Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Democracy With A+ Human Rgts Rec'd Fightin Terror?  
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Guys...

Fairly serious issue harvrd law prof. Alan Dershowitz brought up in his new book Why Terrorism Works

What Democracy Has a Good Human Rights Record Fighting Terrorism?

Seriously?

Not Israel. The world loves to lambast Israel for its "attrocities" in the territories.

Not America. The World is having another field day deriding America's handling of 9/11 and the Afghanistan War?

France? Did France correctly handle the terrorism its citizens in Algeria faced in the 1960s? No way - De Gaulle levelled whole towns with his "killing squads" and sent in Le Pen to finnish off any of the survivors. Or in Indochina?

The British? When the Irish,Indians, Africans, Arabs, etc... all violently revolted to British colonial rule - did the British react in an appropriate way? Locking up and jailing thousands with no trial or jury. Destroying homes (now you know where Israel got the idea) of "terrorists" and ruining the lives of their families? Meeting nonviolent Gandhists with hails of bullets??

Russia? Is Russia acting in a civilized "humane" manor in dealing with the Islamic terror the Chechens have wrought on her weary citizens? Is Russia's levelling of cities, schools, crowded apartment blocks the "enlightened" way? Can't be.

India? How is the world's largest democracy responding to Kashmiri terrorism? Not well - according to the European super-left who when not busy lambasting Israel's campaign in the territories - bide their time attacking India's in Kashmir.

NOW thats just the democracies - or at least a sampling of them. What of the dictatorships?

What of Syria who when confronted with a violent Islamist revolt eminating from Hama, simply leveled the city with everyone in it - killing up to 20,000.

What of Iraq who responded to Kurdish nationalist themes with themes of its own - poison gas.

What of China? Have the Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang or the Buddhists in Tebet faired any better than these more well known minorities? Frankly no one knows - because the Chinese certainly don't publicize their military actions or let unbiased reporters anywhere near em.

What of Jordan? When in the late 1970s Arafat voiced his displeasure at King Hussein's lack of beligerency towards Israel and started a revolution to topple the Hashemite king - did Jordan repsond the way our European friends would have hoped? Hardly - the Jordanians killed thousands of Palestinians - almost got Arafat - he had to escape wearing a burka and costumed as an old woman.

Lebanon, Guatemala, Iran, Columbia, Saudi/Yemen, -- any better?

Of course not.

The point being is that while I hardly condone violent reaction - it is my view there is really no way to peacefully or "correctly" respond to a terrorism that uses a democratic nation's privildegs to destroy it.

If I'm wrong -- pipe in.

TNNH

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Generally speaking. the democratic, developed word will not intentionally target and slaughter large innocents today. Can you imagine Tony Blair ordering Manchester to be fire-bombed because they voted for the Tories in the last election?

Everything is relative. No country is totally innocent from occasional excesses and errors. But to say that the democratic nations have no moral basis for complaining about the Iraqs, North Koreas etc. is a pile of cow chips.

Charles


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. It doesn't matter much in the end.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1172 times:

Generally speaking. the democratic, developed word will not intentionally target and slaughter large innocents today. Can you imagine Tony Blair ordering Manchester to be fire-bombed because they voted for the Tories in the last election?

Charles of course your right - but you may not be clear on my point. Not partisan politics, I'm far more concerned with the very real threat of terrorism we now see almost weekly. Whether its a Russian threatre, Australian dance club, American office tower, or Israeli schoolbus - is it even possible for these countries to respond to nihilistic terror in a way that the Liberal world would find acceptable - even admirable. I had hoped that my original post would highlight that quite frankly, history is not on our side, that very rarely, if ever has a democracy ever defeated terror in any kind of enlightened way.

The point being: How can the US/Israel/Europe respond to this terrorist threat in a humane manor or one at least acceptable to this European "super-left"? Clearly, our present efforts are failing that test.

TNNH


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

TNNH,

I don't think we can. Terrorism is winning the battle in my eyes. Why? Look at how much the countries who are targeted by terrorism are disliked around the world.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

well thats a big deal now isn't it?

perhaps thats terrorisms biggest victory. turning the victim into the demon. any dissenting view?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

You have to admit that the Syrian solution did prove effective in that country.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

L-188,

As did Jordan's response to Palestinian terror, killing 30,000 Palestinians.

Its sad, but the countries who haven't "taken off the gloves" so to speak are suffering the most (U.S., Israel, and Russia). If they had really used the above tactics, terrorism wouldn't be a problem anymore. Quite sad.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1141 times:

If they had really used the above tactics, terrorism wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Yes, slaughtering inncocent people does tend to have an effect on you. But we wanted to be better than terrorists, didn't we??



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

nuts:

rather than mouting off - why don't you add some constructive substance - and tell us how you think the US or any country can better respond to these instances of nihilistic terrorism?

i'm all ears.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Terrorists exist for a reason. Take away the reason; take away the terror.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1094 times:

"6 of one, half a dozen of the other. It doesn't matter much in the end. "

Sure, baby, hwat ever you say....  Yeah sure (tell me? are you actually Fusako Shigenobu in disguise?)


User currently offlineTodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2804 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

Terrorists exist for a reason. Take away the reason; take away the terror.

yeah, great: to give the example...convert to Islam and cover your wife under a Saudi-style dress...Then indeed, you'll have taken the reason away.





I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

"Terrorists exist for a reason."

That reason being that a minority wants something so bad, don't care if the rest of the people want it or not, and use violence and terror to get what they want and at the same time defeat the whole purpose of democracy.

Staffan


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1076 times:

Terrorists exist for a reason. Take away the reason; take away the terror.

Ahhh, the classic apologist excuse. "It's not the criminal's fault, society made him that way."

BULL!!!

When the demands are unreasonable, you cannot give in. Even when the demands ARE reasonable, you cannot give in either, because that will simply encourage more terrorism. Look at what has happened in Columbia. It has become standard procedure to pay ransom demands by the local Marxist terrorists, so it is no an industry second only to cocaine in that country.

Your solution, Nuts, would simply kill a lot more people in the long run.

Charles


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Why does the US have to ram foreign policy down everyone's throat? Take, for example, Sweden. Certainly not an Islamic country, yet there is very little terrorism. Why? They mind their own damn business. Way to go, Johan.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

OMG, you're kidding right? On the stage of world politics, I believe that the United States has a far greater obligation than Sweden, and can play and do play a far more constructive role. I'm not saying that Sweden is doing poorly, quite the contrary. Yet their influence in the grand scheme of things is much less than that of the United States.


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

Influence is one thing. Militaristic arrogance is another. Which one do we have?


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1047 times:

Hey Nuts, you simply are overlooking the power of the United States vs. Sweden. You're argument that Sweden stays out of everything is true, but look at their realm of influence, nill to say the least. The US has a much greater obligation to the world. Trust me, if we didn't exist, your life would be much different, and probably for the worse.

UAL747


User currently offlineLHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

Plus, everyone that bitches about the United States taking too great a role on the world stage would bitch eqaully loudly if the US were to revert to an isolationist policy.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

When the demands are unreasonable, you cannot give in. Even when the demands ARE reasonable, you cannot give in either, because that will simply encourage more terrorism

That's a very interesting comment Cfalk. Now, put it another way. Why demands from the USA are never unreasonable...If Bush wants to invade Iraq, he will because not a single country worldwide can't do anything against him.
His demands are not unreasonable because he has unlimited power.
Definition of what is terrorism is very complicated.


Look at what has happened in Columbia. It has become standard procedure to pay ransom demands by the local Marxist terrorists, so it is no an industry second only to cocaine in that country.

irrelevant example, those guys are thieves not terrorists. Money is the goal, not freedom or political ideas.





Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

Nuts,

Sweden has a smaller population than New York City. The comparison is ludicrous. LHMark is correct. All the whining Europeans, MEs, Africans, and Asians who complain about US "bullying" would whine even more if we disengaged from the rest of the world. The would whine because they could not sell their products to the US, or whine that the sea lanes are no longer safe, and so on.

Fighting terrorism is tricky and will the the test limits of every free society. The current terror from the Middle East is not caused by a particular grievance or arguably is not even truly religiously motivated. The problem is that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt have a lot of educated young people who have no jobs or no hope of a job. They have a lot of free time on their hands and all the TV ever shows is Palestinians getting whacked by the Israelis. Of course, they never show Israeli children being slaughtered by a suicide bomber.

Arab politicians divert all the restlessness and anger among these young people away from their inept governance to the US and Israel. Then these young people go to a mosque and hear more vitriol from imams. These same imams then give these kids a way to act on their aggression: do "religious" study in Pakistan, kill the opressors of Muslims in Chechnya or Afghanistan or wherever.

Every person needs some adversity in their life. Some kind of struggle. For some that is paying your way through college working 3 jobs and going to school full time. In Saudi Arabia, you can make it to age 18 without lifting a finger and so people are bored. The Wahabi preachers take advantage of the situation for their own evil ends and we have seen the results.

There is no underlying grievance for most terrorists. They are simply screwed up people that need to be killed before they can kill.

An idle mind is the devil's playground.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

OO-AOG,

You are wrong on both counts. The 9-11 hijackers made no demands or did not leave a note. Their objective was mass-murder and not the liberation of Palestine or anything else.

You ludicrously equate Bush's Iraq policy with terrorism. In his 23 years in power, Saddam has started at least 3 wars and starved his people. Now he is trying to build a nuke after he agree with the UN not to do so. The US would be not committing itself to this war if we did not have proof. It has to be absolutely clear to Saddam that if the UN dawdles, the US will do the job and get disarm him.

The Colombian FARC and others are clearly terrorists. They harm innocents for their own goals whether it is money or ideology. Just ask their victims.


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

N79969

You are wrong on both counts. The 9-11 hijackers made no demands or did not leave a note. Their objective was mass-murder and not the liberation of Palestine or anything else.

Of course not N79969, don't expect 9-11 demands to be crystal clear, you need to think at a second level. Those terrorists are fighting against what they think is Evil (The USA and at smaller scale, the western world). They haven't sent 2 767s in buildings just for fun of massive destruction.

In his 23 years in power, Saddam has started at least 3 wars and starved his people.

Since Vietnam, how many wars started by the US and how many GIs (not to mention innocent civilians) have died?


Now he is trying to build a nuke after he agree with the UN not to do so.

Your source? CNN/ABC? Just wait for the UN inspectors conclusions on that point will you?

The US would be not committing itself to this war if we did not have proof


Believe me, if Bush had a proof, he would already be fighting in Iraq and wouldn't wait for an UN inspection!

The Colombian FARC and others are clearly terrorists. They harm innocents for their own goals whether it is money or ideology. Just ask their victims.

Same for bank hold-ups, car jackings or rapes then, where would you put the difference?!. There's a difference between a fight for freedom or fight for an ideology and money robbery. If you don't understand the difference, well....oh well!




Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1025 times:

His demands are not unreasonable because he has unlimited power.

Huh??? That does not compute. You are saying that if a nation is powerful, its demands are therefore unreasonable. I suggest you rephrase that.

Unlimited power? Hardly. It's funny how people will exaggerate wildly to convince themselves of moral superiority. But I guess Bush might be flattered (and embarrassed) by your comment - you just called him God.

Bush has no desire to invade Iraq. Those who believe that need to have their logic circuits checked.

What Bush wants is that Iraq be disarmed, whether they like it or not, in accordance with numerous U.N. resolutions dating back to 1991.

Invading Iraq is a How, which logically follows the What. It is not a goal in itself.

Why is answered by the past history of the Iraqi leadership. They started two major regional wars in the past, and have ruthlessly suppressed any opposition in the country that might provide more benevolent leadership. Remember the televised parliament meeting in 1979? It's a pretty good example of what Saddam is really like. It also proved that he is vindictive, and holds his hatred deep until he sees an opportunity to act out his revenge. If a terrorist group ever asked him for a WMD for use against the U.S., there is no doubt that he would gladly make it available. This is the Why

The international community has pursued the diplomatic route for a full decade without success. During that time, inspectors continued to come across banned weapons right up until they were booted out in 1998. Iraqi children starved to death, and Iraqi leaders continued to fill their pockets from the proceeds of highly profitable smuggling. and thumbing their noses at the international community. Now they have managed to buy a further 4 years of peace and quiet during which to hide their illegal stockpiles deep where they cannot be easily found. Why would any nation resist the inspections for 11 years unless they have something to hide?

After 11 years of failing to win Iraqi compliance with U.N. statements of "You must disarm", Bush decided to rewrite that into, "You must disarm, OR ELSE", and convinced the U.N. to back him up. The "or else" part is still not defined, and we hope (and I'm sure Bush hopes more than anyone) that the "or else" will never be needed.

Definition of what is terrorism is very complicated... Irrelevant example, those guys are thieves not terrorists. Money is the goal, not freedom or political ideas.

Terrorism is not that complicated. It is the use of tactics which target innocent civilians with the purpose of causing the general population to fear for their lives unless their demands are met.

The gangs I mentioned ARE terrorists, as what they are aiming for is the establishment of a Marxist state. But weapons, training camps, food etc. etc. are expensive, and now that the Soviets and other Communist countries no longer finance them, they have gone into kidnapping, extortion, and other rackets to finance their operations.

It is the What, Why, How logic again. If you want the full series, it is Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. I suggest you try to follow it - especially the Why part. I think it was Marcus Aurelius who said that if you ask Why five times (and answer with integrity), you will find the truth.

Charles


25 N79969 : OO-AOG, "Of course not N79969, don't expect 9-11 demands to be crystal clear, you need to think at a second level. Those terrorists are fighting again
26 Cfalk : The 9-11 hijackers made no demands or did not leave a note. Their objective was mass-murder and not the liberation of Palestine or anything else. N799
27 LHMark : In ANY idealogical struggle, if you follow the trail up from the "Freedom Fighters" to the top, what you find is someone fighting for power and money,
28 N79969 : Cfalk, While that might have been their objective, I sense that since 9/11 the objective has broadened in nature to not only repel US influence in the
29 OO-AOG : Huh??? That does not compute. You are saying that if a nation is powerful, its demands are therefore unreasonable. I suggest you rephrase that. Agreed
30 N79969 : OO-AOG, I take back what I said earlier when I lumped you in with Manni and Swissgable. You are far more thoughtful than those two. This is not about
31 Post contains images OO-AOG : What are you, a psychic? Al-Qaeda wants to see the destruction of the United States. OBL and others were "delighted" upon hearing the news of the atta
32 Rai : Russ, to answer your question, no there is no country in the world with a squeaky clean record when it comes to combating terrorism. I find some of th
33 N79969 : OO-AOG, The Soviet spread of communism killed a lot of innocent people. I think it is your jaundiced viewpoint that has led to your lack of comprehens
34 Galaxy5 : Fighting terrorism isnt and never should be a popularity contest, you do what you have to do to weed them out and destroy them. If you show your weak
35 Cfalk : The US fight against communism has resulted in thousands of innocent people deaths. I wouldn't put this fight as an example. That's like saying that t
36 We're Nuts : A quick side note on the Iraqi issue. Why should they not be allowed a defensive military? After all, Japan was. And with an evil little country like
37 Post contains links and images 747-451 : "Why does the US have to ram foreign policy down everyone's throat?" how about: "Why does the radical Islamicists have to ram their view of what's "ju
38 Twaneedsnohelp : This turned into a great thread. Thanks Cfalk for some excellent commentary. Thanks Rai for piping in with a clear answer. N79969 and 747-451: also gr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Wine Goes Good With Human Flesh? posted Wed Apr 2 2003 02:35:59 by QANTASFOREVER
Problems With Democracy posted Sun Sep 19 2004 13:22:41 by Cfalk
Wacko Activists To Disrupt RNC With Terror Tactics posted Mon Jul 12 2004 20:48:43 by Galaxy5
Human Rights Perspective On War With Iraq posted Sat Mar 15 2003 21:53:58 by SKYSERVICE_330
Pain You Live With Daily. posted Thu Jan 25 2007 21:10:16 by Jafa39
Drinks With Different Tastes In Other Countries posted Sun Jan 21 2007 18:17:18 by Runway23
Help With Drive Defragmentation posted Sun Jan 21 2007 08:13:34 by Aak777
I'm Back With Goodies, Grand Canyon Rd Trip W/pics posted Fri Jan 19 2007 03:15:15 by NWA742
Tomato Juice On The Plane - What's Up With That!? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 22:37:04 by Birdwatching
Need Help With Bill In Model Legislature. posted Wed Jan 17 2007 03:59:04 by ZOTAN