Yeah, yeah, and if we lived in an earlier time I’m sure you’d be calling me a rotten commie. It is not “apologist” to try to understand the motivations of your opponent.
I don’t know what Communism has to do with all this unless you are trying to tell us you have a penchant for unworkable, dangerous but idealistic causes. If I were to refer to a term from a previous point in history, “appeasement” comes to mind.
Al Quada is not an “opponent”. They are an enemy to be destroyed. The fact that there might be a shred of justification to their grieviences does not concern me. Their motivations are only of interest to the extent that it makes them easier to find and destroy.
So save your “sure he attacked us buts…” and “well he did kill some people howevers…”. No one is interested.
Not that I don’t care but…I don’t care. I don’t think our military should be used to right every wrong on the planet. Since you and Rashak Mani and others are so vocal against our involvement in Iraq, I can only assume that you agree.
But Bin Ladin did not attack a village in the Sudan, he attacked the United States. Unlike some village, we have the ability to defend ourselves as well as the right.
Polerius, what exactly is the point of your OP? That Bin Ladin is not as evil as Hitler because he does not have the political and military might of the Third Reich behind him? He did manage, AFAIK, to pull off the largest mass murder for any private citizen in history.
That is the crux of the problem… you view Terrorism as a problem without a root cause. Killing terrorists is cooling a fever without attacking the virus. Since you so bluntly said you don’t care about justifications… and justifications = motivations… then you don’t even try to “make it easier to find and destroy” them.
Know thine enemy… if you just label them “evil and wrong” then your losing the opportunity to effectively solve and stop terrorism.
I can not speak for everyone, but the opposition to the invasion of Iraq was that it was based on fabricated partisan lies, and was poorly planned and executed in the long term.
That’s all Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are doing.
I still say that if you put the RNC and Al Qaeda in a convention together, they would come up with a pretty strong alliance.
As usual, you miss the point, so I’ll spell it out for you: You have a penchant for making mindless ad hominem attacks which preclude thoughtful debate. In days of yore, the dullard debater often resorted to calling his opponent a “commie.” Since that line of attack is unavailable to you, you resort to “apologist for bin Laden” or (in the current post) “appeaser.”
Mindless demonization of a foe gets us nowhere. You cannot destroy every terrorist. As Rashak Mani correctly points out, killing terrorists is like treating a symptom while the disease rolls merrily along. Why are there people out there willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans? It’s a question we really must consider if we’re going to solve the problem.
(Think about the level of anger and desperation it must take to drive someone to become a suicide bomber. What would it take to get you to that point?)
[/quote]
So save your “sure he attacked us buts…” and “well he did kill some people howevers…”. No one is interested.
[/quote]
Do not put words in my mouth. Try responding to the points I actually made. That way we might have an actual debate rather than a shouting match.
It is a great evil, you are right. Besides, I think it totally acceptable for them to feel their pride hurt.
So what is the “cause”? Because we support Israel? Because they blame us for the fact that their countries can’t get their shit together? What was the root cause for Colombine or Oklahoma City or the Washington DC sniper? There’s always going to be people pissed off about something, real or imagined.
I don’t see anything about your “debate” which can be construed as thoughtful or insightful. You made one actual post in this thread:
"It’s not that clear-cut, I think. Bin Laden wanted to attack the symbols of US capitalism (the World Trade Center), US military might (the Pentagon), and the US government (either the White House or the Capitol). I don’t think it’s so much that he set out to kill civilians as that he didn’t care about killing civilians as long as the symbolic points were made. "
Yes…we all understand that Bin ladin targeted the Pentagon and WTC towers for their symbolic significance. But he also targeted them (more so the WTC) for the psychological impact. They fully intended to kill as many people as they could. Did they issue bomb threats before the attacks? Did they attack at 4:00am when the buildings would be abandoned? No. So your statement that they “did not set out to kill civilians” and that it was simply an unwanted side effect paints you as naive at best.
So now lets talk about the terrorists grievences. What do you feel justifies that attacks of Sept 11? Keep in mind that actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan are not valid arguments since they are part of the response to 9/11. Which “root cause” should we address and how? And how should we address those causes after the fact so that we do not appear to be giving in to terrorism?
I’m getting awfully damned tired of your intentional misquotes. Stop it NOW.
I did not say civilian deaths were an “unwanted” side effect. I said the civilian deaths were not the primary point of the attacks.
You ask why they didn’t attack at 4:00 a.m. Maybe because they wanted to see their targets? If you want to play that game, why didn’t they attack later in the day, when everyone would have been at work and they would have had a much higher body count (25,000-50,000)? Maybe because the body count wasn’t their primary consideration. Their primary goal (or so it seems) was to make symbolic points (which is what I actually said in my first post).
Another straw man. Pathetic.
Who said the attacks were justified? Not I.
What I did say was that we have to understand the motives to combat the problem. What are the motives? Seems pretty obvious to me. We are regarded by many in the Middle East as an occupying colonial force. (Now before you misquote me again and say I am accusing the US of colonialism, please re-read that last sentence. I am talking about a potential terrorist’s perspective on the situation.) At the time of the attacks, our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for Muslims), and had been there for over a decade.
How would you feel if, say, Russian troops were indefinitely stationed in your neighborhood for your “protection,” while a Russian corporation was draining the oil from the Gulf of Mexico?
Hindsight is 20-20, but maybe we should have given some thought to how our military presence in Saudi Arabia was playing in the Muslim world.
So how do we prevent similar future attacks? If I knew that I’d be Secretary of State. But one thing I do know is that any anti-terrorism strategy that ignores the disease and treats the symptoms is doomed to failure. Not to say we shouldn’t treat the symptoms. We should of course hunt down known terrorists where possible. But new terrorists will keep popping up to replace them unless we also consider the root cause of the problem and work to address it. And yes, that includes examining our own actions. Are we acting like economic colonialists? If that is the reality, what can we do to change that reality? And if it is only perception, what can we do to change that perception? Because as long as we are perceived to be colonialists, we will continue to be plagued by terrorism.
Ok ok just don’t turn CAPS LOCK ON at me again. :eek:
I understand what you said. He didn’t blow up the WTC in order to kill 3000 people. He did it to attack the “symbols of capitalism”. It’s a fairly minor point since their plan knowingly involves killing thousands of people. The only difference it makes is that the killings are politically motivated and not simply random.
The only thing pathetic here is your ability to articulate a coherent argument. You said the terrorists have grievances, right? They are not simply a bunch of homicidal maniacs blowing up buildings for it’s own sake. That we should seek to address the source of those grievances instead of (or in addition to) attacking the symptoms. Is that not correct?
I’m not asking you if the attacks were justified. I’m asking you what motivated the terrorists. So you apparently answered:
[QUOTE=spoke-]
… Seems pretty obvious to me. We are regarded by many in the Middle East as an occupying colonial force. (Now before you misquote me again and say I am accusing the US of colonialism, please re-read that last sentence. I am talking about a potential terrorist’s perspective on the situation.) At the time of the attacks, our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for Muslims), and had been there for over a decade.
[quote]
That’s not the problem. The problem is that all the money that we purchase oil with goes right to a small ruling class in most of these countries. Most of Saudi Arabia lives in poverty while the shieks drive around in Mercedez and yachts and live in huge palaces. Would I care if there were a bunch of Russian or Canadian or Zimbabwean soldiers stationed at some base nearby at the request of my government? Not really. Would I care if I perceived that they were here to prop up a wealthy and corrupt regime that makes it’s money from supplying a decadent Canadian superpower across the globe while I live in abject poverty? I might.
The whole problem is that we have no choice but to deal with these people because that’s where the oil comes from. The problem is a little more complex than “they don’t like us there” or “we’re taking the oil”.
Well you seem to be coming around. I don’t think that Spoke-'s point is that there are real simple explanations/justifications for the 9/11 attacks but rather that in order to begin solving the problem we need to examine/understand (“address” is a loaded term) their motivations in all their complexity. What to do next is difficult to say, but at least we’d be in a better position to make the right decision than if we don’t understand them.