Is the world any safer?

[Pete]

really? isnt it just one say mosc or church that tells its people the wrong things and that is what the terror cell is?
can you give me some examples of societies where thats happened?
thanks pete

[turkster]

Well yeah your right it is often single people who lead such interpretations but it is the society that feeds them.
The classic example is Hitler and the Nazis. While one cannot say that Germans were all evil Nazis without a society behind him Hitler and his cronies could not have done what they did. In fact Hitlers rise to power is quite interesting and well worth a look if you get a chance.

[Pete]

were doing hitler in philosophy this term,
so that should be interesting. were also doing ww2 in history next year so i should no alot more about all that by next year
Pete

[Galant]

A difficult situation certainly. Obviously engaging these terrorists will only stir-up the wasp nest, but then what other option do you pursue? Following that analogy the wasp nest was already there and would keep on sending out attacks from time to time. So do you leave it be, or do you try to kill off those wasps which pose a threat? You certainly can't leave your children to fend for themselves when a swarm comes.

The moves to Afghanistan and Iraq did not create the terrorists or their hateful feelings, they were already there. Certainly history has a part to play - but I think that the most significant aspects are religion and politics - mindset.

Poverty? Osama happens to be a very rich man, as do many of the Islamic leaders behind the strikes. Also, much aid has been sent and is being sent to assist these nations. The UN would love nothing more than to alleviate their social problems. Many Christian missionaries go to these nations to help, but often they are under threat, and some are killed. Certainly it's not all of the general populous doing that, but there remains the idea that the Christians are to be killed.

I do believe that the reason a lot of these attacks happen, and why even their leaders hate the west, is Christianity, and (ironically) the poor morals propagated by much of the western media, and lifestyle. These leaders pursue a militant Islam and seek to conquer the world for their God, subjugating it to Islamic law. By no means are we talking about all Islam here, but we are talking about a good portion of it, especially in those geographic areas.

That's a hard war to fight - a war of ideals, but if it's too hard to strike at ideals, it's easier to strike the supply lines of terror. Maybe not ridding them of hate, but removing their means to unleash it - thus protecting one's country. What's more, since many of these groups and regimes aren't particularly nice to those living under their rule, it may also be a way to reduce the hate that is prevalent.

Obviously this is a simplification, but I think it's a reasonable summary. It is a superbly difficult situation with many catch 22's, and when one's nation is under violent attack, I'm happy to give some leighway to the leadership to protect its people.

[Pete]

thanks for that galant thats a nice conclusion
i dont really think any thing else can be said on this post weve hit most of the stuff
i think
Pete

[turkster]

Sorry to append you summary Galant but i have some comments.

The moves to Afghanistan and Iraq did not create the terrorists or their hateful feelings, they were already there. Certainly history has a part to play - but I think that the most significant aspects are religion and politics - mindset.

But this is surely implying that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan have a greater population of evil people than than Western countries. From a statistical viewpoint this is very unlikely. If you were to take this to its ultimate conclusion one would have to destroy the whole 'wasp nest' in order to satisfy our paranoia.

That's a hard war to fight - a war of ideals, but if it's too hard to strike at ideals, it's easier to strike the supply lines of terror. Maybe not ridding them of hate, but removing their means to unleash it - thus protecting one's country. What's more, since many of these groups and regimes aren't particularly nice to those living under their rule, it may also be a way to reduce the hate that is prevalent.

By 'removing the means to unleash it (terror)' you are putting those people in a situation of oppresion which will do much to exacerbate the root of the problem, which is not the means but the cause. By protecting your country you are oppressing another.

In many cases the means is not nearly as important as the feelings which drive terrorist attacks. 'If there is a will there is a way'.
Once a country feels oppressed that will only becomes stronger.

[Galant]

Depends on how you define evil I suppose. Certainly there are people of poor moral fiber all over the world, yet I think it is fair to say that due to the militant Islamic mindset there are more people in those countries who want to kill 'innocents', perform terrorist acts, and basically bring down the west. They've quite openly said many times, that at the very least they want to impose Islamic Sharia law upon the whole world. Something that doesn't find a comparison in the west.

"By 'removing the means to unleash it (terror)' you are putting those people in a situation of oppresion which will do much to exacerbate the root of the problem, which is not the means but the cause. By protecting your country you are oppressing another."

What? That makes no sense. Are you saying that those people in the twin towers deserved what happened? Those tactics are immoral and totally unjustifiable. We have to get past the idea that these are cornered creatures doing the only thing they can to make a statement, the only way they can be heard. They're not.

As for defense/oppression - that really makes no sense - no-one forced them to attack the US, for which retaliation came. But even if that were the case, defend one's own citizens from attack and risk oppressing another country, or let the other country be free but have one's own nation and citizens suffer attack - I say defense is wholly justifiable.




How many western suicide warriors are you aware of?

[turkster]

Depends on how you define evil I suppose. Certainly there are people of poor moral fiber all over the world, yet I think it is fair to say that due to the militant Islamic mindset there are more people in those countries who want to kill 'innocents', perform terrorist acts, and basically bring down the west. They've quite openly said many times, that at the very least they want to impose Islamic Sharia law upon the whole world. Something that doesn't find a comparison in the west.

I agree they are very militant and undoubtedly kill innocents but the US has killed more innocents in Afganistan and Iraq than al Queida ever did. Just because Western countries do not openly say they are going to kill people does not meen they dont. The very act of invading Afghanistan and Iraq is to impose our western values on them conveniently couched as 'regime change'.

Are you saying that those people in the twin towers deserved what happened? Those tactics are immoral and totally unjustifiable. We have to get past the idea that these are cornered creatures doing the only thing they can to make a statement, the only way they can be heard. They're not.

As for defense/oppression - that really makes no sense - no-one forced them to attack the US, for which retaliation came. But even if that were the case, defend one's own citizens from attack and risk oppressing another country, or let the other country be free but have one's own nation and citizens suffer attack - I say defense is wholly justifiable.

Yes i agree killing loads of people in the twin towers was unjustifiable and an act of war. Yet retaliating with missiles and bombs against an similarly innocent country seems a bit hypocritical. Just because it does not require the US or UK to get their hands dirty does not mean they are not killing large numbers of civilians.

When you say 'no one forced them' whos THEM surely not the civilians nor even the military of Afghanistan or Iraq? Clearly retaliation was viewed more as 'an eye for an eye' rather than any coherent plan to reduce terrorism.

Defense is not the correct word here. Invading countries, while it might be a means to an end, could hardly be catagorised as defense.
I do not argue that one should defend ones country I only suggest that this is not necessarily the most civilised way.

[Galant]

You seem to be suggesting that the US just dumped it's soldiers in airplanes, flew them over to shoot a few people and 'blow up some stuff'. Complete nonsense. Had the US wanted to turn Afg. or Iraq into 'car parks', it could have done a lot worse than it did. Some unwanted deaths will occur, I don't know that I've seen anything to show me that more have died that expected or is reasonable.

You say that the US has killed more innocents than Al Queda - where do you get your numbers? I don't know that anyone can know those numbers. Certainly not for Al Queda - as for Iraq and Saddam - he killed plenty of his own people - innocents - as well as foreign innocents in Kuwait and other areas.

Imposing our western values? Which western values would they be? In Afg. it was about brekaing up the terrorist networks and getting to those responsible for 9/11. In Iraq it was about WMD, terrorist support, and broken agreements (with the UN no less!). Taking out a brutal, sick dictator whose people suffered was an added bonus.

War has never been something you could wholly describe as 'civilised'. It involves killing people and destroying things. Defending your own country might not always be pleasant or 'civilised' but it is necessary.

I think a lot of people need to realise that you can't always talk your way through problems. Some people are just unreasonable.

[spikegifted]

You say that the US has killed more innocents than Al Queda - where do you get your numbers? I don't know that anyone can know those numbers. Certainly not for Al Queda - as for Iraq and Saddam - he killed plenty of his own people - innocents - as well as foreign innocents in Kuwait and other areas.

Imposing our western values? Which western values would they be? In Afg. it was about brekaing up the terrorist networks and getting to those responsible for 9/11. In Iraq it was about WMD, terrorist support, and broken agreements (with the UN no less!). Taking out a brutal, sick dictator whose people suffered was an added bonus.

Dude, you need to wake up and smell the coffee!!

One of the reasons why the majority of Iraqis are p!ssed with the US occupiers is because US troops on the ground shot first and ask questions later. The kind of strong arm tactics they employ is simply treating a proud people who've endured years of oppression like a bunch of criminals. When you've been kept down, you don't want have your balls kicked the first time you get a chance to stand up. Simple. Saddam was a truly evil guy and he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The Coalition is suppose to be the 'good guys' and yet, hundreds and thousands are being killed... You think you'd be grateful to someone who free you from prison, escort you back to your family then make you watch them get killed by terrorists that they're suppose to have taken out? I don't think so.

With regards to you assessment of WMD and terrorist support, you need to start reading real news rather than fantasized neo-Conservative propaganda. Iraq has no WMD in the time-frame of question. In terms of terrorist support, would you be so kind to name (or even hint) a single terrorist organization that has ever been linked to Saddam's regime. There is a mountain of material in book stores across the US informing people what the Bush administration doesn't want them to know.

The Coalition may have taken out an oppressive dictator, but the job is nowhere near done. Instead of being oppressed by one of their kind, they're now oppressed by the occupiers, local radicals and 'foreign terrorists'... Let me guess, they're not going to like that! Can you give me one concrete example of an improvement to an average Iraqi's life since their 'liberation' from Saddam? BTW, being 'free' can't be considered as a tangible benefit if the rest of their world is being ripped apart!

[turkster]

You seem to be suggesting that the US just dumped it's soldiers in airplanes, flew them over to shoot a few people and 'blow up some stuff'. Complete nonsense. Had the US wanted to turn Afg. or Iraq into 'car parks', it could have done a lot worse than it did. Some unwanted deaths will occur, I don't know that I've seen anything to show me that more have died that expected or is reasonable.

You say that the US has killed more innocents than Al Queda - where do you get your numbers? I don't know that anyone can know those numbers. Certainly not for Al Queda - as for Iraq and Saddam - he killed plenty of his own people - innocents - as well as foreign innocents in Kuwait and other areas.

Well that is basically what they are doing. That is war. I'm not saying it is an unacceptable way to fight a war but one shouldnt try and hide from the realities. You say no more unwanted deaths have occured than is expected or reasonable but i can tell you that the amount of people killed in the twin towers attack is nothing in comparison to 'reasonable' innocent casualties in situations like the Iraq war. I know no very large numbers have been killed all at once but they add up if you think about it.

As for Saddam yes I dont doubt he was worth getting rid of but as spikegifted says he had no provable involvement in the twin towers attack. There were no WMD and from an Iraqi point of view life is just as bad if not worse. A local violent militaristic ruler has been replaced by a foreign similarly militaristic one.
In the long run getting rid of Saddam is probably a good thing but seeing as the US put him there in the first place there is no reason to believe it will be any better this time.

In the meantime the West has managed to enrage many muslims and drive them towards militant religious groups which is utterly unproductive.

I think it is important for us in the West to try and come to terms with the kind of feelings that Wars generate. As soon as your family and friends are being killed all rationality goes out the window. This breeds anger and helps the recruitment to radical religious grroups. In a situation where those people have very little ability to fight back it is easy to imagine what feelings are generated. These is the kind of thing that spawns suicide bombers etc. To them this is probably their only chance to touch the 'enemy'.

The US havnt been in a situation where their homeland has been under threat since the 19th century. They have no understanding of what it is really like to be at war. They have nothing to fear, they have the biggest military, biggest economy then are surprised when they annoy a few people in the process of so called 'retaliation'.

I am sure that these terrorists are not the easiest people to talk peace into and possibly thay do need to be beaten by force but seeing as the US has deployed great force and hasn't made any great impact on them maybe its time to try and find the root cause of the problem.

[DaBeeeenster]

Depends on how you define evil I suppose. Certainly there are people of poor moral fiber all over the world, yet I think it is fair to say that due to the militant Islamic mindset there are more people in those countries who want to kill 'innocents', perform terrorist acts, and basically bring down the west. They've quite openly said many times, that at the very least they want to impose Islamic Sharia law upon the whole world. Something that doesn't find a comparison in the west.

What?

You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.

That was Bush at his most recent press conference.

Now, if that's not a comparison, I dont know what is.

Oh, and BTW, when he says "freedom" he is actually talking about laissez faire market capitalism. That's what he is fighting for at the moment.

[DaBeeeenster]

You seem to be suggesting that the US just dumped it's soldiers in airplanes, flew them over to shoot a few people and 'blow up some stuff'. Complete nonsense. Had the US wanted to turn Afg. or Iraq into 'car parks', it could have done a lot worse than it did. Some unwanted deaths will occur, I don't know that I've seen anything to show me that more have died that expected or is reasonable.

You say that the US has killed more innocents than Al Queda - where do you get your numbers? I don't know that anyone can know those numbers. Certainly not for Al Queda - as for Iraq and Saddam - he killed plenty of his own people - innocents - as well as foreign innocents in Kuwait and other areas.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Current minimum/maximum death toll in Iraq: between 8930 to 10781

I agree that the US could have been a lot more ruthless; they could have treated Iraq and Afghanistan in the same manner they treated Vietnam and Cambodia. Thankfully they did not. Nevertheless, it's still a gruesomely high death toll, and it is rising rapidly.

Imposing our western values? Which western values would they be? In Afg. it was about brekaing up the terrorist networks and getting to those responsible for 9/11. In Iraq it was about WMD, terrorist support, and broken agreements (with the UN no less!). Taking out a brutal, sick dictator whose people suffered was an added bonus.

Bush IS on a mission to "save" the rest of the world and show them the way of "freedom" and "democracy". If you watched his latest press conference, or if you have read extracts from Bob Woodwards (White House endorsed) book, that is made perfectly clear. One of the things that he manages to be perfectly lucid about is this very point. He is "told by God" that that is his purpose in life. I am fairly certain that he truly and honestly believes it.

War has never been something you could wholly describe as 'civilised'. It involves killing people and destroying things. Defending your own country might not always be pleasant or 'civilised' but it is necessary.

I think a lot of people need to realise that you can't always talk your way through problems. Some people are just unreasonable.

If you would like to construct a justification for invading Iraq based on domestic US security reasons, I'd be delighted to hear it.

[spikegifted]

Some people are just unreasonable.

I nearly missed that... That sounds just like George W. Bush!