Talking Peace With Terrorists Is A Waste
 

People just don't seem to understand:eek:. The terrorists don't want peace. If they did they wouldn't carry out theses attacks. They're intent on destroying western societies, which is something they fervently hate:(. In their mind it's either accomplish their aims or die trying. There won't be any peace until they're crushed:cool:. We should all be united in the fight against terrorism. Wake up to the cold reality.

Unreasonable people cannot be reasoned with. Thus, trying to negotiate with terrorists is useless. They will do nothing but want, while be willing to give nothing in return. And when they get what they want, they will want more, because they're victims. It's never their fault, they're victims.

I think a good question to ask is why they hate Western societies.*

* Note: I do not support terrorists nor condone their actions at all.

I know why, I just don't want to bother reading the Qu'ran...

If I'm not mistaken, the Quaran doesn't advocate starting holy wars and killing infidels. :rolleyes:

No, I know it doesn't... :rolleyes:

I'm curious as to what the hell kind of twisted interpretation terrorists have on the Qu'ran...I know they don't declare "Jihad" for the hell of it (Though that usually seems to be the case, 9 out of 10 times)...

Sorry. I must have misread your post. If I had to guess, it's just rationalization/an excuse. It's also quite possible that some terrorists are easily coerced (fear of hell / want for the 72 virgins).

If you translate the word "Islam" into English, you get "submission unto god". Islamics believe in their religion to the point that they cannot comprehend why someone may not be a Muslim. Allah is the one true god, end of story, period. Your lack of belief in Allah makes you not even a human to them. They can't comprehend freedom, either. Freedom doesn't work with "sumbission". You can't be free if you're busy submitting to your god.

They want you and your family dead because you aren't Muslim/Islamic. To them, you really only have three choices: Convert. Pay a tax. Die.

Oh, most of them want to bring Armageddon, too (expecially the Shi'a). They belive that with the return of the hidden Imam (the 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi), Armageddon will occur, and the world will be led into world full of, you guessed it, Islam.

In short; these people are fucking nuts.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

They automagically think that America is trying to convert them or something. (reminds me of Stargate SG1 and the Orai)

IF they only knew that politicians only want the oil to keep flowing and them not to use human bombs in the name of Allah. All of their problems would go away.

But as long as they tie themselves to terrorists and terrorist activity, its only gonna get worse for them. Israel(even though its not 100% Islamic), Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait seemed to learned that early. The rest are governed by jackasses who can't seem to get it together.

For a nation to enter negotiations with a terrorist organization is extremely irresponsible and only giving them the resolve to further cause problems.

Simply declaring a cease-fire is different, however.

But, maybe we're past the age of the nation-state.

You can freely choose to submit and they can go together.
(Although I won't bother arguing what their exact concepts of freedom or submission are, because they are wildly different than Western concepts (although they should have the freedom to hold those differently shouldn't they?))

A Very Telling Osama bin Laden Statement
 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, if killing those who kill our children is terrorism, then history should be a witness that we are terrorists." ~ Osama bin Laden (November 11, 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He made this statement as a way of trying to justify his murderous actions. It's total garbage. He knows he has taken the wrong approach in getting his views known and it was a mistake in attacking the U.S.. A big mistake.

Come Hell or high water the war against terror will continue as long as Bush is president. It should rightfully be our country's #1 priority in hunting him down and killing him and Zawahiri. That would be an effective step to stopping al-Qaeda.

While I agree completely that terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri should be brought to justice, I highly doubt that it would do any lasting damage to the abilities of al Qaeda.

The abilities of Al-Queda?. Al-Queda doesn't exist. Not to say that terrorist organizations don't exist, but there is no all powerful Al-Queda.

Bin Laden is the money man for many of these organizations, but he is not the "leader".

A good example of how these terrorists are not organized with central control is Yassar Arafat. He made peace deals with Israel. These weren't kept. I think Arafat entered into these negotiations in good faith. He couldn't control the various Palestinian terrorist groups calling themselves the PLO. In effect, the terrorists don't have an authority structure, and figuratively no "off" switch. In the end, the Israelis had to protect Arafat from his own people.

You can find the answer to how this works out in Turkey. An authoritarian government that will allow people to practice secularism or islam. Islamic clerics are restricted to teaching dogma which doesn't provoke violence. Now they are becoming an economic power that wants to be a full member of the EU.

For the last 40 years, Turkey has developed a government that has been increasingly looking like a western democracy. It also has been creating a state that appears to be increasingly beneficial to it's citizens. Not perfect, but pretty decent.

This is without giving up their islamic heritage. This is still very much a Muslim country. They just decided not to kill each other over theological differences and managed to install a powerful secular government to keep the peace.

The end of the story?. Turkeys people are fairly prosperous and they don't feel like killing each other.

Middle-Eastern terrorists are giving good guerilla tactics a bad name. For perspective, remember that we won the Revolutionary War on the ground because we didn't stick to columns and rows with drummers at the fore/rear--we snipered and slammed them from the trees, out of ravines, and generally made ourselves scarce.

(This statement is @ the title, not the content, as there really is nothing positive about what the Middle-Eastern terrorists are doing. I'd like to make a point that we shouldn't confuse a smart, invisible enemy [guerilla fighter] with an indiscriminate one that blows defenseless civilians up randomly for press and effect [terrorists]. It's war.)

Although I'm not saying Turkey is an Iraq or Palestine. It doesn't matter what country or what style of goverment you have. Islamic extremist exist in every country and they will create chaos. Along with no way of negotiating a peaceful solution.

This is only a few days ago

...just like there are Christian extremists and Buddhist Extremists and Secular extremists in every country.

The problem with dissidency in the middle east is that it has popular support and at least tacit cooperation.

An example is Lebanon. Their 80,000 man army could easily wipe away 6000 hizbollah, but they didn't. So when hizbollah shoots rockets at Israel for no reason, initially the lebanese are appalled. However, when Israel protects it's citizens, hizbollah becomes some kind of hero. The lebanese pay with their lives and homes and blame Israel and worship the architects of this insanity..... hizbollah and radical islam.

This is a case of the unbelievably evil leading the unbelievably stupid. It happens here too.

Many Islamics have been brainwashed to make a few delusions. First, that the old way of wandering around in the desert, living in a mud hut under an olive tree and living with oppressive islam is a good thing. Second, that Israel can be removed. Third, that western influence will ever go away.

You can't talk anyone out of delusions. A little basic psychiatry here.

Not exactly for or against RoH, since it's rather unrelated, but a few thoughts on delusions from a masters degree professional in the mental health field:

Delusion is slaughtering people in Iraq for something that Iraqis are not responsible for.

Delusion is having a war with a nation that never threatened us.

Delusion is killing civilians when they try to protect their homes/homeland from invasion because there aren't enough interpreters to explain what what the hell is going on.

Delusion is not seeing this as a business transaction.

I think the delusion that more people are actually dying now than would have anyway. Sadam killed a lot. The Iraqis lost a million children in the trade sanctions from starvation... while Sadam built palaces. The sectarian violence that is happening now would have eventually happened anyway. It might even be lessened by our presence.

I think you should look carefully into Sadams complicity with terrorists. The only thing that constrained him was that he was as afraid of the islamic fundamentalists as we are. It didn't stop him from financing suicide bombers in Palestine. I think we could call his regime and that of the Iranians to be a danger to peace. Another delusion, that the press wants us to believe now, is that the Iranians want to enter good faith negotiations. The reality is that the Iranian regime can be counted on to act in bad faith.


Delusion is being brainwashed into thinking that all the ills in your life are due to the US and Israel. This is possibly an irreversible delusion. Delusion is also being brainwashed into thinking that liberalism accomplished anything.


Agreed. And a bad one. And a bipartisan bad one.

Saddam has no power over anyone and kills no one. The worst he could do is throw food at his prison guards.

[QOUTE] Delusion is being brainwashed into thinking that all the ills in your life are due to the US and Israel. [/QUOTE]

I was speaking of Iraq, but I'm not really blaming anything that's happening to me personally - I'm blaming what is happening to other relatively innocent people.

My claim about the language barrier came from a friend who has just returned from Iraq. His job was to inspect bridges and draw up plans to reinforce them or rebuild them so that military vehicles could safely cross. When the locals saw this they thought he was just there to destroy the bridges and because of this they occasionally tried to kill him. Instead of sending an interpreter to clear things up, an assault team was sent to kill anyone who was considered a threat. Many rather innocent people died just because of this stupid misunderstanding.

Under liberalism we were never attacked. Even under Reagan, there wasn't a problem. Under the oil business family, suddenly there's a problem. Under current leadership, we send rather childish instigating, threats, and ultimatums that cause others to hate us more and more every time there’s a speech given.

:eek: Reagan was a Liberal? Holy shit! :eek:










;)

Mostly they are getting killed by each other......by not being very relatively innocent.

It isn't us that tolerates a society where people run around killing each other with impunity.

The number "we" kill, isn't anything compared to the number THEY KILL.

The death toll in Iraq is not our fault. For any change to take place in Iraq, it needed blood. It's LESS because we are there.

If you want to look at a real bloodbath, consider what would happen if we left.

No, no, no, I figured someone was gunna post that...

I mentioned "even Regan" because he didn't fit what I had already mentioned (liberals) - otherwise I would have just left him out if he was already covered by 'liberals'.

Although I'm guessing it was just a joke, something that we probably need to lighten things up in some of these threads.

No, but he did have the common sense to use military force correctly. If someone pissed Reagan off, he bombed the shit out of them and everyone was home for corn flakes.

Instead, we have entered into a BI-PARTISAN folly without the resolve to actually do the job. The attempt to discredit the current administration by the liberals is stupid, BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR IT TOO.

If I am going to look for villians, I find them in the democratic party. It's likely that a lot of this backbiting over A WAR THEY VOTED FOR TOO prevents the proper solution of this problem as much as Rumsfelds incompetence.

Look carefully for the political reason that Clinton didn't apprehend Bin Laden.

There is your conspiracy or was it just lazy?.

The bottom line is this: the Democratic party is the Republican party. They talk different but act the same. The USA under Clinton is essentially the same as the USA under Bush. Most people who see a difference are wearing their special partisan glasses.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. who are now dead would be alive today.

Those attacks were virtually impossible to "hunt down", considering the very small amount of people and materials used for each of them.

Think about it, you or I, if living in those areas could commit the same exact crimes, given the then-current state of security, even the one in NYC. We could have done it without having any footsteps traced to us. Those above listed attacks can't be compared to those on 9-11-01.

Knowing this, instead of starting wars with rather unrelated nations of people, the action taken was heightened security, which has prevented such small attacks since.

Just for a small, interesting example, in reaction to the USS Cole incident, the Navy now uses new, long-distance, focused-sound loudspeakers to give fair warning to unexpected approaching vessles, first with verbal warnings in multiple languages, then with an EXTREMELY loud alarm, which is considered an acceptable fair warning to the approaching vessle. If the warning is ignored, the soldiers have permission to sink the approaching vessle.

The attacks in September, 2001 were unlike any other and were virtually impossible to predict. The warnings were no more convincing than the thousands of warnings the CIA gets every week that turn out to be hoaxes or empty promises. Because of this, I honestly don't think Clinton deserves any blame for what happened on 9-11-01.

Then you haven't examined the matter realistically.

Bin Laden should have and could have been stopped by Clinton. His conduct in this matter isn't the only example of Clinton impotency, but it is a good one.

Myeh. Coulda woulda shoulda. The first Bush is as valid a target here.

I agree with zootm - and at the same time, as much as I hate the Bush family, I can't see myself blaming any president for the inability to prevent the bombings.

Why?. Opposing a secular regime like Saddams wouldn't have prevented the Saudis who attacked the trade center.

You might as well blame Lincoln.

That kinda makes you support zootm's point. Blaming Clinton or GHW Bush doesn't make much more sense than blaming Lincoln. Sure, Clinton had two recent terms, but there were threats during both Bush's (1 Sr. and 1 Jr.) terms too.

Plus, there really wasn't enough of a threat (at least not in comparison to other common unfulfilled threats) to warrant a grand scale preventative action.

It's so easy to look back and say damn, we missed this and that..., but I probably wouldn't have believed it to be a legit threat either.

The purported masterminds were trained and armed by the US during the Cold War and after leaving these religiously-motivated, crazed, now-trained and equipped killers never thought to check up on them. This wasn't really a foreseeable (from far in the past) circumstance, but it's equally as valid to say that by the time Clinton or Bush could've done something about it, it was too late. This partisan political blame game is just bullshit, pure and simple.

Pakistan wanted to hand Bin Ladens head to Clinton on a plate. Such an opportunity never happened to Bush. As far as the "bipartisan" blame game, I only see the blame game going one direction.

Democrats blame Bush for doing what they voted to do.

War protests started immediately AFTER THE WAR STARTED. Democrats voted for the war, and then immediately opposed it. I think we can attribute much of our lack of success to this climate.

I protested the war with thousands of people in Cleveland on Euclid Avenue (center of downtown) before it started. Similar protests occured on the same day in other major cities.

Also, let's get real here. If anyone in Pakistan or Clinton himself had any thoughts that Bin Laden was capable of what he did, either or both would have stopped him.

Besides, Bin Laden is a poster boy, not a suicide bomber. He himself did not hijack any planes. He is but one of many people that share the same thoughts, plans, and actions. Had he been stopped by Pakistan or Clinton, the same events still likely would have occured, and I dare say they could have occured in a more severe attack out of retaliation.

While I agree that he should be stopped (if he's not already dead), stopping him isn't nearly as big a thing as people would have you believe.

In context this is meaningless. Even if it were true.

I remember some republicans opposing the war after they voted on it too. Just not as loudly as the Democrats.

Speaking of talking peace with terrorists Pakistan seems to be doing just that.

It's hard to negotiate with a group of people who are fueled by the brainwashing ignorance of a religion of hate, opresson and suffering.

Yeah, I said it.

Very hard indeed; almost impossible even, but it's worth a try before resorting to killing.