Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Niki, you're wasting your time. You should see him try to debate evolution. It's always, "Where are the missing links? Where are the fossils records?" I think he even asked to see proof of the missing links between his parents and him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by traveler:

The recent Pakistan capture of a Taliban leader shows their willingness to support us. Their hiding places are getting fewer and smaller.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by traveler:

The recent Pakistan capture of a Taliban leader shows their willingness to support us. Their hiding places are getting fewer and smaller.

---

Excellent, if true.
I hope it is.

The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

While lectures are ADDRESSED AS 'professor', they are not in fact professors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What I understand OTB to be saying is that The Fed is The Great Satan, responsible for all economic evils.

---

Quote:

---

But The Fed was created in 1913. "The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson." And note that before that, there were many depressions/ recessions in the US. To list a few: 1807-1814, 1837-1844, 1873-1879, and 1893-1898. Considering the country didn't get going until 1776, that quite a record of economic failures in short order - that, may I note, had nothing to do with The Fed.

---

Quote:

---

So apparently neither the silver standard, nor the gold standard, nor a combination of the gold standard AND a lack of The Fed in that idyllic gap between 1900 and 1913 was enough to stop depressions, even severe ones.

---

Quote:

---

What then could be the cause ? Could it be the cyclical nature of capitalism which was elucidated almost 150 years ago ? The fact that the nature of capitalism is as a bistable state - of either grow or contract ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

I hope it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by traveler:

We can't just win battles. We need to win allies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To an extent you're right, but tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan have historically not been good.

Quote:

---

Pakistan's largest intelligence service (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) has long been involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Cross-border attacks have been occurring before Pakistan was created in 1947 and continued til now.

The present Karzai administration in Kabul feels that the remnants of the former Taliban government are being supported by factions within Pakistan. However, Pakistan has said the government cannot control all elements of its intelligence agency, the ISI, which several countries accuse of contributing to instability in Afghanistan. On June 15 2008, in the after-math of successful major Taliban operations, due to growing internal instability within Afghanistan and the Karzai's government inability to address domestic issues, the Afghan government issued a statement threatening to send its army across the Durand Line in pursuit of rebels stationed along the mountainous border inside Pakistan; the statement caused considerable damage to bilateral relations and was rebuked by Pakistani officials as innapropriate.

---

There is a long history of bad blood between both countries going way back before the Russian invasion, with those in the Durand Line being kind of stuck in the middle, as it's history, culture, etc, is closely tied on both sides of the border. But as to the governments of both countries, there has historically been a lot of mistrust, and Pakistan has long been recognized as having tried to influence Afghanistan for its own reasons.

Good gawd, I just noticed the title of this thread. How did we get from Palin to Afghanistan/Pakistan? Wow...

---

I guess our differences is I tend to focus on post Soviet invasion Pakistan, with the changes that brought, as well as not counting the opinion of the present Karzai administration in Kabul as being that of all of Afghanistan, or even relevant. Like many Afghans I see him as a puppet ex pat who sides with criminals and foreigners.

Also you do have a bias against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, that I think blinds you abit to some of the implications involved. Both organizations have the good as well as the bad, I think both need to be considered.

As for present ISI / Taliban intrigue here is an interesting German article, which speculates the ISI is playing a long game strategy, influencing which Taliban leader they will be dealing with when the US pulls out...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,678479,00.html

Arrest of Taliban Leader a 'Trump Card' for Pakistan

Tuesday's announcement that a top Taliban official is in prison in Pakistan represents an important victory in the fight against Islamist extremists in Afghanistan. German commentators, though, doubt whether the arrest means the dawning of a new age of cooperation between Islamabad and the West.

The arrest is being celebrated as an important success in the ongoing struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Tuesday, it emerged that Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, considered to be just below leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in the Taliban hierarchy, had been apprehended earlier this month. On Wednesday, Pakistani military officials confirmed the arrest.

But what is good for the US is potentially embarrassing for Pakistan. Baradar, alleged to have served as a go-between between Mullah Omar and Taliban field commanders, was picked up in the Pakistani city of Karachi. The Pakistani intelligence service ISI was involved in the operation, but it casts doubt on Pakistani claims that top Taliban leaders were all in Afghanistan. The arrest, however, could signal a new Pakistani willingness to work together with NATO forces currently fighting in Afghanistan.

Just what the arrest means for the Taliban remains to be seen. One Taliban spokesman denied the reports, saying it was nothing but propaganda. But a Taliban commander confirmed the arrest in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Mullah Baradar travelled to Pakistan 10 days ago and five days ago we learned that he was arrested in Karachi," Mullah Wali Jan said.

German commentators on Wednesday take a closer look at the operation.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"(In arresting Baradar, Pakistan) is finally acknowledging that it has a problem with extremism. That might sound fairly banal, but it's no small step for a country like Pakistan, which usually keeps mum about such issues. Moreover, the fact that the arrest was made so far from the unstable border region with Afghanistan shows just how bad things have already gotten in Pakistan."

"However, the arrest does not prove by a long shot that Washington and Islamabad now share the same interests when it comes to Afghanistan's ultimate fate. Pakistan assumes that the Taliban will be a decisive power factor in its neighboring country once NATO withdraws its troops. The Western powers' desire to bring their troops home as quickly as possible strengthens the pragmatic view in Pakistan: Islamabad wants to be prepared for the day when the Taliban numbers among the decision-makers in Kabul -- and to not cause any permanent damage to its relationship with the Taliban. In that sense, nothing has really changed."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"(Baradar's arrest) could end up providing excellent information, for example, on the extent and intensity of ties that the Taliban continues to have with elements in the Pakistani intelligence apparatus. His arrest could also indicate that Pakistan has really decided to finally put some curbs on the trouble caused by militant Islamists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Time will also tell whether the arrest is the opening move in a larger game involving negotiations with so-called 'moderate' Taliban. The fact that the Taliban has vehemently denied the arrest shows just how much his loss affects them -- and perhaps just how much more serious the consequences will be."

Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The first question that Baradar's arrest in Pakistan raises is whether it will weaken the Taliban over the long term in its fight against the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and his NATO allies. In the past, the Taliban has always shown itself capable of compensating for loss -- even of key commanders -- very quickly. … As head of day-to-day operations, though, Baradar is somewhat more important that other commanders. His loss will surely have consequences on the ongoing Helmand offensive."

"The second question is whether it can harm President Karzai's push for reconciliation with the Taliban.... Up to now, Pakistani intelligence services have preferred to apprehend those Taliban leaders who were open to talks. This includes Baradar, who gave his blessing to holding talks with the United Nations in January."

"On the other hand, were Pakistan to negotiate with the Taliban via Baradar, it wouldn't be the first time a deal was struck with the imprisoned leader of one's enemies. Whatever Pakistan is considering, it now has a trump card it can use in Afghanistan talks and to exert influence on its neighbor."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"For a long time, all of the parties involved in the conflict … have been in contact with each other via secret channels. This is particularly the case with Pakistan … which is better networked than others. Indeed, Islamabad has shown just how well informed it is with the sudden 'detection' of one of the most important members of the Taliban. Some responsibility for this also lies with the Pakistani Taliban itself, whose brutal campaign of terror has driven Pakistan into a permanent crisis. Islamabad is determined to make sure that its own strategic interests will be kept in mind during the negotiations aimed at finding a solution to the problems in Afghanistan. As Baradar's arrest shows, if this precondition is met, Pakistan is willing to help. Peace is still a long way off in Afghanistan. But, when it does arrive, if India's position in the Hindu Kush becomes too strong, for example, or the Pakistanis believe that their economic interests have been given short shrift, its generals could also sabotage each and every agreement."

Josh Ward





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
No, I don't put any faith in Karzai either, and see him just as you described. I was just trying to point out historical matters. You may be right that, after the Russian invasion, attitudes have changed. Obviously I can't speak to that.

Yes, I have a virulent dislike of both, but while I see potential possibilities for the Taliban, unpleasant tho' the thought may be, I find it impossible to see any "good" in al Qaeda. What good do you see?

As for the German articles, I found them most interesting. It's always helpful to see other countries' views on what's happening. Thank you.

---

al Qaeda has several points in what fuels their outrage,

if only there was some other way to address these issues


we have talked about many of them here,

The Israel / Palestine issue remains the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, and the one sided support the US has given, makes the US culpable to Israeli policy...

US military basing in Saudi and elsewhere, this props up corrupt govs and prevent any sort of change in government that might begin locally

The deaths caused by the Iraqi sanctions, in 1998 the UN released figures that 500,000 children had died, mostly from cholera as the US had bombed out all water treatment facility's and the sanctions prevented the import of replacement equipment and chemicals... When confronted with that number Madeline Albright called it a small price for US security ( how would that make you feel )

Other examples, I'd have to pull out some books to do their description justice

basically they came together from many smaller groups who were at odds with US policy, and suffered for it

Islamic Jihad originally tried to force multi party elections in Egypt, then were declared a criminal organization, many of its member arrested and tortured ( by a US funded, trained and support Egyptian intelligence service )

as this fight became dirtier and dirtier the more extreme element, became the ones who survived and carried on the fight... lots of historical president there

I wish people would look at why they are fighting, and acknowledge the US has done many wrongs as well ( well over the 2000 people bodycount that outraged the US so much )

Maybe then US foreign policy might get some pressure to change, and maybe this war will find its end... because the way it is going, it will never stop.



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Gino; I agree with you on every single point; our unilateral backing of Israel has bothered me for a long time now.

But the question of what "good" there is in al Qaeda...you didn't answer that, and I'd really like to hear. I don't consider their anger, although VERY well deserved, to be a "good" in what they are doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

---

I would release Dark Angel widescreen & Robocop the series like they have in the UK, so we wouldn't be so pissed & wanna f**k things up all over the world!!


Uh...


Sorry. I seem to be a bit hyper-focused here...

Carry on.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:


In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

---

I would release Dark Angel widescreen & Robocop the series like they have in the UK, so we wouldn't be so pissed & wanna f**k things up all over the world!!


Uh...


Sorry. I seem to be a bit hyper-focused here...

Carry on.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Bring Dark Angel back period...

I liked that show...

BTW you hear something ? the buzz of the missing bees perhaps?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Quote:

---

It's one of a long list of 'demands' these medieval whack jobs have against the rest of the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I suppose the good is they have brought these issues out into the open... and moved the world in the direction to resolve them

that without something stopping it US foreign policy would remain unchanged, continue to cause the crap we both seem to object to but cannot stop.

While what they are doing and US policy would constitute two wrongs, perhaps two wrongs can make a right... Looking at how long these things have gone on, unchecked...

In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

Its not like we listen to their issues, or the UN, or any other mechanism exists... with diplomacy removed the only options are acceptance of the wrongs that were and are being done to them, or escalation.

We are facing change now, one way or the other... I suppose I'm saying that is good in the long run.
The issues which generated their anger will eventually be resolved, or the price to maintain the status quo will bring down the system that created those conditions, and then those issues will resolve themselves.

Resolution = Good

Better options just don't seem to exist, please show me I'm wrong about that...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I suppose the good is they have brought these issues out into the open... and moved the world in the direction to resolve them

that without something stopping it US foreign policy would remain unchanged, continue to cause the crap we both seem to object to but cannot stop.

While what they are doing and US policy would constitute two wrongs, perhaps two wrongs can make a right... Looking at how long these things have gone on, unchecked...

In their shoes, how would you effect change ?

Its not like we listen to their issues, or the UN, or any other mechanism exists... with diplomacy removed the only options are acceptance of the wrongs that were and are being done to them, or escalation.

We are facing change now, one way or the other... I suppose I'm saying that is good in the long run.
The issues which generated their anger will eventually be resolved, or the price to maintain the status quo will bring down the system that created those conditions, and then those issues will resolve themselves.

Resolution = Good

Better options just don't seem to exist, please show me I'm wrong about that...

---

Or, in the terms of another analogy, the Middle East are the whales, and the U.S. is the whaling fleet claiming it's acting legally, and Al Qaeda is the Sea Shepherds, trying in vain to stop the killing by any means necessary.

:)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Or, in the terms of another analogy, the Middle East are the whales, and the U.S. is the whaling fleet claiming it's acting legally, and Al Qaeda is the Sea Shepherds, trying in vain to stop the killing by any means necessary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


I see no good whatsoever in what they’re doing. They’re universally labeled “bad guys”, which means their view is rejected, first of all.

---

Quote:

---

Second, nothing like what Al Qaeda is doing will change foreign policy, our government has to do that, and hasn’t in almost a hundred years.

---

Quote:

---

All they’re doing is killing a bunch of innocent people in order to make a statement, which statement is lost on the wind...not our wind, the world’s.

---

Quote:

---

Our wind thinks America can do wrong, foreign policy-wise. Two wrongs never do make a right.

---

Quote:

---

What would I do? I dunno, make allies enough to have some kind of power against us—financial would be the best, we likes our money. It would take another power, or combination of powers, to change our policies.

---

Quote:

---

Otherwise it’s just up to the government in power at the time, and Obama’s made a first step in recognizing (somewhat!) the sovereignty of other nations and showing SOME respect.

---

Quote:

---

Al Qaeda will do nothing to change America’s foreign policy; we’ll just continue to hunt them down, and actually, their actions have led to us occupying Afghanistan...Yemen, Syria, maybe others will be next. How does that effect good change?

---

Quote:

---

Aside from which, Al Qaeda isn’t going after us for our foreign policy...they’re an ideologically Islamist group (however loosely run) and their aim is world domination and killing all the “infidels”.

---

Quote:

---

Changing our foreign policy doesn’t interest them, they want to wipe us out (at least that’s what they claim, we all know differently).

---

Quote:

---

Terrorism doesn’t solve anything. No amount of “bringing it out into the open” will change foreign policy; it’s already IN the open and has been for a long time. That’s how I see it.

---

Quote:

---

I do agree with you 100% that

Quote:

---

if a function UN or World Court existed where all groups and problems could get fair, consistent rulings, as well as enforceable judgements on said rulings

---

But none such exists, or is likely to as long as America is such a world power.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps as we continue our decline, we’ll have less sway, and that’s coming. But for now, it’s a fantasy.

---

Quote:

---

Mike, I see your analogy, but it’s not really pertinent given the difference between the Sea Shepherd’s actions and those of Al Qaeda. A better one might be Frem’s hashisheen (Sea Shepherd) going after the Karzai government (“legal”) for its abuse of its citizens (whales). One can come up with myriad analogies if one wants to, but they’re irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I heard that too, but I actually heard some words whistling on the wind...some that actually made SENSE, scary as that is. Something about “waaaccckkk jooooobssss” and “woooorst annnaaaalllloooogy”, which I actually agree with!

---

Quote:

---

Aside from which, Al Qaeda isn’t going after us for our foreign policy...they’re an ideologically Islamist group (however loosely run) and their aim is world domination and killing all the “infidels”.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

The "killing all the infidels" thing is a line of hooey right up there with them "hating our freedom".

---

Daniel Pearl

(October 10, 1963 – February 1, 2002)



Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Gino: Whew, long comeback! Let’s see; if/when America ceases to be a world power (which I definitely think is on the way), we’ll have to see what changes come. Yes, spreading our military out has been a stated intent of theirs. But even if we “shrink”, I find it hard to believe our willingness to go to war will be much changed; once we recover, I’ll betcha we do it all over again. It’s in our nature as a government to love the military, it seems to me.

---

Quote:

---

How do I define “innocent”? All the people injured and killed called “collateral damage”. Us AND them. As to fighting evil with evil, I don’t believe in that. Our government does, as has been obvious, and I don’t know if they’ll ever figure it out, but I don’t think it works in the end. History has proven that terrorism ALWAYS fails; if Al qaeda can change that, it’ll be interesting, but I don’t believe they will.

---

Quote:

---

As to Obama being all talk, what I meant is that his public dealings with the rest of the world haven’t been the bullying and boasting of Dumbya’s. He’s at least showing respect; that helps, at least, make some of the world hate us less. What they’re actually DOING, I have doubt any of it has changed much, you’re right.

---

Quote:

---

Gino and Mike both: When it comes to Al qaeda’s intent, I shouldn’t have said they’re not after us for our foreign policy, that was a misstatement. No, I don’t believe that—it’s our foreign policy that got us into this mess, and yes, I recognize it’s about the mideast, not religion. Religion is USED to recruit, brainwash, manipulate, etc., and it has worked nicely many times throughout history. I don’t think most people know enough about the actual tenants of their religion to question what they’re told, any more than Christian fundamentalists actually grasp the tenants of Christianity. So those thought of as speaking for whatever god are just accepted as doing so.

---

Quote:

---

No, I don’t believe Faux News was the one to put that up or encourage it...at least not alone. Dumbya started that one, and I think there is a certain number of Al qaeda which believe they are on a true jihad. I don’t think most people understand the true meaning of “jihad”, so, see above.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, Gino’s link has one pertinent statement which backs up what I said: “Bergen asserts that bin Laden's hostility emanates from his religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, American policy toward Israel, and the "un-Islamic" behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie.

---

Quote:

---

Time for America to decline in power? It already IS, and has been for quite some time. The decline of America as an empire fits all the signs that have been there for every empire’s decline. “The decline of the Roman Empire refers to both the gradual disintegration of the economy of Rome and the barbarian invasions that were its final doom.” (Wikipedia) There is far more involved in the decline of an empire, and it’s decline is usually what contributes to it being invaded/conqured by some other power. “The decline of the Ottoman Empire (1828–1908) is the period that followed after the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (1683–1827) in which the empire experienced several economic and political setbacks.”

Quote:

---

In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.

---

---

Quote:

---

In at least a rough and tumble sort of way, I take it as an historical truth that although many small states in the past perished as a result of being invaded and defeated by stronger foreign states, the most powerful states, like the Roman Empire in the West and other great empires in Persia, India, and China in the East, all eventually declined after their days of glory and ultimately perished primarily as a result of their own internal corruptions and decay, rather than as a result of being invaded and defeated by other states. If a mighty empire is finally defeated and destroyed militarily by a foreign state, it is after it has already grown too weak to defend itself as a result of a long, ongoing process of internal decay, which is the true underlying cause of its eventual demise.

---

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Decline-of-Empires-in--by-Nathan-
Nahm-080713-403.html

Quote:

---

History teaches three pretty clear messages.

One is that all empires die.

Second, empires take a long time to die. Finally, the citizens of the empire rarely recognize the warning signs for what they are.

The necessity for change is immutable. Empires by their natures do not change very well. They have had positive feedback for not changing -- usually it's called "standing by our principles" -- for years, even centuries.

Empires think they have beaten the rule of change. They haven't. Empires think size will protect them. It won't. Empires think military might will protect them. It won't. Empires think charismatic leaders will protect them. They won't. Nothing will. The old makes way for the new.

The American empire is beginning to die. We will not see its death, nor will our grandchildren, but it is dying. Its leaders, sensing trouble, are fetishizing the "old ways," the ways that brought us power in a different world, a world in which America was young and the other empires were fading.

They have made denial a national creed. They have made arrogance a national stance. "We do not need the others because we are America," they say. A dying empire is like a dying dinosaur; the only question is how much damage the huge tail will do as it thrashes around.

---

http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/suncol2.html

There are many things that contribute to an empire’s decline. Lack of innovation, declination of art, education, gap between rich and poor, and much more. We’ve shown all the signs for decades. Decline in military might is the result of decay within the society.

Quote:

---

Posted by Niki2:


Actually, Gino’s link has one pertinent statement which backs up what I said: “Bergen asserts that bin Laden's hostility emanates from his religious opposition to an American military presence in Saudi Arabia, American policy toward Israel, and the "un-Islamic" behavior of Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. “Religious opposition”; whatever other motives they embrace, however wrongly it’s used, I think that’s a biggie.

---

Quote:

---

But even if we “shrink”, I find it hard to believe our willingness to go to war will be much changed; once we recover, I’ll betcha we do it all over again. It’s in our nature as a government to love the military, it seems to me.

---

Quote:

---

The fact is that the vast majority
of al‐Qa’ida’s victims are Muslims: the analysis here shows that only 15% of the
fatalities resulting from al‐Qa’ida attacks between 2004 and 2008 were Westerners.

The results show that non‐Westerners are much more likely to be killed in an al‐Qa’ida
attack. From 2004 to 2008, only 15% percent of the 3,010 victims were Western. During
the most recent period studied the numbers skew even further. From 2006 to 2008, only
2% (12 of 661 victims) are from the West, and the remaining 98% are inhabitants of
countries with Muslim majorities. During this period, a person of non‐Western origin
was 54 times more likely to die in an al‐Qa’ida attack than an individual from the West.
The overwhelming majority of al‐Qa’ida victims are Muslims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

You are saying religion shouldn't be used in such a way... I think

---

Yes.

As to the rest, we can argue all day; you make some good points, on others we disagree. To me, terrorists are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace, not to change those countries' foreign policy toward other countries. I guess that's my definition of it. It's certainly an arguable term and a subjective one.

---

By your definition the United State is a terrorist nation then ?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly, no. I said terrorists "are those who go into other countries than their own to create terror among the populace"; we don't go in with the intention of creating terror, we go in to invade and change governments. We don't send individuals in to become suicide bombers, tho' whether we support others who DO is open to question.

But in many other ways, yes. When it comes to surreptitiously working to undermine regimes, covert ops, funding others and stuff, I would call us a terrorist nation. "The Quiet American" is a prime example of that, and I'm sure there are other movies as well.

I don't have the arrogance of many Americans and I don't think we're inherently better than any other place. We got a head start because it's such a huge continent full of rich natural elements and arable land which hadn't been invaded prior to our arrival. We became a power easier than many other countries because of the richness of what the country had to offer, the space to expand, and our innovation in taking advantage of it.

BUT, if Australia were as rich a land as the US, or Canada had more arable, less frozen land, they could well have ended up the same. We got lucky; doesn't make us better, in many ways makes us worse because we're separated by oceans so have little contact with other nations--which leads easily to arrogance--and have been "rich" for most of our short history. Just my "humble" (as in non-arrogant) opinion.

Just curious, given your signature; what does it mean, and how do you define "terrorist"?

Wiki says "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”."

Britanica defines it as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."

Mirriam Webster merely say " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Obviously it's a subjective term. That may be part of our problem in reaching an agreement.

---

I think our differences in the definition is you are stuck with the idea that other people use terror as an end and the US uses terror as a means.

I think I established the ends the people we are talking about are looking for, and the means they are using are what they are

Terror can be applied through unconventional means : one guys with a light airplane, a bomb, a rifle

or through a fleet of aircraft dropping bombs

or drones firing missiles

or there is economic terror, cutting a nation off from vital supplies... The Iraq sanctions, or Stalin in the Ukraine

or diplomatic terrorism, bribing, blackmailing, threating, etc other nations to publicly support your position against others ( Hillary being your pointman )

and dont get me started as to how many " non combatants " get killed, while both sides have done it, the body count is rather lopsided.


You haven't commented on my Irgun cite ?

My sig, both sides deserve each other...

one is as bad as the other, and the hope is the there will be a result where both of you are no longer standing at the end of the fight.

And your sig, my response is divide and conquer.

I'd pick apart some of your other comments, but I think you might begin to take offense





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"