Fahrenheit 9/11 : Did you see it and if you did what do you think about it ?
- Thread starter limerickman
- Start date
Beastt said:
This statement also has me wondering. If you are a theological person then murder and suicide would be immoral and if you are an anthiest then the present and self awareness through thought is all you have and suicide would be illogical and have little purpose
. I don't believe I could ever derive any logic from such an action.I would be interested to hear one though.
If one does not understand why the terrorists or anybody does anything bad, how can you figure out how to prevent it? It's easy enough to say the people who committed the acts of terror on 9/11 did so because they hate America. The hard part is finding out why. Could it be the military base in Saudi Arabia? Maybe it's the funding/support of dictators that oppressed people in Muslim countries. Maybe it's because the US tried to provide humanitarian aid to their governments, and they see this as America trying to take over the world. Or maybe they just don't like McDonald's food. Until you figure out the fundamental reasons that caused a terrorist attack, you can't really combat it.
Good luckjhuskey said:This statement also has me wondering. If you are a theological person then murder and suicide would be immoral and if you are an anthiest then the present and self awareness through thought is all you have and suicide would be illogical and have little purpose
I would be interested to hear one though.
I think Zapper has a selective memory. If someone id's themselves as not being in the 3G ( Republican[God,guns & gays]) party he labels them a democrat. Hey Zapper there are more than two parties out there, genius !!! He must think that anyone who is'nt pigeonholed into the "one size fits all" repub. or democrat party can't think for themselves. I'm tired of having to go back over previous post's to point this out to him. I will accept the fact that he just won't ever "get it". I can see why he has to have the repub. party do his thinking for him. Did you notice i did'nt refer to him as pal, buddy or any other infantile name that he excessively uses on others.Beastt said:Hmmm....
You'll be comforted to know that i can't think of anything positive to say about Republican Inc. either. Why does that suprise you ? It reminds me of when Bush was asked about one of his worst mistakes to date, & he stood there for @ a minute & said " you caught me off-guard, i can't think of anything."-read as-Karl Rove did'nt go over this w/ me. As far as finding some of your-as you say "funny qoutes", i call them "insulting & sophmoric (you might need to look that one up if you have a dictionary & know how to use it)" & they detract from whatever argument you are trying to make. But, I digress, i'm growing tired of instructing you in debating tactics. Might as well let your invectives fly & cloud the issue's because you can't argue the facts !!!zapper said:Beastt, thanks for the laugh... This is truly funny work on your part and time consuming too. I'm glad you took the time to dig these up. However, I find these remarks to be completely civilized compared to some of the **** that is being said on the streets of New York by your constituents. So, I’m sorry you are still confused. Oh and I still don't believe your little story.
What I am most puzzled by is when asked to supply just one shred of evidence that you are your own party…just One miniscule post saying something positive about the Republican party and you can't deliver. But you have time to glean through my posts and find some of my funny quotes? I...We can only come to the conclusion that you are simply a Liberal Democrat in denial. You are ashamed of your party and you hide behind this facade of being of no particular party. Like your constituents, you don’t take ownership or condemn the horrible behavior of you protestors, you instead try to play the poor little innocent. Yes, instead of commenting with separate point of view from a no particular party perspective, you go an snip my words and try to make your feeble point. How sad you continue to be ashamed of your party. Your story could be believable if....all your post didn't mirror the democratic position
After reading through this raging debate, I see two primary camps: the "destroy-by-all-means" group and the "we-need-to-understand" group. Here are my thoughts:
Most military officers and government officials acknowledge that in order to win this war on terror, we must destroy the enemy in detail. Completely & totally. This would also include any and all potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. (Reason being that when you kill thousands of terrorists, another 2000 from the potential/sympathizer pool take their place and even more formally undecided people then join the ranks of the potential/sympathizer pool.) Someone was correct earlier when he said suggested that the culture in the Middle East feeds on any sign of weakness. That's the way it's been in that part of the world for thousands of years. Strength is power. Perhaps nuking Fallujah and Najaf would've demonstrated enough strength and power to the rank & file terrorist for them to capitulate. Of course, politically it would be unacceptable and the potential/sympathizer pools would probably swell, but probably not be willing to act in the face of the demonstrated power. But the feelings and ideas behind the insurgency would still be there, simmering underneath, and ultimately the war on terror will again reach a boiling point at some future time. We will not have won the war.
So how can we win? As I said alluded to earlier, the feelings and ideas held by the terrorists & their sympathizers are key. Military leaders know that to destroy the enemy (or destroy their will to fight), they need to understand the enemy. If they can undermine their will to fight, the war can be brought to a successful conclusion. It used to take superior firepower, but that's not the case here. For example, if the terrorists are driving their supporters through their devotion to their religion, then if we can convince those supporters that the terrorists are manipulating their religious beliefs to the point where they are being contrary, then the devoted will lose confidence in the terrorists. The lies must be exposed. We (the Coalition) cannot do this with any credibility, which is why we need Iraqi/Muslim allies. (This, by the way, is why I cringe every time our administration proclaims that "God is on our side." We simply give the terrorist leaders more to work with.) Parts of the Special Forces, diplomatic enoys, and non-government organizations continue to try to win the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people to achieve this goal. We must understand the enemy (their goals, their purpose, the way they operate, what motivates them, etc.) before we can create a plan & method to defeat them. We must also bring across the idea that we are no threat to them or their way of life and would rather not continue a protracted war.
However, this is not to say we should stop fighting. This would, of course, show the sign of weakness. We must continue to apply violence to the enemy. No way to sugar-coat it. That's what the military does: applies terrible, brutal violence. However, it needs to be carefully MEASURED and CONTROLLED violence. We need to let them know that we are willing and prepared to continue the war. Remember, total physical destruction of the enemy is not what we really want, but their loss of will to fight & total surrender. And in achieving their willing surrender and capitulation, we will have obtained our political and military objectives of destroying the enemy.
Most military officers and government officials acknowledge that in order to win this war on terror, we must destroy the enemy in detail. Completely & totally. This would also include any and all potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. (Reason being that when you kill thousands of terrorists, another 2000 from the potential/sympathizer pool take their place and even more formally undecided people then join the ranks of the potential/sympathizer pool.) Someone was correct earlier when he said suggested that the culture in the Middle East feeds on any sign of weakness. That's the way it's been in that part of the world for thousands of years. Strength is power. Perhaps nuking Fallujah and Najaf would've demonstrated enough strength and power to the rank & file terrorist for them to capitulate. Of course, politically it would be unacceptable and the potential/sympathizer pools would probably swell, but probably not be willing to act in the face of the demonstrated power. But the feelings and ideas behind the insurgency would still be there, simmering underneath, and ultimately the war on terror will again reach a boiling point at some future time. We will not have won the war.
So how can we win? As I said alluded to earlier, the feelings and ideas held by the terrorists & their sympathizers are key. Military leaders know that to destroy the enemy (or destroy their will to fight), they need to understand the enemy. If they can undermine their will to fight, the war can be brought to a successful conclusion. It used to take superior firepower, but that's not the case here. For example, if the terrorists are driving their supporters through their devotion to their religion, then if we can convince those supporters that the terrorists are manipulating their religious beliefs to the point where they are being contrary, then the devoted will lose confidence in the terrorists. The lies must be exposed. We (the Coalition) cannot do this with any credibility, which is why we need Iraqi/Muslim allies. (This, by the way, is why I cringe every time our administration proclaims that "God is on our side." We simply give the terrorist leaders more to work with.) Parts of the Special Forces, diplomatic enoys, and non-government organizations continue to try to win the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people to achieve this goal. We must understand the enemy (their goals, their purpose, the way they operate, what motivates them, etc.) before we can create a plan & method to defeat them. We must also bring across the idea that we are no threat to them or their way of life and would rather not continue a protracted war.
However, this is not to say we should stop fighting. This would, of course, show the sign of weakness. We must continue to apply violence to the enemy. No way to sugar-coat it. That's what the military does: applies terrible, brutal violence. However, it needs to be carefully MEASURED and CONTROLLED violence. We need to let them know that we are willing and prepared to continue the war. Remember, total physical destruction of the enemy is not what we really want, but their loss of will to fight & total surrender. And in achieving their willing surrender and capitulation, we will have obtained our political and military objectives of destroying the enemy.
skwanch said:
You attempted to spin message 639.
You attempted to "interpret" message 639 - instead of reading it and accepting it.
That's why I replied.
skwanch said:
It's really quite simple, skwanch. I prefer a trial system in which the accussed has the right to present whatever reasons they feel they had to attempt to justify their actions before judgement is made by those who are given the opportunity to hear both sides and examine the evidence first-hand.
You prefer the lynch-mob mentality where you make your own decision, often with little evidence and don't allow the accussed any form of due-process before judgement.
zapper said:
Thank you for your attempt at speaking for me and compartmentalizing my stance to suit your needs, Zapper. The tactic is obvious and inappropriate but I must say that your approach here is showing a marked improvement despite the absolute failure of your assertions. Keep up the good work. Maybe someday you'll develop the skills necessary to utilize logical and balanced debating tactics.
It's about due process. You seem to indicate that you feel due process is too soft to be appropriate. Maybe you would prefer something more along the lines of judgement in absense of a trial in which the accussed is found guilty, without representation, by a jury of one, and promptly hanged at sunrise?
Danian said:
You make some interesting observations and I would like to reply to them.
You have moved the debate on - and quite frankly the fundamentalists here have proclaimed time and again that they're not interested in why 9/11 happened, they just want the people who organised to be wiped out.
Their solution has proven not to work.
Of course you are correct when you say terrorism is a state of mind.
It is a thought and/or feeling.
People aren't born as terrorists.
People become terrorists for a miriad of reasons.
Indoctrination from an early age, family history, an event that causes a person to become radicalised.
It is worth taking a look at other terrorist organisations to gain an insight as to why people carry out terrorist actions.
Take the IRA.
The most efficient paramilitary force on this planet effectively did not exist,
in it's present form, until 1969.
I mention 1969 for a specific reason.
In the 1960's, the issue of justice for ethnic groups was sweeping the world.
Civil riots for blacks in the USA, Bi-afra, civil rights in Northern Ireland and the Paris riots of 1968 and the ongoing Vietnam protests.
In Norther Ireland, Catholics wanted equal treatment to Protestants.
Housing, the non-gerrymandering of local politics, entry to third level education.
Rights that we take for granted today.
However, these rights were denied to the Catholic people of Northern Ireland.
When they demonstrated about these injustices - Unionist/Protestant forces shot and beat these peaceful protests.
When the Irish Tricolour was flown in a street in Northern Ireland - riots ensued because the Unionist/Protestant leaders did not want a foreign flag flying in "a Protestant State for a Protestant people".
The British army were deployed and they eventually started bearing down on the Catholics as well.
Young men were "interned" - thrown in to prison without charge.
Men were beaten and tortured by their local police force for demonstrating.
This pressure cooker situation gave young men a choice - either accept and cow down to the fact that all of the rights that they should have had, be denied to them, or they could radicalise and do something to strike back.
These conditions - rightly or wrongly - radicalised men to re-create the IRA.
Let's stop the film right here.
What radicalised people to join the IRA was the authorites response to peaceful protest.
Look at the words of the Brighton Bomber (Brighton bomb 1984 - the IRA nearly wiped out Margaret Thatchers entire goverment during their part conference), McGee.
McGee states "I was interned in the Maze prison for 18 months for taking part
in a demonstration. I was beaten by the authorities in that prison even though, I was in there without charge. On the day I was released I went back to my parents house and after saying hello to them, I went to the local
IRA commander and joined the IRA".
Pat McGee - bombed Brighton and almost assasinated Thatcher & Co.
He got life imprisonment.
While in prison he was contacted by a daughter of a minister who had been killed by his bomb.
They started to correspond.
Over the years, their correspondence became a dialogue.
McGee started to think about his actions and what he did (remember this man would be considered an icon by the IRA and the Devil incarnate by the
British).
On his release from prison, McGee met with the woman who's father he had killed (he was not allowed to meet her while in prison).
There followed a long process.
The woman wanted to know why McGee took her father away - he was trying to find out what motivated him to do what he did.
He started to feel remorse because he now experienced at first hand, the pain and loss of what happened to the people closest to the man who died.
But in this doing this, the daughter of the man who died, began to realise just
what caused McGee to do what he did, what had conditioned McGees thinking.
She began to realise that hundreds of young men like McGee, became radicalised because of injustice and unfairness.
And this microcosm of how people became readicalised needs to be applied to the terrorist threat in every situation.
Thousands of men across Northern Ireland were radicalised to join the IRA.
McGee's story is reflected in almost all cases.
Internment, beatings etc.
A whole generation of men - who should have gone on to get jobs or go to university - were instead radicalised to join a terrorist organisation.
Some of them were caught and imprisoned and went on hunger strike and starved themselves to death in 1981.
McGee said that it was the death of his commander Bobby Sands in 1981 after
66 days on hunger strike which made him decide to try to murder Margaret
Thatcher (she was PM when Sands died).
No one can justify the actions of a terrorist.
But we need to get to the root cause of what causes people to do what they do.
Then we need to remove those root causes.
People don't just plant a bomb in Brighton to kill a goverment - people don't just fly a plane in a building, for no reason.
No one could execute the actions at Brighton or at the WTC singlehandedly either.
People do these things because they're motivated to do so.
And the support network for these people is motivated to do so.
Terrorism is a state of mind.
The state of mind - the thought is what needs to be tackled.
Take away the reasons for that thought and you take away the terrorist as well.
I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the IRA - for clarification.
zapper said:Beastt, thanks for the laugh... This is truly funny work on your part and time consuming too. I'm glad you took the time to dig these up. However, I find these remarks to be completely civilized compared to some of the **** that is being said on the streets of New York by your constituents. So, I’m sorry you are still confused. Oh and I still don't believe your little story.
What I am most puzzled by is when asked to supply just one shred of evidence that you are your own party…just One miniscule post saying something positive about the Republican party and you can't deliver. But you have time to glean through my posts and find some of my funny quotes? I...We can only come to the conclusion that you are simply a Liberal Democrat in denial. You are ashamed of your party and you hide behind this facade of being of no particular party. Like your constituents, you don’t take ownership or condemn the horrible behavior of you protestors, you instead try to play the poor little innocent. Yes, instead of commenting with separate point of view from a no particular party perspective, you go an snip my words and try to make your feeble point. How sad you continue to be ashamed of your party. Your story could be believable if....all your post didn't mirror the democratic position
This obviously says far more about you than you know. You're incapable of debating with someone who doesn't fit the pre-manufactured political camps because all of your arguments are pre-manufactured by your chosen political party and designed only to combat the opposing political parties. Some of us have the ability to pick and choose based only on the issues while others require membership in an organization. The peer approval becomes far more important than the issues and everything is reduced to an us against them mentality.
If you'd actually read my posts you'd find that your constant accusations that I've not responded to your requests is completely unfounded. I clearly stated that I side more with the Republicans regarding gun ownership than with the Libertarians or the Democrats. You obviously, and perhaps selectively, missed that as you've done with several other issues you've attempted to raise. It would seem that you are disappointed when I offer what you request and since it leaves you without an argument, you choose to ignore it and later claim that I've ignored your requests. This tactic can only work for so long. Already others seem to be taking note of your failed attempts to discredit through false claims. Perhaps it's time to switched tactics. You've done the insulting, juvenile response thing to death. You've continually denied that people have responded to your requests and still, you don't seem to be gaining any ground for your arguments. Perhaps your arguments are simply too weak to support themselves.
If you don't want to understand what terrorists consider to be their reasons, then all you have left is hatred. Hatred is usually the motivating factor behind terrorism which puts you firmly in their camp. They see the U.S. as having caused the starvation and death of between 160,000 and 500,000 fellow countrymen which causes them to hate us. They strike back by flying our planes into our buildings and killing almost 3,000 innocent people. We retaliate by bombing their cities, occupying their country and killing at least 11,000 Iraqi people. Of course as we do this, the terrorists are, we're told, plotting to strike back against us yet again. Some have been swindled into believing this pattern of hatred can be stopped by "bringing all terrorists to justice". In fact, you can't even determine who is and who isn't a terrorist until you decide who will be defining the term. The U.S. strikes against Afghanistan following the 9/11 WTC attack were described by Afghanistan as terrorism. Though this isn't a correct usage of the term, neither was our claim that the terrorist attack of 9/11 was, "an act of war". It seems that each side will twist the situation to suit their needs. So, who are the terrorists? It depends on who you ask. To us they are the terrorists and to them, we are the terrorists. It's a never-ending cycle driven by hatred, greed and a lust for power.
If, on the other hand, we could attempt to foresee those actions which may have viable alternatives, and which are most likely to spawn terrorist strikes against us, and when reasonable, apply the viable alternatives instead, we have begun to break the cycle. Could we have avoided the starvation of over 150,000 people in the middle east? Certainly we could have. Could we have lifted our sanctions when the U.N. suggested that the terms of the agreement had been fulfilled and requested that we do so? Again, we could have done that. But instead we continued to do just as we pleased, content in the knowledge that we were too powerful for anyone to successfuly force their issues with us. The result, as spun by some, was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
If you're bigger and stronger than your neighbor and you continue to antagonize your neighbor in a manner which doesn't quite constitute criminal action, you can expect that one morning you will find your tires slashed or some other equally inappropriate damage has been brought upon your property. It happens all the time. It's not okay to slash someone's tires because they continually torment you through means which remain just inside legal boundries, but neither is it appropriate to continue to torment someone needlessly just because you're strong enough or have enough political influence to get away with it. Hatred spawns hatred and the idea that terrorists are nothing but psychopaths and have no reasons for their terrorist actions does nothing but promote the growing hatred on both sides of every issue. As limerickman's story shows, these men toward which you express such terrible hatred might well be people you would see as friends under circumstances where you were allowed to meet over time and exchange thoughts and ideas. Once the cycle of hatred begins, the chance for such meeting and understanding is all but eliminated. We shouldn't be so quick to eliminate a chance for understanding and mutual assistance when war and terrorism are the alternatives.
Beastt, I think you're wasting your time trying to influence Zapper viewpoint.
I would go further and say that there is a constituency in the USA who actually welcome the attack of Sept 11th.
I don't think there is any pc-way to say this - but some people couldn't give a damn about the lose of the life on Sept 11th.
The lose of life was incidental to them.
Oh, they will bluster on and use the same cliches and platitudes and chant "USA", but their paltitudes are meaningless when using the excuse of Sept 11th to attack and maim people.
They'll wear the Old Glory pin and go on about rights and how rights were ignored on Sept 11th.........etc.
Rights are rights - and rights ought to be applied fairly, regardless.
If the loss of life meant anything to this constituency on Sept 11th - if the removal of the right to live, which was cruelly taken away from those people, meant anything, those people who support Bush would call their goverment to account for their actions.
They would want to know what does the killing and bombing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan do to restore what happened on Sept 11th.
If the loss of life on Sept 11th sincerely meant something to the people who support Bush - they would want to know how the actions of his goverment
promote peace.
If the loss of life on Sept 11th sincerely meant anything to the people who support Bush - they would want to know why their goverment are putting, and have put the lives of their fellow citizens on the line in Iraq.
But these people won't ask those questions.
They won't ask their leader Bush - why he is doing these things.
They won't ask the question because they don't want peace.
All they are interested in is revenge.
I say this as someone who has suffered a loss from terrorism myself.
I didn't want to post this fact here but I will because anyone who suffers a loss, would not wish to see anyone going through the torment and hurt that
is derived from an act of terrorism.
Yes, we feel angry.
Yes, in our hearts we want revenge.
BUT BUT, if it came to it, would I pull the trigger on the person who inflicted that hurt ?
No, I would not.
Because in trying to avenge the evil that was my family's loss, would I redress what has been lost ?
No.
Nor would I want to deliberately inflict hurt on other people.
I would go further and say that there is a constituency in the USA who actually welcome the attack of Sept 11th.
I don't think there is any pc-way to say this - but some people couldn't give a damn about the lose of the life on Sept 11th.
The lose of life was incidental to them.
Oh, they will bluster on and use the same cliches and platitudes and chant "USA", but their paltitudes are meaningless when using the excuse of Sept 11th to attack and maim people.
They'll wear the Old Glory pin and go on about rights and how rights were ignored on Sept 11th.........etc.
Rights are rights - and rights ought to be applied fairly, regardless.
If the loss of life meant anything to this constituency on Sept 11th - if the removal of the right to live, which was cruelly taken away from those people, meant anything, those people who support Bush would call their goverment to account for their actions.
They would want to know what does the killing and bombing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan do to restore what happened on Sept 11th.
If the loss of life on Sept 11th sincerely meant something to the people who support Bush - they would want to know how the actions of his goverment
promote peace.
If the loss of life on Sept 11th sincerely meant anything to the people who support Bush - they would want to know why their goverment are putting, and have put the lives of their fellow citizens on the line in Iraq.
But these people won't ask those questions.
They won't ask their leader Bush - why he is doing these things.
They won't ask the question because they don't want peace.
All they are interested in is revenge.
I say this as someone who has suffered a loss from terrorism myself.
I didn't want to post this fact here but I will because anyone who suffers a loss, would not wish to see anyone going through the torment and hurt that
is derived from an act of terrorism.
Yes, we feel angry.
Yes, in our hearts we want revenge.
BUT BUT, if it came to it, would I pull the trigger on the person who inflicted that hurt ?
No, I would not.
Because in trying to avenge the evil that was my family's loss, would I redress what has been lost ?
No.
Nor would I want to deliberately inflict hurt on other people.
They should get the same 'due process' they gave the passengers on those flights. The same 'due process' the WTC workers had. The same 'due process' the firefighters and police officers had.Beastt said:
Bikerman2004 said:
The same due process for those in prison in Abu Ghuraib ?
The same due process for those people in a wedding party in Eastern Iraq who were bombed from 20,000 feet ?
The same due process for those journalists killed by American fire in the
palestine Hotel in baghdad ?
The same due process for the BBC crew and journalist John Simpson - who after identifying themselves as the press corps, was shot at by US tanks ?
Only you, Lim, would equate the US with terrorist actions. You're a class act all the way.limerickman said:
Bikerman2004 said:
It was you who stated that due process was not respected.
When I point out to you the instances of where the USA did not invoke due process - you attack me for highlighting this contradiction !
If you want to invoke due process - you must do so across the ENTIRE
spectrum and not cherrypick to suit.
limerickman said:
PFC England is stewing in the mess SHE and SPC Graner created. Oh yes, the trial is still on going. Isolated event and NOT directed by commanders.
That "wedding party" was in WESTERN Iraq and it was just a cover for Syrian terrorists who were planning mayhem in Iraq.
Those reporters KNEW the hazards of being in a combat zone. And they KNEW the hazards of being close to enemy combatants.
Oh yes, John Simpson was traveling with a group of US Special Forces so your story doesn't wash.
