America - The Official Thread

[Swift]

Actually, ignoring them probably would work. Think about it: if terrorism never changed anything, would people still do it? If your employer suddenly stopped paying you, effectively meaning that your job wouldn't benefit you in any way, would you still go to work?

No, it wouldn't. A mysquito WANTS you to ignore it while it's sucking your blood. Nothing would make it happier. If you make it work harder to get to you, that's when it gets adjitated. So, I'll go with fighting back rather then having our blood sucked out.

 

[Kylehnat]

Okay, now we have to start making assumptions as to WHY terrorists are terrorists, and why they do it. If they truly wanted nothing more than all Americans, pro-Israelis, Brazillian soccer players, cat lovers, etc...dead, than ignoring them is probably not a good idea. But is that what they want? Then who will they threaten next?

The agenda of terrorist organizations seems to be the removal of all American influences on the Middle East (never going to happen), and the return of Israel to the Muslims. Most of them aren't just bloodthirsty savages; they want something in return.

 

[Danoff]

I believe that's called genocide (or xenocide).

Actually it isn't. It's called war.

What if, in the act of killing all the terrorists (and who do we label as a terrorist?), someone who wasn't a terrorist when we came around to shoot them became one becuase the killing made him angry.

...so? If he takes steps toward killing Americans we should kill him.

Actually, ignoring them probably would work. Think about it: if terrorism never changed anything, would people still do it? If your employer suddenly stopped paying you, effectively meaning that your job wouldn't benefit you in any way, would you still go to work?

Actually I would (supposing I didn't need the money), but I'm a bad example. Ignoring them doesn't mean it doesn't change anything. Ignoring terrorists doesn't mean that people didn't die, buildings didn't fall down, billions of dollars didn't evaporate from our economy... you can't simply wish 9/11 out of history. If we ignored the terrorists they would slaughter us. If we allowed terrorist members to come over here and shoot us, and ignored them completely, they'd just keep shooting. They'd kill us all.

If we didn't respond to any suicide bombs, they'd see an opportunity to kill more of us. Don't try to blame the victims for the crime, and don't try to pretend that we're making terrorist actions take meaning.

You'd probably tell an abused wife that if she just didn't piss her husband off that he'd stop hitting her.... afterall if it didn't change anything, why would he keep doing it?

 

[Swift]

Okay, now we have to start making assumptions as to WHY terrorists are terrorists, and why they do it. If they truly wanted nothing more than all Americans, pro-Israelis, Brazillian soccer players, cat lovers, etc...dead, than ignoring them is probably not a good idea. But is that what they want? Then who will they threaten next?

The agenda of terrorist organizations seems to be the removal of all American influences on the Middle East (never going to happen), and the return of Israel to the Muslims. Most of them aren't just bloodthirsty savages; they want something in return.

That's lovely, but they're willing to simply kill anyone they can think of that MAY be against them and that had nothing to do with the desicions made to effect them. That's some sick mess.

 

[Kylehnat]

Actually it isn't. It's called war.

Is the purpose of war to destroy balance, or to keep it?

...so? If he takes steps toward killing Americans we should kill him.

And then his friend starts harboring anti-American sentiment. Kill him? Great. Now HIS friend is pissed off.


There is no correct answer to terrorism.

You'd probably tell an abused wife that if she just didn't piss her husband off that he'd stop hitting her.... afterall if it didn't change anything, why would he keep doing it?

How dare you.

 

[Danoff]

Is the purpose of war to destroy balance, or to keep it?

Depends on the situation. In some cases, the purpose of war is to alter the balance.

And then his friend starts harboring anti-American sentiment. Kill him? Great. Now HIS friend is pissed off.

That doesn't make any of them right. That they get upset doesn't mean they're justified in getting upset. Crushing the opposition is something that is entirely possible, it just isn't something that anybody has done in your lifetime.

 

[Diego440]

Now, are you saying it's ok to hold the ideals as long as it's one person that is a sadistic murder and not when it's a group?

No. I'm saying it's unfair to dismiss a person's views on one subject because of his/her views on another. To put it in easy terms:

Mass murder/racial cleansing: Bad 👎
Creation of a people's car: Good 👍

Even with everthing Adolf did and wanted to do, one thing was good and nowadays respected.

By the by, the Hitler example is just random.

 

[Swift]

No. I'm saying it's unfair to dismiss a person's views on one subject because of his/her views on another. To put it in easy terms:

Mass murder/racial cleansing: Bad 👎
Creation of a people's car: Good 👍

Even with everthing Adolf did and wanted to do, one thing was good and nowadays respected.

By the by, the Hitler example is just random.

I understand that Hitler was random.

But my point is that if you think that there are some very good points to people that are murdering racists, why do you have something against a church that in the past had a few people that did wrong. There are MANY more good things the church does now and then. So, I'm just trying to figure out how you draw the line.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Actually, if you wont get paid on your work for what you do, you'll quit it.
But if YOU need to pay your boss to work, you wouldn't do it either right?
It's not a good example.
If terrorists attack the US, they'll be punished and will always be worse off than before. But seeing terrorism is greatly influenced by their religion, it wont stop just by ignoring them......

But then again, about attacking them back, it might just make everything worse, and thats what you really want to prevent. I dont think there's any good way to counter terrorism other than protect yourself.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, if you wont get paid on your work for what you do, you'll quit it.
But if YOU need to pay your boss to work, you wouldn't do it either right?
It's not a good example.

If I didn't need the money, I would do my job for free. It's called liking what you do.

If terrorists attack the US, they'll be punished and will always be worse off than before. But seeing terrorism is greatly influenced by their religion, it wont stop just by ignoring them......

But then again, about attacking them back, it might just make everything worse, and thats what you really want to prevent. I dont think there's any good way to counter terrorism other than protect yourself.

There is a good way to counter terrorism, it's called being forceful. Like I said before, it is possible to crush your enemies, it's just not something that you've seen done in your lifetime.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

If I didn't need the money, I would do my job for free. It's called liking what you do.

You dont get my point, I'm trying to compare this to terrorists in the middle east, this cant be compared, if this would be the only thing in the post it would've been useless. But I guess you have posted more ey

There is a good way to counter terrorism, it's called being forceful. Like I said before, it is possible to crush your enemies, it's just not something that you've seen done in your lifetime.

You tell me the advantages of it over DEFENSIVE actions because yeah, I havent seen it yet.

 

[Danoff]

You tell me the advantages of it over DEFENSIVE actions because yeah, I havent seen it yet.

We need both. But trying to catch every terrorist in the act of terrorizing us would require the removal of all of our social freedoms. Better to attack the source and save lives and money than try to only defend. It has strategic and logistical advantages.

 

[Diego440]

my point is that if you think that there are some very good points to people that are murdering racists, why do you have something against a church that in the past had a few people that did wrong. There are MANY more good things the church does now and then. So, I'm just trying to figure out how you draw the line.

I draw the line where I see repentance... I don't know if it makes much sense. The church has always justified their past mistakes... they have only taken back very few actions that they've done in the past. Even nowadays the church is against something as simple as condom usage, which in itself has probably saved many more lives than abstinence. The church is a bit behind the times, but still they justify their regression by being ultra-conservative. That is where I draw the line.

Still, I understand that the church has helped society throughout history. I just choose not to believe in the church, neither attend it, and least of all, finance it. But in the same way, I don't think less of a person who believes in it.

 

[Swift]

I draw the line where I see repentance... I don't know if it makes much sense. The church has always justified their past mistakes... they have only taken back very few actions that they've done in the past. Even nowadays the church is against something as simple as condom usage, which in itself has probably saved many more lives than abstinence. The church is a bit behind the times, but still they justify their regression by being ultra-conservative. That is where I draw the line.

That's like saying bullet proof vests have saved more lives then people that NEVER get into a gun battle. That statement makes zero sense. If you're talking about deaths from STD's, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get almost all STD's unless you have sex. Therefore, abstinence is a sure fire way of NOT getting those deadly diseases.

BTW, if you haven't yet seen in America, even the secular culture is turning towards no sex at all. Because they realize that saying condoms are cool is a free ticket for young people to have sex. There's a huge billboard on INterstate 95 that says, "Sex can wait, your futue can't" That seems like a pretty good message to abstain, wouldn't you say?

Still, I understand that the church has helped society throughout history. I just choose not to believe in the church, neither attend it, and least of all, finance it. But in the same way, I don't think less of a person who believes in it.

I can understand that. Though all of your examples so far have had serious holes in them.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

We need both. But trying to catch every terrorist in the act of terrorizing us would require the removal of all of our social freedoms. Better to attack the source and save lives and money than try to only defend. It has strategic and logistical advantages.

It's a tactic but is it worth compared to the lifes sacrificed in this as well? Cause this is what the war in Iraq and Afganistan was meant to do. I dont think it has been worth it.

 

[Famine]

There's a huge billboard on INterstate 95 that says, "Sex can wait, your futue can't" That seems like a pretty good message to abstain, wouldn't you say?

Problem is, sex is brilliant.

 

[Danoff]

It's a tactic but is it worth compared to the lifes sacrificed in this as well? Cause this is what the war in Iraq and Afganistan was meant to do. I dont think it has been worth it.

What are you balancing to decide whether it has been worth it? You see the downside, but how do you weigh the upside? You don't think it has been worth it because you don't think the situation has improved. But let me ask you, how would you determine whether the situation has improved?

 

[Swift]

Problem is, sex is brilliant.

BRILLIANT! :LOL: I hate beer, but those are some of the best commercials ever!

 

[Zardoz]

...Better to attack the source and save lives and money than try to only defend...

What is "the source" of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism?

Is it Saudi Arabia? Iraq? France? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Yemen? Somalia? Belgium?

Where is it coming from?

EDIT:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the green areas are "the source". Considering that we can't handle 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, how do you propose that we attack all these folks? :

 

[Danoff]

What is "the source" of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism?

Is it Saudi Arabia? Iraq? France? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Yemen? Somalia? Belgium?

Where is it coming from?

EDIT:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the green areas are "the source". Considering that we can't handle 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, how do you propose that we attack all these folks? :

When I said "the source" I wasn't referring to a country as much as I was terrorist training cells. More broadly however, spreading freedom (besides just being a good thing) is an attack on one source - being oppression or anarchy.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

What are you balancing to decide whether it has been worth it? You see the downside, but how do you weigh the upside? You don't think it has been worth it because you don't think the situation has improved. But let me ask you, how would you determine whether the situation has improved?

Well Blair was asked if it was really worth it and why?I dont remember him saying much. If the US HAD found weapons of mass destruction it would've been worth it for me. So you say "how do you know if they did or did not find these weapons or any other reason to explain the war?" well because if they would've found one they would have told us to prove us they were right, it's as simple as that.

 

[Danoff]

Well Blair was asked if it was really worth it and why?I dont remember him saying much. If the US HAD found weapons of mass destruction it would've been worth it for me. So you say "how do you know if they did or did not find these weapons or any other reason to explain the war?" well because if they would've found one they would have told us to prove us they were right, it's as simple as that.

I don't see how this is related to terrorism exactly.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

It's related to this:

Kill enough and that's not a problem.

What would you have us do, take our licks and beg for mercy?

Attacking isn't necesarry at all to protect yourself all the time. The US only hurt terrorism too now but they hurt themselves even more too.

-9/11, number of kills on US side.
-The US wants revenge and goes into war with terrorism and countries and stuff and gets into a general conflict with the middle east. Causing more casualties on their side, but also casualties on the middle east's side wich was the point. Mission completed.

They didn't DEFEND themselves this way...they just caused more misery in their attacking strategy, while you thought it was good to go into attack.

 

[Danoff]

It's related to this:



Attacking isn't necesarry at all to protect yourself all the time. The US only hurt terrorism too now but they hurt themselves even more too.

-9/11, number of kills on US side.
-The US wants revenge and goes into war with terrorism and countries and stuff and gets into a general conflict with the middle east. Causing more casualties on their side, but also casualties on the middle east's side wich was the point. Mission completed.

They didn't DEFEND themselves this way...they just caused more misery in their attacking strategy, while you thought it was good to go into attack.

You're overlooking the "we stopped 9/12 from happening by attacking" argument.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Who says 9/12 would have happened?

Thats not sure, I hope it prevented something but I'm affraid it didn't, I dont know though, no one knows.

 

[Swift]

Who says 9/12 would have happened?

Thats not sure, I hope it prevented something but I'm affraid it didn't, I dont know though, no one knows.

Actually, someone does know. Whether that info has been released is another story. I remember hearing near thanksgiving last year that they stopped 5 major terrorist plots before they happened. But I don't have a source to back that up.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Hmm.....

Ah well

 

[Diego440]

still, I stand by my choice of not believing in the church even if at least for personal reasons...

Actually, someone does know. Whether that info has been released is another story. I remember hearing near thanksgiving last year that they stopped 5 major terrorist plots before they happened. But I don't have a source to back that up.

Yeah, and last year Spanish police caught about 20 alleged members of the Spanish cell of Al-Qaida. Problem is, it's easy to point fingers after the attack has happened. But avoiding it usually gets a nod and a pat on the back.

 

[Swift]

still, I stand by my choice of not believing in the church even if at least for personal reasons...

I have no problem with your choice. It's just that I'd like to see you back it up with more then "this is what I think". That's all. Your main reason for not believing in religion is the same that can be said for almost any institution. So, that's where I'm coming from.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

It makes me scared though, they all were pretty close to executing their plans, and all plans were big, I'm kinda affraid another 9/11 can happen everyday....

They're all really preparing these attacks and only ONE group needs to get away with it or the police has to be just a bit too late with figuring out they're up to something and it's up to their initial plans to decide if thousands of people get killed or that the plan fails. In other words, we depend on their mercy from that point on.....