biggest problem I have is, why attack innocents?

Minx-You say innocents are the only targets available. My rebuttal to that is, why did they fly the planes into the towers (filled with civilians that do not set government policy) and not into more targets in Washington, where most US policy comes from. I don't have an answer aside from the fact that their hatred of America's actions is as blind as our attacking of Iraq.

Basically what I was trying to articulate is that by killing innocent civilians in retaliation for America's crimes makes the terrorists's message one of hypocrisy.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Iraq never attacked us, yet we have killed 100,000+ of their civilians, half of which are women and children.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

If you don't understand why many in the world hate the US, you don't read enough newspapers, the same problem Bush suffers from.[/quote]

A big reason this is the case is that the cowards don't play by any rules. They stockpile weapons in schools and base their Head quarters in residential areas. So what a big surprise that innocent people get killed. IMO we should have just stayed out of there because its a no win situation. We should have known that if the people were not motivated to overthrow a leader with golden toilet seats while they starved to death that there was nothing we could do for them. I wish I would have kept my disc of pictures I took in the royal palaces during my stay in that waste land this summer. It would make you sick to see all of the excesses that Saddam had while people in his country suffered. Sorry to rant but that whole situation over there just irritates me.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Iraq never attacked us, yet we have killed 100,000+ of their civilians, half of which are women and children.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

If you don't understand why many in the world hate the US, you don't read enough newspapers, the same problem Bush suffers from.[/quote]

I never said I don't understand why people hate the US. I do understand, fully. Just saying that though almost legitimizes their killing of innocents. Is it really Bob's (any person that used to work in the World Trade Center) fault that America has exploited the middle east for their oil? The biggest problem I have is, why attack innocents?

Minx-You say innocents are the only targets available. My rebuttal to that is, why did they fly the planes into the towers (filled with civilians that do not set government policy) and not into more targets in Washington, where most US policy comes from. I don't have an answer aside from the fact that their hatred of America's actions is as blind as our attacking of Iraq.

Basically what I was trying to articulate is that by killing innocent civilians in retaliation for America's crimes makes the terrorists's message one of hypocrisy.[/quote]

No one ever said they weren't hypocritical but they believe that the end will justify the means.

According to reports, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania may originally been aimed for the White House or Congress. The WTC made a tempting target because it was a center and symbol of the economic strength of the US.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Iraq never attacked us, yet we have killed 100,000+ of their civilians, half of which are women and children.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

If you don't understand why many in the world hate the US, you don't read enough newspapers, the same problem Bush suffers from.[/quote]

I never said I don't understand why people hate the US. I do understand, fully. Just saying that though almost legitimizes their killing of innocents. Is it really Bob's (any person that used to work in the World Trade Center) fault that America has exploited the middle east for their oil? The biggest problem I have is, why attack innocents?

Minx-You say innocents are the only targets available. My rebuttal to that is, why did they fly the planes into the towers (filled with civilians that do not set government policy) and not into more targets in Washington, where most US policy comes from. I don't have an answer aside from the fact that their hatred of America's actions is as blind as our attacking of Iraq.

Basically what I was trying to articulate is that by killing innocent civilians in retaliation for America's crimes makes the terrorists's message one of hypocrisy.[/quote]

Ok and another issue that irks me. You are aware the Pentagon got hit right? The death count wasn't as high but it was still significant. But the families that lost loved ones in that got reimbursed a pittance in comparison to the WTC families. I bet if you polled america about a third of the people if not more would not know about the pentagon.
 
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Iraq never attacked us, yet we have killed 100,000+ of their civilians, half of which are women and children.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

If you don't understand why many in the world hate the US, you don't read enough newspapers, the same problem Bush suffers from.[/quote]

I never said I don't understand why people hate the US. I do understand, fully. Just saying that though almost legitimizes their killing of innocents. Is it really Bob's (any person that used to work in the World Trade Center) fault that America has exploited the middle east for their oil? The biggest problem I have is, why attack innocents?

Minx-You say innocents are the only targets available. My rebuttal to that is, why did they fly the planes into the towers (filled with civilians that do not set government policy) and not into more targets in Washington, where most US policy comes from. I don't have an answer aside from the fact that their hatred of America's actions is as blind as our attacking of Iraq.

Basically what I was trying to articulate is that by killing innocent civilians in retaliation for America's crimes makes the terrorists's message one of hypocrisy.[/quote]

Ok and another issue that irks me. You are aware the Pentagon got hit right? The death count wasn't as high but it was still significant. But the families that lost loved ones in that got reimbursed a pittance in comparison to the WTC families. I bet if you polled america about a third of the people if not more would not know about the pentagon.[/quote]

I'm not trying to forget the losses at the Pentagon. The difference being that most of the people in the Pentagon were members of the armed services. They took an oath to protect America, with their life if necessary. I want this to be perfectly clear, no one should have died on 9/11, military or otherwise. Further, the deaths of the military officials are just as tragic.
 
And while people enjoy pointing the finger at Bush if Clinton would have taken the proper actions after Khobar Towers 9/11 would have never happened. But I guess a few service members isn't enough of a loss to start a war on terror. http://www.paperlessarchives.com/binladen.html

If Clinton had made more of an effort to get Bin Laden after this things would be a lot different now. Some how no one ever talks about that. This is a main reason why I never want a Dem President again
 
[quote name='jlarlee']And while people enjoy pointing the finger at Bush if Clinton would have taken the proper actions after Khobar Towers 9/11 would have never happened. But I guess a few service members isn't enough of a loss to start a war on terror. http://www.paperlessarchives.com/binladen.html

If Clinton had made more of an effort to get Bin Laden after this things would be a lot different now. Some how no one ever talks about that. This is a main reason why I never want a Dem President again[/quote]

That's a rational response. :roll:

Clinton did try to get bin Laden on several occassions. Could he have done more - probably but no one expected an attack on the scale of 9/11.

Also, it never helped that Clinton was constantly distracted by frivilous lawsuits filed by partisan hacks who only wanted to drag his name through the mud. Most of his second term was devoted to fighting off impeachment over a blowjob. Not saying that Clinton didn't hurt himself too, but conservatives made way more out of that than was necessary.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][ The difference being that most of the people in the Pentagon were members of the armed services. They took an oath to protect America, with their life if necessary..[/quote]

My friend Carol worked at the Pentagon and she sure as hell wasn't military -- not even close. Neither were many of her co-workers from what she told us. A lot of office workers and civilian contractors and just plain old services type people in addition to the military types. Yeah, you need a security clearance check to get a job, but that doesn't necessarily mean your military.

I lost touch with her after I first injured my hands and wasn't online for a long time. I don't know if she was there or not when everything went down. I hope not.

But I do know if she was there, it had nothing to do with an oath to die, which I assure you she didn't take and would never consider such a thing. She was just working there like anyone else who works wherever trying to support her family {single mom who had just moved in with our friend Jim around the time I lost touch}.

I just LOVE the way people suddenly become dehumanized just because they work for the government :whistle2:(
 
Yes it could be said that Clinton should have tried harder to kill Bin Laden. I'm not a huge fan of Clinton but I don't think it would have made a difference. Here's why: Its already been pretty publicized that 9/11 wasn't Bin Laden's original idea, he merely shaped it into a feasable plan. Had we killed Bin Laden, another person would have stepped up to take leadership (that's the what makes terrorism so hard to disrupt, there's always a second in command ready to take leadership) and they would have been the person in charge when the plan was brought up.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='jlarlee']And while people enjoy pointing the finger at Bush if Clinton would have taken the proper actions after Khobar Towers 9/11 would have never happened. But I guess a few service members isn't enough of a loss to start a war on terror. http://www.paperlessarchives.com/binladen.html

If Clinton had made more of an effort to get Bin Laden after this things would be a lot different now. Some how no one ever talks about that. This is a main reason why I never want a Dem President again[/quote]

That's a rational response. :roll:

Clinton did try to get bin Laden on several occassions. Could he have done more - probably but no one expected an attack on the scale of 9/11.

Also, it never helped that Clinton was constantly distracted by frivilous lawsuits filed by partisan hacks who only wanted to drag his name through the mud. Most of his second term was devoted to fighting off impeachment over a blowjob. Not saying that Clinton didn't hurt himself too, but conservatives made way more out of that than was necessary.[/quote]

If he would have behaved like a decent citizen instead of using his status to get a BJ he would not have had that problem. Granted we over reacted to the situation and way too much was made of it. But he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by being honest. He can't use that as an excuse for the mess in Bosinia though that was all him
 
[quote name='jlarlee']If he would have behaved like a decent citizen instead of using his status to get a BJ he would not have had that problem. Granted we over reacted to the situation and way too much was made of it. But he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by being honest. He can't use that as an excuse for the mess in Bosinia though that was all him[/quote]

If you're going to wait for a "decent citizen" in politics (especially a Republican), you may want to get comfortable. It could be a long wait because they are few and far between.
 
I may be exremist in this but I think we should abolish political parties. They do more harm than good in my opinion. Way too many politicians vote the party line instead of what they believe. I think even Washington once said it would be the downfall of our nation one day.
 
"The death toll from this season’s monsoon rains across South Asia passed 2,000 as authorities in India reported today that 39 bodies were found floating in receding floodwaters and four children were killed when a house collapsed"
- August 9, 2004, Columbia Daily Tribune

"Dec. 26, 2003 Bam, Iran: magnitude 6.6 earthquake devastated the ancient historic city of Bam in southeast Iran, killed more than 30,000 people"
- www.InfoPlease.com

"Last month the World Health Organisation estimated 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict's beginning, mostly by starvation.
This month, however, its head gave an estimate of 70,000 deaths by starvation and disease alone."
- October 27, Belfast Telegraph Digital

The world is an unsafe place. I believe that America learned this on September 11. Though I still think America is blind to the daily struggles of other countries affected by our decisions.

Over 2000 people lost their lives in the New York and Washington DC September 11 terrorist attacks 4 years ago. The US responded by launching an all out attack on the perpetrators of this tragedy and the country that they lived in.

However the US also railroaded through the Patriot Bill, eroding many freedoms which are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, had it's leader declare a Crusade on Muslims 3 times, and undertook an effort to eliminate a dictator and then build a democracy in a hostile country land-locked by enemy states (excluding Saudi Arabia) under the pretext of missing nuclear arms that were never found.

We lost alot of life and our feeling of security on September 11. We lost many soldiers when we retaliated for this act of war. After that point, however, I feel we lost a part of what has made America great for 300 years.
 
If Clinton had made more of an effort to get Bin Laden after this things would be a lot different now. Some how no one ever talks about that. This is a main reason why I never want a Dem President again
Click to expand...
Clinton was closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush has ever been.

Maybe if the Republicans weren't crying Wag the Dog while Clinton was bombing terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, we'd be better off. Its Clinton's fault that he was weak enough politically to bow to Republican pressure to stop, but it was the Republicans who accused him of using it to distract the country from himself.
 
[quote name='camoor']After that point, however, I feel we lost a part of what has made America great for 300 years.[/quote]

Including math skills?
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='camoor']After that point, however, I feel we lost a part of what has made America great for 300 years.[/quote]

Including math skills?[/quote]

Approx 228 years. You got me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top