War On Terrorism....

[asterix404]

I am enrolled in a college course called terrorism today. We have discussed in great detail. The Problem is that there isn't really a formal definition. A few proposed ideas is that terrorism is the destruction of property or persons with the intent to have far reaching effect to more people then just the people terrorists hurt, and to do this they want to spread fear and make what they do wide spread though TV and the Internet. Terrorists esp. those of the religious variety, rarely can ever be reasoned with, and can never be stooped because they will not let their cause go. No matter if they get their demands they will make more demands and raise the stakes. Take for instance Hamas and their dealing with Israel. In order to stop attacks for a short period of time they first demanded a decrease in check points and a turn over to the Palestinian authority. Israel agreed, then Hamas wanted more demands, I wish I remembered what they were.... but then the finial they wanted to have all 9000 of their people released from prison for a 2 week temporary cease fire. Now we all know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, we know this since politically they want the complete irradiation of Israel, every man woman and child who lives there. Now come my questions to this point. One of the ways to combat terrorism is to completely ignore them and never let them into their political discussions. Why is this not being done? Why is Israel making deals with terrorists? Why has the US not completely irradiated them and gone to war with Hamas? Better yet, we know Iran funds them directly because they have said so... and we hate them..... But then there is Saudi Arabia. The queen gave a million dollar necklace to Mrs. Bush when the president invited over the King of Saudi Arabia to stay at the white house. Saudi Arabia funded Hamas for a very very long time and gave them safe houses and weapons. Now they are not politically doing that however that does not stop the billionaire's from giving hamas funding. Why is this? How can we say that we hate all terrorism while having fantastic relations with a country that we know harbors them? Isn't the war on terrorism just another way to say that we are making good relations and bringing stability, while really we are just hypocrites? Why are we over there, no one has answered this question. My professor told me it wasn't for oil, and I am inclined to believe him because oil is a very very very low profit margin product and it would take trillions to pay it back. We are not there for people since so far 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, mostly by us. They don't have weapons of mass destruction and not only that never have, so it just seems like a waste. We almost completely destabilized the whole region and we are letting Afghanistan slip into another terrorist state by just not fixing it. Sure we are giving a few hundred million, hell even a few billion, but nothing in comparison to the 300+ billion we have spent on Iraq both on the occupation and what will eventually be the reconstruction. So why are we there and why do we support Saudi Arabia?

[Nono]

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

When it comes to scaring people into implementing your agenda by spreading Fear throughout society, OBL has some stiff competition in Washington. Also when it comes to death cults and other forms of nutty religiosity.

[asterix404]

No see One man's terrorist is not another mans freedome fighter by a long shot. We discussed that too how that phrase managed to escape. Terrorism is terrorism. Religious wackos would soon as kill their own people as others. The terrorists and the civillians understand that, also terrorists are NOT liked by their people. Terrorists create their own cause and thus ignore that of the people they are trying to "free". Most people in these countries people are moderates who just want to eat and sleep and live, terrorists can not have that becasue then their cause would die and thus they would too. As much as Palistians loves Affafat, they loved him because he gave them peace, not really through terrorism, but through diplomacy. Once he was elected he was board. The other thing terrorism does is to push a group of people in the direction they do not want to be. The term freedom fighter is elusive, people don't want to fight to be free. They want to given that right that is theirs. Every country who has ever fought for it's freedom has been part of a war mongering group that has never ever had peace. The terrorists force them to die, everyone knows this including the civillians who want to be left alone.

What is OBL?

[Nono]

I agree with most of what you say, but the statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a commentary on language, terminology. (That was the heart of your original post, correct? How does one define the term? What does it mean? Etc.)
The point isn't that terrorists are freedom fighters or anything like that. The point is that if I'm an established government and you're an insurgent trying to overthrow me, I'll call you a terrorist (see Putin vs. Chechens or Apartheid South Africa vs. ANC) and you'll call yourself a freedom fighter (see Viet Cong, etc.).

That's why you have to put your bullshit antenna up high whenever either of these terms is employed.

OBL = Osama bin Laden

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: asterix404 The term freedom fighter is elusive, people don't want to fight to be free. They want to given that right that is theirs.

However, people usually DO have to fight to become free. If they don't HAVE freedom, who exactly is going to "give" it to them? Either THEY fight for it or someone else fights FOR them!

Every country who has ever fought for it's freedom has been part of a war mongering group that has never ever had peace.

That could be said of almost any country on the planet. We are a warlike species and also realize that even if WE are not, other people force us to become violent. Fight to GET freedom. Fight to KEEP freedom. Happens all the time.

What is OBL?

Osama
Bin
Laden

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Nono I agree with most of what you say, but the statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a commentary on language, terminology. (That was the heart of your original post, correct? How does one define the term? What does it mean? Etc.) The point isn't that terrorists are freedom fighters or anything like that. The point is that if I'm an established government and you're an insurgent trying to overthrow me, I'll call you a terrorist (see Putin vs. Chechens or Apartheid South Africa vs. ANC) and you'll call yourself a freedom fighter (see Viet Cong, etc.). That's why you have to put your bullshit antenna up high whenever either of these terms is employed. OBL = Osama bin Laden

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", along with the "explanation" for terminology or commentary is a syllogism.
One may say, take and/or use the word "freedom fighter" as a description for a person who defends its values (or a particular agenda he may appear to be a member, representative and/or affiliated with), but it can not be equal to the meaning for terrorists, terrorism, ect.
Chechenya's terrorists are not terrorists.
That is the joke, is not it ?

What "Vietcong" has in common with terrorists ?

[bishop]

the russians are terrorists to the chechens, just like the chechens are terrorists to the russians. is that too difficult to understand? maybe you need to read up on how the ruskies behave before you start thinking that they're better than their enemies.

oh yeah, didn't putin kill a shit ton of hostages a little while ago? granted, they were hostages, but he was the man who killed the hostages.. all sorts of kids if i remember correctly.

and fyi - there is no universal definition of terrorism.. the cia, fbi, state department, u.n., etc... all of them have different definitions of that term. why? because of the accurate statement you called a syllogism.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop the russians are terrorists to the chechens, just like the chechens are terrorists to the russians. is that too difficult to understand? maybe you need to read up on how the ruskies behave before you start thinking that they're better than their enemies. oh yeah, didn't putin kill a shit ton of hostages a little while ago? granted, they were hostages, but he was the man who killed the hostages.. all sorts of kids if i remember correctly. and fyi - there is no universal definition of terrorism.. the cia, fbi, state department, u.n., etc... all of them have different definitions of that term. why? because of the accurate statement you called a syllogism.

#1
Chechnya is a part of Russia, and not any other way around.
Most (if not all) of those Chechnyans who participate in terror activity has its pro-Islamic fundaments as the base. That is yet another al-Qaeda's copy, but this time "made in U.S.S.R. - Russia", what can not be said about the other parts of Russia, especially European ones.
There is not much about understanding, but being familiar with Russia' history, a little.

#2
No state is going to tolerate a separation or any form of political instability.
Otherwise such state is on a brink of anarchy.

#3
Syllogism is a terminology used in/by logic (as a faculty and science).
A definition (itself), regardless of how it may be rendered but it upkeeps the same meaning that is widely recognized by others.
That is not my business whether a robber call himself a "merachndise-borrower". It does not release him from being a thief, or so. The meaning stays the same, while termonilogy, onomastics and/or its etymology may have different sources or genesis.
His activity describes a definition that we may applied to and mark (him) by that.

[bishop]

that's nice.. so are you saying that the russians don't commit acts of terror against the chechens?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop that's nice.. so are you saying that the russians don't commit acts of terror against the chechens?

No, I do not say that. I believe that Russians do their part, as well.
The difference between them is that Chechnya's nationalists try to pull that state out of Russia. I am affraid Russia has no choice but to pretect its integrity.

[asterix404]

The real question is about the russian chechnyain thing... did they want it to be widly known about what they were doing... or did they want it all to go away. There is deff state sponsored terrorism to keep a population in line with what they are thinking through fear and intimadation esp if you hire religious zellots who don't care who they kill. Is there any way of ever beating them, ever? And if not isn't the war on terror doomed from the start?

[bishop]

rainbow, you're trying to simplify it as if it's just some renegade separatist state that's acting up.. that conflict is CENTURIES old.. it's bigger than russia pretecting its integrity.

http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php...storyeng&row=2

[bishop]

Is there any way of ever beating them, ever? And if not isn't the war on terror doomed from the start?

i look at it this way.. at the root of all conflict, you can almost always find greed and ego at work. why is there a problem in kashmir? cuz kashmir is prime real estate and the indians want it for themselves. the conflict with israel and palestinians is so illogical that the only way to explain it is attributing it to greed and ego (settlers and terrorists want the land, israelis and palestinians refuse to bend an inch in negotiations)... what about us? we support despotic regimes so that we can get our oil, and so that they pursue the right pricing policies.. does that help us make friends with the people who live in those countries? nope.


so, the solution is to practice moral foreign policy. they've tried the machiavellian route for centuries now and look how successful it's been.

[rmnunez]

Problem with "moral" foreign policy is that what's moral to you probably wouldn't cut it with someone else and it has nothing to do with your moral standards, just that there is a lot of variety out there. Maybe the idea should be to establish some immoral things one wouldn't do. Then again, I'd expect circumstances would come into play to excuse compliance in certain situations.

A separate problem is this regard for foreign policy as an expression of morals. I think of it more like the sum of a government's international relations and these are not in pursuit of moral goals rather than national interest, strategic security, natural resources, trade and commerce. I wonder how a representative government would explain to its constituents why national interest was sacrified to morals.

[Richard 23]

Quote by: asterix404 I am enrolled in a college course called terrorism today. We have discussed in great detail. The Problem is that there isn't really a formal definition.

I thought after 911 a legal definition was crafted (very broadly). It should have been easily located by your instructor. I'll see if I can fish it out.

Quote by: asterix404 A few proposed ideas is that terrorism is the destruction of property or persons with the intent to have far reaching effect to more people then just the people terrorists hurt, and to do this they want to spread fear and make what they do wide spread though TV and the Internet.

That sounds about right. Simpler is: the use of violence to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal. The point isn't so much the death or destruction but the fear that they can get you anywhere anytime. People are more likely to pressure their government to take action, which the terrorists hope to be concession to their demands. A terrorist act is also a contemptible but effective way to get attention and have their cause and demands covered by media especially when they can't get their grievances heard.

Quote by: asterix404 Terrorists esp. those of the religious variety, rarely can ever be reasoned with, and can never be stooped because they will not let their cause go. No matter if they get their demands they will make more demands and raise the stakes.

Now you're falling for the generalization that governments want you to believe. Their motives and your belief are understandable. You stated a complex case [Israel, Hamas]. Allow me to state a simpler one.

Osama bin Ladin, as we all know, is a Saudi exile who hates the Saudi Royals. They are infidels. His brand of Islam is very clear about foreigners in the Islamic holy land. In the Gulf War, the US warned the Saudis about Iraqi tanks massing on their border, a warning of a potential invasion, and provided satellite photos to back that up. They were alleged forgeries. Saudi resistance to US desires for a military base, an airfield, were softened. We got our base. We also got Osama's attention. Bin Laden's main stated goal thereafter was to get the US military bases out of Saudi Arabia. Less than two years after 911 the US announced it was removing its military bases from Saudi Arabia. Was that last part, the removal of bases, satisfying Osama's primary beef with the US shouted loudly in the press? Not that I remember. Could this have anything to do with why there have been no further attacks in the US, or is President Bush so macho and effective at preventing terrorism that Osama has been prevented? You decide.

Of course I recall Condi stating rather clearly that we had irrefutable evidence implicating al-Qaeda and that it would be forthcoming. I don't recall the government providing the smoking gun precisely. If anyone does I'd like to be reminded. The videotape of Osama apparently taking credit for the attack isn't exactly what I mean. It certainly does provide him a lot of clout by taking the credit and he already was a wanted man, so I don't know how useful is the confession by itself. And that the hunt for Osama has been reduced to taking out ads in Pakistani newspapers with offers of a big reward after Bush promised to never rest until smoking him out of his holes or whatever doesn't indicate to me that there's any big rush to nab the guy. What gives?

Quote by: asterix404 One of the ways to combat terrorism is to completely ignore them and never let them into their political discussions.

Sounds more like a recipe for never ending warfare to me.
But the theory that giving into demands (terrorists, hostage takers, kidnappers and the like) only encourages the practice seems logical enough, but to justify ruling out a rational attempt at diplomacy. Perhaps by demonstrating that we are willing to be flexible where our policy has a profoundly negative impact things will improve. If we provide an outlet other than violence for hostility to be vented, tension can be reduced. That's the main reson western nations came up with elections, to give people a periodic and safe way to voice their concerns: mini revolutions rather than large violent ones.

When the demands aren't completely unreasonable then perhaps it's wiser to deal. When they have a legitimate beef, it makes a certain amount of sense, although the attempt should probably be made to give in without appearing to give in, eg, we were going to do such and such anyway or whatever. But you still need to treat the crime accordingly and nail the perpetrators. If you nail the bad guys but leave the reasons for their desperate action in place, you merely encourage another group to come forward and try again. And then we're back to never-ending, escalating attacks and perpetual warfare.

Quote by: asterix404 Why is this not being done? Why is Israel making deals with terrorists?

Probably because they're not stupid. They already know how effective stonewalling and violent retribution is. Cyclical and escalating violence. An eye for an eye, then a nose, an ear, an arm, a leg. Very messy. Very ineffective if it drags on. Eventually people may even forget what started the whole thing.

Quote by: asterix404 Why has the US not completely irradiated them and gone to war with Hamas?

Irradiating? If you mean nukes, think that over a little more carefully. What kind of response would survivors or sympathizers attempt to provide? Bad idea. Also a horrible and inhumane precedent. Only twice (that I know about) were atomic weapons dropped on civilian populations. Since then the world waits for the next guy to go first. Do you really suggest we break that moratorium? Some in the neocon death cult think we should. Mini nukes, bunker busters, earth penetrators, whatever, are a sick horrid stupid idea. We don't need new reasons to use them. The old reasons for not using them should be enough. Dumbasses.

And we do not make war with Hamas because they are not a nation and they are not at war with us. We aren't at war with terrorism either. If we ever were, it ended in Afghanistan, which IMHO, was a ruse. The real target was always Iraq. But 911 to Iraq in one go would never have been tolerated. Once in Afghanistan it was easier to jump into Iraq after the WMD bullcrap was drummed into our heads. That's when we gave up on Bin Laden too.

Quote by: asterix404 Better yet, we know Iran funds them directly because they have said so... and we hate them..... But then there is Saudi Arabia. The queen gave a million dollar necklace to Mrs. Bush when the president invited over the King of Saudi Arabia to stay at the white house. Saudi Arabia funded Hamas for a very very long time and gave them safe houses and weapons. Now they are not politically doing that however that does not stop the billionaire's from giving hamas funding. Why is this?

I'm not familiar with that usage of the word "better" so I'll skip that bit.

The Saudi Arabia business is tricky. The Royals are hated by their own people. We seem to like doing business with them as long as they keep the oil flowing at low prices. We've been somewhat supportive about them keeping the boot on their own people. A virulent form of anti-Western Islam, Wahhabism, is tolerated (if that's the right word) probably in part to give people someone else to hate other than the Royal Family. A scapegoat. It's pretty effective. Most of the 911 hijackers were Saudis.

Pro-Palastinian funding comes from all over the region because the people identify with the cause. Many of the governments are repressive and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a flashpoint. If that ever gets worked out, people will probably turn their ire on their own repressive regimes without as much distraction. Or towards the west if we don't find a better way to win over hearts and minds other than by supporting repressive governments, overthrowing unfriendlies and installing brutal puppets and dropping bombs.

Iran would be an awful place to start yet another pointless war. Those people are relentless. The death toll on both sides in the nearly ten year Iran-Iraq war was appalling. Khomeni didn't seem to care. After a couple of years Saddam had enough, but Khomeni refused to agree to a cease fire. He really wanted Saddam toppled and the Islamic revolution to spread across the region through the Shi-ites in Iraq. Guess he was really pissed about Saddam booting him out of Iraq at the Shah's request. That and he hated the idea of a secular goverment next door, anywhere in the region, really.

Iran would also suck because of its terrain. One nuke in Tel-Aviv would wipe out Israel, something I certainly do not endorse in the least. However, what I have heard, is, if one were a completely inhumane bastard who has no right to live on this Earth among among other human beings, but, if a bastard wanted to irradiate the civilian population of Iran, due to the mountainous terrain, he'd have to drop several in different spots to commit the sickening act of genocide that "irradiate" implies.

Iran is also somewhat of a democracy. What chance do moderates have of getting into positions of power when we rattle the sabre and send in covert ops to stir up trouble and send drones over their airspace? Well, none. The hardliners gain popular support. Nice diplomacy again, idiots. But diplomacy is not their goal. Read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses . I think page 51 has the "new Pearl Harbor" reference.

continued next post...

[Richard 23]

Quote by: asterix404 How can we say that we hate all terrorism while having fantastic relations with a country that we know harbors them?

You seemed to do it just fine. A little rewording in diplomatic speak perhaps.

Quote by: asterix404 Isn't the war on terrorism just another way to say that we are making good relations and bringing stability, while really we are just hypocrites?

It's a contradiction. War brings instability, not stability.
The only effective way to get rid of terrorism is to eliminate its causes.
I don't mean the terrorists, the leaders, the training centers, the countries in which they reside, the people who fund them, etc.
I mean root causes, such as misery, hunger, repression, oppression, poverty, injustice....
This kind of stuff is what made Hitler rise so easily.
The root causes make it easier for the right leader to identify a scapegoat, incite anger, provide the weapons, plans, strap on bombs and away they go.
A war on people will never ever solve the problem unless you kill all the miserable people.
Kill them or cure them. Which is cheaper? More importantly, which is right?

Right now we've got everything we need for perpetual war.
I'm not in the weapons industry. I don't profit from death. I don't want it.
It would be far cheaper to simply live up to the ideals that America was founded upon.
Enough with this culture of death crap. It's really depressing and sick.

Quote by: asterix404 Why are we over there, no one has answered this question. My professor told me it wasn't for oil, and I am inclined to believe him because oil is a very very very low profit margin product and it would take trillions to pay it back.

Bullshit. We're there for CONTROL of the oil. China is poised to overtake the US in world consumption of oil. If we gain control over the spigots, we gain control, or at least a major influence over the world.

Face it, the world is switching to Euros, esp with Bush's fine economic wisdom. Saddam wanted to switch to Euros. He said so before we invaded. When Euros rather than US dollars become the standard currency for international transactions it won't be good for the US. Details about Cheney's energy strategy meeting early in the first administration has never been made public. Judicial Watch got some info through an FOIA request. I think it was a map of Iraq, essentially dividing up the spoils of war, er, Iraq's oil. Wonder what means....

The PNAC plan was simple enough, use the US role as sole remaining superpower to remake the Middle East such that it would be more friendly to the US, starting with Iraq. A new American Empire for a New American Century. If we control the bulk of the worlds most convenient and popular resource, we would gain control. As US manufacturing has fled the US for slave labor in other countries, thanks to our fine patriotic corporations who should rightly be identified as traitors, no longer welcome to generous tax cuts, those that haven't already opened a branch office in the Cayman Islands to escape taxation, the US isn't the economic powerhouse it once was. I doubt there's a lot of worldwide demand for our wonderful labor force toiling in low-wage service jobs. So we're going to lose relevance. Control of the oil would certainly let the US hang on a bit longer. Of course I'm wondering what keeps the oil companies from going turncoat like so much of our deplorable sociopathic corporations. They should all be put up against the wall. If they like the US, they goddamn well should feel obligated to demonstrate it. We're the ones that gave the corporation "personhood" status. But that's another topic.

Quote by: asterix404 We are not there for people since so far 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, mostly by us.

Now you're thinking. The "liberation of the Iraqi people" garbage was never mentioned until the WMD story was shown to be the inflated pack of lies that it was from the beginning. Whenever any leader starts speaking in terms of lofty wonderful idealistic goals to justify going to war, it's always crap. They say that flowery bullshit because the real reason is too ugly. War is always ugly. And it always involves blowing people to pieces. 100,000 into who knows how many pieces. I bet that history will call it a war crime. Probably one reason we didn't sign on to the world court idea.

Unrelated but Bush is probably denying Gulf War I veterans the one billion dollar settlement against the Iraqi government (under Saddam) for their having been tortured because it would set a bad precedent. What about all the folks we continue to enjoy torturing so much? It's sickening. What the hell can they tell us? What ever we want to hear. Even if it were effective for something other than inspiring terror and hatred (which it surely is not), it's terribly immoral and inhumane, plus it means we'll be living next to sadists when they come home. Expect plenty of sick crime in the near future. What has my country become?

Quote by: asterix404 They don't have weapons of mass destruction and not only that never have, so it just seems like a waste.

They didn't have shit. Ten years of destroying Iraqi weapons was pretty damn successful. But it wasn't a waste. Bush wanted to attack BECAUSE there were no weapons. It's supposed to be a lot easier when the enemy has no weapons. He probably didn't realize that people so long oppressed might fight back on their own, not for Saddam, but for themselves. The majority of Iraqis suspect we're there for the oil and are never going to leave. This has been shown in surveys. So they fight and will fight until we leave. They don't want our bases there because they know what that means. They will never be actually free. It will be illusory. They will be free to cooperate with the US. If they decide to cut us off and sell all of their oil to China, we're right there to topple whatever government came up with such an anti-democratic idea. That's why they fight. That's why we pretend we'll leave while we keep building the largest "embassies" in the world, right there in little insignificant Iraq. And we'll use those bases to covertly agitate the neighbors if we don't overtly knock them over. The people probably know this. If we hang in there and get our bases built and staffed, they're fucked unless they want to be best friends forever. And the sick thing is, we liberated them, so they owe us. Very very very sick and wrong. That's why they fight. That's why we stay and let them kill young Americans. Like Pearle said, it's an insurance policy. We're paying the premium, or unleaded, if you prefer.

Quote by: asterix404 We almost completely destabilized the whole region and we are letting Afghanistan slip into another terrorist state by just not fixing it.

Bush likes chaos. It makes it much easier to huff and puff and blow the mideast down.
And the heroin is a great backup source of funds for funding covert operations, just like contra cocaine was. But they already stole, ahem, lost 9 billion or so. But that ain't shit to these people.

Quote by: asterix404 Sure we are giving a few hundred million, hell even a few billion, but nothing in comparison to the 300+ billion we have spent on Iraq both on the occupation and what will eventually be the reconstruction. So why are we there and why do we support Saudi Arabia?

I think the plan has stalled. I expected Syria to happen by now. After all that crap about the WMDs going to Syria before the war. I'd think that would be easier (to the war monsters; it's not my kind of thinking) than Iran.

We probably "support" Saudi Arabia because it's the most convenient thing to do...for now. Yeah Bush has buddies in Saudi Arabia, but what the hell, they've got lots of oil. He might shed a tear or two but I've never seen him show any emotion so maybe not.

Hell, the Iraqi people are our "friends" and we torture them, killed tens of thousands of civilians with shock and awe. With friends like the neocon death cult, you'd best not have something they want, especially oil.

This is all biased, as is anything you'll read anywhere. The truth nearly always depends on one's point of view.

But I've given you some motivations and ideas to consider. Look stuff up. Read multiple points of view. And remember that an instructor may have all sorts of good information but nobody is infallible. Everyone holds a piece of the truth. Verify whatever you can. Always.

Good luck with your course. Hope it's useful. Actually I hope that everyone comes to their senses and the knowlege becomes historical but obsolete. We all deserve that much.

[Gorgo]

This would make the U.S. a terrorist state:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm

*'"act of terrorism" means an activity that -- (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.'
--------
**'US sources also provide more succinct definitions of "terrorism." A US Army manual on countering terrorism defines it as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." '



*United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 (West Publishing Co., 1984).

**US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984);

[Richard 23]

I really apologize for pontificating for the last two...years, but one more thing just has to be said in answer to our young student friend....

Quote by: asterix404 Better yet, we know Iran funds them directly because they have said so... and we hate them..... But then there is Saudi Arabia.

I'm not familiar with that usage of the word "better" so I'll skip that bit. And I don't hate anyone I haven't met or at least conversed with. Perhaps it would better if people didn't hate in the abstract. I met one Iranian before the Iran Hostage business, he went to Disneyland and Magic Mountain with my family when I was a kid. He was a nice guy, a nice Muslim guy, I suppose. We had lots of fun. He's probably in Iran now if he's still alive. Hello Farzat! I may have met many others. I didn't ask where they were from so I don't know if I was supposed to hate them.

Let's try reasoning with people, for real, in good faith, before we start killing them. People have much more in common than they do that divide them. We all want to a decent life (above poverty, not in misery, with hope and choices) for ourselves and our families. We all need to eat food that doesn't sicken us, we all need to drink clean water, we all need to breathe clean air, we all need a place to piss and a place to shit. We need hope that each day will be as good as or better than the last. We need the right to believe what we want and say what we think. We need to be free from fear of oppression and torture.

We need to stop the fucking torture. It is always wrong. We've gotta take that shit off the table. Maybe the tin plate and cigarrete rations are quaint, but so what. Abide by the Geneva Conventions, fully, no slippery legal crap. I thought Republicans didn't like that slippery Clinton legal weasel wording. So don't use it to justify human rights violations. It debases us all. The torturers, the apologists, those cheering it on, those who cry for it to stop, those who beg for it to stop. Please, stop.

Thank you for your patience, your flames, and yes, I'm shutting up now.

[Nono]

Quote by: Richard 23 People have much more in common than they do that divide them. We all want to a decent life (above poverty, not in misery, with hope and choices) for ourselves and our families. We all need to eat food that doesn't sicken us, we all need to drink clean water, we all need to breathe clean air, we all need a place to piss and a place to shit. We need hope that each day will be as good as or better than the last. We need the right to believe what we want and say what we think. We need to be free from fear of oppression and torture.

Well said. And the way to crank up a war is to fill people's heads with the notion that your target is inhabited by people who somehow fail to have all this in common with us. It makes it easier to bomb and torture them.

[bishop]

Problem with "moral" foreign policy is that what's moral to you probably wouldn't cut it with someone else and it has nothing to do with your moral standards, just that there is a lot of variety out there.

did you think that this moral foreign policy i said would be one that we'd have to impose on another country? if so, your interpretation was wrong. i'm basically saying we shouldn't support regimes that oppress their people - this helps foster resentment towards us. we shouldn't bully the world, we should debate and look for common ground compromise.. etc..