Cheers elfje but I’m just off now to get a big dirty breakfast roll dripping with brown sauce and grease. Hhhhhmmmmm artery clogging goodness.
**Well, that is what you want to think. People are against “liberty”, “freedom” etc… Do you really believe this?
I don’t think that the people protesting against the US in the streets in the middle east are against “liberty” and “freedom”. Whenever I talk to e.g. palestinian immigrants in France then it’s clear that most of them hate the US as you can hate a country. They do not have the same feeling about France or Europe. Don’t tell me that you have more “freedom” or “liberty” in the US and that this is the reason that Arabs hate the US.
US movies and culture is quite popular in arabic countries. Do you really think that they watch your movies if they hate your “freedom”?**
The terrorists themselves do hate freedom. That’s why they bomb movie theaters and destroy CDs and kill Arabs who deviate from religious teachings.
The spread of Western culture is the single biggest issue here, not really freedom per se. They see people having dogs for pets, wearing blue jeans, women being liberated, and it makes them very angry.
And war is not the only answer, in some cases, like I think, Iraq, it will just make things worse in the long term.
There is no other way to get rid of the tyrants. And as long as they rule, the breeding grounds for terror are fertile.
YOu are saying a lot of vague generalities, but I’d like to hear some details of alternative courses of action we could take.
:rolleyes:
Way to rip half a sentence out of context there …
So are you. “The terrorists” to which you refer are who, exactly? Al Qaeda? ETA? RIRA? Hamas? Shining Path? They’re not a homogenous mass, you know.
Though it’s only just made a real impact on the US, terrorism is old. It’s been around for decades for most of the rest of the world. And you can look at history and see that terrorism can be fought by various different means. By violence, certainly, but I believe there haven’t been any cases where military intervention alone actually defeated the terrorists. By intelligence, police work, comprehension (not the misrepresented, propagandistic comprehension that you just spouted). And by removing such injustices that provide the breeding ground for the terrorists. Sure, there are still nutjobs out there who “need killing”, but wholesale violence is highly unlikely to defeat the problem without a many-pronged approach.
Sorry I’m late in on this thread and a little bored too because this argument will forever go around in circles but I can’t let this one pass by.
The fact is that most of the Irish ARE over it. It’s only a handful of paramilitaries who are involved in terrorism and even they have toned down their campaigns to a large extent recently. Just because we’re over it in terms of wanting to get on with things doesn’t mean that it has to be forgotten though and neither does 9/11.
There is a difference between an attack/invasion and colonisation of a country and a terrorist attack though. The terrorists came, attacked and left (or died as the case may be). A foreign power invading your country does a lot more - they stay, take over and change your culture and in most cases turn the natives into second class citizens in the country of their birth but that’s another issue and far too complicated to get into here. You can’t compare the colonisation of Ireland by the British to the terrorist attack of 9/11. That’s alls I’m sayin’.
BTW jjimm, you ARE the voice of reason. You rule. 
I’ve never actually seen an Irish love-in. 
I’m going to have to dream up an excuse to get over there.
We’re having one tomorrow night. It’s not pretty.
But is it fun?
It usually involves being vaguely polite, then drinking lots of beer, then having ‘discussions’ (not unlike this thread) then making up, drinking more beer, then blathering on at each other till the small hours. Some people might not find this fun, but I do.
(Insert Irish accent as needed)
A skinny American guy moves to a very remote and rural part of Ireland seeking peace and quiet. Nothing but hills and sheep. Second day there, a large man knocks on the door.
“I’m your nearest neighbor, about five kilometers away and I wanted to welcome you to the neighborhood, such as it is. We’re goin’ to have a welcome party for ya tomorrow night, if you’ll come.”
“Wow, I’m honored. Is there anything I can bring?”
No, no. But I ought to warn you, at Irish parties, there’s always some drinking."
"That’s okay. "
“Well, if there’s drinking, there’s liable to be a fight or two.”
“Oh my … still, though, I’d like to come.”
“And after the drinking and the fighting, there’s bound to be some sex.”
“Really? Will there be a lot of women there?”
“No, laddie, just you and me.”
Though it’s only just made a real impact on the US, terrorism is old. It’s been around for decades for most of the rest of the world. And you can look at history and see that terrorism can be fought by various different means. By violence, certainly, but I believe there haven’t been any cases where military intervention alone actually defeated the terrorists. By intelligence, police work, comprehension (not the misrepresented, propagandistic comprehension that you just spouted). And by removing such injustices that provide the breeding ground for the terrorists. Sure, there are still nutjobs out there who “need killing”, but wholesale violence is highly unlikely to defeat the problem without a many-pronged approach
And we are using a multi-pronged approach. Killing the terrorists, eliminating their sponsors, freezing their money, upgrading police and intelligence, removing our troops from Saudi Arabia, working for peace in Palestine.
You missed out unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations in your list.
This is bullshit neocon propaganda. Sure, they may have problems with a western lifestyle, but that is not the primary motivation of the particular group of terrorists you’re talking about.
May I suggest, that these approaches work best with willing parteners that are not continually on guard, bracing themselves for the next lurch in “your” approach?
You missed out unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations in your list.
That’s part of eliminating their sponsors.
And the concept of sovereignty only applies to nations governed under rule of law, by people elected by the people. Iraq was not a nation with a governmnet, but a government which had been established over a nation without its consent.
This is bullshit neocon propaganda. Sure, they may have problems with a western lifestyle, but that is not the primary motivation of the particular group of terrorists you’re talking about.
Have you actually read their pronouncements? They want all Westerners out of the Muslim world. That is the primary issue here.
May I suggest, that these approaches work best with willing parteners that are not continually on guard, bracing themselves for the next lurch in “your” approach?
Depends. It’s not as if we’ve been lurching around. We’ve been moving very slowly and deliberately since 9/11.
Oh, is that so?
In other words, you have as much respect for the UN charter as Saddam, and consider any government you don’t like illegitimate by some fancy factor you come up with ad hoc.
Have you actually informed yourself on the issue or do you only read the pronouncements that make it into US media because they fit the agenda?
I suggest you test you theories on national sovereignty on say the Chinese. Sovereignty exists in so far as a nation is capable of defending itself against outside forces. Perhaps you can begin to understand why the rest of us get apprehensive when “you” just start picking targets “you” don’t like with justifications such as the above.
Iraq was hardly a sponsor of terrorism against the US. Iraq had to go so you could move troops out of SA. That hardly counts as sufficient reason to invade.
**Oh, is that so?
In other words, you have as much respect for the UN charter as Saddam, and consider any government you don’t like illegitimate by some fancy factor you come up with ad hoc.
**
I would agree that the US had about as much respect for the UN as Saddam. I would also point out that the UN is about as effective in stopping the US as they were in stopping Saddam. As in not very.
Have you actually informed yourself on the issue or do you only read the pronouncements that make it into US media because they fit the agenda?
Perhaps you missed the attacks directed at targets that have nothing to do with US or any other nations’ foreign policy, such as bombing movie theaters in Bangladesh. These people’s only crime was seeing a movie. Or the recent threats at Norway. Some people, especially smug Europeans, are shocked and bewildered by this. If they’d actually been listening to Al Qaeda, they would know that they are all targets because they are not Muslims.
**I suggest you test you theories on national sovereignty on say the Chinese. Sovereignty exists in so far as a nation is capable of defending itself against outside forces. Perhaps you can begin to understand why the rest of us get apprehensive when “you” just start picking targets “you” don’t like with justifications such as the above.
**
This is true also. The world is still a jungle, the strong survive and the weak exist only by having strong protectors. Tibet was not fortunate enough to have a strong protector. Taiwan is. And what’s with the “we” don’t like certain countries argument again? We all agreed Saddam was a murdering tyrant. We all didn’t like him. It’s not as if we are taking out the good guys here. When we attack poor Iceland, then you might have a case.
**Iraq was hardly a sponsor of terrorism against the US. Iraq had to go so you could move troops out of SA. That hardly counts as sufficient reason to invade.
**
They were. Iraq payed money to terrorists, harbored others, and actually directed some attacks against us, notably the assassination attempt against President Bush.
People in Boston pay money to IRA terrorists and we haven’t invaded Massachusetts.
The Japanese tried to kill my Dad. I say we take them on next.