 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| jack_spain wrote: | Geez David, Frank Stone's after you now! He has all those inside contacts at the US Embassy in Canberra too. Just watch your back for men in black with dark sunnies. 
 |
Jack, I think your posting credibility is taking a hit, lift your game son, otherwise you might become irrelevant during serious discussion
(Oh forgot to add winks and smilies)
  
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
 |
jack_spain 
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Credibility and politics? Frank you are an idealist. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jack_spain wrote: | | ^ Credibility and politics? Frank you are an idealist. |
No, I'm a thinker, hey it works for me
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | | ^ Credibility and politics? Frank you are an idealist. |
No, I'm a thinker, hey it works for me |
Ataboy Frances, keep setting those stretch goals for yourself. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | David wrote: | | Frank Stone wrote: | | David wrote: |
A far more likely scenario, admittedly.
What are the implications of this, if it is found to be the case, though? That's another point that I always consider about the September 11 conspiracy theories. Does this mean terrorism is any less of a threat? Does it mean the Bush administration should share responsibility? What does it mean, and what should we do about it? |
Terrorists David?
Who are the Terrorists?
Is there only 1 definition? |
Come on. I've had this argument before with Omar. Probably with you too.
Terrorists are people who use fear as their main weapon - a typical terrorist tactic is to attack groups of civilians, with the goal being maximum casualties. Suicide bombing is a very effective measure as the concept of assailants who are willing to kill themselves as well as you is more frightening. Terrorism seems to be the preferred weapon of many Oppressed Groups, due to their lack of tanks, planes and atomic bombs. Terrorism is useful for small groups, as they can use people's fear as a tool for achieving their goals - e.g., stop publishing those cartoons of Mohammed, or we'll blow you up. Pull your country's troops out of Iraq, or you may be blown up.
On the other hand, the American army actively tries to minimise civilian casualties, and usually has a more specific goal in mind, say the capture/death of a leader, or the defeat of armed forces. The method used here is one of simply overpowering the opponent, the opponent usually being armed or in a position of power. The people killed in terrorist attacks aren't opponents, they're simply used to send a message to the actual opponent. At least soldiers choose to be in the army (well, usually), and at least they get guns.
Is either method of fighting better than the other? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it's ideologically-driven blindness to not see that there's a difference between the two. |
Paragraph 1 outlines what the US does in paragraph 2.
You believe it because it sits comfortably with your "keeping the boogie men at bay" mentality.
What the so called "terrorists" do is to react, they don't pro-act.
When you begin to understand that, then we might be able to have a informative discussion on how it should best be resolved.
Until then Uncle Sam, wiil keep the boogie men away from you. |
Everyone reacts, in one way or another. That doesn't justify their actions, it merely explains it. You seem to be heading down the path of suggesting terrorism is simply a reaction to legitimate grievances. I believe there is a fair bit of aggression involved there as well, however.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, answer this as honestly as you can.
If Australia was invaded by some foreign nation, and that nation, dissolved our government, destroyed our cities, killed your neighbours, introduced new laws which you had no say in, took from us all we held dear, what would you do to get it back?
And if you decided that you would fight in any manner imaginable, would that make you a terrorist?
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh, so that explains the latest suicide bombing in Pakistan.
Now I get it.
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | David, answer this as honestly as you can.
If Australia was invaded by some foreign nation, and that nation, dissolved our government, destroyed our cities, killed your neighbours, introduced new laws which you had no say in, took from us all we held dear, what would you do to get it back?
And if you decided that you would fight in any manner imaginable, would that make you a terrorist? |
If I used terrorist tactics, yes, it would make me a terrorist. You're the one associating the word with value judgements.
But, it's interesting you use this example. The September 11 attacks were not linked to the kind of scenario you put forward, and indeed comparatively few terrorist attacks are (leaving aside those committed by Palestinians and Iraqis).
Regardless, I'd like to ask you something, to carry on from your hypothetical, for you to answer as honestly as you can. What if, after all that had happened, I decided the best way to fight this invasion was to make a bomb and walk into a supermarket, killing 60 people, many of whom are probably in the same situation as me? Would you call that a terrorist act? Does it deserve to be labelled such? Or do the ends justify the means?
Just because we understand the motivations and sympathise with them, does not mean we shouldn't condemn the resulting actions, or be afraid to label them according to what they are.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Regardless, I'd like to ask you something, to carry on from your hypothetical. What if, after all that had happened, I decided the best way to fight this invasion was to make a bomb and walk into a supermarket, killing 60 people, many of whom are probably in the same situation as me? Would you call that a terrorist act? Does it deserve to be labelled such? Or do the ends justify the means? |
Surely, if you were going to instigate something like you have outlined, wouldn't it be better to strap the 'device' to a mentally challenged female?
That is what they (terrorists) do these days.
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, the scenario I put forward was generic, I made no reference to any country or any 'battle'
My point is, people who believe they are faced with an enemy so overwhelming and so powerful, will do anything it takes to 'even' things up.
None of us know exactly why the Twin Towers were bought down, but my assumption is that it was done to 'even' things up. ie "if you bring war to my world I will reciprocate in your world and I will kill innocents just as you do"
As to what I would call it in the scenario you put.
I think I would say, I understand.
Dale61, racists exclude themselves from almost all rational discussions, so I refuse to respond to your points.
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Frank Stone wrote: | David, answer this as honestly as you can.
If Australia was invaded by some foreign nation, and that nation, dissolved our government, destroyed our cities, killed your neighbours, introduced new laws which you had no say in, took from us all we held dear, what would you do to get it back?
And if you decided that you would fight in any manner imaginable, would that make you a terrorist? |
If I used terrorist tactics, yes, it would make me a terrorist. You're the one associating the word with value judgements.
But, it's interesting you use this example. The September 11 attacks were not linked to the kind of scenario you put forward, and indeed comparatively few terrorist attacks are (leaving aside those committed by Palestinians and Iraqis).
Regardless, I'd like to ask you something, to carry on from your hypothetical, for you to answer as honestly as you can. What if, after all that had happened, I decided the best way to fight this invasion was to make a bomb and walk into a supermarket, killing 60 people, many of whom are probably in the same situation as me? Would you call that a terrorist act? Does it deserve to be labelled such? Or do the ends justify the means?
Just because we understand the motivations and sympathise with them, does not mean we shouldn't condemn the resulting actions, or be afraid to label them according to what they are. |
If you walked into a supermarket killing 60 people as you described, or blew up nightclubs or other random targets, you would be a terrorist because the end wouldn't justify the means.
Don't confuse motivation, terrorists' goal is to spread terror. I don't buy that september 11 was in any way justified, nor were the Bali bombings. If they had a goal to gain revenge against some supposed slight, all they did was marginalise Muslims everywhere. Hardly a step forward.
Using Frances' (or should I say Oswald) example, I'd do everything in my power to fight against the oppressor, but I'd stop short of killing innocent people.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Alec. J. Hidell wrote: |
Dale61, racists exclude themselves from almost all rational discussions, so I refuse to respond to your points. |
I've been waiting for you to throw the racist card.
Oh hang on, this isn't MG is it? 
Frank, how many usernames do you actually post under? You may think I'm a racist, but at least I don't keep changing my username every time I lose an argument.
So why Alec J. Hidell? Why not use what you really mean - I like Jihad?
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked
Last edited by Dale61 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well there's no doubt Alec J. Hidell = Frank Stone.
Here's the proof. The original posting...
| jack_spain wrote: | | Frank Stone wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | | ^ Credibility and politics? Frank you are an idealist. |
No, I'm a thinker, hey it works for me |
The changed post...
| Alec. J. Hidell wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | | ^ Credibility and politics? Frank you are an idealist. |
No, I'm a thinker, hey it works for me |
You Frank? |
Alec J. Hidell? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Google Alec j Hidell. It's one of the alias' of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sniper by any other name.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I thought it sounded familiar, Stui... kind of weird.
| Alec. J. Hidell wrote: | As to what I would call it in the scenario you put.
I think I would say, I understand. |
That's not the point though. I believe I understand almost every action humans are capable of. Everybody does what they do for a reason, usually for their own self-interest (which is why I don't believe in the concept of good and evil... just a series of actions and reactions, occurrences and consequences). So, to say you understand the act, (which, I believe, I do as well), doesn't mean it should not be condemned or hesitantly labelled.
The trouble is, you seem to fall into the trap of seeing terrorists as simply reactors to extenuating circumstances, as being on the defensive. On the contrary, I believe that a lot of these groups have their own aggressive agendas that they seek, combined with their desired reaction against aggression (of course, this probably varies according to each group, and even according to each member of each group. It is quite likely some are simply trying to, as you say, defend themselves, or even up the score). I guess it's just important not to look at it exclusively from the one perspective, and ignore everything else that is going on.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
