News American freedom, American values

[Entropy]

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"

Combine, Oklahoma City bombing, that dude from American who joined Osama, The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six, KKK, Neo Nazi's, PETA (they ARE terrorists), pro-life extremists, the Mob (and orgainized crime), etc.

I can go on all day. There all American, and America is the wealthest country in the world. And still Osama left his wealth life to go live in Palistine.

(100th post )

 

[balkan]

congratz :D...

the mob? now you're far fetching...

anyway all you need to do is simple math...
btw: 90-95% of neo-nazis aren't terrorists... just stupid...
that dude from america was one guy...
The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six ...
divide "all" those people by just the amount of cells in al queda and you'll get a very small number... need i say more?
My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...
again, though... your argument brings us rigth back to the matter... people like kkk and extremists are figthing for something they believe really hard in, and because they're angry and want a change... now, look at the countrys where people really have something to figth for and be mad about, and then tell me they're just simple extortionists... they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...
the amount of terrorists from wealthy countrys (and don't forget, that 30 million americans get food aid every year, so it's not exactly everyone who's got everything going for them...) compared to the amount from poor and unstable countrys are ridiculously small... it's really not even debatable...

 

[balkan]

Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:

damn man... i don't even remember posting that... must have been summer drunk or very tired...
i'm sure i meant what i wrote, but i apologize for the tone... it was completely uncalled for...

 

[JohnDubYa]

It's cool.

 

[JohnDubYa]

the mob? now you're far fetching...

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

 

[JohnDubYa]

they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your ass if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

 

[studentx]

Id say the major cause of terrorism today is political Islam

 

[balkan]

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your ass if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

no I'm not... but understanding the background is the first step in solving the problem...

 

[balkan]

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

those other countrys don't have an invading force that for 50 years have relentlessly tried to dispose of every non-jew in the country... and don't give me any anti-semitist remarks, people, stating the facts doesn't make you an antisemite...
you keep saying I'm excusing... I'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence, you're way off base imo...

 

[JohnDubYa]

you keep saying I'm excusing... I'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence,

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

 

[studentx]

You have to understand the islamic terrorist goal is to convert us all to Islam, that way they save us from hell in the afterlife. There can be no deals with this kind of terrorist and they don't allow themselves to feel any doubt, because doubt is a sign of shaytan and there is no negotiating about Allahs will.

 

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

that's called treating the symptom... and actually giving them what they want is treating the symptom as well...
you'll never be rid of terrorists unless you treat the problem that causes it... and that is poverty and suppression...
i agree that terrorists should be killed or arrested when possible, but it doesn't solve the problem. neither does killing innocents in the process of killing the terrorists (an act with the agenda to kill all who thinks like terrorists - read: quite similar to what the terrorists are doing)...
there will always be extortionists, of course, but they are quite few compared to the amount of terrorists with a real cause... and a frigthening amount of them don't care if they die, figthing for this cause, so what the hell good will killing them do, other than rid those individuals from the face of the earth? - nothing...

 

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

that's such a typical either-or remark...
i consider them sentiment beings, of course... that's the whole problem... if they were rational and calm, they wouldn't be terrorists... they are fuled by emotions and their emotions are fueled by their situation... they need something to direct their feelings towards, and either they'll find it themselves, or someone like osama will point in some direction...

 

[studentx]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they don't turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

 

[pelastration]

Islam is the problem, not poverty.

Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

 

[balkan]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they don't turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

 

[member 5645]

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

 

[studentx]

Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

Extreme Islam is the result of moderate muslims being moderate towards extremists.

 

[balkan]

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

 

[kat]

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

This is the worst sort of racism I know, the brown's/olives etc. don't want to or can't do democracy. Until they've been given a chance to make the choice of who and how they are led, you are taking their voices away with such statements. I know of no country that has become a democracy through any venue that would willingly give up their voices to a dictator.
The right to vote for your leadership is one of the most basic human rights and was voted and supported in UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The relevant portion:

Article 21

1 . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

 

[member 5645]

what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...


i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

1>Read the thread on why middle easterners 'hate' westerners. Specifically my point about morality and relativism. The fact is, I am very aware of what we have and are doing.

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.


This isn't just about them either. As I have stated, it's also about the effects for us.

 

[JohnDubYa]

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.

Yes, a better way of life.

A dictatorship by its very nature removes nearly every possibility for the people to change government on their own. So when the People need help, to whom do they turn?

If there was one group of people that would have been considered unsuitable for democracy, it was the Japanese after WWII. But we installed a democracy and it has worked.

If democracy is going to take hold in the Middle East, it will have to be at the end of a gun barrel, just like with Japan. They're not going to do it on their own because the powers in control have no good reason to allow it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

kat has a good point -- the United Nations has long mandated that freedom is a good thing.

desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people. And freeing people was always considered a good thing. Is that now wrong?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad. So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

 

[Prometheus]

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people.

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

And freeing people was always considered a good thing.

Such a simple interpretation.

Is that now wrong?

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad.

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.

So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

Do you call anything that you don't like racist? I wonder what you mean by racist?

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Such a simple interpretation.

If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

Just answer the question.

 

[Prometheus]

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Wow. If only you could give this depth of thought to the topic of your posts.

If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

I think it is wrong.

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say. This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you? You envision that by next year, the Shiites will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Shiite, that the Sunnis will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Sunni, and the Kurds will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Kurd. The ethnic divisions that divide the country now will disappear completely very soon, and democracy will be the greatest blessing that they ever received. how could any of them resent having an invading army impose a government on them. Historically, this has not worked well, but so what, right? You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Wow, aren't you the guesser? Did you think this up all by yourself?

Just answer the question.

The answer is no.

 

[studentx]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

It depends on which of the dead you ask, the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam, or the tens of thousands killed by the Americans.
Iraqis don't want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

 

[Prometheus]

You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?

 

[Entropy]

Iraqis don't want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.

 

[kat]

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.

Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule. Furthermore, you're probably correct..Bush was too stupid to realize that it would have been far more beneficial to him if he had Bombed the **** out of them for a few months and then "enforced" democracy like Clinton. That way by the time elections came along Iraq would have been old news.