How to Really win the war against terrorists

[RickM]

Originally posted by widebody911
Since when is poverty the root cause of terrorism?

I thought poverty was the root cause of boxing and basketball...

[kach22i]

Originally posted by RickM
I thought poverty was the root cause of boxing and basketball...

That's the root cause of minority millionaires.

Just kidding, just kidding don't take my "liberal label" away.

[wludavid]

Moneyguy and gaijindabe - I appreciate that there are those who share my views. However, the tougher part (and the thing that requires conscious effort) is to seek out the parts of the story that you don't know you don't know. If that makes sense. It's easy to surround yourself with people who agree with you. Harder to understand why someone doesn't.

Originally posted by gaijindabe
W. You young Sir, not only escaped the bubble of academia - but escaped unscathed!

Part I - I could not agree with you more.

Part II, this is undoubtly true. But look what a tizzy Western Europe was put in after coming home from the Crusades and fighting over the Iberian peninsula. Spices, silks, art, architecture, math, science, etc, etc, etc... I am sure we export too much junk food and crap media - but mixed in with all that are ideas to the status quo that are far more dangerous..

Not so sure I like my screen name being shortened to 'W' David or Dave will do just fine thanks. Mind expanding on Part II?

Originally posted by kach22i
This is good stuff, are you a political science major or something?

Nope, I'm not a political scientist. I am a real scientist. (It says so right on my business card!) I just realize that this stuff is pretty important and should be thought about.

Are we shoving our culture down their throats now? I mean giving them democracy and all.

I'm not sure if I'd say we're shoving our culture down their throats. I'd say it doesn't matter if we are or not - if they think we are, then that's what matters. Democracy doesn't seem to jibe too well from what I've seen. They'll elect the clerics anyway. Distinct gov't and religion is just too alien.

For a long time we've supported the gov't in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan due to a Fear of the Alternative - FOTA is a well-known acronym in some circles. The gov't in these countries will tell us, "Yes, we're not perfect but if you force us to give free elections we guarantee whoever they elect will be less friendly than we are." Then they go and stir up hatred for us among the population - sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy for them, don't you think? So, the only way we can give a muslim country a chance to elect someone who won't hate us is to remove a truly horrible leader from power and give the people free elections then. HOWEVER - that only works if our occupying force is better than the departed totalitarian regime. Many Iraqis aren't so sure.

Why should we accept that some of backlash will be violent? Couldn't they just demand oil payments in Euro's and hurt us even more - that is if it (anti-western culture culture) were from the top down and not from the bottom up as stipulated?

We shouldn't have to accept that cultural backlash be violent. OTOH, we shouldn't be too surprised when it is. The problem with hurting us economically goes back the disparity of power issue. Yeah, they can jack up the oil prices pretty high. However, that just gives the rich more power in relation to the poor and allows the cycle of hatred to continue.

[wludavid]

Kach- just got what you meant by top-down. Yeah, that would work. And the fact that the people formally in power aren't outwardly hostile to us is de facto evidence that my stipulation is correct.

[Superman]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
W. You young Sir, not only escaped the bubble of academia - but escaped unscathed!

Part I - I could not agree with you more.

Part II, this is undoubtly true. But look what a tizzy Western Europe was put in after coming home from the Crusades and fighting over the Iberian peninsula. Spices, silks, art, architecture, math, science, etc, etc, etc... I am sure we export too much junk food and crap media - but mixed in with all that are ideas to the status quo that are far more dangerous..

Gaijindabe, be careful. He's pointing out the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and you're agreeing with him. Other famous people who have made the same observation: Superman and Karl Marx. This young fellow is, I would agree, insightful. Certainly enough to protect him from republicanism.

[Moneyguy1]

david

I actually surround myself with no one. In truth, I avoid highly opinionated people since it is too easy to "buy into" their arguments if you let your guard down. I read a lot; selectively watch and read "news" from all sources, figuring that no one tells the entire truth but the truth is there somewhere, just hidden.

Scientists ask questions and look for quantifiable repeatable answers to questions. Politicians and pundits do not. They often arrive at a conclusion and then fudge the data to fit their conclusion. Because of this, everything is in an eternal state of flux, never solid and always changing. Today's ally is tomorrow's enemy. Japan was on the allied side in WWI. England, after WWI considered that their next war would be with the United States for control of the seas. Even in the recent past, we back one country against another then take out the country we were supporting. Go figure.

[930addict]

IMHO - The problem is not socioeconomic in nature. The problem is the differences between our fundamental beliefs. These people don't like us because of what we stand for. Why are so many terrorists muslim? Well, how many christian schools do you know of that teach its members to hate muslims? It is not unordinary to find muslim schools teaching hatred for christians and jews (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/72127p-66866c.html). This is not an isolated incident.This is standard practice in mulim religion. I mentioned in another thread about the father and son in Lodi who were arrested for lying to the FBI(or CIA). Turns out that they, along with six other members of their muslim church, had attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan and were told to target financial institutions and places of interest. All of this while blending in with a very small accepting community. There is something inherently wrong with a religion that produces such a concentrated number of terrorists. They have no tolerance for other non-muslim religions of Islamic decent let alone traditional western religions. Maybe this is why Seik's and Hindu's don't like them either. The line that seperates a good muslim from a bad muslim is getting very thin.

BTW...I find it interesting that Al-jazeera had no problems showing people getting their heads hacked off with a pocket knife. Just like in the US, the network caters to it's viewers. These people want to see this. To them it's like watching a deamon being exorcised from the planet. So can we negotiate with someone of this nature? Nope. Aint gonna happen.

So what's the root cause? Intolerance of a flawed religion. This is a religious movement called Jihad.

[Mule]

I made one simple post at the beginning of this, Inflict so much pain that thay abandon the cause. Of course that was ridiculed by you high minded liberals. Well here is the bottom line, did Sherman burn a path 60 miles wide from Atlanta to the sea to destroy the Confederate army? Did the British firebomb Dresden to kill the German army? Did we bobm Hiroshima & Nagasaki to kill the japanese army? No, no and no. You lefties want to say that the muslim who gives tacit support to the terrorists by not opposing them is innocent. He is no more innocent than the german at the ball bearing factory in Dresden. So this fallacy that the imam preaching jihad or the oil sheik funding the jihad is an innocent civillian has to stop. If the mosque run by a hate monger gets blown up, it is not "collateral damage." It is a legitimate military target.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Superman
Gaijindabe, be careful. He's pointing out the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and you're agreeing with him. Other famous people who have made the same observation: Superman and Karl Marx. This young fellow is, I would agree, insightful. Certainly enough to protect him from republicanism.

Supe- Karl who? Was that Harpo's real name?

David - expanding on part II?? Hummm, I dunno. I was on a roll there..

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Mule
I made one simple post at the beginning of this, Inflict so much pain that thay abandon the cause. Of course that was ridiculed by you high minded liberals.

I don't recall reading any ridicule in this thread. Seems most people were just expressing an opinion that conflicted with yours.

You lefties want to say that the muslim who gives tacit support to the terrorists by not opposing them is innocent. He is no more innocent than the german at the ball bearing factory in Dresden.

Maybe some Lefties mistakenly think that the average Muslim who agree with OBL is innocent. Don't think you'll find many though. I would love to believe that the average person (American or Middle Eastern) would make good choices if given the opportunity, but evidence has not shown this. Why do so many people smoke, eat McD's, or watch America Idol? For the same reason that Joe Arab thinks that America is the devil - it's what he's been told to do. It's just fortunate that the propagandists in this country haven't given us nonsensical nationalistic things to believe like, "my country right or wrong." Oh wait, they have!

So this fallacy that the imam preaching jihad or the oil sheik funding the jihad is an innocent civillian has to stop. If the mosque run by a hate monger gets blown up, it is not "collateral damage." It is a legitimate military target.

Again, I don't think you'd find many liberals who think that preach "Hate America" are innocent. However, politicians and pundits would like you to believe that we do. Who's the sheep now?

[Superman]

Yeah, Karl was the fourth Marx brother but he was always so serious they just sent him out to print pamphlets while they filmed movies.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by 930addict
IMHO - The problem is not socioeconomic in nature. The problem is the differences between our fundamental beliefs. These people don't like us because of what we stand for.

What exactly do we stand for that these people don't like?

[Superman]

Originally posted by Mule
I made one simple post at the beginning of this, Inflict so much pain that thay abandon the cause. Of course that was ridiculed by you high minded liberals. Well here is the bottom line, did Sherman burn a path 60 miles wide from Atlanta to the sea to destroy the Confederate army? Did the British firebomb Dresden to kill the German army? Did we bobm Hiroshima & Nagasaki to kill the japanese army? No, no and no. You lefties want to say that the muslim who gives tacit support to the terrorists by not opposing them is innocent. He is no more innocent than the german at the ball bearing factory in Dresden. So this fallacy that the imam preaching jihad or the oil sheik funding the jihad is an innocent civillian has to stop. If the mosque run by a hate monger gets blown up, it is not "collateral damage." It is a legitimate military target.

Touche' David. Well put. For a youngster.

Mule if you want to put any effort at all into understanding the dissent opinion you seem to have so many incorrect presumptions about, consider this: I disagree with your post above, but agree with the post just before it. 930addict says the problem is cultural/religious and is a monumentally serious problem that pervades virtually all of Middle Eastern Muslim culture. It is frightening. Yes.

Then, your post seems to respect that fact in a way, and in another way just cast it aside like a distraction. You seem to be saying "bomb them all, and let God sort them out." You see, I think that's a policy that will only make sense to someone who wants desperately to regard this problem as simple.

And it just boils down to a simple question, which I have posed many times here. You and others of your ilk seem to be saying "Kill all the terrorists, or at least if you don't kill them all, then kill enough to scare the rest into peaceful behavior."

And that makes sense? Really?

[Superman]

Originally posted by wludavid
What exactly do we stand for that these people don't like?

In a word, "freedom." They are fundamentalists. Who believe that behavior outside a set of boundaries is evil. Conspicuous consumption. Alcohol. Nudity and other sexual permissiveness. These, say their religious leaders, are cancers that must be eradicated from society. If a pocket of sexual immorality exists in a particular society, it will spread. They say. I think they are correct, in fact. Introduction of those things into their society will change that society to the degree that it will no longer exist. They fear that their fundamentalist lifestyle will be forever, irretrievable westernized. And that's true. Restraint and self-control will be replaced by decadence and permissiveness. No question about that. They think that's dead wrong. They think our society is all about greed and excess, and permissiveness. Are they incorrect?

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Superman
In a word, "freedom." They are fundamentalists. Who believe that behavior outside a set of boundaries is evil. Conspicuous consumption. Alcohol. Nudity and other sexual permissiveness. These, say their religious leaders, are cancers that must be eradicated from society. If a pocket of sexual immorality exists in a particular society, it will spread. They say. I think they are correct, in fact. Introduction of those things into their society will change that society to the degree that it will no longer exist. They fear that their fundamentalist lifestyle will be forever, irretrievable westernized. And that's true. Restraint and self-control will be replaced by decadence and permissiveness. No question about that. They think that's dead wrong. They think our society is all about greed and excess, and permissiveness. Are they incorrect?

A 'culture war' argument is not quite what I expected from you. In that sense, a Cold War doctrine must be used. It's us or them; containment with a goal of eradication.

So is the answer to the question you posed above, "yes, we should kill all the terrorists and fundamentalists"?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Mule
I made one simple post at the beginning of this, Inflict so much pain that thay abandon the cause. Of course that was ridiculed by you high minded liberals. Well here is the bottom line, did Sherman burn a path 60 miles wide from Atlanta to the sea to destroy the Confederate army? Did the British firebomb Dresden to kill the German army? Did we bobm Hiroshima & Nagasaki to kill the japanese army? No, no and no.

I agree. You give simple posts without application. There is no terrorist army or terrorist country to inflict so much pain that they abandon their cause.

[[/i]
You lefties want to say that the muslim who gives tacit support to the terrorists by not opposing them is innocent. He is no more innocent than the german at the ball bearing factory in Dresden. So this fallacy that the imam preaching jihad or the oil sheik funding the jihad is an innocent civillian has to stop. If the mosque run by a hate monger gets blown up, it is not "collateral damage." It is a legitimate military target.

Not sure if anyone has said an inman preaching jihad is an innocent civilian. But the proper way would be to arrest the inman based upon laws in Iraq. Seems the only answer you have is kill, kill, and kill.

[strother]

Originally posted by Superman
In a word, "freedom." They are fundamentalists. Who believe that behavior outside a set of boundaries is evil. Conspicuous consumption. Alcohol. Nudity and other sexual permissiveness. These, say their religious leaders, are cancers that must be eradicated from society. If a pocket of sexual immorality exists in a particular society, it will spread. They say. I think they are correct, in fact. Introduction of those things into their society will change that society to the degree that it will no longer exist. They fear that their fundamentalist lifestyle will be forever, irretrievable westernized. And that's true. Restraint and self-control will be replaced by decadence and permissiveness. No question about that. They think that's dead wrong. They think our society is all about greed and excess, and permissiveness. Are they incorrect?

Who the hell am I to know anything about why people in the Middle East hate people in the U.S. -- I mean, I've never been there or spoken to anyone over there candidly about their feelings -- but heretofore, I've turned a skeptical eye to the proposition that "Muslims hate Americans because they stand for freedom." However, Supe's post above is well articulated and makes sense.

I do have to point out that there are Americans who feel the same way about American culture as radical Muslims do. I assume most only preach that the "immoral" culture should be made illegal. Except for the abortion clinic bombers.

[strother]

I'd also like to point out that while I am against conspicuous consumption, I am for alcohol, nudity, and sexual permissiveness. Some might say that I am a big fan of those things.

Edit: But not necessarily in that order.

[930addict]

Originally posted by wludavid
What exactly do we stand for that these people don't like?

We're a free civilazation who's ideals and beliefs are fundamentally christian based. Now I'm not saying we're all christian. I'm saying that this country was founded by those with christian beliefs and the rights and liberties given to us stems from such. Do some research on the term "caliphate" and you'll find that it is a muslim belief that all states should have an islamic-centric leadership. This is where our ideals differ from theirs. To them it is destiny that the world should be converted. It is a fundamental difference/conflict of beliefs.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by strother
I'd also like to point out that while I am against conspicuous consumption, I am for alcohol, nudity, and sexual permissiveness. Some might say that I am a big fan of those things.

I feel like I should break into song, "These are few of my favorite things!"


rain drops on roses and whiskers on kittens,
alcohol, nudity and sexual permissions...