You forget the corollary: - “The competent use violence well before last resorts are needed.”
I find it amusing that so many americans have to imply that Terrorist have small willies and that women rejected them for bad sexual performance. Ridiculing them and the sick societies they came from make it that much easier to bomb them ? De-humanizing the subject into:
Makes it easier to justify heavy handed politics ?
Its been pointed out time and again that these young arabs have little to look forward. AQ already has an easy time recruiting. The way americans make this a black and white issue and to be solved by violence, eerily the same way AQ paints it, only further deepens the resolve of young destitute men to join ranks.
Its way more complicated that "Bring them On" machismo... know thy enemy or be defeated.The majority of such overrunning and invading done in the last decade all happened after the attack on NYC.
A group of angry young men fired by revolutionary zeal commit terrorist acts against a perfectly legal ruling power
must be the Patriots versus the British circa 1770s
Mau-Mau vs the British
ANC vs the South African Government
ad nauseum
My terrorist is your freedom fighter or something like that.
My “minuteman” ? 
Curiosity, what did the Brits call American revolutionaries during the Independence Campaign ?
Really? Then how does one explain the type of inferiority complex that compels a male machismo driven society to cut out the clitoris’s of women and force them to wear burkas (sp?). What are they so afraid of? Or to be so intolerant of non-Muslims. There is some sick psychology there. Where’s Freud when you need him. 
Maybe the fact that the two big opponents delve into this kind of thing seems worrisome ? Talk about castrating Gays and liberals in America.Clitoris removal actually seem to be supported as much by the women in these societies than the men, probably as means of keeping society in order and stopping other women stealing their husbands. Sorry no cites, but will try and dig up one if challenged (googling anything with clitorus in it is asking for trouble). It has particularly nothing to do with Islam, and is practiced by many Christians in Africa as well.
Burkas are different issue. However, I would remind all the superior males in the audience, that women wearing a short skirt a hundred years ago in our countries would have been imprisoned, that 40 years ago blacks were effectively denied the vote in many parts of the USA, today abortion clinics are firebombed and people are imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay on no real evidence
If we’re going to delve into underlying sexual psychology, I would say it’s the overall sexual repression in Islamic culture–not individual sexual inadequacy–that compels the need for another outlet for their passions. That and they see Western culture as drenched in sex by contrast. Muslims bust their asses conforming to the strict rules of their culture because they are told that’s how every person must live. Then they see us as flouting those rules and feel we deserve to be punished.
Burkas are different issue. However, I would remind all the superior males in the audience, that women wearing a short skirt a hundred years ago in our countries would have been imprisoned, that 40 years ago blacks were effectively denied the vote in many parts of the USA, today abortion clinics are firebombed and people are imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay on no real evidence
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but this isn’t 100 years ago. And it IS the same issue. Where in non-Muslim countries do you see women wearing burkas? Plus, it’s the fact that all sorts of different expressions and beliefs are allowed in this country that sets us apart from them. Also, I don’t see what Guantanamo Bay has to do with the discussion as we are now talking about 9-11, acts of war, prisoners of war, etc.
One looks at regimes like the Taliban and it makes this poster want to line them all up against the wall and execute them if for no other reason than stupidity.
My .02
I think the two are linked. But you make a good point. The clerics, mullah’s, ayatollah’s, etc. see power and control slipping through their fingers with all the evil western influences. They cannot accept that the miserable failures of their society and economies is the result of the idiocy of their religion, hence…
I ws going to post a very similar comment up when i saw that you had already done so
Just wanted to say that, if you take the view that this may have some relevance, one needs only look towards the creeping totalitarianism displayed in certain western countries; a totalitarianism that will effec the whole world.
Thinks “Thunderball”
Yes, i agree on this point.
Thave have been non too subtle comments made in the television media here that the bombings were the only cause of the conservative election loss, based on some unconfirmed opinion poll that put them ahead a few weeks back.
That they say in the same breath that, as you say, most the country was against the invasion anyway (and i remember the large protests at the time), doesn’t seem to matter…
Like Bush will probably (hopefully) be removed from power in the US, the cons in Spain have only reaped what they sowed.
And yes, all the school yard talk of “you have little dick” is purile.
there is a difference between real revolutionaries and these lame terrorists.
the terrorists we are fighting don’t win becuase they are not revolting - they are just killing people.
remember when the romans would take over a territory? they didn’t slaughter the citizens, they just defeated the army and took over.
the terrorists aren’t trying to do any of this. they aren’t trying to take our land. they’re trying to (i guess) get western influences out of their land. (whatever that means)
well said
First, the Roman’s were colonizers, not revolutionaries, so I’m not sure what kind of analogy you are making there. Next, if you think international, Islamic terrorism isn’t a radical and insurrectionist response to a prevailing social order (i.e. the exploitation of natural and political resources – read: oil and cold war dominos, now post colonial hegemony) you are clearly not a student of Middle East and North African history.
Well it looks like all doubt has been removed. Pick up a copy of William Blum’s “Killing Hope.” if you ever find the urge to know thine enemy. P.S. what is being advocated in that passage is genocide, pure and simple. I’d bet even money that statement is paraphrased somewhere in Mein Kampf. /godwin.
I want to see us [The U.S.] develop an alternative fuel source that makes oil irrelevant. And then I want us to get out of the Middle East entirely, apart from supporting Israel at some nominal level. In fact, I’d like to see us just sanction the entire region. The terrorists don’t want us there? Okay. They can all just fight it out amongst themselves. We shouldn’t care about them or their people, that’s what they’re trying to tell us.
I just can’t help but think it’d be less than ten years before some nation was begging for humanitarian aid from us. Or more likely railing against us as a nation devoid of compassion. Sorry, fellas, can’t have it both ways… either we’re interested and get involved, or we aren’t and don’t.
I think the poster who compared various revolutionaries around the world to the terrorists miss two important points - up until Afghanistan, we weren’t an ‘invading’ or ‘occupying’ nation… sure, American culture creeps everywhere, but no one was occupying territory without an invitation from the official rulers of the territory involved. Secondly… as far as I am aware, as long as the U.S. has been a nation, the targets we attack have been of logistical value. They matter militarily. (there may be some aberrations, I’m not a military history buff) We try to avoid civilian casualties. Terrorists actively seek out civilian casualties. I’m not saying that I approve of the 9/11 stunt, but why crash them into the World Trade Center, and not important military targets? Granted, they hit the Pentagon, but those other two planes were targetted at ordinary nonmilitary folk.
Am I wrong?
I would throw my rocks at the idiots that sent my son to blow up a bus full of Israeli kids.
tell that to the “official rulers” over the years of Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, Philippines, Cuba, …
- overthrowing legimate governments with CIA backed military dictatorships is usually much cheaper
I said pre-9/11 … so mark out Afghanistan and Iraq on your list. We didn’t take Iraqi territory in the first Gulf War as far as I recall, and if you’re thinking of us backing the rebels in Afghanistan, I didn’t think we had troops on the ground. Thought it was more of a money thing.
As for Cuba… again, I thought it was primarily training and money. I’m not saying it’s right and proper to use our influence to back the overthrow of governments, but we weren’t an occupying force inviting attack.
Without addressing what Crakcrjakc wrote, the Romans are the preeminent example of what has been a successful cornerstone of western military strategy since the Greeks; invading and occupying enemy territory. History teaches us no amount of UN condemnation, European critical dialogue, American homeland security, economic pressure, etc. will remove the disease of terrorism. Invading and occupying whatever nation that engages in or further terrorism is not only morally acceptable but a military necessary.
Well it looks like all doubt has been removed. Pick up a copy of Ada Augusta’s “How to Think” if you ever find the urge to try. P.S. What was written in your passage was stupidity, pure and simple. I’d bet even money that statement is paraphrased somewhere in The Dummies Guide to Godwin. You evidently have some great difficulty following a whole tread at least the above stupidity bespeaks of a pitiful attention span. For starters I suggest you try again from the top, not missing message #26. If some words or paragraphs are beyond your intelligence, which undoubtedly will be the case, feel free to ask. Not that you ever read “Mein Kampf” which you speak about with such authority or “My Struggle” for that matter.
- Rune
Those aren’t subcultures, those are political and militia arms of Islamic Revivalism. they are a violent minority representing a silent majority of people resisting Western hegemony. Not only do you not know their motivations you don’t even care to know them. Rather than pursing dialog or non-violent resolution, you would like to just start filling body bags, and ask questions later. That’s both asinine and morally repugnant.