The terms “lying weasel” and “lying shitbag” just don’t do you justice, december. :rolleyes:
Ah, Boo Boo, I believe I made one myself. I didn’t ask *when * it happened, I asked if it happened before the protests, I was more leaning towards “How could protests encourage someone to commit an act of terror if they didn’t happen until after the act happened?”, if you know what I mean. I was sure it was around Fall 2002, and knew it was before the protests. Plus I was just back from the pub when I posted.
Yes, I’m Irish. Although I’ve been lucky enough that we havent seen any terrorist activity in the south since 1974, it’s only been 5 years since the Omagh bombing, and that is still fresh in alot of memories. While I haven’t been personally affected I’ve seen what terrorism can do.
I should have been more direct with my line of questioning, rather than noping the implication would be understood.
What you said about December is spot on.
(btw, I saw the Foo fighters for the first time in concert last week, playing support for the Red Hot Chili Peppers along with QOTSA. Excellent day all round.)
Well done december - to admit to a mistake is the first step in the right direction. Lord knows it’s something I’ve had to exercise far too often myself sadly.
May I suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you dial back the number of threads you’re starting at the moment? At least, do some quality research first. In this instance, the time gap between the Bali Bombing and the anti-war protests in Australia was so great that even some rudimentary research would have saved you from “leading with your chin” the way you did in this thread. Nothing personal there - I’d like to see you become more popular - honestly.
Just do some bloody “quality” research - and please - avoid the partisan politics angle. You’re better than that - it polarises shit way more than it needs to be polarised.
Only in your twisted little world, you worthless piece of shit.
Whether you like it or not, the President of the United States personifies the US in the eyes of the world. E.g., consider this dictionary definition and example:
Bzzt, we’re sorry, december, but that answer doesn’t fly. Bush may personify the G.O.P., but not the U.S. (by the definition which you yourself have trotted out).
Oddly enough, I would think a better example of Groupthink would be someone starting a thread raising an uncomfortable point, and then the thread consisting of at least half the posters responding with ad hominem attacks and calling for the banning of the original poster without addressing his point at all.
In other words, the second line could be read as:
Not everyone in this thread is doing this. Jodi and some others are at least attempting to address the apparent contradiction between “When terrorists claim they are acting because of US foreign policy, we should re-examine that policy” and “When terrorists claim they are acting because of protests against US foreign policy, we should not re-examine those protests”.
Groupthink looks a little different to those who are outside the group.
Regards,
Shodan
december you already embarassed yourself once with a stupid OP like this which who had to furiously try to spin control your way out of. Now you do it again. You efforts to try and tie any publically voiced disapproval with Bush’s misadventures with encouraging terrorism is despicable.
You have watched too much Fox News to understand the concept of shame, but maybe you should look it up. Trying to use the deaths of innocents to advocate your extremist beliefs is beyond low. Even Reeder, Read_Neck and Brutus wouldn’t stoop so low.
And given the deaths of innocents at the Oklahoma bombing, using your twisted hate based “logic”, those deaths are the direct resposibility of the ultra right-wing radio and tv hosts who decried the government under Clinton. Should we lock up G. Gordon Liddy then?
Of course not you fucking dimwitted attention whore.
Thats funny Shodan I didn’t see you posting that in **Reeder’s ** threads. I wonder what the difference between them is? :dubious: They are still on the board if you wish to do so.
Compare and contrast:
You appear to have confused “implying” with “stated”.
Still, no doubt people will defend this blatant lie of yours on the grounds that you are “polite”.
God what crap. By my count, there’s 149 posts in this thread. There’s precisely 0 calls for a ban, there’s 1 “hope you get banned”, 1 “tell me why C got banned”, and 2 “don’t want him banned”.
Fucking idiot.
I agree with the OP. It is very likely - on it’s own - that enemies of the US see signs of internal dissent as a sign of weakness. (It is also very likely that people in the US see signs of dissent in enemy countries as a sign of weakness there, and take encouragement from it). The statement by this bomber lends some additional support to what is already a likely fact.
The point has been made by many people (e.g. tomndebb) that the US invasion of Iraq will also have the effect of encouraging some people to become terrorists. This is a specious point. I agree that it is extremely likely that this assertion is correct. However, this is but one effect of many. The invasion of Iraq had positive outcomes and negative ones. It is the job of the Prez and his advisors to balance the positive against the negative. If in fact the president decided to simply ignore the possibility of increased anti-US emotions in some quarters because “that’s not my problem” (as seems to be the parallel position of the anti-war posters here) then he is in fact an incompetent idiot. But no evidence has been presented that this has happened. Most likely, he weighed the various pros and cons and decided that the former outweighed the latter.
Same goes for the protestors. If the protestors are saying that their need to express opposition to the war trumps the possibility that they will encourage terrorism, that is a valid position. But to say - as many posters here have - that it’s just not their problem and something they don’t have to concern themselves with, is very wrong.
This thread is typical of many december threads. Rational OP, followed by a horde of outraged liberals, who, unable to logically disprove the OP, resort to distorting it beyond recognition, as well as a cacophony of personal attacks and calls for banning. Very convincing, folks.
Oh really. So you have an explanation for how anti war protests encouraged a bombing that took place 4 months before?
On you go then…
To take your last point first, i was under the impression that DMC’s “quote” was a tongue-in-cheek, made-up type of thing. Have i been whooshed, or am i bit thick? I couldn’t find it on the web by Googling, and i never took it to be a genuine citation, although if i’m right, then DMC might have made that a little clearer in his post.
On the whole issue of “encouraging terrorists,” i’ll say what i said in another thread some time back. If these terrorists are aware of the protests in places like Australia and the United States, then presumably they learn about such protests through the media (newspapers, TV, etc.). If this is the case, why is it not reasonable to assume that the terrorists are just as cognizant of George W. Bush’s constant affirmation that the war on terror will be prosecuted until it is won?
I mean, Bush (and John Howard of Australia) has made very clear his determination to see the war through, no matter how many people are in the streets protesting. And, to date, he has completely lived up to this promise, with an invasion of Afghanistan, followed and an invasion and then an occupation of Iraq. Surely these words and actions speak considerably louder than those of the protesters in sending a message to the world about the consequences of further terrorism. Anyone who has paid even the vaguest attention to Administration policy in the US over the past two years knows that further acts of terror are likely to result in more US involvement in the battle, rather than fewer. I really don’t see how you can say that the protests encourage terrorists into thinking that their goals are being achieved.
In fact, one could even argue that Bush’s own continued commitment to the “war on terror” is itself contributing to the terrorism to a considerably greater extent than any protesters, if only because Bush (and his Administration) is the one with the actual power to make decisions. Similar observations have been made by Miller and tomndebb, to a resounding silence from those who argue that protests encourage terrorists. And, as Miller pointed out, some of those accusing the protesters of providing comfort to the terrorists are the same people who refused to concede that US actions and foreign policy before 9/11 might have somehow contributed to those terrorist attacks.
You also conveniently conflate the “war on Iraq” with the “war on terrorism.” Doing so assumes that those who oppose the former are also somehow against fighting terrorism. This smacks of the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re agisnt us rhetoric” of morons like Brutus and Read Neck, even though i don’t think that you generally adopt such a position. The fact is that every anti-war protester i know is also anti-terrorism, and simply believes that current US policy is not the best way to go about fighting terrorism world-wide.
You say that you “have never said that terrorist attacks were the consequences of anti-war protests,” yet only a few sentences later you say that protesters “encourage” the terrorists, and warn about the “costs” of protesting. Well, even couched in those terms it sounds like a pretty thinly-veiled accusation to me, and to plenty of other people in this thread, apparently.
While i realize that counterfactual questions can never really be answered with any certainty, i’d be interested to know whether you believe that, in the absence of protests, there would have been fewer terrorist attacks over the past year or so? Do you really think that the guys who bombed the Bali nightclub would have decided whether or not to go ahead based on protests in Australia? If not, then how are the protesters providing them with encouragement? And i’m still amazed at the credence that people are willing to give to the taunting, self-serving words of a terrorist, months after the fact.
Now, to Boo Boo Foo:
I’m sorry you lost a friend in the Bali bombing. One of my best high school friends (i grew up in Sydney) also died in the blast, although we hadn’t kept in touch that much over the past few years, since i’ve been in the US.
Anyway, i think you’re being a bit too hard on some of our American friends (not december, of course; he deserves everything he gets :)). Americans aren’t all inherently insular. If they know less about the rest of the world than the rest of the world knows about them, it can basically be attributed to the mainstream media, and to the fact that, like it or not, America is the most powerful and most influential nation in the world, and what goes on here is often extremely important. Actually, it’s probably also worth pointing out that many Americans know jack-shit about what happens in America :).
But i think it goes beyond that in this case. As an Aussie living in the US, i keep pretty close track of what’s going on back home. I read the Sydney Morning Herald website every day, and listen to Triple-J radio over the internet, as well as getting news from friends and family. And, despite being quite conscientious and pretty well-informed, i sometimes forget exactly when something happened in Australia or elsewhere, and even in the US. If you had asked me when the Bali bomb went off, i would have said last fall, but i might have got the month wrong. With all that’s been going on in the world over the past couple of years, these events seem to pile on top of one another until it’s sometimes hard to remember what happened when.
Also, while you are right that most protests against the current war were held in Australia in early 2003, well after the Bali bomb, there were also quite a few demostrations in late 2001 to protest against US action in Afghansitan (examples here and here), and that might have been what the terrorist fucker was referring to, although we’ll never really know what goes through his twisted mind. And the article cited by the OP did say “recent Australian anti-Gulf War protests,” not “2001 Afghanistan War protests.”
Funnily enough, though, your point got me to go back and reread the original article the december linked to. While december implied, nay, actually said outright, that proteesters “encouraged this carnage,” there is absolutely no evidence, even in the testimony of the bomber himself, that this is true. The only reference he made to the protests was to thank protesters for suppporting his cause. Nowhere does he say that protests of any type actually encouraged any act of terrorism. He could simply be referring to the fact that, in his mind, the recent protests against the Iraq war supported the cause of Isalm in general, or of those who oppose America/Australia.
A rough analogy might be a prisoner on death row for murder, with a bunch of supporters outside protesting against his execution. He might thank them for supporting his “cause,” but this does not mean that the protesters in any way encouraged and aided the prior action (murder) that got him on death row in the first place. Considering that those who support december’s OP have been simply portraying themselves as realists, and asking us not to shoot the messenger, it’s worth looking more closely at what the message actually is. And i see absolutely no evidence that any protests encouraged this terrorist in any way before his act. The fact that the protests might give him some small comfort in the aftermath of the attack is completely irrelevant.
When have i, or “at least half the posters” for that matter, called for him to be banned? As Desmostylus says, it’s a few incidents. And plenty of people have addressed his point, to the extent that he actually had one. And i’ve yet to see him or his supporters in this thread even attempt to address Miller and tomndebb’s suggestions that, if we adopt the same logic, then US foreign policy is also strongly complicit in the 9/11 attacks–a position many conservatives were unwilling to even consider in the aftermath of those attacks.
IzzyR, if the posts of tomndebb and Miller are making specious points, as you say, then the OP is making the exact same specious point, for the exact same reason. The protests against the Iraq war may have good consequences or bad ones. They may have no consequences at all. People protesting may get hurt or arrested, or the protests may sway others to the idea that this war is a fruitless enterprise.
In short, the OP makes the exact same mistake you accuse dissenting posters of… it ignores the positive aspects, while exaggerating the negative ones to make a partisan political point. If anything, I’d say that the OP’s disingenuous and inaccurate use of the Bali/Australia connection to make its point is a further illustration of just how low the extreme right is willing to stoop to tar its opponents.
I find it sad, and more than a little disturbing, that december puts more faith in the words of a terrorist than he does in fellow Americans, just because he disagrees with them. But I guess the source of what’s being said doesn’t matter, as long as it’s saying something december likes.
And oh, how he loves what this terrorist said. He lapped it up like a kitten.
I wonder, though, if the terrorist had said he was “encouraged” by the policies of the current administration… what would the reaction have been then?
IzzyR, the causal link between protesters and the bombing mentioned in the OP has been debunked. As it turned out, it was simply yet another example of **december’s ** poor research skills if not outright lying.
However, if we want to say that war protestors are encouraging terrorism we can do that. However, I want evidence. It should be possible to find if, indeed, it exists. Perhaps a chart in which we track terrorist activities and cross tab that with incidents of peaceful protest? For example, if memory serves, the war in Afghanistan was much less vigorously protested than the war in Iraq. If we buy the hypothesis that protesting against war causes terrorism than I would expect the numbers to show this (although to be fair, it would be best to see more data than just these two incidents). I am sure that quantifiable data must exist, and await the cites from the folks that are making these claims.
Well, I thought it was a joke too, but then someone refered back to it like it was real later in the thread so I wondered. The likelyest explanation is that I was whooshed.
On that front, here are some statistics from this overall report. Looks like the 2003 data is not out yet, but some food for thought.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted here, as your post results from an apparent refusal to pay attention to what other people are saying. The following point has been made before in this thread - please pay attention this time:
Obviously, anti-war protests cannot have encouraged a bombing that took place before the protests did. Agreed. Now that that’s out of the way, what we are considering is whether anti-war protests in general are interpreted in certain terrorist circles as signs of weakness in opposition to terrorists, or some level of support for the terrorists. The statement by this bomber lends support to that notion.
So the final 2 sentences of the OP are incorrect. But the larger point is unchanged.
Avalonian, the point of the OP is that perceived support for terrorism is something that anti-war protesters should consider. This is a valid point. If the OP said that this trumps all other concerns and that no one should ever protest, it would be an invalid argument, as was the one made by tom and (apparently) miller. But it did not. Again, if someone said that many terrorists were enraged by the Bush invasion of Iraq and that Bush should not ignore this factor, this would also be a valid point.
The tomndebb argument compares one argument regarding Bush (encouraging terrorism trumps all other concerns) against a different argument made by the OP (encouraging terrorism is something that should at least be acknowledged and considered). For which reason it is a specious argument.
Binarydrone, as mentioned above there is no causal link between specific demonstrations and specific bombing. The issue is how demonstrations are perceived by terrorists. The statement by the terrorist lends support for the notion that it is encouraging to them. From there it is not a great leap to the notion that it will in fact encourage additional bombings. I doubt if you will ever be able to pin down a specific bombing that would not have happened without the additional encouragement of demonstrations. But looking at the big picture it is quite possible that there are some.
Tell me, which part of the OP makes this point? Once you remove the fallacious Bali/Australia cite and the “protestors encourage this carnage” bit, there’s not much point left in the OP. Which is why is has been roundly, and justly, criticized.
Now, the point you’re making is a valid one. Others have made the same point, by talking about “unintended consequences.” Sure, it should be considered… that doesn’t mean protests should stop, or that we should let the words of known terrorists dictate our actions as citizens of the United States (or any other country, for that matter). It’s a valid point, but not one that december made in the OP. Others have made it for him as the thread moved on.
I think you’re misreading tomndebb’s argument, and giving too much credit to the OP. tomndebb seems to be saying the same thing you are, but about the Bush Administration. Bush should be considering the possible bad outcomes of his decisions. If anything, the actions of the Bush Administration have more bearing on real consequences among terrorists and in the Middle East in general, and this should be considered. I don’t think tomndebb is saying that “encouraging terrorism trumps all other concerns.” Rather, he’s saying that it should be carefully considered by the Administration. I’d say youand he are in agreement, actually, at least at the root issue.
I maintain that if you think tomndebb’s rebuttal contains a specious argument, then the OP is specious by the same reasoning. Perhaps moreso, since it contained a pretty glaring inaccuracy.