Can we kick some real terrorist ass please?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by elijah


No beards!

Yes they have, but a different style. Look at Fidel and Che.

[Whaleboy]

If involvement with thier countries is the prime reason for terrorism as you say, Latin Americans have a more valid reason for being mad than Arabs do

Perhaps, but I'm saying Arabs are more likely to react violently than Latin Americans.

u can't get beyond the end result. ur action caused the arabs to starve. yes u can TRY to spin it. but starving ppl don't really care for that type of spin

They wouldn't starve as previously said. Economically, they will merely be taken down a peg or two, the Russians and the Chinese still need Arab oil, which is of much higher quality than the native stuff.

Nonetheless, they as a people would suffer, but no worse than any of your other plans.

if u understood more than logic this would be simple

Firing ignore cannons! You seem incapable of providing me with a reasonable argument, beyond ad hominems and strawmen, so I wont waste my time.

[Whaleboy]

Yes they have, but a different style. Look at Fidel and Che

Cool beards, cool people! jk

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Perhaps, but I'm saying Arabs are more likely to react violently than Latin Americans.

You believe Arabs lack the civility & humanity of other peoples?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


Perhaps, but I'm saying Arabs are more likely to react violently than Latin Americans.



They wouldn't starve as previously said. Economically, they will merely be taken down a peg or two, the Russians and the Chinese still need Arab oil, which is of much higher quality than the native stuff.

Nonetheless, they as a people would suffer, but no worse than any of your other plans.



Firing ignore cannons! You seem incapable of providing me with a reasonable argument, beyond ad hominems and strawmen, so I wont waste my time.

its not in the least strawmen. u posess a basic lack of understanding to the human condition. its not meant to be mean. but I don't think u exactly refute it either. u seem very intent on pure logic. if ur wilful actions crash someone's economy THEY WILL NOT LIKE IT. worse yet if they perceive that u took up those actions because u want to destroy their religion. and WORSE YET even if u do say u can win the spin war u've just pulled out of the region how can u possibly win a war w/o having a presence?

u should fire those ignore cannons. u need them.

[Dom Pedro II]

If involvement with thier countries is the prime reason for terrorism as you say, Latin Americans have a more valid reason for being mad than Arabs do.

It's not so much the people we stepped on when interfering, it's more the people who helped us do the interfering. As I said before, in the ME, our enemies today were our allies 10 years ago. Simple explanation is that people get pissed off when you turn off the source of cash.

And same thing happened in Latin America, only they had plenty of ways to go about making more money... like corruption, kidnapping, murder, etc. Fun guys!

[Whaleboy]

You believe Arabs lack the civility & humanity of other peoples?

Of course not. I believe they have a culture based on the Koran which has in its scriptures an ambiguous concept called jihad, which manipulative, malicious bastards have twisted into a justification for war.

[Dom Pedro II]

Of course not. I believe they have a culture based on the Koran which has in its scriptures an ambiguous concept called jihad, which manipulative, malicious bastards have twisted into a justification for war.

Well, the Arabs, historically, have always been rather outward looking... in the marauding, pillaging, and plundering sense.

[DinoDoc]

What does that have to do with the fact that according to your own statements Latin Americans have a much more valid reason to go around killing innocent people than Arabs do. Making specious comparisons as you have been doing doesn't detract from that.

[Whaleboy]

Well, the Arabs, historically, have always been rather outward looking... in the marauding, pillaging, and plundering sense

Like the Danes!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What does that have to do with the fact that according to your own statements Latin Americans have a much more valid reason to go around killing innocent people than Arabs do. Making specious comparisons as you have been doing doesn't detract from that.

There was Latin American terrorism (as there still is today) and Americans were targeted, but only when in the region. Most Latin America terro groups lacked the resources or the ideological reasons to attack the US directly. Many were marxists and sught political change at homer. Attacking the US did little with regard to their aims. More importantly, most Latin America regimes are less capable than Arab ones at internal repression. Those regimes have oil money and bribe money to sue for that. Take Hizbullah: the largest and best armed Terror org in the world. It has never hit the US outside of the ME. Why? Cause it does no serve their purposes. Hamas and IJ haven't either. The only terror org that has ever tried to attack the US in the US was Al Qaeda. The difference is that Al Qaeda has transnational aims, while the vast majority of terror orgs have purely national aims. So even if they view the US as helping their enemy, hitting the US makes no sense.

So even the characterization of terror as "Arab" is wrong. Only one org, which is founded by Arab but has Muslim members from all over the world (and most Muslims aren't arabs) has attacked the US at home.

Whom an org attacks have everything to do with their aims. For most terror orgs, including Arab ones, attacking the US outside of the orgs. own home turf makes no sense.

[Whaleboy]

I suppose terrorism is a part of the human condition, when feeling oppressed and hopeless I guess. I wrote an article on it ages ago, I think its on my site.

Still, just goes to show the old addage is true, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Perhaps we should acknowledge this before we decide to get trigger happy. *adds to long list of reasons why force wont work*.

[Whaleboy]

I wrote an article on it ages ago, I think its on my site

It is...

http://www.geocities.com/ben_j_elijah/terror.htm

Its so useful having a site! Saves you typing out the same stuff over and over...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Haider is a Nazi. There is a difference between a fascist and a conservative. Conservatives do not equal fascist.

Newt Gingrich, Krauthammer, Buckley, Limbaugh, Tom Delay, they are all conservatives, and they are far from racist.

Mr Haider is keen to go to litigation with those who accuse him of being a Nazi or a Neo-Nazi; can't say I blame him. His conservatism, with a little trimming of the more overtly racist elements, would fit in quite well with mainstream European conservatism and American conservatism. The Verbotsgesetz law in Austria made Neo-Nazi activities a criminal offence- it also makes it possible for Mr. Haider to sue people accusing him of being a Nazi (shouldn't that be Neo-Nazi, by the way, diplomat? I don't think Haider is quite old enough to have been a member of the Nazi Party) or having links with Neo-Nazi organisations.

There is a difference between a 'Nazi' and a fascist. Mussolini's fascists may have been allies of Nazi Germany, but their ideologies were not identical.

I have never accused conservatives of being fascists- it's as tedious as conservatives reaching knee-jerk for the 'left fascist' or 'politically correct' epithets any time they spot something or someone they disagree with.

A typical ploy of conservatives is to identify an enemy/ies- either external or internal. When Thatcher was Prime Minister, Britain's Conservatives had a field day- there were external 'enemies', real and imagined- the Argentineans, the I.R.A. in the Six Counties and mainland Great Britain, and immigrants from the Commonwealth.

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/stories/toryright.htm

Internal 'enemies' were landed or second or third generation British born offspring of immigrants, gays and lesbians and workers. A compliant (indeed, mostly aggressively conservative) Press aided the government's cause no end.

It's quite a useful political tool- especially when there is internal unrest and massive unemployment- and when the Prime Minister was the most unpopular Prime Minister since the Second World War. It usually goes in partnership with appeals to tradition, or supposedly traditional values, and a hearkening back to days when things were simpler, or better, some nostalgic vision of a supposed golden age, based on nothing more than wishful thinking- Thatcher's publicly voiced desire for a return to 'Victorian values' - presumably those values that existed before women won the right to vote, the Married Woman's Property Act, child labour laws, and when underage prostitution was rife.

But then, Mrs. Thatcher was no historian, and believed there was no such thing as society. Ahh, bless.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by elijah


My dry detached academia leads me to make logical, rational beliefs and opinions. I will not succumb to believing a course of action is best, simply because emotions say so. They are insufficient, no evidence, indeed, will not hold up under any critical analysis. I am not ignoring my emotions, not going vulcan on you, indeed my reason is a slave to my personal disposition which is pacifist and relativist - based on love! . However, opinions, and actions are the domain solely of logic, for their soundness, not to mention mental stability!

It is people making decisions based on emotion that have caused so many c0ck ups in history, not least terrorism and war itself!! Game theory (a theory that relies on the assumption that everyone is logical), predicts that if everyone was rational, there would be no war!! Nonetheless, except on the personal level, one should always use logic to deal with emotion, not by ignoring emotion but by including it. Hence my sociological solution.

You spew copious quantities of meaningless drivel constantly. You remind me of a batch of puppies, minus the intellectual gravitas and cuteness.