<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 13 2004, 10:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 13 2004, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Disagreed, I believe you are missing the key point here. For such things to happen, there has to be a certain amount of hate. For them to sacrifice their lives, we have to have hit them first. For years and years, we've been living high, running a prospering society without them. If I was sitting there, starving, dying and seeing my fellow middle-eastern <u>humans</u> be gunned down by weapons sent from the rich, western countries for MORE money, I would for damn sure consider becoming a freedom fighter too.
Because that's what you're missing I think. What they are is not people who have been hyped up to hit innocent americans. What they are is people who have suffered so much that the <u>only hope they have left</u> is to give up their life for their family, their country.
<u><b>One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter</b></u>
Too many westerners forget to ask themselves why the terrorists are doing it, blinded by their own beliefs that "we are good and they are evil". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You missed his point from various posts.
Check to see how the leaders of these dictatorships are living... Then compare that to these poor, hopeless people you speak of. The leadership of these dictatorships is a large part of the problem.
No one is denying that there is a good bit of hate over there, that is a given. What is being said is that the source of that hate can be severely hindered if the people were truly free and not, for lack of a better term, brainwashed. They are taught from childhood that Israel and the US are evil and should be destroyed. That Israel and the US are the reason they suffer. That is not even close to the truth.
These are people who have been hyped up to hit innocents. They are not freedom fighters. I believe that is a line from Reuters... a news agency who says the Lockerbie bombing was a guerrilla attack... Which distorts the truth that they were actually terrorrists ( its more than a distoration actually ). I beleive they have a policy to avoid the word terrorrist if at all possible, but to use next to anything else ( e.g. militants ).
They are terrorrists. They murder innocents that have nothing to do with their "cause". Blowing themselves and others ( especially civilians ) is not their only hope. Trying to make such excuses for these terrorrists is wrong. They are at fault here. Not us. Not Israel. Not the US. The terrorrists, their leadership, and those who keep the terrorrist networks fully stocked with brainwashed "martyrs" are the ones that deserve blame.
Just like the conmen thread, someone is trying to make excuses for the actions of others.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Mar 13 2004, 06:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Mar 13 2004, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Check to see how the leaders of these dictatorships are living... Then compare that to these poor, hopeless people you speak of. The leadership of these dictatorships is a large part of the problem.
What is being said is that the source of that hate can be severely hindered if the people were truly free and not, for lack of a better term, brainwashed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But it's not these leaders doing the fighting. Those leaders wouldn't have any interest in the bombings, since it hits them in the end. When we're hit by terrorists believed to be from Afghanistan, we bomb the place to dust. Why would the Taliban want that to happen, they're the ones losing.
And what makes you think that they will be more "truly free" when we bomb their homes and kill their leaders? What makes you think that they will love you for destroying everything they have? If freedom is really better for them, why are they killing American soldiers in Iraq? Do you really think they become more "free" because we bomb their countries?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But it's not these leaders doing the fighting. Those leaders wouldn't have any interest in the bombings, since it hits them in the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They may not be doing the actual fighting, but they are the ones that send the terrorrists off or look the other way when the terrorrists want to do something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When we're hit by terrorists believed to be from Afghanistan, we bomb the place to dust. Why would the Taliban want that to happen, they're the ones losing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course the Taliban did not want us to invade, but they really did not think we would. They gambled. They lost. We won.
And we knew that OBL was in Afghanistan. We knew that the Taliban was working with the terrorrists ( sometimes you couldn't tell them apart ). So they got what was coming to them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what makes you think that they will be more "truly free" when we bomb their homes and kill their leaders? What makes you think that they will love you for destroying everything they have? If freedom is really better for them, why are they killing American soldiers in Iraq? Do you really think they become more "free" because we bomb their countries?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We went to war. Some homes were bombed, but the majority of them were not. We actually did our best to limit civilian casualties and reduce their suffering. Now, they are more free than they were ( in both Iraq and Afghanistan ). Truly free? Is that even possible?
And yes, I believe that the majority of Iraqis and Afghanis are happy that we removed their oppressors. Now, that doesnt mean they want us to stay, but they are happy we have given them freedom. Are there Iraqis attacking coalition troops? Probably. Are there terrorrists attacking coalition troops? Probably. Who's to say who's who and who's to say that they have the support of the people. They most likely do not have the support of the people. They are still relying on terrorr tactics ( like forcing a husband to be a suicide bomber or else his family dies ). They are an extremely small percentage ( way less than 1% ) of the Iraqi population opposing the coalition troops.
I believe the Iraqi and Afghani people are more free because their oppressors have been removed from power and they can now choose their own path. Was it because we bombed their homes ( then again we never bomed their homes on purpose unless they were being used for a military purpose )? Not directly and that really is not a good question either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course the Taliban did not want us to invade, but they really did not think we would. They gambled. They lost. We won.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think they're THAT stupid. The ones who started those bombings weren't the ones who wanted the power. The ones bombing the WTC were the ones who did not care about the consequences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We went to war. Some homes were bombed, but the majority of them were not. We actually did our best to limit civilian casualties and reduce their suffering. Now, they are more free than they were ( in both Iraq and Afghanistan ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, they have no power, they have no water, they have no fuel, but they're free enough to have the American soldiers walk down the streets in full battle gear, shooting at demonstrations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I believe that the majority of Iraqis and Afghanis are happy that we removed their oppressors. Now, that doesnt mean they want us to stay, but they are happy we have given them freedom.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They have new oppressors, but they're still not more free than they were before. us being the ones pointing guns at them doesn't make them more free. And if you leave them to their own matters, they will revert to the system they've always used.
You don't "free" a country by bombing them. It didn't work when the crusaders slaughtered their way through the middle east, and it won't work when you do. They will most likely be more happy when they're "free", but bombs won't make them free. Kill a leader and a new one pops up (of cause, while we bomb them, the risk of them bombing us is smaller. Perhaps we should just keep bombing them non-stop).
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 13 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 13 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 13 2004, 10:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 13 2004, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You missed a key point. Dictatorships produce <b>more</b> terrorists than democracies. Eliminating dictatorships won't <b>stop</b> terrorism, it just ebbs the flow considerably. How can you deny this? Terrorists don't become terrorists at random. It requires controlled, targeted, propaganda. And that is best delivered in a media-isolated dictatorship. It can be delivered in a democracy, but it's far easier when opposing views can be screened out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Disagreed, I believe you are missing the key point here. For such things to happen, there has to be a certain amount of hate. For them to sacrifice their lives, we have to have hit them first. For years and years, we've been living high, running a prospering society without them. If I was sitting there, starving, dying and seeing my fellow middle-eastern <u>humans</u> be gunned down by weapons sent from the rich, western countries for MORE money, I would for damn sure consider becoming a freedom fighter too.
Because that's what you're missing I think. What they are is not people who have been hyped up to hit innocent americans. What they are is people who have suffered so much that the <u>only hope they have left</u> is to give up their life for their family, their country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't deny all those things are true. Other dictatorships don't have this kind of terrorism and the reason is because the hate isn't there, and they don't need to use it as a form of control.
As I said, it's very Orwellian. If you can keep the people preoccupied on one enemy (think Oceania) they will be oblivious to the REAL reason they are impoverished: Lack of political and economic freedom. In the long run Israel isn't doing nearly the damage that the dictatorships are.
My point still stands: <b>If all those Middle Eastern countries were to revert to democracies tomorrow, the amount of terrorists would reduce. </b>Which you didn't argue against. You just said "disagreed" and presented your red herring.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 14 2004, 02:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 14 2004, 02:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point still stands: <b>If all those Middle Eastern countries were to revert to democracies tomorrow, the amount of terrorists would reduce. </b>Which you didn't argue against. You just said "disagreed" and presented your red herring. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But you can't "just" make them behave like westerners. Blowing their homes up just makes them hate us even more, and want to bomb us even more.
If you want to change them to our ways, help them and treat them as equals, instead of acting like the only reason they are not like us is because they haven't seen their light. Maybe they don't believe our way of living is the best one. Maybe they don't think we have ultimate freedom.
Or, again, you could just keep running crusades against them. After all it worked in the medieval times, or did it?
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 14 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 14 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 14 2004, 02:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 14 2004, 02:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point still stands: <b>If all those Middle Eastern countries were to revert to democracies tomorrow, the amount of terrorists would reduce. </b>Which you didn't argue against. You just said "disagreed" and presented your red herring. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But you can't "just" make them behave like westerners. Blowing their homes up just makes them hate us even more, and want to bomb us even more.
If you want to change them to our ways, help them and treat them as equals, instead of acting like the only reason they are not like us is because they haven't seen their light. Maybe they don't believe our way of living is the best one. Maybe they don't think we have ultimate freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is another red herring, as in your previous post. Argue against the original point I made, not a distorted one:
Dictatorships produce more terrorists than democracies because they can more tightly control the flow of information.
I mentioned nothing of making them behave like westerners or about equality. Argue against this point please.
I've noticed a lot of people are shocked at the scale of this attack. (The Madrid one get on topic, this isn't about the Iraq war.) However, I never saw any of the Europeans here say they were truly "shocked" about 9/11, in which the causualties were about 15 times greater. I guess it has to happen on your own turf for you to really care and understand. We hear all about murders and suicide bombings in faraway countries so that we just stop caring until it happens to us or our friends/family.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've noticed a lot of people are shocked at the scale of this attack. (The Madrid one get on topic, this isn't about the Iraq war.) However, I never saw any of the Europeans here say they were truly "shocked" about 9/11, in which the causualties were about 15 times greater. I guess it has to happen on your own turf for you to really care and understand. We hear all about murders and suicide bombings in faraway countries so that we just stop caring until it happens to us or our friends/family.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that's a very unfair comment. I've yet to find a person online or offline who wasn't deeply shocked by the 9/11 attacks; at my college for example where I was living at the time we had 200 students of which at least half were from overseas, and not one of them wasn't stunned and dismayed by the attacks. Europeans very much included.
I'd very much like to see you back that anti-European claim up with some hard evidence. I believe forumites like Nemesis Zero and Fam would be very interested to hear about how they didn't care about the S-11 attacks.
Moroccan officials have identified the 3 moroccan men arrested in connection with the bombings and as of this time they find <b>NO</b> connection to al Qaeda. Further more, the 'spokesman' in the tape that claims responsibility in the name of al Qaeda is still unidentified. <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4DF75E29-FE5E-4B79-9A88-5DB01CA46030.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Comments
Because that's what you're missing I think. What they are is not people who have been hyped up to hit innocent americans. What they are is people who have suffered so much that the <u>only hope they have left</u> is to give up their life for their family, their country.
<u><b>One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter</b></u>
Too many westerners forget to ask themselves why the terrorists are doing it, blinded by their own beliefs that "we are good and they are evil". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed his point from various posts.
Check to see how the leaders of these dictatorships are living... Then compare that to these poor, hopeless people you speak of. The leadership of these dictatorships is a large part of the problem.
No one is denying that there is a good bit of hate over there, that is a given. What is being said is that the source of that hate can be severely hindered if the people were truly free and not, for lack of a better term, brainwashed. They are taught from childhood that Israel and the US are evil and should be destroyed. That Israel and the US are the reason they suffer. That is not even close to the truth.
These are people who have been hyped up to hit innocents. They are not freedom fighters. I believe that is a line from Reuters... a news agency who says the Lockerbie bombing was a guerrilla attack... Which distorts the truth that they were actually terrorrists ( its more than a distoration actually ). I beleive they have a policy to avoid the word terrorrist if at all possible, but to use next to anything else ( e.g. militants ).
They are terrorrists. They murder innocents that have nothing to do with their "cause". Blowing themselves and others ( especially civilians ) is not their only hope. Trying to make such excuses for these terrorrists is wrong. They are at fault here. Not us. Not Israel. Not the US. The terrorrists, their leadership, and those who keep the terrorrist networks fully stocked with brainwashed "martyrs" are the ones that deserve blame.
Just like the conmen thread, someone is trying to make excuses for the actions of others.
What is being said is that the source of that hate can be severely hindered if the people were truly free and not, for lack of a better term, brainwashed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it's not these leaders doing the fighting. Those leaders wouldn't have any interest in the bombings, since it hits them in the end. When we're hit by terrorists believed to be from Afghanistan, we bomb the place to dust. Why would the Taliban want that to happen, they're the ones losing.
And what makes you think that they will be more "truly free" when we bomb their homes and kill their leaders? What makes you think that they will love you for destroying everything they have? If freedom is really better for them, why are they killing American soldiers in Iraq? Do you really think they become more "free" because we bomb their countries?
They may not be doing the actual fighting, but they are the ones that send the terrorrists off or look the other way when the terrorrists want to do something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When we're hit by terrorists believed to be from Afghanistan, we bomb the place to dust. Why would the Taliban want that to happen, they're the ones losing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the Taliban did not want us to invade, but they really did not think we would. They gambled. They lost. We won.
And we knew that OBL was in Afghanistan. We knew that the Taliban was working with the terrorrists ( sometimes you couldn't tell them apart ). So they got what was coming to them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what makes you think that they will be more "truly free" when we bomb their homes and kill their leaders? What makes you think that they will love you for destroying everything they have? If freedom is really better for them, why are they killing American soldiers in Iraq? Do you really think they become more "free" because we bomb their countries?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We went to war. Some homes were bombed, but the majority of them were not. We actually did our best to limit civilian casualties and reduce their suffering. Now, they are more free than they were ( in both Iraq and Afghanistan ). Truly free? Is that even possible?
And yes, I believe that the majority of Iraqis and Afghanis are happy that we removed their oppressors. Now, that doesnt mean they want us to stay, but they are happy we have given them freedom. Are there Iraqis attacking coalition troops? Probably. Are there terrorrists attacking coalition troops? Probably. Who's to say who's who and who's to say that they have the support of the people. They most likely do not have the support of the people. They are still relying on terrorr tactics ( like forcing a husband to be a suicide bomber or else his family dies ). They are an extremely small percentage ( way less than 1% ) of the Iraqi population opposing the coalition troops.
I believe the Iraqi and Afghani people are more free because their oppressors have been removed from power and they can now choose their own path. Was it because we bombed their homes ( then again we never bomed their homes on purpose unless they were being used for a military purpose )? Not directly and that really is not a good question either.
I don't think they're THAT stupid. The ones who started those bombings weren't the ones who wanted the power. The ones bombing the WTC were the ones who did not care about the consequences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We went to war. Some homes were bombed, but the majority of them were not. We actually did our best to limit civilian casualties and reduce their suffering. Now, they are more free than they were ( in both Iraq and Afghanistan ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, they have no power, they have no water, they have no fuel, but they're free enough to have the American soldiers walk down the streets in full battle gear, shooting at demonstrations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I believe that the majority of Iraqis and Afghanis are happy that we removed their oppressors. Now, that doesnt mean they want us to stay, but they are happy we have given them freedom.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have new oppressors, but they're still not more free than they were before. us being the ones pointing guns at them doesn't make them more free. And if you leave them to their own matters, they will revert to the system they've always used.
You don't "free" a country by bombing them. It didn't work when the crusaders slaughtered their way through the middle east, and it won't work when you do. They will most likely be more happy when they're "free", but bombs won't make them free. Kill a leader and a new one pops up (of cause, while we bomb them, the risk of them bombing us is smaller. Perhaps we should just keep bombing them non-stop).
Because that's what you're missing I think. What they are is not people who have been hyped up to hit innocent americans. What they are is people who have suffered so much that the <u>only hope they have left</u> is to give up their life for their family, their country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't deny all those things are true. Other dictatorships don't have this kind of terrorism and the reason is because the hate isn't there, and they don't need to use it as a form of control.
As I said, it's very Orwellian. If you can keep the people preoccupied on one enemy (think Oceania) they will be oblivious to the REAL reason they are impoverished: Lack of political and economic freedom. In the long run Israel isn't doing nearly the damage that the dictatorships are.
My point still stands: <b>If all those Middle Eastern countries were to revert to democracies tomorrow, the amount of terrorists would reduce. </b>Which you didn't argue against. You just said "disagreed" and presented your red herring.
But you can't "just" make them behave like westerners. Blowing their homes up just makes them hate us even more, and want to bomb us even more.
If you want to change them to our ways, help them and treat them as equals, instead of acting like the only reason they are not like us is because they haven't seen their light. Maybe they don't believe our way of living is the best one. Maybe they don't think we have ultimate freedom.
Or, again, you could just keep running crusades against them. After all it worked in the medieval times, or did it?
But you can't "just" make them behave like westerners. Blowing their homes up just makes them hate us even more, and want to bomb us even more.
If you want to change them to our ways, help them and treat them as equals, instead of acting like the only reason they are not like us is because they haven't seen their light. Maybe they don't believe our way of living is the best one. Maybe they don't think we have ultimate freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is another red herring, as in your previous post. Argue against the original point I made, not a distorted one:
Dictatorships produce more terrorists than democracies because they can more tightly control the flow of information.
I mentioned nothing of making them behave like westerners or about equality. Argue against this point please.
I think that's a very unfair comment. I've yet to find a person online or offline who wasn't deeply shocked by the 9/11 attacks; at my college for example where I was living at the time we had 200 students of which at least half were from overseas, and not one of them wasn't stunned and dismayed by the attacks. Europeans very much included.
I'd very much like to see you back that anti-European claim up with some hard evidence. I believe forumites like Nemesis Zero and Fam would be very interested to hear about how they didn't care about the S-11 attacks.
Excuse me?!?
Euro television, 1 hour after the US attack:
live news, special news bulletins, etcetc
US television, 7 hours after the Euro attack:
Foxnews reporting about Janet Jackson's boobs
yes, Europeans clearly didn't care.
Moroccan officials have identified the 3 moroccan men arrested in connection with the bombings and as of this time they find <b>NO</b> connection to al Qaeda. Further more, the 'spokesman' in the tape that claims responsibility in the name of al Qaeda is still unidentified. <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4DF75E29-FE5E-4B79-9A88-5DB01CA46030.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>