Support NeoGAF

[fortified_concept]

Nerevar you are right. Stop it now please.

Fighting terrorism is asymmetrical, you can't just throw money at it and say Look! It's gone now. You're fighting a foe without bounderies, it truely is a virtual-state and it's an oppertunistic conflict... unlike Iraq and it's conventional war we fought. You can't just make comments as you did.

Ummmm... but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Are you implying that USA should start attacking random countries instead of attacking terrorism just because it's easier?

1) Iraqi civilian martyrs will not attack the US or UK homeland, the recruitment is much different than that which happened in Afghnaistan in the 1990s. These people are given a car to drive and a button to push, they have no access to international travel, no ability to pull off an attack like today or September 11. Time magazine interviewed such a "terrorist", I recommend you read it.

2) Show me a study of the US military morale being damanged, thanks.

PS. Smart friend you have, heh, as you said he focuses more on the intersection of computation and biology but I deeply respect his work.

1) Actually the recruits aren't just from Iraq. They come from many countries. I was watching a show about the matter last month, and some kind of insider was saying that it got so easy after the Iraq war that in some islamic countries the recruits are coming to them on their own asking them to join.

2) Well the US military morale is low. Everybody knows that. And I seriously doubt that the US army is gonna allow to be released any study about it.

 

[SlickWilly223]

Peaceful Islam strikes again!

Tony Blair...you are the traitor to the British people - the ultimate quisling who puts the UK in danger, not from the Iraq campaign, but for constantly jumping to the aid of Islam at every turn, at the expense of the British people. Take for example the new religious hatred laws passed this week - it means anyone 'offended' by for example a comedy routine that takes a dig at a religion such as Judism or Islam will now be illegal - and these laws are specifcally aimed at 'protecting' the Islamic community...wake up Mr Blair, how about protecting the indiginous population from Muslims?

Russian, Israel and numerous other countries have attacked the UK government for harbouring Islamic terrorists, allowing them to preach hatred...and surprise, if you allow these people freedom to roam the county, including tube stations, buses then sure enough they'll blow the shit out of them.

I'm not much on world news, but I have not heard of that law being passed. Very interesting, very scary.

 

[xsarien]

The current administration doesn't believe exterminating terrorists is the answer. They truely believe by funding/helping independent democracies in that region, that alone will stabilize it in the future.

Only if they want it. Do you know who would've won in Iraq if the U.S. didn't start playing around with the elections? A Muslim cleric.

You can't force feed democracy to people.

 

[ToxicAdam]

That's the problem or scenerio that they seem to ignore. A country full of hate will elect a hateful leader. Hitler's party was elected by the German people in the 1930's. The political climate was ripe for his type of propaganda.


Just because a large mass of people have the ability to make a decision, doesn't always mean it will be a correct one. (Insert US presidential election jokes here)

 

[HokieJoe]

Nerevar you are right. Stop it now please.

Ummmm... but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Are you implying that USA should start attacking random countries instead of attacking terrorism just because it's easier?

Saddam was a state sponser of terrorism. He paid the family of suicide bombers in Palestine to take out innocent people- no?

2) Well the US military morale is low. Everybody knows that. And I seriously doubt that the US army is gonna allow to be released any study about it.

How do you know that the US military's morale is low?

 

[HokieJoe]

Only if they want it. Do you know who would've won in Iraq if the U.S. didn't start playing around with the elections? A Muslim cleric.

You can't force feed democracy to people.

I understand what you're saying, and it's a good question. However, wasn't the US's representative form of democracy force fed to the vast majority of colonials though? Only ~25% of the colonials wanted the Revolutionary war.

 

[fortified_concept]

Saddam was a state sponser of terrorism. He paid the family of suicide bombers in Palestine to take out innocent people- no?

No. Palestinian resistance groups are not terrorists according to many european and asian goverments. And I agree 100% with this statement.

How do you know that the US military's morale is low?

I'm watching the news.

 

[xsarien]

I understand what you're saying, and it's a good question. However, wasn't the US's representative form of democracy force fed to the vast majority of colonials though? Only ~25% of the colonials wanted the Revolutionary war.

It wasn't imposed outright by another country. France merely stepped in to help after it had started.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

No. Palestinian resistance groups are not terrorists according to many european and asian goverments. And I agree 100% with this statement.

Many European and Asian governments are wrong. Thus, so are you. Suicide bombings of civilians are terrorism. (Man, that sounds like it should be "...is terrorism.", but it's referring to bombings, which would be "are". Right?)

 

[APF]

The war with Iraq should have never happened. I can recall a year before the invasion, certain Republicans calling for it, and I didn't really agree with them. Most people that were on the fence believed that Iraq did have nuclear capabilities, I was one of them.

The evidence for existing nuclear capability was never strong, despite what Cheney often tried to claim. The evidence for existing chemical/biological capability was very strong, and a casus beli in and of itself (if we wanted to go that route), despite what anti-war/anti-Bush folks try to claim now.

Ummmm... but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Don't be an ass. You can make a valid point if you wish to say Iraq didn't have an operational-level relationship with al Qaeda, without making an ass of yourself and saying this means Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Only on GAF can destruction of innocent people not be seen as terrorism. We have reached a new level today, my friends.

 

[ronito]

Only on GAF can destruction of innocent people not be seen as terrorism. We have reached a new level today, my friends.

IAWTP

 

[xsarien]

Only on GAF can destruction of innocent people not be seen as terrorism. We have reached a new level today, my friends.

Are you sure you want to take that perspective? Applying it to historical events would label the U.S. government terrorists by virtue of our treatment of Native Americans.

 

[fortified_concept]

Many European and Asian governments are wrong. Thus, so are you. Suicide bombings of civilians are terrorism. (Man, that sounds like it should be "...is terrorism.", but it's referring to bombings, which would be "are". Right?)

Killing innocents to gain access to oil sources is terrorism too, according to your logic. If you agree that USA is a terrorist nation, I'll agree that Palestinians are terrorists. And even then Palestinians are killing for their freedom. What is USA killing for? Oil? Great motivation.

 

[HokieJoe]

No. Palestinian resistance groups are not terrorists according to many european and asian goverments. And I agree 100% with this statement.

So it's OK for Palestinians to kill a school bus full of kids because some EU and Asian government's say they aren't terrorists? Would it also be accurate to say that if I kicked you in the nuts, and someone who saw it said, "oh, he didn't mean it", would that make you feel better?

I'm watching the news.

Hmm, so am I. I also have friends and family in the US military and neither support your statement.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Only on GAF can destruction of innocent people not be seen as terrorism. We have reached a new level today, my friends.

Bush = TErrorist then? how many civilians has the war on IRaq and Afghanistan killed in comparison?



HOnestly I will never understand how some "Muslims" can Target Civilians. It just makes the rest of us look bad. Fucking pathetic

 

[Baron Aloha]

I don't understand why the terrorists would choose to attack now. Support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low. If they want to force the western troops out of Iraq this is a stupid way to do it. These attacks will only serve to strengthen American and British resolve. They have to know that. Right?

 

[HokieJoe]

It wasn't imposed outright by another country. France merely stepped in to help after it had started.

However, it was forced on the majority by a minority of the indigenous populace.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Only on GAF can destruction of innocent people not be seen as terrorism. We have reached a new level today, my friends.

Oh, good fucking god. You've been the arbiter of righteous indignation throughout this thread. From your posts, you almost seem glad that this attack has happened just so you can wring your hands over what you see as the inappropriate responses to it. Sick.

Oh, and by they way,

A country full of hate will elect a hateful leader. Hitler's party was elected by the German people in the 1930's. The political climate was ripe for his type of propaganda.

Hmm, which recent presidential campaign ran on hate including but not limited to hatred of gay people and hatred of "them" (as in us against "them" wherein "them" can include anyone unfortunate enough to be lumped into the category of enemy, eg. innocent Iraqis, the French, etc.)?

 

[ToxicAdam]

I don't understand why the terrorists would choose to attack now. Support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low. If they want to force the western troops out of Iraq this is a stupid way to do it. These attacks will only serve to strengthen American and British resolve. They have to know that. Right?

Yes. I believe they want this to escalate into something larger. So, in a way, they are a larger threat to the "common" people that fund or facilitate them.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's sort of ironic that it provokes such a responce in you, considering everytime I read a post much like your own, I'm driven to the conclusion that most people who inhabit this planet truely are not smart people.

The Iraq War, be whatever political orientation you may hold, was hardly a "fucking stupid war" in that in many ways it was a continuation of the prior Persian Gulf War from 12 years previous (in much the same way as World War 1 & 2 are often viewed by contemporary historians as the same conflict) in which there was only a Clausewitzian pause of open hostility and a return to pseudo-politic that masked several IIS operations, such as the assasination attempt on President HW. Bush in 1993 or the financial backing of Palestinian suicide bombers or the communications with Al-Qaeda and correspondance with Osama bin-Laden as outlined in the 911 Commission Report:

You can call me stupid, but you're

- equating a heavily-armed Germany with a constrained Iraq

- implying that our war with Iraq constitutes postive action against terrorism when there's nothing to suggest that US actions there have done anything at all to affect terroism (postively or negatively, despite what some of the more rabid antiwar people would claim).

Yeah, it's a stupid war. You can justify it, but it's a stupid war.

 

[Baconäger]

Hmm, which recent presidential campaign ran on hate including but not limited to hatred of gay people and hatred of "them" (as in us against "them" wherein "them" can include anyone unfortunate enough to be lumped into the category of enemy, eg. innocent Iraqis, the French, etc.)?

Now that you've tried to compare Bush to Hitler I think you've pretty much forfeited. :lol

 

[heidern]

I don't understand why the terrorists would choose to attack now. Support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low.

Actually, that is exactly why they would attack now. If you take the assumption that the true enemy for al qaeda is the USA, then it would be tactically sound to try and isolate the USA. Before now, an attack would have given Blair more 'strength'. However with support for him so low, and the losses he saw in the election because of the war, it makes sense. You could say this is an attempt to take out the enemy(Blair) when he is at his weakest.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Now that you've tried to compare Bush to Hitler I think you've pretty much forfeited. :lol

Please continue to enjoy living with your head in the sand. I'm sure you will

 

[Vince]

Bush = TErrorist then? how many civilians has the war on IRaq and Afghanistan killed in comparison?

Terrorists target civilians purposefully as doctrine. The United States does not purposely target civilians on any level, and most certainly not at the level of national doctrine.

You'd have to be fucking stupid to even make the above analogy that Kabuki Waq and fortified_concept have made. It's a sad reminder that we live in an age of moral relativism that has a total neglect for absolute morals and ethics that have lead the advancement of our civilization through free and transparent governmental hierarchies; but instead can relate the intent and actions of suicide bombers with that of the United States.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Just curious, have there been any attacks on western countries not supporting the war in Iraq?
Just curious....

 

[ToxicAdam]

Hmm, which recent presidential campaign ran on hate including but not limited to hatred of gay people and hatred of "them" (as in us against "them" wherein "them" can include anyone unfortunate enough to be lumped into the category of enemy, eg. innocent Iraqis, the French, etc.)?

I think that was on the campaign bumper stickers, no? IT'S US AGAINST DEM! YEEHAWW!!

How do you keep your drama queen tiara on while you type?

 

[xsarien]

However, it was forced on the majority by a minority of the indigenous populace.

Which means what, precisely? I mean, aside from making comparisons of it to Iraq completely invalid.

 

[Baconäger]

Please continue to enjoy living with your head in the sand. I'm sure you will

You're clearly a rational thinker.

I think Goodwin's Law applies here.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Terrorists target civilians purposefully as doctrine. The United States does not purposely target civilians on any level, and most certainly not at the level of national doctrine.

You'd have to be fucking stupid to even make the above analogy that Kabuki Waq and fortified_concept have made. It's a sad reminder that we live in an age of moral relativism that has a total neglect for absolute morals and ethics that have lead the advancement of our civilization through free and transparent governmental hierarchies; but instead can relate the intent and actions of suicide bombers with that of the United States.

They can TArget whatever they want at the end More Civilians have died in those attacks than the terrorist attacks themselves and Everyone knew they would. They knew Civilians would die and yet theys till attacked for some phantom WMDs.....there is some moral Ambiguity there too you must admit.

Thats all im trying to point out.

 

[norinrad21]

God all my family members in London are all okay. This is truly a sad day.

What the hell are they trying to accomplish killing innocent people. damnit

 

[Vince]

You can call me stupid, but you're

- equating a heavily-armed Germany with a constrained Iraq

- implying that our war with Iraq constitutes postive action against terrorism when there's nothing to suggest that US actions there have done anything at all to affect terroism (postively or negatively, despite what some of the more rabid antiwar people would claim).

Yeah, it's a stupid war. You can justify it, but it's a stupid war.

No, try reading it again. I'm comparing the [Persian Gulf War], the 12 year pause, and the [Iraqi War] to the position of many that [World War 1] and [World War 2] are infact one conflict seperated by a Clausewitzian pause instigated by politic.

Nowhere am I equating Nazi Germany with Iraq in any way, shape, or form. So yes, I called you stupid, perhaps it wasn't premature.

And the second point I'm not even going to get into...

They can TArget whatever they want at the end More Civilians have died in those attacks than the terrorist attacks themselves and Everyone knew they would. They knew Civilians would die and yet theys till attacked for some phantom WMDs.....there is some moral Ambiguity there too you must admit.

Thats all im trying to point out.

Your position is only sustainable when you're in a position of ignorance/lack of data. The United States doesn't actively hunt and kill civilians; Terrorists, like al-Qaeda, do. The United States doesn't have doctrine advocating their death, al-Qaeda does.

This is unambiguious in serious discussion, for example, the Roman Catholic Church makes just such a distinction over intent in allowing for conflict under the principles Of Jus In Bello.

 

[APF]

Which means what, precisely? I mean, aside from making comparisons of it to Iraq completely invalid.

You said, "you can't force feed democracy to people." There are examples of it happening. Therefore you are wrong.

 

[m0dus]

HOnestly I will never understand how some "Muslims" can Target Civilians. It just makes the rest of us look bad. Fucking pathetic

It's ironic--these worthless bags of rancid shit represent Islam about as much as Rev. Phelps and the Ku Klux Klan represent christianity. Yet certain outlets associate them with mainstream islam without batting a fucking eye. Interesting footnote--the Qu'ran has specific rules for the waging of war. Among them, the sparing of innocent civilians, especially women and children, is held paramount. So terrorism violates a basic tenet right there (besides the glaring THOU SHALT NOT KILL clause, and the fact that suicide, for any reason, is a mortal sin) Hell, they're killing Muslims in IRAQ now. Tell me, where's their religious justification for that? These zealots commit acts of terror for a political agenda fueled by the blood of the gullible and the oppressed. There is absolutely nothing remotely, validly religious about their motives or their actions, whatsoever. Not to real muslims, anyway.

 

[xsarien]

You said, "you can't force feed democracy to people." There are examples of it happening. Therefore you are wrong.

And you can't understand the difference. Outside imposition of a new government is a completely different situation than an internal struggle.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Are you sure you want to take that perspective? Applying it to historical events would label the U.S. government terrorists by virtue of our treatment of Native Americans.

I'm not sure I read a history book or can find a person that supports what the American government did to the native people. But, I am reading opinions and supportive rationalizations for the current terrorists in the world.

 

[heidern]

Terrorists target civilians purposefully as doctrine. The United States does not purposely target civilians on any level, and most certainly not at the level of national doctrine.

Interesting point of view. So what you are saying, is that terrorists purposefully killing 50 people in London is totally evil and unacceptable. But the United States killing over 10,000 civilians in Iraq as "collateral damage" is "understandable"?

 

[human5892]

The problem is that when you hear claims that their major grievance is "encroachment on holy lands," you think gee, that's actually a legitimate complaint, we should be more respectful. Until you start to realize what that actually means: first turning the clock back to medieval times, then handing over ourselves to Islamist rule.

I should've clarified -- I'm not talking about the Ottoman empire here, but rather modern Western civilization's presence in the Middle East.

Also, I think it is a legitimate complaint (although certainly the means in which it's being addressed are not at all acceptable), which is why I said that I think the absence of more recent western presence in the Middle East could have likely reduced present day tensions and harsh visceral vitriol towards the West, maybe even greatly so.

 

[xsarien]

I'm not sure I read a history book or can find a person that supports what the American government did to the native people.

Your history books must have sucked.

 

[bionic77]

Terrorists target civilians purposefully as doctrine. The United States does not purposely target civilians on any level, and most certainly not at the level of national doctrine.

Didn't we bomb major Iraqi cities during both campaigns? We must have known we were going to cause a lot of suffering as a result of that.

I agree that it is a different sort of beast, but in the end we end up killing way more civilians than the terrorists do. I doubt our intentions or those of Al Queda make any difference to the victims though.

 

[APF]

And you can't understand the difference. Outside imposition of a new government is a completely different situation than an internal struggle.

No shit. Maybe you should have made that point instead.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

It's ironic--these worthless bags of rancid shit represent Islam about as much as Rev. Phelps and the Ku Klux Klan represent christianity. Yet certain outlets associate them with mainstream islam without batting a fucking eye. Interesting footnote--the Qu'ran has specific rules for the waging of war. Among them, the sparing of innocent civilians, especially women and children, is held paramount. So terrorism violates a basic tenet right there (besides the glaring THOU SHALT NOT KILL clause, and the fact that suicide, for any reason, is a mortal sin) Hell, they're killing Muslims in IRAQ now. Tell me, where's their religious justification for that? These zealots commit acts of terror for a political agenda fueled by the blood of the gullible and the oppressed. There is absolutely nothing remotely, validly religious about their motives or their actions, whatsoever. Not to real muslims, anyway.

Whatever their motivations, it pisses me off that because of these assholes My religion will be associated with terrorism and obviously then People like cockles will just use genralizations to justify their hate.

 

[Instigator]

Terrorists target civilians purposefully as doctrine. The United States does not purposely target civilians on any level, and most certainly not at the level of national doctrine.

The end certainly justify the fricking means, for a nation so eager to wage war. Civilian casualties, most often faceless and officially not numbered, are merely refered to as collateral damage. And as long as TV cameras are not documenting them, they will be forgotten.

And during WWII, civilians were directly targeted by the Allies, as a mean to crush and demoralize the enemy. Fire bombing cities like Dresden and nuking Japan. It was a different time perhaps, but it happened.

The term terrorist is very generic one which the definition and to whom it is applied changes depending on who does the labelling.

 

[Mercury Fred]

You're clearly a rational thinker.

I think Goodwin's Law applies here.

Gee, you're the first person to invoke Godwin's Law. You know, simply because there's an amusing interntet truism about comparing Hitler to X doesn't mean that comparisons aren't sometimes relevant. That the current administration traffics quite heavily in propagnada, exploits xenophobic tendencies and speaks in Christo-nationalistic terms in regards to the U.S. are all worth shining a light on. There's a recent historical reference in Nazi Germany that you can dismiss all you like. I wouldn't want to interrupt your getting all hopped up on fresh terror attack fervor or anything.

I think that was on the campaign bumper stickers, no? IT'S US AGAINST DEM! YEEHAWW!!

Right. It's all a joke. Scapegoating your fellow Americans because they're different is HILARIOUS! So is overly simplified binary thinking!

How do you keep your drama queen tiara on while you type?

Bobby pins.

 

[xsarien]

No shit. Maybe you should have made that point instead.

I did. It's not my problem you're not reading.

 

[bionic77]

Whatever their motivations, it pisses me off that because of these assholes My religion will be associated with terrorism and obviously then People like cockles will just use genralizations to justify their hate.

You shouldn't give a shit what garbage like Cockles thinks.

If someone can't see you for who you are they aren't worth knowing.

 

[Vince]

Interesting point of view. So what you are saying, is that terrorists purposefully killing 50 people in London is totally evil and unacceptable. But the United States killing over 10,000 civilians in Iraq as "collateral damage" is "understandable"?

No it's not, it's really quite old, likely dating back to St. Augustine. Saint Thomas Aquinas formerly elaborated on the point in Summa Theologicae (which subsequent philosophers and theologians elaborated on). The principles of Jus In Bello are nearly univerally accepted and as a philosophical stand it's really not in dispute in serious academic circles, it's more a point of contention on the internet and college campuses. Who would have thunk' it?

 

[APF]

I should've clarified -- I'm not talking about the Ottoman empire here, but rather modern Western civilization's presence in the Middle East.

I don't know how many bazillion times I have to reiterate this, but the point is that THEY ARE talking about the Ottoman Empire, etc. here. You seem incapable of grasping the reality that any concern about US support for Israel, "Middle East dictators" or globalization/progressivism in general, is the icing, not the cake.

 

[APF]

I did. It's not my problem you're not reading.

You said, "you can't force feed democracy to people." There are examples of it happening. Therefore you are wrong.

You went on to backtrack [edit: to imply], oh, I meant it's wrong for foreign powers to reshape other people's governments; which is different than your initial statement, and an opinion in any case. So please.

 

[Baconäger]

Gee, you're the first person to invoke Godwin's Law. You know, simply because there's an amusing interntet truism about comparing Hitler to X doesn't mean that comparisons aren't sometimes relevant. That the current administration traffics quite heavily in propagnada, exploits xenophobic tendencies and speaks in Christo-nationalistic terms in regards to the U.S. are all worth shining a light on. There's a recent historical reference in Nazi Germany that you can dismiss all you like. I wouldn't want to interrupt your getting all hopped up on fresh terror attack fervor or anything.

The fact that you're trying to compare Nazi Germany, a country responsible for killing millions of people and condeming entire races to the Bush administration because they happen to be against gay marrige is so absurd it wouldn't be worth discussing if I wasn't so bored here at work.

I remeber a lot of propaganda in the form of posters and whatnot during WWII. Holy shit it was really nazis VS nazis. They both used propaganda man they're totally the same!!!