Support NeoGAF

[APF]

I want you to withdraw this statement. I've already said why, but if you want I can go over it again.

:lol

You didn't understand what I was saying at the time so you said, "I have no idea if this is extreme xenophobia/paranoia or just malicous slander," which was just assanine of you. I can't believe you're asking for an apology!

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

When are people going to stop apologising for Condolleeza Rice? It seems whenever she is caught blatantly spewing her filthy ichor, a bunch of folks pop out of the woodwork trying to make excuses for her, trying to make her out to be the victim, trying to suggest we can gain something from laying down our intellectual defenses and actually listening to her messages of intolerance and war. The plain fact is she is a black-hearted bitch who wants you to kill, and the people apologising for her need to be reminded of this at every turn. We need to stamp out instances of Condolleeza Rice opening her yap with extreme prejudice.

Azih and APF you may as well stop, because in my opinion you're increasingly occupying the same position whilst misrepresenting that of your opponent. The only thing you have left to post about is the fact that you've grown to dislike one another, making your posts boring and frustrating for other people to read. APF in particular. Dude, your unwillingness to comprehend opposing arguments is matched only by your inability to clearly articulate your own. Rational debate is impoverished by your involvement; please take a seat.

 

[APF]

Gee, I feel so loved.

 

[Shinobi]

:lol

Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

I thought the double standard was too obvious to point out...

I have to agree with Guileless here. I'm all for understanding and what not, but to say that this is because of foreign policy and oppression ergo it's understandable makes no sense. Look at at Ghandi, Mandela, Tutu, King, they all came from groups of oppressed peoples and they changed the world without resorting to violence.

...then again, maybe not.

You think America's attempt to change Afghanistan and Iraq the last five years (nevermind the countless other invasions) were somehow peaceful? Or was it just a more acceptable form of violence that somehow makes it non-evil? Either way it shows a sickening level of hypocrisy on the part of Rice and the entire administration, which is why we've got this mess to begin with.

No. You assume that anyone who disagrees with the tone of the BS moral-equivalence, apologizing and excusing of terrorist attacks because people from other countries may have "legitimate" concerns about US foreign policy, is therefore xenophobic and paranoid. Your attitude is absurd. People in this forum are either zero or 100% with no reasonable middle-ground, and it's pathetic.

Honestly, I'd say you've been doing the exact same thing in reverse.

 

[RoadStar]

C. Rice is some strong word of which i think we should live by

 

[ronito]

You think America's attempt to change Afghanistan and Iraq the last five years (nevermind the countless other invasions) were somehow peaceful? Or was it just a more acceptable form of violence that somehow makes it non-evil? Either way it shows a sickening level of hypocrisy on the part of Rice and the entire administration, which is why we've got this mess to begin with.

Wait. Let's back up here. You assume too much. I never once said I support the war and anything like that. Yes, I know that America has plenty of blood on its hands, I've studied enough history to know that the USA has done some awful things and no sir, I don't like it.

However, just because we are not justified doesn't mean that the terrorists are. That's an over-simplistic point of view. Why can't both sides be wrong here?

 

[Shinobi]

Wait. Let's back up here. You assume too much. I never once said I support the war and anything like that. Yes, I know that America has plenty of blood on its hands, I've studied enough history to know that the USA has done some awful things and no sir, I don't like it.

However, just because we are not justified doesn't mean that the terrorists are. That's an over-simplistic point of view. Why can't both sides be wrong here?

I didn't say anything about supporting a war. I'm talking about the methods the US has used to change the world. And that's generally violence. Which makes C Rice and co full of shit. It really has nothing to do with how you view things, which regardless of what it is has gotta be a hell of a lot more noble then those neocon bandits.

And I've said on this board for over two years now (and probably at least once in this thread) that there are no white hats to be found anywhere in this situation. The US, the UN,France, the UK, Russia, Saudi Arabria, al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and anyone who has anything to do with this bullshit are self-serving parasites with the only interest being their own agendas, and fuck everyone else at the end of the day. Nobody deserves any credit here.

 

[Azih]

I can't believe you're asking for an apology!

Oh I have no need for an apology and I certainly never asked for one (where did I ask for one?). All I'm saying is that the bolded bit of the following statement

You assume that anyone who disagrees with the tone of the BS moral-equivalence, apologizing and excusing of terrorist attacks because people from other countries may have "legitimate" concerns about US foreign policy, is therefore xenophobic and paranoid.

was completely without merit and should be withdrawn for that reason. The statment is without merit for two reasons. I have stated them and I am willing to state them again. In fact I just thought of another one if you are interested.

 

[FightyF]

Here's what I think Mandark. Sorry for the length but I'm trying to be honest here.

The terrorists have come from a variety of countries (including the UK) and widely varying economic circumstances. They have attacked a wide variety of targets, from hotels and nightclubs to the Pentagon. They have attacked countries on four different continents, from the US itself to staunch opponents of American policy like Turkey to countries like Bali that aren't very important diplomatically. They have claimed a wide variety of causes, from Afghanistan to Palestine to troops in Saudi Arabia and even Somalia. Based on all of that information, you can come up with many different arguable "causes" of terrorism and nobody can definitively prove or disprove such a theory.

But there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism. For that reason, I think that the radical ideology shared by all of the terrorists is the proximate cause of the terrorism. While other factors may contribute in some way, they are all a distanct second. And I do not think we should be concerned about what they think of our policy. In fact, we should pursue a policy that pisses them off. They are so wrong about everything that if they don't like it, then it's almost definitely the right thing to do.

I'm guessing you're thinking of some hypothetical quasi-jihadist who embraces the theory of radical Islamic fascism but isn't quite ready to do anything about it. Then he sees the news about Iraq one day, which puts him over the top and convinces him to commit suicide so that he can kill infidels. This person may exist, and Iraq may make him do this. There's no way to know this for sure, though it is obviously an attractive idea to people who don't like the policy or the people who make the policy.

But it is crazy to make long-term policy based on the short-term reactions of a hypothetical group that may not exist and can never be ascertained. If you assume, as the Bush Administration has, that the cause of terrorism is the perverted ideology they profess--which is incredibly retrograde and destructive to themselves regardless of whether they try to kill non-believers--then the goal should be to eliminate the ideology.

Now you can disagree with how to eliminate the ideology, but that is a separate discussion. The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil. That is why I agree with Rice.

You're wrong on all accounts bro.

Let me break it down.

The terrorists have come from a variety of countries (including the UK) and widely varying economic circumstances. They have attacked a wide variety of targets, from hotels and nightclubs to the Pentagon. They have attacked countries on four different continents, from the US itself to staunch opponents of American policy like Turkey to countries like Bali that aren't very important diplomatically. They have claimed a wide variety of causes, from Afghanistan to Palestine to troops in Saudi Arabia and even Somalia. Based on all of that information, you can come up with many different arguable "causes" of terrorism and nobody can definitively prove or disprove such a theory.

There does exist a common motive. It is a reaction to percieved aggression/oppression from the "West". It is a reaction to percieved Imperialism. My proof? Their very words!

But there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism. For that reason, I think that the radical ideology shared by all of the terrorists is the proximate cause of the terrorism. While other factors may contribute in some way, they are all a distanct second. And I do not think we should be concerned about what they think of our policy. In fact, we should pursue a policy that pisses them off. They are so wrong about everything that if they don't like it, then it's almost definitely the right thing to do.

Again, just like "Islamism", Islamo-facism is another term invented by Neo-Con think tanks (I guess in this case a radio personality) that has no definite meaning.

It is not the case that these people want an "Islamically ruled World" as Neo-Con's put it. It is not the case that they are fighting for their own personal interests. As you can see in the case of the London bombings, it was done for political reasons.

The basis for Justice exists in Islam. Muslims must fight for the poor and oppressed. Thus, terrorists liken themselves to these Mujahideen, in order to attempt to gain support.

THAT is why terrorism exists in the modern day Muslim world.

This whole concept of "Islamo-fascicm" is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't explain what has happen, or what could happen in the future. It's not based on any academic research, and not on any research from credible terrorist expert.

I'm guessing you're thinking of some hypothetical quasi-jihadist who embraces the theory of radical Islamic fascism but isn't quite ready to do anything about it. Then he sees the news about Iraq one day, which puts him over the top and convinces him to commit suicide so that he can kill infidels. This person may exist, and Iraq may make him do this. There's no way to know this for sure, though it is obviously an attractive idea to people who don't like the policy or the people who make the policy.

But it is crazy to make long-term policy based on the short-term reactions of a hypothetical group that may not exist and can never be ascertained. If you assume, as the Bush Administration has, that the cause of terrorism is the perverted ideology they profess--which is incredibly retrograde and destructive to themselves regardless of whether they try to kill non-believers--then the goal should be to eliminate the ideology.

The goal of terrorists is to create terror and panic. This whole idea of "killing non-believers" is a completely western ideology, again, created by Christian fundamentalists and Neo-Cons. The RELIGIOUS justifications used by terrorists aren't the same made up quotes cited by Neo-Cons as the justifications for terrorism carried out by Muslims.

Now you can disagree with how to eliminate the ideology, but that is a separate discussion. The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil. That is why I agree with Rice.

What the terrorists believe is that "the ends justify the means". It is a wrong ideology, but it's an ideology that not only terrorists share, but many Americans would too. "Bomb them all and let God sort them out" has been a phrase many Americans have been using QUITE recently.

If you agree with Rice, then you miss the entire point of what Q & A means, or what the word "interview" entails. As I said, calling people evil if they commit an evil act makes sense, but it does nothing to address the problem. She also dismissed the root cause of terrorism, which is quite scary!

 

[fart]

When are people going to stop apologising for Condolleeza Rice? It seems whenever she is caught blatantly spewing her filthy ichor, a bunch of folks pop out of the woodwork trying to make excuses for her, trying to make her out to be the victim, trying to suggest we can gain something from laying down our intellectual defenses and actually listening to her messages of intolerance and war. The plain fact is she is a black-hearted bitch who wants you to kill, and the people apologising for her need to be reminded of this at every turn. We need to stamp out instances of Condolleeza Rice opening her yap with extreme prejudice.

Azih and APF you may as well stop, because in my opinion you're increasingly occupying the same position whilst misrepresenting that of your opponent. The only thing you have left to post about is the fact that you've grown to dislike one another, making your posts boring and frustrating for other people to read. APF in particular. Dude, your unwillingness to comprehend opposing arguments is matched only by your inability to clearly articulate your own. Rational debate is impoverished by your involvement; please take a seat.

i like what you did there

 

[Azih]

Alright alright, I take the point. pointless bashing of head against wall ends.

 

[Mandark]

Guileless:

"The terrorists" are not all Islamofascists. The IRA, the ETA-M, and the Tamil Tigers were not and are not Muslim. Other groups, like the PKK, are Muslim but very obviously not fighting for some Islamofascist goal. Honestly, I don't know where you're getting that.

Robert Pape, Mark Tessler, and others have crunched the data. Their conclusions make some people uncomfortable, because those people are thinking of things from a purely moral perspective.

I haven't read a serious argument against the work of these people (though there might be some out there). Instead, here's what we get:

1) An assertion that "there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism." The IRA, ETA-M, Tamil Tigers, and PKK really obviously disprove this.

2) An assertion that anyone who does this is evil, so anyone who might do this is evil, so potential terrorists are all evil already. It follows that analyzing root causes is trying to morally justify evil, and anyone who suggests policy changes is appeasing evil.

I don't get this impulse to maintain a sense of moral superiority at the expense of actually solving the problem. I mean, read yourself: "we should pursue a policy that pisses them [the terrorists] off."

If I wrote that sentence, it would read "we should pursue a policy that weakens them." My focus is on winning. My focus is on sapping away their recruitment base. My focus is on making sure 9/11 doesn't happen again.

You say that the myriad reasons claimed for different terrorist acts prove that there are no causes, or at least no root causes outside a poorly defined "Islamo-fascism." Except you're arguing a strong man: the issue is not what causes are claimed publically by terrorists. The issue is what factors are objectively measurable, and of those, which show a correlation to (and likely causation of) terrorism.

When bin Laden releases a tape, I don't know how much of it he really believes, and it doesn't really matter. Nobody is trying to change his mind, or the mind of someone who already thinks like him.

The idea is to make sensible policies that will make hundreds of millions of people much less susceptible to Osama's brand of bullshit, not to sit around saying "We can't do that, he said he wants us to do that. Can't make him happy!"

Really, is there any real reason to think Pape is wrong? Has anyone compellingly challenged his study, on solid academic grounds? Is there any reason our leaders should actively avoid (!) a discussion of what causes terrorism?

Is the danger that an analysis of root causes will seem like a moral apology for terrorists that much more real than the danger of someone detonating a suitcase nuke in my city?

 

[Instigator]

Banned for bumping an old thread! Bad Mandark!

 

[open_mouth_]

This is a flat out stupid comment for two reasons -

1. A group of people, no matter how uncivilised you may consider them to be, don't just wake up one morning and decide to embark of a campaign of terrorist aggression against a particular society without a reason. Rice notes they didn't have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq at the time of 9/11...well no, but you sure had plenty of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, you've supported Israel for decades militarily and financially and you're responsible for the 'westernisation' of traditional Islamic countries. So saying there is no grounds, and that it has nothing to do with grievance is plain bullshit. It has everything to do with grievance.

2. Exploring the grievances of terrorist groups is in no way, not now and not ever, a justification for their actions, full stop. Exploring the root causes of terrorism is to actually stand up, show a bit of backbone and ask questions of oneself. What have we done wrong? How have we contributed to the current situation? What are the real root causes? Where does the animosity come from and why does it run so deep? The trouble people like Rice and her steeple in tow, is all they want to do is simplify the matter as much as possible. According to such people a thorough analysis of terrorism is to label them 'evil' and...well that's about all we're supposed to really do. And while it is perfectly correct is call terrorists morally bankrupt, how is the situation helped by repeating it ad nauseum? how is it beneficial to anyone? What has been done to remedy the situation? Sweet fuck all.

agreed.

 

[bob_arctor]

Q: Isn't scratching that poison ivy rash spreading it to places it wasn't before?
A: The rash was there before I started scratching, so my constant scratching clearly isn't an exacerbating factor.

Bingo! We have a winner!