From their perspective it's collateral damage, yes.
And you know what, you're attitude is the kind of attitude that can carry a war on through generations. I think a better approach would be to look at what they are capable of doing to us, figure out why they wanted to do it (surely it relates to the west's policies in the middle east and military interventions all over the world), and discuss with them ways of solving these problems and finding peace. They want us out of their countries? Fine, that's totally fair. We're packing up tomorrow.
If everybody had your attitude, this will just become tit for tat forever.
So waving the white flag is the best and easiest way to deal with things? Tell that to Israel or the United States.
First and foremost, your never going to reach a peace with what is essential a death cult.
And thats what these terrorists are, they're twisted and wrong, and there's absolutely no moderation with them.
Do you negotiate with the Taliban when they take a great deal of sadistic pleasure in publically executing their own citizens supressing their woman to the point of tossing acid in their faces, who actively supported Osama Bin Laden and his group?
Groups like Bin Laden don't want to negotiate, they have an all or nothing mentallity and they don't care who they have to kill in order to reach their goals.
Do you negitate treaties with groups that merely use cease fires to re-arm?
My attitude?
The terrorist groups are the main problem in those trouble spots because they stand in the way of any meaningful dialogue happening between sides that might actually desire any kind of peace.
Anyways, I don't see the purpose of continuing this, it has the opportunity to get right out of hand.
Have a nice day.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Didn't see your edit in time to reply in my last post.
You say striking the WTC wasn't a strike against the government and its foreign policy, yet the response that has cost the Americans billions in wars and the rights Americans have given up with the Patriot Act have hurt the American way of life. I think they achieved their goals with this attack and it was an amazing ROI.
Also, they did go for government targets with the Pentagon strike and the Pennsylvania flight was assumed to be headed for the White House.
They would have accomplished the same thing if they flew it into any government target instead as well. The striking of the WTC's was a symbolic strike at the financial power of the US, and it worked. Doesn't make it right, however. Those people they killed were innocent people (altough watching that 2010 documentary Inside Job has me starting to believe otherswise....KIDDING).
If they were really courageous, they would have tried to hit only government targets, since they are supposedly the enemy they have the most problem with.
My problem is why they need to bring innocent people with them to accomplish their own goals. It's incredibly selfish and pathetic. Flight 93 was a loss to the terrorists and should be a symbolic reminder to them that regular, innocent people do not tolerate ignorant actions reflecting a poorly-approached political agenda.
Again, if these terrorists want to gain some serious traction in the world of foreign policy and influence, they should be doing it through education and intellect - which, while longer-term, is much more effective in influencing Western powers than violence ever will.
To the government and most of the people of the United States, it seemed that the country on 9/11 had been attacked in a particularly odious way (air piracy used to maximize civilian casualties) by a particularly odious group (a secretive and homicidal gang: part multinational corporation, part crime family) that was sworn to a medieval cult of death, a racist hatred of Jews, a religious frenzy against Hindus, Christians, Shia Muslims, and "unbelievers," and the restoration of a long-vanished and despotic empire.
The first, and only real legitimate emotion to 9/11 is anger, the next is vengeance. We were attacked by pirates, people who purposively want to destroy all that is good and civilized about this world.
If you cannot understand the moral difference between liberal constitutional governments, and millenarian slime, like the 9/11 hijackers, you fail to understand the basis for your own existence as a free being. You are waiting to be ruled.
Last edited by peter12; 09-12-2011 at 05:03 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
The first, and only real legitimate emotion to 9/11 is anger, the next is vengeance. We were attacked by pirates, people who purposively want to destroy all that is good and civilized about this world.
If you cannot understand the moral difference between liberal constitutional governments, and millenarian slime, like the 9/11 hijackers, you fail to understand the basis for your own existence as a free being. You are waiting to be ruled.
Christopher Hitchens hits the mark again. Too bad he might be on the way out. He's a voice the world needs.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
From their perspective it's collateral damage, yes.
And you know what, you're attitude is the kind of attitude that can carry a war on through generations. I think a better approach would be to look at what they are capable of doing to us, figure out why they wanted to do it (surely it relates to the west's policies in the middle east and military interventions all over the world), and discuss with them ways of solving these problems and finding peace. They want us out of their countries? Fine, that's totally fair. We're packing up tomorrow.
If everybody had your attitude, this will just become tit for tat forever.
Interesting....as i really like his attitude and not yours so much.
Canada Border Services officer Lisa Steel, right, hugs New York City fire department paramedic John Rugen after a 9/11 memorial service at the Peace Arch-Douglas border crossing in Surrey, British Columbia, on Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011. Hundreds of people gathered at the Canada-U.S. border to mark the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Darryl Dyck)
I wonder how far we are from a massive - almost global - revolution, in which the underprivileged rise up to claim the world's wealth back from the privileged.
I also wonder how much of today's capitalism will remain by the time I kick the bucket.
The way things are going, it's going to be a colorful half-century I'd reckon.
The Following User Says Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
So waving the white flag is the best and easiest way to deal with things? Tell that to Israel or the United States.
I'm not talking about waving the white flag, but I think it would be appropriate to recognize the sledgehammer response post-9/11 was not the right one and to re-evaluate what we are doing there. Should we leave areas of the Middle East? Probably. I'm pretty sure the States wouldn't want to be occupied by an Iraqi army so it's fair to assume Iraqis don't want to be occupied by an American army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Wow, My attitude.
First and foremost, your never going to reach a peace with what is essential a death cult.
And thats what these terrorists are, they're twisted and wrong, and there's absolutely no moderation with them.
Do you negotiate with the Taliban when they take a great deal of sadistic pleasure in publically executing their own citizens supressing their woman to the point of tossing acid in their faces, who actively supported Osama Bin Laden and his group?
Groups like Bin Laden don't want to negotiate, they have an all or nothing mentallity and they don't care who they have to kill in order to reach their goals.
Do you negitate treaties with groups that merely use cease fires to re-arm?
My attitude?
The terrorist groups are the main problem in those trouble spots because they stand in the way of any meaningful dialogue happening between sides that might actually desire any kind of peace.
Anyways, I don't see the purpose of continuing this, it has the opportunity to get right out of hand.
Have a nice day.
Re-arm? They attacked the USA with box cutters. I suppose we do run the risk they'll drive over to Staples for more ammo if we have a ceasefire, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I just haven't seen any evidence that attacking middle eastern countries will lead to peace. That ramps up the situation and those countries have long memories.
Plus, I don't want a ceasefire with the terrorist cells. I want a ceasefire between countries, although I'm pretty sure we'll have to leave to make that happen in the same way I'm sure most of us on this board would pick up guns and bombs and whatever else we could to fight an army that was occupying Canada. We'd fight until they left because that's really the only reasonable option we'd have.
The proper way to retaliate against the terrorist cells responsible for the 9/11 carnage, as evidenced by the Osama hit, is to use surgical strikes and good intelligence. Sending an army and warships isn't very helpful, IMO.
Also, the States was attacked and they retaliated against the wrong people (i.e. Iraq). That's pretty criminal in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
They would have accomplished the same thing if they flew it into any government target instead as well. The striking of the WTC's was a symbolic strike at the financial power of the US, and it worked. Doesn't make it right, however. Those people they killed were innocent people (altough watching that 2010 documentary Inside Job has me starting to believe otherswise....KIDDING).
If they were really courageous, they would have tried to hit only government targets, since they are supposedly the enemy they have the most problem with.
My problem is why they need to bring innocent people with them to accomplish their own goals. It's incredibly selfish and pathetic. Flight 93 was a loss to the terrorists and should be a symbolic reminder to them that regular, innocent people do not tolerate ignorant actions reflecting a poorly-approached political agenda.
Again, if these terrorists want to gain some serious traction in the world of foreign policy and influence, they should be doing it through education and intellect - which, while longer-term, is much more effective in influencing Western powers than violence ever will.
I agree, although the power of symbolic hits are always used in war as they can cut deeper and give "more bang for buck" than purely practical hits so it was a good strategy from their point of view. That's probably one of the things that really hurts us as westerners about the whole thing - in one day and with relatively little cost they had the whole western world scared.
The first, and only real legitimate emotion to 9/11 is anger, the next is vengeance. We were attacked by pirates, people who purposively want to destroy all that is good and civilized about this world.
I agree the attackers and plotters should be punished. So why did the States go to Iraq and bring terror to the women, children, men and families there? Why did the USA obliterate their infrastructure?
We should have attacked the pirates (like Osama), but we didn't. We occupied two countries, imprisoned thousands, killed thousands more, and became - in some ways - the monsters we were fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
If you cannot understand the moral difference between liberal constitutional governments, and millenarian slime, like the 9/11 hijackers, you fail to understand the basis for your own existence as a free being. You are waiting to be ruled.
I'm waiting to be ruled? WTF are you talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeneas
Mr Atta? Could you open up the flight deck door? I'd like to discuss your motivations.
lol who's talking about negotiating with terrorists? They should be crucified. I'm talking about negotiating with whoever it is we're fighting now with a view to getting out of there ASAP.
