The war against terrorism is already lost

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Sorry, people are dumb, and they believe what they are not only told by the government but also what on TV.

And you are not a person Ryanmur? You tar yourself with the same brush friend. There are plenty of people with P.R. backgrounds, or with family or friends with P.R. backgrounds aware of "spin" you know.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[250]

perhaps even 1% is too large a guess

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Memnoch: ok, cool down, boys and girls. Breathe!! Get a cup of tea or something.

Sorry mate. I've had it up to the eyeballs hearing and reading opinions like this. It is a hurtful, incorrect and uneducated opinion that is divisive and potentially destructive. If adhered to there is no doubt further terrorism would result. There would be a precedent of success.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[skywalker]

You can be Caucasian and be a muslim. Ever heard of Cat Stevens? Of course I'm not saying to be a terrorist you need to be a Muslim either. Tim McVeigh did not fit any of these profiles.

Mark

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: My point is, if you change policy as a result of voilence, it encourages the use of violence to change policy. There is no justification for this sort of violence. None. I am angry? Damn straight. It is an extreme offense to me that is repeatedly being brought up. If two agree to disagree it involves NOT repeatedly bringing up a subject. My position - and that of many others - is that regardless of American policy, this should not have occured. Also it ignores the many other contributing factors to the terrorists existence. The primary motive for Bin Laden is NOT Palestine. It is the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. It's the easy option to kneejerk an "oh the US are to blame" because of the prevalent anti-imperialism thoughout the world. I was a very strong anti-imperialist, against the use of American spelling in Australian media, against US sports and fashion encroaching on Australian culture. This attack has nothing to do with such things. Listen, the line of argument being taken, could apply to Britains contribution to Northern Ireland. Britain created the problem by moving in in the first place, and then seperating Ulster. The problems of India/Pakistan were created by Britains conquest and subsequent partition of the subcontinent against Gahndis wishes. The Chinese attitude to the west caused in part by the humiliation of having Hong Kong on a 100 year lease to imperial powers who defeated them in the boxer war. Britain created Palestine, and were deemed an occupying power along with France during the second world war (thus the analogy of Hitler to Saddam during the gulf war did not wash with Arabic people. Hitler was not their demon, England was). Thus as the largest empire in history Britain are actually responsible for the entire mess on this planet. Britain have created the gun situation in America with their part in the war of independance - the result many being Americans cite that event as justification for owning handguns. Was it so hard to give in to the colonies case? No taxation without representation? Where do you stop with the cause and effect? Ultimately people can and do rise above their created circumstance. Everyones parents screw up, and everyone spends time dealing with that. As adulthood arrives comes individual responsibilty and accountability and removal of parental responsibility. These terrorists are adults. Wahabism is an adult. These are responsible, not the United States of America.

Yorick, shall we stubbornly refuse to change our policies because that will be seen as "giving in" to the terrorists, even if it is otherwise the right thing to do for its own sake? Such an attitude will only create a world where this problem will never change. We will doom ourselves to continuing the same policies forever, in a viscious circle, stubbornly clinging to the same policies that help breed terrorism in the first place.

There is a distinction between "explanation" and "excuse." Trying to deal with the explanation (removing the causes to begin with) is not the same thing as admitting "excuse" (justification for the terrorist acts).

How can you argue on the one hand that the terrorist's actions in killing innocents must not be seen in cause and effect terms, and argue that the current American killing of innocents in Afghanistan of course must be? Those positions are inconsistent, my friend. We do not have to be over there bombing Afghanistan right now, Yorick. No one is "forcing" us to do so. It is a choice.

Such a choice clearly is based on perceived past injustices, in this case the bombing of the WTC. It puzzles me why people can see that readily enough, but are so strident in denying that the terrorists themselves might also be acting with past injustice in mind. It's funny (actually not so funny at all) but last night Bush's rhetoric struck me as being very similar to that of Bin Laden himself. Just as Bin Laden, Bush sees the picture in purely black and white terms, simplisitically as the other side being "the evil ones." He does not care to look any deeper than that.

Bin Laden's propaganda about the US bombing of Afghanistan is that these are actions of the "evil ones" which are not explained in any way by his own past actions. Bush's propaganda is equally one sided, that the terrorists' killing of innocents is simply the actions of "evil ones" which are not explained in any way by the US' past actions.

Sorry, Yorick, you can't have it both ways. If you refuse to acknowledge cause and effect for the WTC bombing, what possible grounds do you have for acknowledging cause and effect regarding the current infliction of killing in Afghanis by the US?

It's as if you are holding a one sided form of pacifism -- that there is no excuse whatsoever for the terrorists killing innocents -- that regardless of prior injustice they should not retaliate, they should always turn the other cheek, but you do not hold the same view regarding the US's actions.

Again, my friend, I and Silver Cheetah and others here are NOT arguing in any way shape or form that the WTC bombing was justified. What we are saying is something different, simply that we cannot ignore the historical role that our own actions have played in provoking such action. This is NOT about pointing fingers of blame regarding the past, it is about long term solutions for making sure such things do not happen again in the future.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Yorick: In no way does the actions of one individual justify the violent actions of another. America is responsible for the deaths of the Afgahnistanis now dead. Bin Laden did not force America to respond in this fashion. In the same way, Americas policies did not create Bin Laden, force his hand, or bring this upon themselves.

Dio this was in my first post. Never did want it both ways my friend.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Sorry mate. I've had it up to the eyeballs hearing and reading opinions like this. It is a hurtful, incorrect and uneducated opinion that is divisive and potentially destructive. If adhered to there is no doubt further terrorism would result. There would be a precedent of success.

Opinions like what, Yorick? I have already explained to you that we are NOT advocating what you are arguing against. Are you just going to ignore my clarification of Silver Cheetahs point, and insist on arguing against something that she was not in fact saying anyway?

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Dio this was in my first post. Never did want it both ways my friend.

Okay.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Yorick, shall we stubbornly refuse to change our policies because that will be seen as "giving in" to the terrorists, even if it is otherwise the right thing to do for its own sake? Such an attitude will only create a world where this problem will never change.

Dio, yes and no. One cannot give in to change as a result of violence if one is to eradicate the use of violence. This is part of the stupidity of the terrorists. They actually push their cause further from completion by their acts.

Think about it on an individual level. If someone hits you to get you to do something and you do, it creates a pattern that is followed. Look at cycles of domestic violence as a proof. The woman or man victimised, frequently justify their partners actions. The violent partner reinforces the notion by blaming the victim for the violence.

However in situations where the individual has a zero tolerance of violence, repeated victimisation does not occur.

There is never, ever any excuse for a man to hit a woman. Spoutial abuse against a man is equally unnaceptable. Violence against a nation to achieve an outcome is evil and unacceptable.

What America have had to weigh up is: Which is more unacceptable? Inaction that perpetrates more bloodshed, or action that kills in an effort to prevent that bloodshed?

In female to male DV the equivialent is the male victim using restraining force to hold a violent woman, or block blows.

I would block repeated blows to my face, chest or "vulnerable spot" and then have the instigator blame me for the bruises on their arms as a result.

I think my experiences have given me an insight into the use of force or threat of force as coercion, and what responses only serve to encourage it.

Also we have historical precedents to view.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: [BThere is a distinction between "explanation" and "excuse." Trying to deal with the explanation (removing the causes to begin with) is not the same thing as admitting "excuse" (justification for the terrorist acts). [/B]

Granted Dio, but the causes Silver is bringing up are not the causes behind the attack. She needs to do some more research into Bin Laden and Wababism before vocalising these theories.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!