Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Terror as a beehive

  1. Oct 14, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have a long time friend who grew up in Iran. At about age 17 he escaped from Iran when he was tagged to be a spy for the government - these guys usually live about a week. He has been an American for over twenty years now and most of his family is here, but he still has family in Iran including his parents. This is what he told me this morning. This is how he explained the Middle East situation to his sons.

    Note that like many of us, he has never objected to our invasion of Afghanistan.

    Then he said exactly what Tsu read to me last night from the Pulitzer prize winning author who exposed the Iraqi Prisoner abuse scandal:

    So, there's a statement from two Americans who understand the politics of the Middle East.

    Edit: I almost forgot, he added: Bush is the first President [in his lifetime] who can't understand Middle Eastern politics; [expletives] [he] can't even remember the names.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 14, 2004 #2
    That first statement is extremely powerful. I am actually writing it down as I type. :smile:

    Anyways, it is important to distinguish between a truly 'bad' President and one who has been transformed into being "bad". Most of the populace which "hates" Bush has had their reality constructed by the media, causing them to truly believe that he has caused tremendous crime. Many things in this world are politics -- we should not look past that. Think about Fahrenheit 9/11; how many fallible statements does Moore make in that movie? However, we continue to listen and believe Moore, as if he is our authority.

    Do not mistake my statement; I myself do not like Bush as President, which is why i agree with the first quotation. However, my above statement relates to a wide range of subjects.
  4. Oct 14, 2004 #3
    Excuse me? I don't think anyone with any alnalytical ability would take Michael Moore, or the media, or anything 100% seriously. How exactly has the media over-exagerated Bush's failings and turned him into something he's not? If anything I'd say that the media hasn't nearly been critical enough of Bush's idiocy, cause frankly, it's unbelievable someone as stupid as him is President in the first place. Everyone knew he was an idiot before 9/11, but he was just a comical idiot, the kind of guy who makes up words like "misunderestimate" and can't eat a pretzel without choking, just a footnote in history, someone that history students would look back and laugh at and say "Wow, I can't BELIEVE he was President!". Now he's an idiot who thinks he's on a holy crusade from god, is doing everything 100% fine, all the ends justify all the means, and has no idea how much the whole world hates us because of him. Hell, he can't even acknowledge a single policy mistake he's made when asked.
  5. Oct 14, 2004 #4
    Ivan Seeking --- He said "terrorism" is a beehive so don't bother the "beehive" ---- am I understanding you correctly?
  6. Oct 14, 2004 #5
    And to avoid the obvious response -- yes I know you said you can "poke them" if there are issues with terrorists. (Not that I understand what "poking them" means or why it's OK to poke them.) It seems that what you're saying is that "terrorists" -- being "terrorists" really have the intention of commiting "terror," but just right now, well, they're busy with other matters ---- so, best not upset them. Is that your contention?
  7. Oct 15, 2004 #6
    Bush is or is not an idiot,but he is usefull idiot.
    Long after his presidency we will read in the history books that war in the M.East was his idea, yeah right!
  8. Oct 15, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did you read the post? He said, if you need to deal with terrorism you have to be smart about it. Bush has never been smart about. That was his point. Of course, we could just nuke the Middle East, but assuming we don't we need skilled diplomacy and a big hammer; not just a hammer. Anyone can bang on things and make a mess.

    Neither Tsu or I have ever seen Farenheit 911. Assumptions made are very telling.
  9. Oct 15, 2004 #8
    Ivan Seeking -

    I'm just trying to understand your friend's point. Seriously. I really don’t understand what his point is yet.

    How does he suggest you be "smart about it" – since these "terrorists" have, as yet unrealized, intentions of doing harm to us? He says to "poke them." Exactly what does that mean – did he tell you? And to work with the bee analogy used by your friend ----did he tell you, after explaining what "poke them" means, why "the hive" wouldn’t display the 'hive-mind' and attack en mass once "bee politics" have been resolved?

    So again, I ask the question -- It seems that what you're saying is that "terrorists" -- being "terrorists" really have the intention of committing "terror," but just right now, well, they're busy with other matters ---- so, best not upset them. Is that your contention?
  10. Oct 15, 2004 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Based on my understanding of his opinions...

    ...we might start with only attacking the attacker when attacked. Next, we might try building alliances. The beehive is not Iraq, it is the entire Middle East. The ramifications of our actions will destablize the region tremendously for decades to come; especially if and when we leave. It is not that we took him out, it is how we did it. There were other ways to manage Saddam.

    Because of Bush's never ending list of lies, everyone keeps forgetting

    Saddam did not attack us!

    How does this look to a young Middle Eastern man or woman who is told that we are the evil ones? It was just us against Islam, of course. Now it makes perfect sense to an impressionable, angry young Muslim.

    The reference to Farenheit 911 was in response to dekoi.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2004
  11. Oct 15, 2004 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To continue the metaphor, invading Afghanistan was poking the nest with a stick. We had every right.
  12. Oct 15, 2004 #11
    America is the hive, it was attacked with a baseball bat. What America does now is just a natural response, i mean theyre bees, the terrorists should have known better right? Bush and America, theyre bees, totally out of the equation of blame.
    And whatever America does, its just bee stings! Iraq is just a bee that ventured out a bit, they usually stay close to the hive.

    And remember,
    BUSH did not attack the terrorists before 911!
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2004
  13. Oct 15, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If you go after the beehive with a big can of raid insead of poking it with a stick, you'll solve the problem completely.
  14. Oct 15, 2004 #13
    But then you destroy the honey russ. And that sweet smell :frown:
  15. Oct 15, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Somewhat off topic

    I was thinking about terrorism in the US on Wednesday, and was reflecting on the fact that most of the terrorist events that have taken place in the US are from domestic sources - like the Oaklahoma City federal building, Anthrax by mail, the Weathermen, the KKK, or the Unabomber. Similarly, the terrorist events in Russia are generally related to the Russia-Chechnya issue, terrorism in Israel primarily has to do with the Palestinian issues, or the terrorism in England that has to do with problems in Ireland. Terrorism is typically a local or domestic phenomenon, and, moreover, terrorist organizations are typically formed in response to a particular issue.

    Al Quaeda is unusual in that it's cause is not so narrowly defined. Instead of being about the interaction between two specific players, it was ostensibly formed as a reaction to 'Western' influence in the Middle East, and not just the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Israel in Palestine (or vice versa), or the US in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Al Quaeda has shown more logistical and political sophistication that most terrorist organizations.

    That said, I think that many of the problems associated with Iraq have much more to do with how the US went to war, and has prosecuted the war and its aftermath than with the fact that the US invaded Iraq per se, and, moreover, that much of the US policy and Bushco rhetoric has played to Al Quaeda's strengths. Furthermore, it seems like the US military is "double plus ungood" as a a
    "liberation" army; the British forces seem to be doing much better.

    The comparison of Vichy Iraq and a provoked beehive is probably appropriate, but I don't think it's really a good description of terrorism in general. Moreover, comparing the situation in Iraq to a beehive doesn't really provide for any good suggestions on how to resolve the crisis there.
  16. Oct 15, 2004 #15

    What America and "coalition of willing" did they went with a sledghammer after bees.That is what idiots do.
    America could have achieved much, much more with diplomacy,embargos and covert operations a"la mossad.
    But I gues sheeps in USA ,Canada,UK,Australia need daily dose of real time blood and gore sitting in front TV and fattenning themselfs on s*** foods.

    By the way what you mean Iraq ventured to far ?(what a BS!)
    Iraq was contained and militairly so weak that even boy scouts would win over Iraqis.
  17. Oct 15, 2004 #16
    Terrorists today in the most signficant physical context today is soley the defense of a people being brutalized by American leadership.
  18. Oct 15, 2004 #17
    but then you say

    and then

    IRAQ DOES NOT MEAN THE TERRORISTS. you dont go invading people like that
  19. Oct 15, 2004 #18
    You mean of course brutalized by us western world.
    Even "peacfull" Canadians have Iraqi blood on their hands.
  20. Oct 16, 2004 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So you want more wars. Whom shall we attack next?

    Should we have a reason to attack...whomever, or do we just want to create more hate?
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2004
  21. Oct 16, 2004 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So, you still believe Saddam attacked us? Granted, Bush and Cheney continue this lie but in fact we now know better. You see, this is where the repetition of lie becomes a truth. By telling us the same Bush lie over and over again, people like yourself get the facts mixed up. There is no significant connection between Saddams Iraq and 911. This is what the new generation of terrorists will wave like a flag: We attacked Iraq for no reason.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook