Mr. Terrorist, I seem to be missing your point.

[UselessGit]

@zwaldd

I would throw my rocks at the idiots that sent my son to blow up a bus full of Israeli kids.

Oh, sweet Jeebus!

If that really is your stance you might want to read up on the situation down there. That’s another debate so I’ll back off, but don’t judge the battle if you don’t know the cause.

[Rune]

@cainxinth

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.

So you can sum up the root causes of all problems with Islamic terrorist in one short sentence of 26 words. Well suffice it to say that I disagree and given your recent show of abject stupidity excuse me for being somewhat doubtful about your ability for deep political analysis. In any case I was addressing the perpetual argument that we have to understand them or put ourselves in their place etc. We absolutely have no such moral obligation - whatsoever. I have no moral obligation to try to understand the mind of a terrorist planting bombs in commuter trains – I do however have all the moral rights of the world to stop him by whatever means I can. As for dialog. If you really are of the opinion that entering into a dialog with Al Qaeda – even were such a thing possible – is the way to go, then I’ll have to revise my opinion of your mental capabilities even further downwards – even were such a thing possible.

• Rune

[cainxinth]

@WinstonSmith

So you can sum up the root causes of all problems with Islamic terrorist in one short sentence of 26 words. Well suffice it to say that I disagree and given your recent show of abject stupidity excuse me for being somewhat doubtful about your ability for deep political analysis. In any case I was addressing the perpetual argument that we have to understand them or put ourselves in their place etc. We absolutely have no such moral obligation - whatsoever. I have no moral obligation to try to understand the mind of a terrorist planting bombs in commuter trains – I do however have all the moral rights of the world to stop him by whatever means I can. As for dialog. If you really are of the opinion that entering into a dialog with Al Qaeda – even were such a thing possible – is the way to go, then I’ll have to revise my opinion of your mental capabilities even further downwards – even were such a thing possible.

• Rune

Ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, bub. You’d have to first prove to me that your opinion of me is worth caring about. getting back to the issue, though, I just thought I’d point out that you are in fact advocating ignorance. This might not be the best message board for that.

[Rune]

@cainxinth

Ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, bub. You’d have to first prove to me that your opinion of me is worth caring about. getting back to the issue, though, I just thought I’d point out that you are in fact advocating ignorance. This might not be the best message board for that.

Well then you might want to stop insinuating I’m a Nazi honey. As for advocating ignorance, perhaps reading the post above yours will set you straight.

• Rune

[crakcrjakc]

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.

this thread is about not understanding the point of the terrorism. that is the analogy i am making. i don’t understand a tactic with no goal.

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 didn’t know terrorist were a racial or cultural group, but if you want to call them that fine. we should wipe them out. if you think that’s genocide then we disagree.

[scm1001]

@WinstonSmith

I have no moral obligation to try to understand the mind of a terrorist planting bombs in commuter trains – I do however have all the moral rights of the world to stop him by whatever means I can. - Rune

absolutely right!

However, there are always several ways of cracking a nut. Repression generally leads to more resistance. It was only when the UK government starting talking to the IRA (and the IRA was regarded then in almost exactly the same way that Al Qaeda is now), that the bombs stopped getting planted.

Could one talk to Al Qaeda rationally? I suspect not. However it is worth perhaps looking at why the disaffection with the west started, and perhaps how to rectify. E.g. Our support for the Saudi Royal family, and various other dictatorships in the Arab lands (e.g the Shah and Saddam when it suited us).
Having a proper ethical foriegn policy (e.g. one not shaped by oil, real politik and arms sales) would be a good start.

[Dogface]

@cainxinth

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.

The problem with dogmatics is that they always see the world in absolute terms. A dogmatic will be mentally incapable of admitting that an “impure” or “unmixed” solution may be the best. When confronted with such violence as Al Qaeda performs, even the appearance of weakness is not an option. However, there are limits to how force should be used. It is too much to engage in a berserk frenzy, no matter how delicious the prospect might sound. It is too little to cut out our backbone, roll over, and concede to every single demand. A middle ground will do. There must be immediate and fierce response to individual acts of violence. Simultaneously, it must be apparent to the ordinary people that there are real rewards to not acting violently against us.

Taking no retribution makes us a paper tiger–a patsy and a pushover. Giving no rewards to those who will lay down their hostility makes us a tyrant. Neither is a good idea.

Every adminsitration in my lifetime has failed at the latter. Many have failed at the former, as well.

[Chimpy]

I may be completely missing the point right here but terrorists dont seem to get the whole “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In history there have been terrorists; the cathusian monksa and i dont see many ways of life collapsing. saying that Ghandi succeeded, now if only the extremists would learn to be a little more like him.

[jymjim]

Taking no retribution makes us a paper tiger–a patsy and a pushover.

I don’t think a country with the reknowned military capabilities of the USA would ever be assumed to be either of those.

There is definitely something to be said in regards to the percieved power of one that is known to be extremely able to use force, but refrains from doing so in favour of other methods.

The ease and rapidity with which violent action is taken in response to any individual act says much about those that do so imvho.

When it is done so on a regular basis, it says even more.