Well yikes Bosda. Just plain yikes. Is that really how you want the world to see our country?
“How the world sees us” is irrelavant when compared to a nuclear strike on one of our cities.
I cite John Hersey’s Hiroshima.
We don’t want it happening here!
Is this atom bomb only? Or will your line in the sand change? Remember, 9/11 was planes. Also, how soon will your bombing of Mecca commence? Right after the building in Oklahoma City is bombed? Oops!
Let’s not talk about the axis of evil for a moment, but look at Pakistan. Without having been to the region (and with no desire to go there any time soon) I’d like to compare the geography of Pakistan to Afganistan. Correct me if I’m wrong. Now in the latter the USA has been able to win a war, but not to control the land. As a matter of fact, appart from Kabul and some other major cities, the ISAF controls nothing. Now Pakistan has a functioning government - as compared to Afganistan. But still the mountains are under the control of local war lords. All this has been said (by you and me) before.
So changing things in Pakistan will be extremely difficult if not impossible. And will it be worth it? Terrorists are hiding all over the globe. And the sort of training they get in the Hindukush is of no use in kidnapping planes.
So the main issue of concern:
The Koran-schools that breed terrorists. Can you really ban them and prevent that they will reopen somewhere in the mountains? I don’t think so. The only way to dry them up is to keep boys from going there. But this would mean improve the overal situation in the region in a way that no refugee camps build up anymore - after all that’s where a lot of the kids are recruited. Also not easy and impossible to accomplish with military force, since that’s what creates refugees in the first place.
Last but not least: To my understanding, If Musharaf is getting tougher on his people to please the USA, he might soon be gone and complete chaos will spread. It’s a catch22, we don’t like the guy, but we don’t like the alternatives either…
Nope I’ve asked Mods about this before and unless you’re putting fuck etc. everywhere there’s no problem with a bit of colourful language. Now personal insults they’re are bad and not allowed. So stop playing junior Mod and report whatever the fuck you want.
As to the idea of nuking Mecca would you nuke the Vatican if there were Catholic terrorists hitting the US? And how pray tell would nuking Mecca help? You’d piss the Muslim world off so much that you’d have internal problems and basically have to stop all Muslims coming into the states as you couldn’t be sure who was safe. All US buildings and people etc. all around the world would be targets even more so than they are now. Basically US interests would be fucked world wide. The US would also be a international pariah as a lot of the worlds nations would view the US as the same as the terrorist slime that you were trying to fight.
A truly silly ignorant suggestion and completely self defeating.
My considered opinion, no cites, is that you are mistaken.
Threatening Mecca is more fodder for recruitment and action, destroying it vastly more. Islamists might wail at the thought of Mecca being destroyed and would be horrified if it were. But the threat would just validate their argument that the West is inherently inimical to, and at war with, Islam. However much they might be terrified at the thought of losing Mecca, it is my educated guess that they would just try all the harder to “end the threat” by stepping up their campaign. Nor would actually carrying out the threat undermine the Islamists or destroy Islam - more likely it would just trigger an eschatological frenzy and a complete free-for-all.
Not comparable. Then you were dealing with a semi-rational national government, not agovernmental fanatics.
Fear? Yes. However if you think that fear will have any constructive result you are hopelessly naive. Again in my opinion, which, you’ll excuse me for saying so, I consider better-educated than yours on this matter.
If you’re looking to play a game of morally bankrupt and mindless revenge on a group of mostly innocents, that I strongly believe in the long run would cause vastly more misery for the U.S., I guess it is as good a plan as any.
Nuked by whom? Saudi Arabia, our technical ally ( however many caveats come with that designation )? Or just some Islamist psychos?
Should Great Britain nuke Dublin, if the Real-IRA faction managed to somehow nuke Birmingham?
You know, I had a lot more tolerance for this sort of “nuke’em back to the stone-age” stuff in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Emotions were running high and a visceral reaction was completely normal.
A couple years later, in the cold light of supposed rationality, I’m a lot less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. This truly is a rather subhuman concept ( and IMHO unbelievably stupid ), worthy of little more than contempt.
- Tamerlane
You do realize it is Ahab you are quoting here, don’t you? You remember… the obsessed captain who led his crew and ship to utter destruction?
If you’re going to start using Machiavelli, at least recognize the reason he felt this way was due to his version of pure pragmatism–as opposed to promoting the concept of fiery vengeance for the sake of retribution and emotional satisfaction.
From The Prince, Chapter 17 (the famous fear vs. love section):
And it’s difficult to imagine a better way of making people hate you than the destruction of their most sacred property. Of course, if you have some grounds for believing that the obliteration of Mecca would not lead toward undying hatred, feel free to present those grounds.
Maybe I risk Godwinizing the argument, but if we are talking about the deaths of multiple millions of people, it seems to me that Holocaust comparisons become applicable. As such, we must ask ourselves if the Allies would have been justified in putting equal numbers of German civilians in death camps. Perhaps you feel we would have been. But even if we could have justified it to ourselves, would it have been a productive thing in retrospect?
OK, I’ll be more didactic:
Killing a terrorist does not stop terrorism. Chances are a terrorist is a terrorist for a REASON. If the REASON still exists, there will be a new terrorist to replace the one you just killed. Which is the more efficient solution - kill all terrorists (which is impossible because there will always be more so long as the REASON persists), or try to fix the REASON there are people becoming terrorists. I should think the case of Israel, which has been fighting the same war since 1946, would be ample proof of this. (The fact they and the Palestinians still haven’t figured it out boggles me.)
So…
-
Is America at fault for 9/11? - hmm, well, time will tell, the jury’s still out. What I can say unequivocally is that part of the REASON Islamic militancy exists is a direct result of the U.S. throughout the Cold War being more concerned about whether you were a Commie vs. whether you were free. It was OK for furriners to be under vicious despots, provided the vicious despot was NOT a subversive pinko.
Which is NOT to say the other part of the REASON for 9/11 isn’t the fact that OBL is an effing psycho. My point is, it takes two to tango. -
GB, FR, & Rus responsible for the rise of Hitler - abso-freakin-lutely. The terms and reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles on Germany were calculated in such a way as to effect maximum humiliation on the German nation. It’s not unlike a kid in school who gets beat up, tripped, ridiculed, and spat on by his classmates every single day. One day, he finds a handgun in his daddy’s closet, takes it to school, and caps his tormentors. No one disputes the fact that the kid is responsible for his own actions, but honestly, if he hadn’t been smacked around so much, do you really think he would have considered capping his chums?
The kid is the situation in Weimar Germany, the gun is Hitler. The fact that Hitler was a .44 Magnum is an individual thing - somebody else might have only been a cap gun. But in either case, the other Great Powers created an environment where the kid was going to look for a gun no matter what.
- None of this should be construed that it was wrong to destroy Hitler, any more than it is wrong to destroy OBL. In the words of Huey Lewis, “sometimes Bad is Bad”. However, to be able to address the REASON for terrorism, you have to be honest about why the REASON exists, otherwise how can you expect to fix it?
-
Israelis shouldn’t be allowed to discuss terrorism? Please. At least we know what the hell we’re talking about, unlike certain other people.
-
But then, maybe we aren’t that good at fighting terrorism/ Back during the Arab Revolt of the late 1930’s, the Brits would march into a Palestinian village, line up all the men and shoot one out of every ten in the head. And you know what? It ended the Revolt.
I guess we Israelis just don’t have it in us.
-
Touche, Tamerlane, you’re absolutely correct. I forgot we’re not dealing with rational people here. You know, for decades certain Israelis would say "the Arqabs nly understand force. I now realize how wrong they were: rational people understand force. Israelis understand force. Too many Arabs, OTOH, just don’t realize when they’ve lost.
-
The problem with Versalles is that it wasn’t humilliating enough. If the allies had pushe for an unconditional surrender like in 1945. WW2 wouldn’t have happened.
You do realize that point 2.1 conflicts directly with 2.2: if the Arabs don’t understand force, how did the British end the revolt by shooting one out of ten?
As for Versailles, my take has always been that if the U.S. had maintained its neutrality, GB, France & Germany would have exhausted themselves on the battlefield, realized the stupidity of war, and saved us all the trouble of having to do the whole thing over again twenty years later.
I honestly don’t know. Maybe they were smarter back then, before they sold their souls to castles in the sky, Hamas and human sacrifice.
P.S. My unorthodox numbering system was *not * a typo; it’s a stylistic choice.
Thankfully the Isrealis as a whole don’t have the same mentality as the colonial British. Never be ashamed of having higher moral standards :).
Well, actually there are two moderate misstatements in the above. One that “Arabs only understand force”, a typical distancing tactic of the frustrated when applied to a whole people ( as opposed to just a subset ), used by almost everybody at one time or another and which almost never has anything beyond a cursory basis in reality.
The second is casting all Arabs as irrational, when it is more appropriate to say the Jihadists are irrational ( or, even more exacting, have a compromised reality - they see and hear what they want to believe in many situations, even if not necessarily all of them ). I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant though, as evidenced by your last sentence in that paragraph.
I tend to disagree, but that’s far afield from this thread.
- Tamerlane
Yesterday a fucknugget here in Chicago killed six people in a warehouse because he was, or was about to be, fired. By your logic, the REASON he killed those people was that he was going to be fired, and the company should have acted differently, e.g., by not firing his incompetent ass. So I guess no company should ever fire anyone, because they might go on a rampage.
NO. The REASON he killed those people is because he was a murderous fucknugget. Same goes for the terrorists. You seem to be saying that US or Israeli policies are the REASON for terrorism, when the real REASON is that some people, i.e., the terrorists, are murderous fucknuggets.
I’ll step over the whole idiotic “nuke Mecca” discussion because it isn’t worth my time.
But this is interesting:
Now I’m a bit lost, so please enlighten me:
So I’m not a rational person because I’m an Arab.
Thank you for this extremely enlightening analysis giving away just like that, completely for free.
But forgive me for saying so, but I think when it comes to being rational, you can learn everything from me.
And please tell me : What did I loose?
Thank you.
Salaam. A.
- Nuke em till they glow in the dark.
2.Then shoot em.
I’ve heard this argument countless times before, and I just don’t buy it:
It just doesn’t make sense to me. It is true that we, the US, made decisions at the time that were counter productive in the long term, but necessary in the short term. The Cold War was no laughing matter, and got downright desperate at times.
But what doesn’t make sense to me is the thought that OBL and Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because we backed them, trained them, and supplied them against the USSR. They turned the USSR back and won the war. Why would they hate us enough to cause 9/11?
Forget for a minute that two main catalysts for terrorism is poverty and fanaticism, and that the Arab nations tend to mostly be theocratic monarchies were 1 percent of the population owns 99 percent of the country’s wealth (no correlations to the US will be tolerated).
Now, there are two main reasons OBL declared war on the US:
-
Us positioning US troops in SA during the first Gulf War. But these troops were positioned there in defense of Kuwait, SA, and their allies in the region, during a war that Kuwait, SA, and their allies were on our side. We were there to protect Mecca, in all terms of the word.
-
No offense to the minority out there, including myself, but the US is a Christian nation, built on Christian principals. Nevermind that Islam and Christianity are very similiar.
Now, neither of these statements are logical, but if OBL says that those are the reasons he attacked the US on 9/11, then those are the reasons, and nobody can debate them.
After coming off of a long rant of nuking Mecca, I’d like to point out that one of the two major reasons OBL attacked the US on 9/11 is simply because of a difference in religion.
Yes, like I said: you seem to equate fighting back with nuking Mecca. As if there is no other logical option to be taken.**
“Euro-whiners”? Please try to keep the personal insults to a low, such tactics will degrade your own point. **
So as long as we don’t nuke Mecca we are in “submission” and “groveling”?**
Americans might not be very safe after a nuclear attack, but after it lobs it’s own nuclear attacks at random world cities the safety level will continue to drop. **
Cute.**
Cuter**
You just can stop yourself, eh? Well, as yojimbo had said: Stop playing “junior Mod” that’s what these report buttons are for. **
So, not nuking Mecca is “appeasment”?**
You are falling off the cute meter here.**
Tell that to the families of the over 1.4 million of dead you created by nuking Mecca. Not to mention 1 billion Muslims by destroying the most holy cite of Islam. Not to mention the billions of people world wide who now think that “the Americans” have gone crazy. **
So, you would end the lives of over 1.4 million innocent people. I want to read it. Say it! “I would kill 1.4 million innocent people.”
The major problem is not as much as finding those terrorists who carry out the acts - that is as futile a concern, IMO, as trying to kill a hydra by chopping off it’s head. The real concern should be strangling the mechanism that allows these acts to be perpetrated, which in this case would be the brains and the funding behind it all. And in the case of Al-Quaeda, the brains are believed to be in the already described region of Pakistan and Aghanistan. You really think that because it’s a difficult region to control/operate in, it should be left alone? That it won’t be worth the effort??
You say the madrassas are the real concern. You’re right, you can’t ban them. But you can influence what is being taught in them. We have thousands of madrassas in India too - and they aren’t in the business of churning out potential terrorists. Aside from the Quran, students are taught computers, and history and geography and math and science… do you believe that this cannot be brought about in Pakistan? Furthermore, nowhere in my post did I say that military action was the preferred route. I repeat again - diplomatic pressure is what’s needed for Pakistan.
Musharaf is not supposed to get tough on his people to please the USA - he’s supposed to do it with the intention of making the world a safer place (although I do admit it will seem that way). Tough decisions need to be made in that country if the situation is to improve rather than further degenerate. Nobody in that country seems to want to make those decisions just yet. And quite obviously, hardly anybody here seems to think those decisions need to be made either.
You admit that Al-Quaeda is very likely in a particularly difficult to control region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. You admit that the madrassas in Pakistan are churning out potential terrorists. You also admit that Musharaf is probably the best bet for Pakistan today because the alternatives coud be much worse (which, BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with). From these three facts, I’m assuming that you do think Pakistan is a cause for concern (correct me if I’m wrong about that). Yet you seem to advocate letting things be as they are there. Which is what I find difficult to understand.
And I’m still waiting for your explanation on why you believe non-Muslim Indians hate Muslims. I really am curious as to why you feel that way.
You’re right - the irrational portion of Arab society is a distinct minority that, unfortunately, seems to include both the terrorist organizations and a significant portion of the political leadership (but not the Hashemites. The Hashemites are cool).
You - by which I mean the entire Umma - have to accept the fact that Israel is here, will always be here, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change that - and thatwe deal with things on our own terms. Now, I don’t really think of this as much of a loss, and if you don’t either then more power to you.
Shalom. A.
I’m not familiar with this piece of history. But I dare say if it ended the revolt it did not end the hatred - and probably not the violence either.
I would say there is a significant difference between a man running amok and planed terrorist attacks. Terrorists don’t kill because they are out of their minds or (as it was stated by some here) because they love to kill. They have a reason - even if it might be difficult for most of us to understand these reasons. It’s to simple to just say they are fucknuggets and should be shot. If you want to do something about it, you have to try to understand their reasons!