is Jihad coming to a rail station near you? (racial profiling debate)

[$tinkle]

With this morning's bombing (http://washtimes.com/world/20040311-115025-8650r.htm) of various trains in madrid by the ETA separatist group, killing 120 & injuring over 1,000, ain't it hi-time to maybe put aside political correctness & start serious eradication of the enemy within our (& UK) borders?

If not now, then what is your threshold?

[fluff]

Is it confirmed that it was ETA?

How would you propose we eradicate the enemy in our midst. We would need to know who they are.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by fluff
Is it confirmed that it was ETA?

How would you propose we eradicate the enemy in our midst. We would need to know who they are.


You know, THEM! :eek:



Ve vill ztart vith zee quesztion azkerz. :angry:

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Is it confirmed that it was ETA? interior minister (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=97372932&p=97373638) said so. He seems to be in authority to level this charge, and has a 25 years of awareness. Oh, & body count is 173 & climbing like a ring-tailed lemur.

Originally posted by fluff
How would you propose we eradicate the enemy in our midst. We would need to know who they are. sorry to report that i cannot find one major conflict w/o collateral damage. So, i don't think their precise identity needs to be known, but it would be convenient.

My point/question being: Should we amp up the chase? How? Do the PC ground rules of racial profiling no longer apply? If your threshold is farther out, please define

[LordOpie]

i'm ignorant on the subject, so for those who are too, here's what i've found...

What is ETA?
ETA is a leftist group that uses terrorism in hopes of forming an independent Basque state in parts of northern Spain and southwest France. ETA stands for Euskadi ta Askatasuna, which means “Basque Fatherland and Liberty” in the Basque language. The State Department lists ETA as a foreign terrorist organization, and the United States and the European Union have frozen ETA assets since the September 11 attacks. Spain has long fought ETA and opposes an independent Basque homeland, though its 1978 constitution designated an autonomous Basque region with responsibility for education, health care, policing, and taxation.

Does ETA have ties to al Qaeda?
No. ETA’s secular nationalist agenda has nothing to do with the Islamist fundamentalism of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, and there is no credible evidence of any systematic cooperation between ETA and al Qaeda, experts say. But Qaeda cells have been discovered in Spain. In November 2001, Spanish authorities arrested eight men suspected of being Qaeda operatives involved in the September 11 attacks. One of these men reportedly had past links with ETA’s unofficial political wing, Batasuna, which the Spanish Supreme Court banned in March 2003. In September 2003, Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon said the September 11 attacks were partially planned in Spain.
more (http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/eta.html)
So I'm confused, what's this got to do with the US, UK, et al. internally? We should support Spain, I guess, but it doesn't have anything to do with us directly, right?

[$tinkle]

yeah, i just 'bout chat myself when i saw this:Who are the Basques? — The Basques are a linguistically and culturally distinct Christian group that has lived since the Stone Age in the mountainous region that straddles the border between modern-day Spain and France. The Basques have never had their own independent state, but they have enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy over the centuries under Spanish and French rule. About half of the 2.1 million residents of the three provinces that make up the autonomous Basque region speak fluent Basque or understand some of the language. Basque nationalists include other areas with smaller Basque-speaking minorities—the Spanish province of Navarre and three departments in southwest France—in their vision of a Basque homeland. so much for racial profiling, eh?

is this thread dead yet? my suppositions certainly are.

[Westy]

Originally posted by LordOpie
i'm ignorant on the subject, so for those who are too, here's what i've found...


So I'm confused, what's this got to do with the US, UK, et al. internally? We should support Spain, I guess, but it doesn't have anything to do with us directly, right?

Methinks Stinkle confused ETA with an Islamist group, that or I am really confused.

[Tenchiro]

Friggin' christians...

[Westy]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Friggin' christians...

We should kill everyone with any serious religious beliefs, they all cause problems. Agnostics rule, you never hear of anyone killing because of their uncertainty about god.

[BurlyShirley]

I think the man's just saying that trains are an easy target for terrorists here in the states also, and that racial profiling could be helpful in thwarting such attacks.
And that topic is what's open for debate.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
is this thread dead yet? my suppositions certainly are.
no, but does split it into two topics:

1. Is this tantamount to, say, the Irish? Not saying the Basque are, just trying to get a feel for the situation which I know nothing about.

2. The article says they found evidence of an Islamic link, but the two terrorists groups aren't known to associate with each other, so let's speculate :)

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
Methinks Stinkle confused ETA with an Islamist group, that or I am really confused. yep.

can i go home now?

[Tenchiro]

I think in order to prevent an anti christian backlash, we need camps set up where they can be temporarily re-located so their safety is insured...

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
yep.

can i go home now?


No, face your shame.

I was confused at first to. The article refered to a van with tapes from the quran nearby. If it was not considered evidence on who dun'it why talk about it. Bad reporting.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
2. The article says they found evidence of an Islamic link, but the two terrorists groups aren't known to associate with each other, so let's speculate :) i read another blurb about finding a tape made in arabic & "al quaeda" was lobbed about in the same article.

so i guess i got a little own3d & maybe a little punk'd.


gonna keep reading the crawler...

[$tinkle]

so, now my prejudices have been vetted, and now it seems it was al-quaeda (apwire (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPAIN_EXPLOSION?SITE=CODER&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL)).

But, do i lose street credit? I mean, it was a few key words in a couple articles that fed into my expectations. It certainly wasn't thorough investigation which led me to start spouting off at the keys.

This does raise the spectre of how should we then live? (francis schaeffer reference)

oh, gratuitous gore:

http://customwire.ap.org/photos/MAD13103111758-big.jpg

[Westy]

Even if it was Al-Kayda, racial profiling seems to be a very inefficient way of doing things since 99.999999% of Muslims are regular peace lovin' folk. Trying to track or ban the millions of innocent muslims or arabls would be quite ineficient.

Any good organized well funded terrorist organization would still be able to hold attacks. You can pay a greedy scumbag to kill just as easy as it is to convince someone to do it for free.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
Even if it was Al-Kayda, racial profiling seems to be a very inefficient way of doing things since 99.999999% of Muslims are regular peace lovin' folk. Trying to track or ban the millions of innocent muslims or arabls would be quite ineficient.

Any good organized well funded terrorist organization would still be able to hold attacks. You can pay a greedy scumbag to kill just as easy as it is to convince someone to do it for free. absolutely true. if i lacked a moral compass & really wanted to get my meathooks on that new Turner DHR, then i would take on funding for an immoral act like this one.

I seem to recall the israelis wanted to hang pig entrails in all of their buses so the suicide bombers would think twice about entering allah's presence covered in swine. But, i guess that only works in "martyrdom"

[valve bouncer]

Well if there was any proof that racial profiling worked then I guess I could understand but seems to me that it's a stupid way of going about things. Richard Reid anyone?????

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Well if there was any proof that racial profiling worked then I guess I could understand but seems to me that it's a stupid way of going about things. Richard Reid anyone?????


I dunno. People may take offense to this, but if I'm getting on a plane and they're doing random checks on people...Id feel better if they checked out the arab guy with the backpack. Sure, he might feel a little harassed, and I know that sucks, but If just one plane with 150 people on board is saved from destruction at 30,000 feet, then its worth the emberassment of a couple dudes in an airport somewhere. Its a simple losses and gains thing with me, just like the gay marriage deal...I could care less what color you are. Hell, if most terror suspects had green eyes, and they spot-checked everyone with green eyes before getting on the plance...Id gladly volunteer my time for the sake of the comfort of the other passengers, and id do my best not to be offeded.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dunno. People may take offense to this, but if I'm getting on a plane and they're doing random checks on people...Id feel better if they checked out the arab guy with the backpack. Sure, he might feel a little harassed, and I know that sucks, but If just one plane with 150 people on board is saved from destruction at 30,000 feet, then its worth the emberassment of a couple dudes in an airport somewhere. Its a simple losses and gains thing with me, just like the gay marriage deal...I could care less what color you are. Hell, if most terror suspects had green eyes, and they spot-checked everyone with green eyes before getting on the plance...Id gladly volunteer my time for the sake of the comfort of the other passengers, and id do my best not to be offeded.
I think you missed the point a bit Shirley. Racial profiling does no good if the terrorist is a person who isn't part of your profile. It's no good checking the Arab with the backpack if it's the blue eyed woman in 23A with the shoe bomb. Anyone can be a terrorist, anyone. Tim McVeigh......

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think you missed the point a bit Shirley. Racial profiling does no good if the terrorist is a person who isn't part of your profile. It's no good checking the Arab with the backpack if it's the blue eyed woman in 23A with the shoe bomb. Anyone can be a terrorist, anyone. Tim McVeigh......

No, i get your point, and anyone can find an exception to any rule in the book. But for the latest round of attacks on the US, profiling could serve to be a useful tool, even if it only serves as a deterrant. Go ahead and claim that most al-queda members are not arab in descent and I will disagree.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No, i get your point, and anyone can find an exception to any rule in the book. But for the latest round of attacks on the US, profiling could serve to be a useful tool, even if it only serves as a deterrant. Go ahead and claim that most al-queda members are not arab in descent and I will disagree.
I don't quite see how racial profiling would have stopped 9/11. As I understand most of the hijackers were in America legally and the stuff they used to hijack the plane was legally able to be brought onto the planes at that time. Seems to me that racial profiling is a waste of time because as soon as it starts the terrorists are just gonna use people who don't fit the profile. Are you gonna tell me there aren't members of Al Quaida who know how to use colored contacts, skin lightening cream and hair dye? The answer lies in better screening and intelligence before people even get to the airport, let alone get on the plane.

[Silver]

Profiling works.

For about 5 minutes. Then the tactics change. For an example, see the women suicide bombers in Israel.

[BurlyShirley]

Look fellas, I appreciate your intentions here , really, but anything we can do to make it more difficult to hijack a plane is worth it IMO. I mean, sure they can do this and they can do that and people can find a way to do just about anything these days. But to say, screw safety in the name of not hurting someone's feelings is a little rediculous in my mind. I think if its tougher to do, less of it will happen...like anything else in the world. Just seems that simple to me.

Silver, better intel is great...you're right...but profiling could even enhance that in some ways. and its probably done anyway. Lets say a few years ago you did background checks on all the arab guys attending flight school. That'd give you some better Intel.

We may just have to agree to disagree for the 9,000th consecutive time here.

[Silver]

Hey, if magic pixie dust makes you feel better, more power to you. :D

[valve bouncer]

Shirley the whole point is that it doesn't make it more difficult to hijack a plane. It's a false sense of security, window dressing if you like and does nothing to solve the problems. It's pandering to bigotry and people who can't come up with more imaginative solutions to complex problems.

[Silver]

Let me flesh out why I don't think profiling works.

I have to fly 10-15 times a year (I hate it, but that is another thread.) Since 9-11, I've been able to subject myself to a search pretty much at will. How?

If I shave, wear my glasses and have a nice button up shirt on, I breeze through. Not even a second look. If I wear my contacts, don't shave, and look a little bit like a skater or a surfer, I get pulled over for extra screening almost every time at LAX. Personally, I think they are looking for drugs...but I sure don't feel any safer.

Flying back out of Canada, interestingly enough, the security checks are much more random and intensive. And Vancouver in particular seemed very thorough.

Personally, I'm a lot more worried about a Stinger or SA-14 hitting the engine 10 seconds after takeoff...

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Shirley the whole point is that it doesn't make it more difficult to hijack a plane. It's a false sense of security, window dressing if you like and does nothing to solve the problems. It's pandering to bigotry and people who can't come up with more imaginative solutions to complex problems.

Im not saying its the f***ing end-all to terrorism here, but to suggest that his could in now way contribute to the effectiveness of intelligence gathering to help stop terrorist attacks on US soil is simply incorrect. I mean, cataloguing all visits from mid-east nations would in a sense be a form of profiling.,...right? Are you saying that could not possibly play into an investigation? That a guy known to be an al-queda member couldnt possibly be found that way?

[Tenchiro]

It wouldn't stop the Timothy McVeigh's of the world.

[Skookum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1780000/images/_1783237_reidshoebomber300.jpg
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/timothy-mcveigh/mcveighmugcrop.GIF

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I mean, cataloguing all visits from mid-east nations would in a sense be a form of profiling.,...right? Are you saying that could not possibly play into an investigation? That a guy known to be an al-queda member couldnt possibly be found that way?
That's not racial profiling Shirley unless you're dimwitted enough to believe that race equals nation. But even that wouldn't work as plenty of Al Quaida members have Western passports.

Edit- As far as NATIONAL profiling goes, isn't this already being implemented in the form of different visa rules for different countries?

[Thepagoda]

I think people are overlooking a much more important aspect of things that ties more into "the war on terrorism" than it does here, but is still important. Racial profiling is a form of persecution and prejudgice. the reason that the proverbial sh!t is hitting the fan is that people feel persecuted. differentially treating, and therefore further alienating people based on their religion or ethnicity is not only morally wrong, it is detrimental to a diverse society and is detrimental to the inalienable rights of the citizens of that society. If you truly cherish and love the democracy that you live in, then you have to recognize the rights of ALL of your citizens, whether they be white, gay, muslim or female. That foundation of human rights, which is what this country is supposed to uphold, cannot support both the freedoms that we take for granted and a sytematic approach that prejudges the members of its society based on their religious prefernece or ethnicity. Remember that the USA was founded because of religous persecution.

Prejudging the citizens of the USA (or foriegners, which becomes a whole different point alltogether) will not increase the security of the USA. Racial profiling leads to inequal application of rights which should be a red flag to any member of a country who's citizens are "created equal" (i.e the USA). Racial Profiling is morally wrong, it is against the very foundations of this country, and it is detrimental to the longevity of our society.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
Prejudging the citizens of the USA (or foriegners, which becomes a whole different point alltogether) will not increase the security of the USA. Racial profiling leads to inequal application of rights which should be a red flag to any member of a country who's citizens are "created equal" (i.e the USA). Racial Profiling is morally wrong, it is against the very foundations of this country, and it is detrimental to the longevity of our society. i try to imagine someone in high authority taking this point of view, and enacting it, then al-qaeda getting wise to this policy. Do you not agree that they would not be in any way deterred? As far as Skookum's post of reid & mcveigh, i think that pretty much sums up the US citizens, and reid is a muslim, who would probably fail the arabic litmus test.

what if palestinians were cosmetically distinct from israelis? Do you think they would employ racial profiling?

get my point? just because it's not the solution, doesn't mean it shouldn't be part the solution.

and i acknowledge silver's observation that tactics change to best fit a successful hit. To wit, didja notice that mexican smugglers want upwards of 10X for arabic folks to get in country...and are getting it!

[Westy]

The idea in terrorism is hitting soft targets. We can perform deep body cavity searches on everyon in the airport and it would not make a damn bit of difference, after Sept 11 airplanes are not soft targets. Hitting a train in spain was obviously easier. We can increase security on trains. Then they'll blow up a bomb and take out the brooklyn bridge. Then we can search all cars and trucks, then they will start fires in the west burning down thousands of homes. Then we will pave the west. Then they can just start sniping like John Malvo and we will all drive armoured cars and wear bullet proof jackets. It could go on forever. As long as we live in a free society we will present a very target rich environment.

If there are terrorists people will die, get used to it. 1000 times more people die each year from traffic accidents and no one seems worried about that. The best thing we can do is try to get rid of terrorists. Treat the cause not the symptom. IMO harrasing everyone who looks like a terrorist will create more terrorists.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Westy
The idea in terrorism is

...

terrorist will create more terrorists.

Winner!

[$tinkle]

excerpt of column filed today by Walid Phares (http://www.walidphares.com/), Professor of Middle East studiesBack in the 8th century A.D., Spain was the first European Christian country to be invaded by the Arab Islamic armies. It was called al-Andalous for seven centuries. The Madrid attacks -- if Jihadist in nature -- are undoubtably grounded in a historical reference. Indeed, over the past two years, al-Qaeda websites and their sisters in jihad have classified Spain in the realm of "Muslim areas conquered by the infidels," reversing the chronology of world events. But in a recent statement by al-Qaeda following the assassination of Spanish intelligence officers in Iraq, the text said, "Spain, once a Muslim country, is now again an aggressor." The political thinking behind the statement is not unknown to the experts in Islamic Fundamentalism. It is not only about Aznar's alliance with the U.S. in as much as it is also an old claim laid over the entire Iberian Peninsula. As in the Yugoslav crisis, history is often cited as a root cause. Al-Qaeda and its masters in Arabia haven't gotten over the change of identity in Spain, and by the same token, Portugal. The founders of global jihad argue that there was another Palestine in Spain, obliterated by the Christians in 1492. They constantly miss to report to their followers that it was first invaded and subdued by the Muslim armies in 715. As in all their "fronts" around the globe, the Jihadist ideologues do not admit the historical order of events. This practice remained the dominant pattern till September 11 in America.

[$tinkle]

ok, so i made as ass outta myself w/ the whole ETA = Muslim extremest, but even that effort was bested by none other than the United Nations yesterdayUnanimously adopting resolution 1530 (2004), the Security Council expressed its reinforced determination to combat all forms of terrorism, and condemned today’s attacks in Madrid “perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA”. At least 190 commuters were killed and more than a thousand more wounded after simultaneous bombings targeted rush-hour trains in the Spanish capital.and the coup de grasThe Council convened at 12:35 p.m. and adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
link (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8022.doc.htm)

[Thepagoda]

building the argument on the foundations that racial profiling may prove to be sucessful in thwarting some attacks overlooks something very important: Freedom. Racial profiling is a form of oppression. It may be effective in deterring a small number of terrorists, but it is not addressing the problem from a point of view that lends to the solution. I think that you may agree that the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII was effective in reducing the number of potential spies, but was incredibly unethical and it compromised the freedom of the people in this country, the free-est country in the world. If the idea of villianizing people based on their religious belief or physical apearance speaks against the freedoms that are supposed to be upheld by such an act.

If humanity is to have no part in the argument, why not examine the dynamics of what happens over the long term when people are judged for their religious or choices or their heritage. During the 1930s the Germans were coerced into believing that the jews were the root of their problems. over the next decade the conditions devloped from very much what is being proposed (differential treatment of individuals based solely on their religious beliefs) into the Holocaust. Now obviously this is an extreme case, but it shows the potential downfall of the implementation of schemes like racial profiling. History is full of examples where racial or religious prejudgices have caused conflicts ranging from genocide and virtual extermination (ex's: Rwanda, US's manifest destiny) to civil rights (ex: US 1960s).

Racial profiling is not the solution and it cannot be part of the solution because is is part of the problem.

As Mr. Westy pointed out, you can take all the precautions that you want to reinforce your security to reduce the effects of terrorism until you realize that to be totally safe you're locked in a bunker so that the freedom you hold so dear is nothing but a memory. Or, alternatively you could accept the fact the the risk of dying as a result of terror attack is much lower than that of getting killed in an automobile accident. So you do what you do anyway: accept the risk and move on. Terrorism is only effective if it strikes fear in people's hearts, but if you stop and examine the numbers, the amount of stress placed on terrorism is vastly disproportionate to the actual threat. Graphic events such as the bombing of the train is Madrid and 911 inflate the percived level of terrorist threat. Look at how many people have died since the year 2000 in terror related incidents and, say, alcohol related deaths.

I'm flying into Madrid next week, and people keep asking me if I'm scared. people asked the same thing when I went to Bali last year. I have a much higher risk of getting killed driving to the airport than I do from getting bombed. I'm looking forward to being in Spain.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
ok, so i made as ass outta myself w/ the whole ETA = Muslim extremest,
nah, others and myself also thought the same thing.

What I don't understand is why Spain and France just don't give the Basques the land they want?



Yes, I'm being an ass since this same question was asked of tiny Israel of the "Palestinians".

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
Racial profiling is not the solution and it cannot be part of the solution because is is part of the problem. so, if i understand your point of view, it is wrong to give racial profiling any weight whatsoever in the screening process. Imagine if you will, a race/ethnicity/religion that almost exclusively has cornered the terrorism market, and all its like people who could be associated with them do nothing to condemn it, nothing to reverse it, and nothing to erradicate it. They just remain silent because they know it won't come their way. And just how is this scenario non-existent today?

Originally posted by Thepagoda
As Mr. Westy pointed out, you can take all the precautions that you want to reinforce your security to reduce the effects of terrorism until you realize that to be totally safe you're locked in a bunker so that the freedom you hold so dear is nothing but a memory. Or, alternatively you could accept the fact the the risk of dying as a result of terror attack is much lower than that of getting killed in an automobile accident. So you do what you do anyway: accept the risk and move on. Terrorism is only effective if it strikes fear in people's hearts, but if you stop and examine the numbers, the amount of stress placed on terrorism is vastly disproportionate to the actual threat. Graphic events such as the bombing of the train is Madrid and 911 inflate the percived level of terrorist threat. Look at how many people have died since the year 2000 in terror related incidents and, say, alcohol related deaths.so, we should do nothing until we hit a tipping point, some thousands of deaths per year out from where we are now? It certainly seems like that's the point you're making, and if so, i don't agree.

Originally posted by Thepagoda
I'm flying into Madrid next week, and people keep asking me if I'm scared. people asked the same thing when I went to Bali last year. I have a much higher risk of getting killed driving to the airport than I do from getting bombed. I'm looking forward to being in Spain. i think the worst is over. it just may be the safest spot on the planet for the next few years - they have an incoming socialist administration as of yesterday.

keep your powder dry.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
...they have an incoming socialist administration as of yesterday.
And they're bringing their troops home from Iraq.

Doesn't that send a message to the world... Terrorism DOES work!?

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
And they're bringing their troops home from Iraq.

Doesn't that send a message to the world... Terrorism DOES work!?

Well, given that 90% of the Spanish electorate did not want their troops to go to Iraq, perhaps it also sends a message to the world that democracy CAN work too?

Given that governments are supposed to govern for the people and not for the politicians or big business I think it's fair enough.

Do you think that terrorism could not work whereas war could?

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Well, given that 90% of the Spanish electorate did not want their troops to go to Iraq, perhaps it also sends a message to the world that democracy CAN work too?
Yes, but what's the world's perception of the elections in Spain? Does the world at large think that terrorism changed Spain or does the average global citizen know that Spain was gonna change leadership anyway?

Originally posted by fluff
Do you think that terrorism could not work whereas war could?
yeah, not sure what you're asking there fluffer.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Yes, but what's the world's perception of the elections in Spain? Does the world at large think that terrorism changed Spain or does the average global citizen know that Spain was gonna change leadership anyway?in my little world, i know that spain will now react to terrorism, not prevent it. This will be their domestic policy. They will have no foreign policy outside of a UN charter.

[rbx]

So now having lebanese origins(living in canada since i was 4years old now 29) that means im going to get **** from security if i want to get on a train in the u.s? geeez thanks monkeys and i thought i was done with the idiot racist in high school here we go again!

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by rbx
So now having lebanese origins(living in canada since i was 4years old now 29) that means im going to get **** from security if i want to get on a train in the u.s? geeez thanks monkeys and i thought i was done with the idiot racist in high school here we go again!

Life lesson:

There are idiot racists everywhere. You can only hope to avoid them until they wise up.

Rhino

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Life lesson:

There are idiot racists everywhere. You can only hope to avoid them until they wise up.

Rhino

What is scary is that there are smart, racists who have power.

edit: for stupidity

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by ummbikes
What is scary is that there are smart, powerful racists who have power.

You mean like Atomic Nazi Supermen?


EDIT - How smart can an ignorant person be?

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
You mean like Atomic Nazi Supermen?


EDIT - How smart can an ignorant person be?

Well I know Smart people who are ignorant............

Me, I am just oblivious. :D

[BurlyShirley]

Al-Queda is the terrorist organization that currently poses the largest threat to the U.S.

Most members of Al-Queda are Arabic.

How does it not make sense to look for people of Arabic descent in some capacity?



:confused:
How does this make me a bigot?

[rbx]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Al-Queda is the terrorist organization that currently poses the largest threat to the U.S.

Most members of Al-Queda are Arabic.

How does it not make sense to look for people of Arabic descent in some capacity?



:confused:
How does this make me a bigot?

the KKK is a racist organization

ALL members of the KKK are white

How does it not make sense to look at white americans as being all racists?

hows does this make me a bigot?

get the point? when you profile you put all arabs as being anti-american al-quieda supporting terrorists

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by rbx
the KKK is a racist organization

ALL members of the KKK are white

How does it not make sense to look at white americans as being all racists?


Many people do.

"It's Da Man keep'n us down"

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by rbx


get the point? when you profile you put all arabs as being anti-american al-quieda supporting terrorists


I disagree.

No one is saying every arab is a terrorist. Its just the logical place to start looking given the numbers.

Now, if we were looking for racists KKK members in our airports...what sense would it make to search black people or arabic people?

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Al-Queda is the terrorist organization that currently poses the largest threat to the U.S.

Most members of Al-Queda are Arabic.

How does it not make sense to look for people of Arabic descent in some capacity?



:confused:
How does this make me a bigot?

This sort of thing would be destined to fail because there are too many stupid Americans that think every Sikh is a muslim because they wear turbans. Native American families would be hassled because someone thought they looked arabic.

At the same time, all the Timothy McVeighs and abortion clinic bombers would be free to bomb whatever they chose.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
in my little world, i know that spain will now react to terrorism, not prevent it. This will be their domestic policy. They will have no foreign policy outside of a UN charter.
i'm in agreeance with your assessment, but what does that mean? Was Spain a big partner against terrorism in the past? Will their relative absence have an impact?

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Al-Queda is the terrorist organization that currently poses the largest threat to the U.S.

Most members of Al-Queda are Arabic.

How does it not make sense to look for people of Arabic descent in some capacity?



:confused:
How does this make me a bigot?
Well I believe that old Osama is hiding somewhere in Pakistan (not an Arab country) after being kicked out of Afghanistan (not an Arab country). Presumably he has sympathisers in both those countries so we'd better start checking people from those countries too. Pakistanis look like Bangladeshis who look like Indians who look like Sri Lankans so I guess we better check all those people too. Now Al Queada has links to Jemaah Islamiya in SE Asia (Bali bombing anyone?) so we better start checking all SE Asians as well. I think the people from all those countries aren't Arabs. Anyway Osama used to hang out in Sudan (OK OK a partly Arab country). A lot of Sudanese Arabs are black so we better start checking black people as well........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A number of people on this thread have shown you why this is not a good idea but you want to feel comfortable in your bigotry so you'll justify it any way you can. Even bullsh*t ways.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer

A number of people on this thread have shown you why this is not a good idea but you want to feel comfortable in your bigotry so you'll justify it any way you can. Even bullsh*t ways.

Dude, my being a bigot has nothing to do with this:p

What Im getting at is that anything you can do to narrow the scope makes it easier to find "the bad guys". I know we used the example of airport security, but try to look beyond that. If we're searching for Al-Queda, we're most likely looking for people of arabic countries. Most people of those countries are arabic...I believe.
It has nothing to do with bigotry IMO. Its a simple numbers game. I dont have anything against anyone who is arabic, so I dont see how I can be described as a bigot. If i were looking for a suspect in a case who was a 6ft black male, I wouldnt stop 5ft Chinese dudes and question them. Does that make me a bigot?

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude, my being a bigot has nothing to do with this:p

What Im getting at is that anything you can do to narrow the scope makes it easier to find "the bad guys". I know we used the example of airport security, but try to look beyond that. If we're searching for Al-Queda, we're most likely looking for people of arabic countries. Most people of those countries are arabic...I believe.
It has nothing to do with bigotry IMO. Its a simple numbers game. I dont have anything against anyone who is arabic, so I dont see how I can be described as a bigot. If i were looking for a suspect in a case who was a 6ft black male, I wouldnt stop 5ft Chinese dudes and question them. Does that make me a bigot?

Hey it worked with the Japanese during the 40's. We locked all their butts up, took their stuff and we suffered no more attacks at the hands of them.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Hey it worked with the Japanese during the 40's. We locked all their butts up, took their stuff and we suffered no more attacks at the hands of them.


which sucks, yeah, and Im not even insinuating that anything go that far, but...well...do you feel the ends justified the means? The US apologized, as that was the PC thing to do. Probably the right thing to do.
Could that have saved lives though? Is saving the lives of many people worth the price of infringing on the rights of some? Id say so, but not at all to the point of putting people in a camp or something.

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
in my little world, i know that spain will now react to terrorism, not prevent it. This will be their domestic policy. They will have no foreign policy outside of a UN charter.

in my little world i know that the uk and the us will now react to terrorism, not prevent it. This will be their domestic policy. They will have a foreign policy of invading Islamic nations outside of a UN charter.


Either/neither of those make any more sense than the other.


Prevent terrorism? If Spain do pull their troops out of Iraq, who do you think will be more likely to be attacked by Al-Qaeda, the US, the UK or Spain?

What are your theories on preventing terrrorism because it appears that invading Afghanistan and Iraq haven't worked yet?

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The US apologized, as that was the PC thing to do. Probably the right thing to do.


Probably the right thing to do?

You've got to be ****ting me...you think an apology was PC bull****?

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Yes, but what's the world's perception of the elections in Spain? Does the world at large think that terrorism changed Spain or does the average global citizen know that Spain was gonna change leadership anyway?

Without the bombing it is quite possible that Aznar would not have lost so many votes, he might simply not have had a majority (as before). Potentially the attack tipped the scales so that the PSOE got 42% to the Popular Party's 38% (not so Popular after all!).

So the question is moot, they probably weren't going to change leadership anyway. However, are you suggesting that the people should support the government in a policy that they do not agree with simply because the US would prefer that? The Spanish psyche is such that they would wonder why they were involved in something that has nothing to do with them.

Originally posted by LordOpie

yeah, not sure what you're asking there fluffer.

I'm phrasing a fundamental question badly.:)

What I'm trying to get at is:

Does terrorism achieve its aims?

Does war achieve its aims?

In order to answer those questions with any usefulness we may need to look at individual terrorist organisations (and their true aims) and individual wars (and their true aims). We would also need to clearly define the differerences between the two.

Probably needs another thread.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Well I believe that old Osama is hiding somewhere in Pakistan (not an Arab country) after being kicked out of Afghanistan (not an Arab country). Presumably he has sympathisers in both those countries so we'd better start checking people from those countries too. Pakistanis look like Bangladeshis who look like Indians who look like Sri Lankans so I guess we better check all those people too. Now Al Queada has links to Jemaah Islamiya in SE Asia (Bali bombing anyone?) so we better start checking all SE Asians as well. I think the people from all those countries aren't Arabs. Anyway Osama used to hang out in Sudan (OK OK a partly Arab country). A lot of Sudanese Arabs are black so we better start checking black people as well........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A number of people on this thread have shown you why this is not a good idea but you want to feel comfortable in your bigotry so you'll justify it any way you can. Even bullsh*t ways.

Canadians traveling abroad make it a point to show they are from canada and not the USA. They fear being messed with because they may seem kinda american. Is that no different? Didn't say they weren't being smart......but is that different than being marked for different treatment because they are from a middle eastern back ground?

Who is going to stand up and protect the Canadians? :)

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Probably the right thing to do?

You've got to be ****ting me...you think an apology was PC bull****?


How was it not the politically proper thing to do:confused: PC can have a deeper meaning than the way most people trivialize it. Like, i think it was politically correct to invade Iraq.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
in my little world i know that the uk and the us will now react to terrorism, not prevent it. This will be their domestic policy. They will have a foreign policy of invading Islamic nations outside of a UN charter.

Either/neither of those make any more sense than the other.
so, please reconcile us/uk efforts which look (to me) like an attempt at prevention. UN has long been established as toothless. Umm, besides afghanistan, can you name for me one islamic nation we/you've invaded? Perhaps you feel everyone would be happier if the taliban was beating the snot out of women who dared to show some wrist, or get education (they can't even go to a madrasa recall). I think you'll stand alone if you claim deposing the taliban wasn't the right thing to do. Also, since when does any sovreign nation need to consult the UN to respond to an attack? The answer is simply: never
Originally posted by fluff
Prevent terrorism? If Spain do pull their troops out of Iraq, who do you think will be more likely to be attacked by Al-Qaeda, the US, the UK or Spain?i see. so we should cut & run. Surely you've heard the argument (even if you don't agree) that's precisely what terrorists want. Don't think they can be contained or that they merely want to have a country to shoot off guns & beat women. Please heed the timeless words of Pastor Niemöller: 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
Originally posted by fluff
What are your theories on preventing terrrorism because it appears that invading Afghanistan and Iraq haven't worked yet? so, if al-qaeda is 2/3 less functional today vs a few years back, i'm not sure i see how you can claim/imply that it isn't working.


M.A.D. is making a comeback, methinks.

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so, please reconcile us/uk efforts which look (to me) like an attempt at prevention. UN has long been established as toothless. Umm, besides afghanistan, can you name for me one islamic nation we/you've invaded?

Umm... Iraq?

Originally posted by $tinkle

Perhaps you feel everyone would be happier if the taliban was beating the snot out of women who dared to show some wrist, or get education (they can't even go to a madrasa recall). I think you'll stand alone if you claim deposing the taliban wasn't the right thing to do.

Do you think that was why the US invaded Afghanistan???

Originally posted by $tinkle

Also, since when does any sovreign nation need to consult the UN to respond to an attack?

When did Afghanistan or Iraq attack you?

Originally posted by $tinkle

i see. so we should cut & run. Surely you've heard the argument (even if you don't agree) that's precisely what terrorists want. Don't think they can be contained or that they merely want to have a country to shoot off guns & beat women.

Please heed the timeless words of Pastor Niemöller:


Who was most definitely not talking about terrorists so is not relevant.

What do you think the terrorists want? They want us to stopping fvcking with their countries and their religion. What exactly gives us the right to do that? How would you like it if someone invaded the US and told you how to run your country? Forced you to allow gay marriages and abolised the death penalty?

Just because you dislike a regime or are afraid of a religion is no reason to invade a country or prop up an unpopular regime (Saudi Arabia ring any bells) or to support a country that has driven Arabs off the land they have had for generations.

Originally posted by $tinkle

so, if al-qaeda is 2/3 less functional today vs a few years back, i'm not sure i see how you can claim/imply that it isn't working.

Are they really? The families of 200 dead in Madrid might disagree with you there. Just because they haven't flown planes into skyscrapers killing thousands recently doesn't mean we're winning, that was always going to be a one-off - no terrorist organisation could pull that off twice in the space of a few years - we've been shown how they did that one, so they moved onto trains. 200 dead still count though.

That's how I can imply it isn't working. The fact that the terrorist attacks have not stopped, that we need to keep troops in the countries we've invaded and that the middle-east is as volatile as ever.

It seems very hard to stop terrorist attacks by force, can you show me where that's worked? Chechnya? Isreal? Northern Ireland? Spain?

Can you see any other aspect of this apart from the 'lets bomb the sh!t out of the Arabs' response?


Originally posted by $tinkle

M.A.D. is making a comeback, methinks.

Yeah right...

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Perhaps you feel everyone would be happier if the taliban was beating the snot out of women who dared to show some wrist, or get education (they can't even go to a madrasa recall). I think you'll stand alone if you claim deposing the taliban wasn't the right thing to do.

Saudi Arabia comes to mind as do alot of other Islamic countries. Not to mention many African nations have deplorable civil rights histories. Especially when it comes to women.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Umm... Iraq?
Resolution 1441...... Invade? um, no.

Do you think that was why the US invaded Afghanistan???
When did Afghanistan or Iraq attack you?

Didn't invade Afghanistan...... Iraq invaded Kuwait, we removed them.

What do you think the terrorists want? They want us to stopping fvcking with their countries and their religion. What exactly gives us the right to do that? How would you like it if someone invaded the US and told you how to run your country? Forced you to allow gay marriages and abolised the death penalty?

Just because you dislike a regime or are afraid of a religion is no reason to invade a country or prop up an unpopular regime (Saudi Arabia ring any bells) or to support a country that has driven Arabs off the land they have had for generations.


Terrorist want many things, not all included in what you wrote above. They are just as hateful and affraid of our ways, maybe even more so, than we are of theirs...if that is even the case (thinking we haven't exactly imposed "be like US" Iraq citizens or die)

Are they really? The families of 200 dead in Madrid might disagree with you there. Just because they haven't flown planes into skyscrapers killing thousands recently doesn't mean we're winning, that was always going to be a one-off - no terrorist organisation could pull that off twice in the space of a few years - we've been shown how they did that one, so they moved onto trains. 200 dead still count though.

That's how I can imply it isn't working. The fact that the terrorist attacks have not stopped, that we need to keep troops in the countries we've invaded and that the middle-east is as volatile as ever.

It seems very hard to stop terrorist attacks by force, can you show me where that's worked? Chechnya? Isreal? Northern Ireland? Spain?

Can you see any other aspect of this apart from the 'lets bomb the sh!t out of the Arabs' response?


Yes terrorists hit "soft targets" planes are tougher to get on now so they hit the trains....if not the trains another target. That is a smart thing for the terrorists to do.....

Now I ask you this (Or any other free willed individual)

What would you have us do? I am waiting......let people have a chance to bash and dissaprove of your plan. Come on...let it rip. Tell the US how it should conduct itself. We are waiting.

Realistically your ideas can be as easily swept aside, as you have the actions of the US and other nations.....but by all means, go ahead.

What is the solution? You have no feesable answer.

Rhino

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Saudi Arabia comes to mind as do alot of other Islamic countries. Not to mention many African nations have deplorable civil rights histories. Especially when it comes to women.

I agree with you....but

what did that have to do with the part of $tinkle's post you quoted....I missed the reference. Did you mean to quote something else? :)

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Resolution 1441...... Invade? um, no.

But the UN didn't endorse the invasion, did they?

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Didn't invade Afghanistan

I think you did. Not that long ago...

Originally posted by RhinofromWA


...... Iraq invaded Kuwait, we removed them.


Ten years ago.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Terrorist want many things, ...if that is even the case (thinking we haven't exactly imposed "be like US" Iraq citizens or die)

Sure?

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Now I ask you this (Or any other free willed individual)

What would you have us do? I am waiting......let people have a chance to bash and dissaprove of your plan. Come on...let it rip. Tell the US how it should conduct itself. We are waiting.


Well, I have posted before, maybe this time you'll read it;

Pull out the troops from Iraq, Saudi, Afghanistan. Force Israel to the negotiating table. Stop bombing people just 'cos they don't agree with you. Let the Arab world have the self-determination you fought the British so hard for. Start giving to the world as much as you take from the rest of it...

If you want to know more of what I'd do - pm me.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Realistically your ideas can be as easily swept aside, as you have the actions of the US and other nations.....but by all means, go ahead.

What is the solution? You have no feesable answer.
Rhino

A good indication of how open minded you are about others' ideas is that you posted your rebuttal of my suggestions before you even knew what they were...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Umm... Iraq?ummm....nope (hint: they're secular)
Originally posted by fluff
Do you think that was why the US invaded Afghanistan???the following are both true & related:
- the taliban were harboring UBL (the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks)
- the taliban were governing afghanistan
Originally posted by fluff
When did Afghanistan or Iraq attack you?9/11 (afghanistan), iraq (tbd - even if by proxy). Recall they were a "building", yet not imminent threat (david kay's testimony before senate subcommittee)
Originally posted by fluff
Who was most definitely not talking about terrorists so is not relevant. tell that to the holocaust survivors. Wait, actually you may have a point in that terrorists aren't as bad as genocidal maniacs (from a bodycount perspective).....yetOriginally posted by fluff
What do you think the terrorists want? They want us to stopping fvcking with their countries and their religion. What exactly gives us the right to do that? How would you like it if someone invaded the US and told you how to run your country? Forced you to allow gay marriages and abolised the death penalty? i'm sure they very much want that. why is it now you don't squawk about basic human rights violations, but gay marriage should be allowed because it's a basic human right?
Originally posted by fluff
Just because you dislike a regime or are afraid of a religion is no reason to invade a country or prop up an unpopular regime (Saudi Arabia ring any bells) or to support a country that has driven Arabs off the land they have had for generations.in addition to misjudging me about the death penalty (i'm against it), i'm also against propping up the house of saud, et al. i have no quarrel w/ you on that.
Originally posted by fluff
Are they really? The families of 200 dead in Madrid might disagree with you there. Just because they haven't flown planes into skyscrapers killing thousands recently doesn't mean we're winning, that was always going to be a one-off - no terrorist organisation could pull that off twice in the space of a few years - we've been shown how they did that one, so they moved onto trains. 200 dead still count though. you know the phrase "going down swinging"?Originally posted by fluff
That's how I can imply it isn't working. The fact that the terrorist attacks have not stopped, that we need to keep troops in the countries we've invaded and that the middle-east is as volatile as ever.

It seems very hard to stop terrorist attacks by force, can you show me where that's worked? Chechnya? Isreal? Northern Ireland? Spain?

Can you see any other aspect of this apart from the 'lets bomb the sh!t out of the Arabs' response?let's be clear: i never said "our efforts have worked", but rather "our efforts are working". If our efforts to thwart terrorism isn't working, then why do we need to keep troops in the countries we've invaded? Let's take israel. Knowing that hamas & others want them erradicated, not removed, you offer they should have a sit & see if they can work out their grievances at the bargaining table. The most recent example where this was a deal brokered by none other than bj clinton whereby the PA was offered 95% of what they demanded, and they turned it down anyway.

FWIW, yassir arafat won a nobel peace prize in 1994.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I agree with you....but

what did that have to do with the part of $tinkle's post you quoted....I missed the reference. Did you mean to quote something else? :)

He seemed to be inferring that one of the resons we invaded was due to their human rights violations. Which I highly doubt is very high, if at all present in our foreign policy.

If we were doing the "right" thing, and removing governments for the issues, we would be invading Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Syria, Israel, etc.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
But the UN didn't endorse the invasion, did they?

I think you did. Not that long ago...

Ten years ago.

Sure?

Well, I have posted before, maybe this time you'll read it;

Pull out the troops from Iraq, Saudi, Afghanistan. Force Israel to the negotiating table. Stop bombing people just 'cos they don't agree with you. Let the Arab world have the self-determination you fought the British so hard for. Start giving to the world as much as you take from the rest of it...

If you want to know more of what I'd do - pm me.

A good indication of how open minded you are about others' ideas is that you posted your rebuttal of my suggestions before you even knew what they were...

The UN did nothing (toothless as someone else has said) ..... Saddam paved his own way to being removed. Think I am wrong.....look at it again. Sadam busts in to Kawait. We push him backout. He agrees to rules that allow him to stay in power. He fails to follow agreed rules. He is then removed from power. Simply put, basic, and to the point. Nothing to do with WMD, etc, etc.

I am sure, are you? How have we made Iraq citizens denounce their religion and way of life other than living under a murderous dictator?

Hmmmm "FORCE" them to the negotiation table. Don't see why it should. Hasn't worked in hundreds of years...why should it work now? Self deturmination? How did Sadam give them self deturmination? How did the Taliban give them self deturmination? They didn't. I beleive the US has shown that it wants/is turning over the county to it's people. It isn't perfect yet (can it be perfect?) but it isn't exactly stopping them from their own self determination. Didn't bomb Taliban because they "didn't agree with us"...that is rubish. I think removing Saddam is giving back in a big way to the world....

I don't need to see your answer to respond to them....and we all do it. Whether they are pre-typed or not. Don't be so full of yourself. Nothing you listed is feesable and just goes to show my premature rebuttals held water. You have no magic beans to trade....there is no ideas you have that haven't been tried and failed. Or would cause any less trouble. Yet you believe to have the magical answer. Your comment on my rebuttals shows you don't relish the thought of your ideas as being challenged. That's OK but don't play it off on my being close minded.

I get sick of nay sayers with no real answers....baying to the moon that the others are wrong. I don't need to pm you for more info if you are unwilling to type them out here for all to see, then they must not be that great. I am open minded just give me something I can be open minded about. I truely don't see what you have mentioned have any chance of working. It is thru rose colored glasses that it has a chance of working. But any examples of your ideas working I am glad to review....since it is easy for you to find examples of what is currently being done won't work.

I appologize for coming off as a hard ass, but this crap (day in day out) infuriates me. I say, put up or shut up. That is not an "American way" of doing things it is a realists mind set. Come to the table and put your ideas down for everyone to see.

Rhino"the ass"fromWA

[Silver]

Iraq is an odd case. The government was secular, but the population is overwhelmingly Islamic...so I'd say that it counts as an Islamic country.

I just want to know what we do when they elect a hard line cleric in the first free elections. I'm sure George isn't wasting any time thinking about it though...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
He seemed to be inferring that one of the resons we invaded was due to their human rights violations. Which I highly doubt is very high, if at all present in our foreign policy.

If we were doing the "right" thing, and removing governments for the issues, we would be invading Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Syria, Israel, etc. it was a nice corollary, not to be overlooked.
ask any afghan woman (they're only now allowed to speak to non-relative men w/o fear of sharia)
Originally posted by Silver
Iraq is an odd case. The government was secular, but the population is overwhelmingly Islamic...so I'd say that it counts as an Islamic country....and it was the gov't we took out, not the population.
Originally posted by Silver
I just want to know what we do when they elect a hard line cleric in the first free elections. I'm sure George isn't wasting any time thinking about it though....think: wetwork

[$tinkle]

ok, i've had some time to mellow out & read up on recent history.
let's see now....didn't UBL have something to say about israel (what he calls "palestine")?

a videotape by Osama bin Laden broadcast on the Al-Jazeera network began as follows: "Let the whole world know we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia will be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish."
andalusia? wasn't that in 1492? talk about holding a grudge!

yeah, we should just let them be & they'll leave us alone. :rolleyes:

that is absolutely the last thing we should do. Oh, hold on...i have a quote from the grave..."an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last". -- Winston Churchill

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
ummm....nope (hint: they're secular)

Semantics. The US is a Christian country whether it says so in your constitution or not. The Iraqi's who died were Muslims, ergo...
Originally posted by $tinkle

the following are both true & related:
- the taliban were harboring UBL (the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks)

Did you get him? Would you endorse a UK invasion of Eire to get IRA terrorists?

You're missing the point completely which is that regardless of the justifications your government comes up with, the US is bullying the rest of the world. That's why the terrorists attack you, it's not envy or any of the other 'comforting' reasons you seem to think it is.

As for the holocaust, that as relevant as the fate of the Native North Americans, the Incas and the aborgines of Tasmania, so stop obsfucating.

Originally posted by $tinkle

you know the phrase "going down swinging"?

??? So more people must die for some macho bvllsh!t???

Originally posted by $tinkle

If our efforts to thwart terrorism isn't working, then why do we need to keep troops in the countries we've invaded?

Why do you keep troops in the countries that you've invaded.



Originally posted by $tinkle

Let's take israel. Knowing that hamas & others want them erradicated, not removed, you offer they should have a sit & see if they can work out their grievances at the bargaining table. The most recent example where this was a deal brokered by none other than bj clinton whereby the PA was offered 95% of what they demanded, and they turned it down anyway.

So what's your solution, more killing? It doesn't seem to have improved since Isreal stopped negotiating does it? If the first deal doesn't work, keep trying. Do you know how long the current negotiations in Northern Ireland have been proceeding? Do you know how long the IRA ceasefire has held? Do you know how much better the situation is since the negotiations began? If the same methods were used there as this phony war on terrorism demands the killing would still be going on.

Originally posted by $tinkle

FWIW, yassir arafat won a nobel peace prize in 1994.

Didn't Henry Kissinger win one of those once? Need I say more.

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Hmmmm "FORCE" them to the negotiation table. Don't see why it should. Hasn't worked in hundreds of years...why should it work now?
See my Northern Ireland reply above....

Doesn't seem like escalating the killing works does it?

And if you have a problem with the word force, remember that there is more than one way to skin a rabbit; the US provides so much aid to Israel that they force them to negotiate without using any military action.
Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Didn't bomb Taliban because they "didn't agree with us"...that is rubish.

Yes you did. That's exactly why. You didn't bomb them because they bombed you, you bombed them because they wouldn't turn over Bin Laden (if they could) and you thought that they should. Therefore you disagreed with them so you used military force to get your way. It really is that simple.
Originally posted by RhinofromWA

I think removing Saddam is giving back in a big way to the world....

Sure he was a nasty piece of work, but don't pretend that the action was altruistic, that is simply not realistic.
Originally posted by RhinofromWA

I don't need to see your answer to respond to them.... Don't be so full of yourself.

Your comment on my rebuttals shows you don't relish the thought of your ideas as being challenged. That's OK but don't play it off on my being close minded.

Come to the table and put your ideas down for everyone to see
Your rebuttals? How could they be rebuttals when they were rebutting nothing? They were prejuduces. And close-minded is accurate if you are prejudging my answers. If you don't like it, tough but you put yourself in that corner.

I don't expect you to agree with me but you cannot challenge me to put forward my ideas and then say that I have not. Just because you don't agree with them does not change the fact they they exist.

What you don't realise is that I can see where miltary action can be valid, but it is not the be all and end all. The only way to gain a lasting peace anywhere in the world is to make peace, not by making war. However, politically war has many benefits. Have you read 1984?

[fluff]

Here are a few BBC links:

Changing Face of Al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3516318.stm)

Hard Slog Against Al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333507.stm)

EU Anti-Terror Plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3516542.stm)

And finally and perhaps most pertinently;

US Feared by Friends and Foes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518412.stm)

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
why is it now you don't squawk about basic human rights violations, but gay marriage should be allowed because it's a basic human right?


in addition to misjudging me about the death penalty (i'm against it)

I was not 'squawking' about human rights, I was illustrating how invasion is viewed by the invaded. No culture has a monopoly on human rights or a god-given right to impose their values aon anyone else. And enforcing human rights at gunpoint is counterproductive, especially for the 'collateral damage'.

I did not misjudge about the death penalty, I was trying to stay away from the more emotive issues. Had I wanted to goad you I would have used partial-birth abortion.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Westy
Agnostics rule, you never hear of anyone killing because of their uncertainty about god.

Yeah, that's because they are so frozen with indecision that they can't get out of the house until they're sure their outfits coordinate.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Silver
If I shave, wear my glasses and have a nice button up shirt on, I breeze through. Not even a second look. If I wear my contacts, don't shave, and look a little bit like a skater or a surfer, I get pulled over for extra screening almost every time at LAX. Personally, I think they are looking for drugs...but I sure don't feel any safer.

Flying back out of Canada, interestingly enough, the security checks are much more random and intensive. And Vancouver in particular seemed very thorough.


No shi+! I have been subjected to everything short of a cavity search on my trips back from Frankfurt or Amsterdam into Dulles Int'l. I have been completely searched by the Politzi w/German Shepherds at roadblocks at 2:00am. And upon arriving in Vancouver, my check-in was delayed 4 hours while I went around and around with a Customs guy who had complete knowledge of a little run-in w/Johnny Law that had been expunged through Federal 3607 treatment years before. I still don't know how they found that out. I'm not gonna even go into the times I've been screwed with here in the States. It is a massive inconvenience, for sure, but better I get hassled than another Lockerbie or 911 occur.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Did you get him? Would you endorse a UK invasion of Eire to get IRA terrorists?most likely would, as i see it as just.

i thought they were "freedom fighters". That's what i keep reading in the beeb & reutersOriginally posted by fluff
You're missing the point completely which is that regardless of the justifications your government comes up with, the US is bullying the rest of the world. That's why the terrorists attack you, it's not envy or any of the other 'comforting' reasons you seem to think it is.i'll say with all honesty we just don't share the same perspective, so it's a push.Originally posted by fluff
As for the holocaust, that as relevant as the fate of the Native North Americans, the Incas and the aborgines of Tasmania, so stop obsfucating.if islamofacists' charge is to convert (and it is), then i don't see the difference. They aren't asking for acceptance, but rather seeking global domination. I know that may read as a bit alarmist, but i've gotten to know just how seriously flawed their reasoning is, & how intolerant they are, so letting this run amok would logically conclude with it.
Originally posted by fluff
??? So more people must die for some macho bvllsh!t???
hardly.
if you know a way to get them to the negotiating table (recall they don't negotiate), i'm all ears.
Originally posted by fluff
So what's your solution, more killing? It doesn't seem to have improved since Isreal stopped negotiating does it? If the first deal doesn't work, keep trying. Do you know how long the current negotiations in Northern Ireland have been proceeding? Do you know how long the IRA ceasefire has held? Do you know how much better the situation is since the negotiations began? If the same methods were used there as this phony war on terrorism demands the killing would still be going on.
are you suggesting they try the UK/IRA model? These two sides aren't steeped in thousands of years in hostility, hatred & intolerance, as are the israelis/arabs. Maybe we need more Rachel Corries? Convince me that the PA doesn't want to see all jews exiled, if not killed.
Originally posted by fluff
Didn't Henry Kissinger win one of those once? Need I say more. my point exactly


how can you post those bipolar links 2 posts later which seem (to me) to contradict the "good news" polls posted in another thread here, also from the beeb. maybe it's not you.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
See my Northern Ireland reply above....

Doesn't seem like escalating the killing works does it?

And if you have a problem with the word force, remember that there is more than one way to skin a rabbit; the US provides so much aid to Israel that they force them to negotiate without using any military action.


All I see out of that conflict is some local people teaching kids to play basketball because Lacrosse and Soccer don't mix as they are viewed as the other sides sports respectively. but it hasn't been all rose over there....even recently. If it is repressed any fighting I am all for it....but there has not been a solution or a fix.

We sanctioned Saddam...yet he didn't care. No bargaining until we where at his doorstep knocking.

Yes you did. That's exactly why. You didn't bomb them because they bombed you, you bombed them because they wouldn't turn over Bin Laden (if they could) and you thought that they should. Therefore you disagreed with them so you used military force to get your way. It really is that simple.

I am sorry and confused you have let yourself beleive that.....but I guess that fits in with your machismo bullshi!t you have mentioned time and time again in this thread. Seem like you have just as much machismo but a smaller vessel wich to deliver it by. ;)

Sure he was a nasty piece of work, but don't pretend that the action was altruistic, that is simply not realistic.


Relistic or not. Your claims and other naysayers have not bared fruit.....we haven't horded the oil for ourselves. We are preparing to hand the country over.... Yet we didn't do it for those things....hmmmm:rolleyes:

Your rebuttals? How could they be rebuttals when they were rebutting nothing? They were prejuduces. And close-minded is accurate if you are prejudging my answers. If you don't like it, tough but you put yourself in that corner.

I don't have to wait for a duck to open it's mouth to know it is going to "quack". I thought that was funny...come on. :)

You still haven't come to the table....so I say unless you pony up, pipe down until you can help. CLose minded isn't monopolozed on this side of this post my friend. OPen your eyes and assess yourself. You have nothing to offer than to say what the US did wasn't right and I ask you again. Bring us something that would work. Ireland's model didn't/won't work in the middle east. Especially not with Saddam and Bin Spanky.

I don't expect you to agree with me but you cannot challenge me to put forward my ideas and then say that I have not. Just because you don't agree with them does not change the fact they they exist.

What you don't realise is that I can see where miltary action can be valid, but it is not the be all and end all. The only way to gain a lasting peace anywhere in the world is to make peace, not by making war. However, politically war has many benefits. Have you read 1984?

I challenge any naysayer to prove there is a better way. One that has a snowballs chance in working. You hadn't presented a plan yet. So my challenging your lack of plan was appropriate. All other ideas hadn't and didn't work up until the point we acted. You still haven't put forth anything but meaningless talk and non action.....good plan. Your ideas exist, they just don't/haven't worked. Yet you still cling to them like they do.

There was no making peace with Saddam. Even you can admit that. Saddam was a man who undertood one way in life. He went out like he was destined to do.

It was appearant that love is not what Saddam wanted. He got what he wanted.