Is terrorism Ok? (If the US is doing it?)

[cje1980]

Is this some kind of joke. I think just about everybody learned the concept of 2 wrongs don't make a right. The problem here is the 2 wrongs are not even remotely comparable. The Iranians are sending military personnel and arms to other countries to cause mayhem. Their wrongs are resulting in the deaths of countless people. The US's wrong is simply resulting in potential economic and political problems for the Iranians. If you can't see the difference here, you are a total loss.

Never said they were the same, simply pointing out that you cannot justify a wrong by pointing to the wrongs of others.

Seriously, didn't they teach people this kind of thing in grade school where ya'll came from?

There are few UN represented countries that I give a rats #$% about. The UN is a complete joke. Oil for food? Sex for food? Come on now. I once read about a wealthy owner of brothels in Eastern Europe. He said, upon being arrested, his biggest customers were UN officials. Same thing in Cambodia. UN officials were more busy getting laid then helping them establish elections and a peaceful democracy.

The reason the US continues to send more foreign aid to Israel than to any other country while vetoing every single UN resolution critical of Israel in any way (even when other countries are unanimously in favor) is because of the Zionist lobby: AIPAC, ZOA, WZO, etc.

 

[cje1980]

Well it equally frightens me when my fellow citizens would rather see their fellow citizens blown up by terrorists than have their government take any means necessary to fight and stop terrorism.

If you are ashamed of your fellow citizens why don't you go to Iran. I hear its nice over there and they supposedly have free healthcare. Crappy healthcare but its free. Saddam had free healthcare as well. I hear Cuba has a nice healthcare system as well. Too bad the rest of their country is in complete shambles. It is so nice that people raft 80 miles through the Gulf of Mexico to reach the US. Is is so funny. Everybody supposedly hates the US but at the same time everybody is dieing to get here. Go figure.

Just because people confess when "interrogated" by people using this method does not make them terrorists. When being tortured, most people will confess to anything to make it stop. It truly frightens me to see my fellow citizens agree with torturing people. It won't be long before the term "terrorist" means anyone who disagrees with the Government, and we are all subject to being "interrogated."

Then you don't truly think we need to win. Again this has been beaten to death. What terrorists label as "any means necessary" is different than what Americans label "any means necessary". Americans aren't targeting innocent civilians. They don't blow up buses or public buildings.

(And just so you know, I agree that we do need to win, just not by "whatever means available.")

 

[johnbt]

"At what point does saber rattling become terrorism?"

The posted definition says "violent act", so the answer is never.

John

 

[Warbow]

cje1980 wrote:

Then you don't truly think we need to win. Again this has been beaten to death. What terrorists label as "any means necessary" is different than what Americans label "any means necessary". Americans aren't targeting innocent civilians. They don't blow up buses or public buildings.

Americans don't have a homogeneous opinion, so it's not necessarily different. I've read and heard Americans say we need to win by any means necessary before. They then went on to qualify what they meant by that, and they explained that we should carpet bomb cities in the ME until their governments capitulate. Some even said that we need to use nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina -- yes, they were being completely serious.

So if that's not what invssgt meant by his statement, my mistake. However, everyone else that I've seen use the "any means" thing explained that they meant exactly that.

 

[Redworm]

Sorry...but I go with Ann Coulter on this one.....if it happens in a frat house hazing it is not torture.

Really? So I guess these acts all occur in a frat house?

* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.

Perhaps the first one but guess what: people join frats of their own volition.

Because I assumed stuff like this goes on ALL the time

And that you don't have a problem with it is frightening. That some people are ok with our government doing these kinds of things that lead directly to attacks like 9/11 is disturbing.

 

[Redworm]

We have a tyrannical government thats been either actively attacking us or funding those who do since at least the 1970's

You think maybe that has something to do with our fraking around with their democratically elected government a decade or so prior to that?

 

[Redworm]

The US's wrong is simply resulting in potential economic and political problems for the Iranians. If you can't see the difference here, you are a total loss.

So it doesn't matter that those economic and political problems are likely to result in the deaths - via starvation, lack of medical care or though violence growing due to a lack of a stable government - of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Or are we living in some fantasy world where economic problems only affect government leaders?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Well it equally frightens me when my fellow citizens would rather see their fellow citizens blown up by terrorists than have their government take any means necessary to fight and stop terrorism.

I find the words "any means necessary" to be all too broad for my tastes. Because in both the past and present some things have been deemed necessary that are downright inhuman.

If you are ashamed of your fellow citizens why don't you go to Iran. I hear its nice over there and they supposedly have free healthcare. Crappy healthcare but its free. Saddam had free healthcare as well. I hear Cuba has a nice healthcare system as well. Too bad the rest of their country is in complete shambles. It is so nice that people raft 80 miles through the Gulf of Mexico to reach the US. Is is so funny. Everybody supposedly hates the US but at the same time everybody is dieing to get here. Go figure.

Are you trying to equate free healthcare with crappy places to live? Because it almost sounds that way. So I give you Canada. They have free healthcare, and I've been to Victoria and it seemed much nicer than Havana or Tehran. Plenty of people want to immigrate there, as well...including people from here.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Of course not. But what you describe ain't "terrorism" as most people define that word.

But I'm sure the neocons think that a double standard is fine, just as Al Gonzales & pals think a double standard is fine on torture.


Boy oh boy am I happy that SteelCore has come here to add his voice of reason to JC, Redworm, SecDef, et al - I thank you sir!!!

 

[Musketeer]

Counterfeiting is not terrorism. The CIA for years conducted operations against the USSR with the goal of destabilizing their sytstem and forcing change. They waged economic war, smuggled in Bibles and conducted numerous other operations. Is that considerred terrorism?

Whe a group kidnaps people, beheads them on camera and orders a nation state to comply to their demands THAT is terrorism.

Simply working to destabilize and bring about change in a hostile regime is business as usual.

 

[Epyon]

Terrorism...

Is you government raping your rights for "freedom and security". It is your government wanting to track your every move in order to protect you from yourself. Think of this equation Patriot Act and the like + RealID and the like = good-bye United States of America. Americans MUST take precautions against bad government or be faced with two results... 1) Police state where people are too cowardly to fight back. 2) A civil war. Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but why does it feel like we're edging closer and closer to some sort of critical mass? Am I the only one feeling this way?


Epyon

 

[fisherman66]

No, you are not the only one feeling that way.

 

[cje1980]

Come on now. There is a mighty big difference between some Americans "wanting" the US to certain things and what the US government actually orders its soldiers to do. Some Americans may want to obliterate Iraq or Saudi Arabia but the US government would never authorize such an action. For all of those arguing about the "any means necessary" point. Put this in mind. The US could have already easily won the Iraq war if it actually fought with "any means necessary". Seriously grow up. The US has many more resources that they could use if they wanted to.

Americans don't have a homogeneous opinion, so it's not necessarily different. I've read and heard Americans say we need to win by any means necessary before. They then went on to qualify what they meant by that, and they explained that we should carpet bomb cities in the ME until their governments capitulate. Some even said that we need to use nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina -- yes, they were being completely serious.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Come on now. There is a mighty big difference between some Americans "wanting" the US to certain things and what the US government actually orders its soldiers to do. Some Americans may want to obliterate Iraq or Saudi Arabia but the US government would never authorize such an action. For all of those arguing about the "any means necessary" point. Put this in mind. The US could have already easily won the Iraq war if it actually fought with "any means necessary". Seriously grow up. The US has many more resources that they could use if they wanted to.

So if the US had simply brutalized the Iraqi people, then they'd have set up a stable democratic nation that likes us? I think your definition of "winning" must be different from our supposed original intent.

Also if you don't think the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were ordered to do the things they did by agents of the government, either explicitly or implicitly, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy. I put torture of innocent people under the list of "any means necessary" that are inhuman.

 

[cje1980]

There is no such thing as free health-care. Somebody is paying for it(the people). Canada has higher tax rates as well as higher unemployment. Canada may have free healthcare but the US has a more efficient economy as a whole. Only an idiot believes in "free health-care". It isn't and will never be free. How could it possibly be free? The government needs to subsidize it some-how, so in turn it taxes its citizens. Does paying almost 10% more in taxes than the US really mean its free. This just doesn't fly.

I'm not implying that all countries that offer "free" health-care are bad places to live just that believing that health-care is really free is silly. When living in countries such as Cuba or Iran, the average citizen is giving up huge opportunities that are available in the US. I'm only mentioning this because many leftists are always trying to claim that socialism works and that Cuba has a better system. Supposedly Cuba has a free health-care system but the life-expectancy is still lowers, and nearly the entire population lives in rampant poverty. Sure some countries may offer a better health-care system but the US has one hell of an economy and endless opportunities for those inclined to educate themselves and work hard.

Are you trying to equate free healthcare with crappy places to live? Because it almost sounds that way. So I give you Canada. They have free healthcare, and I've been to Victoria and it seemed much nicer than Havana or Tehran. Plenty of people want to immigrate there, as well...including people from here.

 

[cje1980]

Juan Carlos, your responses are completely incoherent. You wander all over the place. So apparently to you humiliating prisoners that were captured as enemy combatants in a prison is the same thing as US soldiers putting bombs on buses and blowing up Mosques while people are inside. You are one piece of work. By the way, what happened to those individuals that took part in the abuse at Abu Ghraib? They aren't in the US military anymore that is for sure. That is the difference. The US government doesn't tolerate that behavior and does not advocate such acts. That to me is key. The leaders of terrorists groups actually advocate cutting peoples' heads off and blowing up innocent civilians. There is no comparison.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Only an idiot believes in "free health-care".

Hey, wow, I've taken an economics class or few. I was using it as shorthand for "government subsidized healthcare," as I assumed you were as well. Since, you know, you used the term first. So, are you an idiot?

But yes, when you used two specifically crappy nations and talked about their government subsidized healthcare (happier? I'll expect you to type it out as well, sparkles) I assumed you were attempting to in some way link their crappiness to their free healthcare...or vice versa. There are plenty of places that offer some level or another of government subsidized healthcare that are perfectly good places to live, and I was just trying to point that out.

Juan Carlos, your responses are completely incoherent. You wander all over the place. So apparently to you humiliating prisoners that were captured as enemy combatants in a prison is the same thing as US soldiers putting bombs on buses and blowing up Mosques while people are inside. You are one piece of work.

I said that? I don't remember that. I'd say that putting prisoners in sexually degrading positions and smearing feces on them is probably a notch or two above blowing up mosques...but still way below the accepted level of behavior for civilized societies.

By the way, what happened to those individuals that took part in the abuse at Abu Ghraib? They aren't in the US military anymore that is for sure.

Why yes, I believe the lower level soldiers that took part did get the axe. But what of the civilians that partook? Either contractors (paid by the government) or agents from government agencies? Or do you think that the folks that were punished were at the highest levels involved?

That is the difference. The US government doesn't tolerate that behavior and does not advocate such acts.

Officially, maybe. Actually, it's surprising exactly what kind of behavior we officially (if not publicly) tolerate and advocate. See: extraordinary rendition.

That to me is key. The leaders of terrorists groups actually advocate cutting peoples' heads off and blowing up innocent civilians. There is no comparison.

Oh, there's a comparison. Grabbing somebody off the street, without any access to due process, then shipping him off secretly to a nation with more "harsh" interrogation techniques than we're willing to employ to have information extracted...all without worrying about any sort of judicial process to make sure they're guilty of anything or (in some cases) even the person you think they are...yeah, that can be compared to blowing up innocent civilians and cutting heads off.

Cutting heads off and blowing up civilians is worse. But not that much worse. See, comparison.

 

[Warbow]

cje1980 wrote:

Come on now. There is a mighty big difference between some Americans "wanting" the US to certain things and what the US government actually orders its soldiers to do. Some Americans may want to obliterate Iraq or Saudi Arabia but the US government would never authorize such an action. For all of those arguing about the "any means necessary" point.

Mmmkay, then. I guess I need to point this out. My first reply in this thread was to show the hypocrisy of the "any means necessary" crowd by illustrating that terrorists are of the same mindset. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I think it's actual US policy or that I "truly don't want to win."

(No offense to invssgt if he didn't mean what all of the others I've encountered mean when they use the that phrase.)

Put this in mind. The US could have already easily won the Iraq war if it actually fought with "any means necessary". Seriously grow up. The US has many more resources that they could use if they wanted to.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?

 

[STAGE 2]

And somewhere in cyberspace there's probably someone writing the same thing about "winning by any means necessary" in Arabic or Farsi. Of course, you'd label him a terrorist.

And rightfully so. By in large, a persons actions aren't necessarily determinative of whether what they are doing is just or not. There are of course exceptions, but im speaking in generalities here. If you were walking down the street and saw me kick some guy in the nuts and then slit his throat, you would think I was 1) crazy, 2) a murderer or 3) a combination of the 2. However if you found out that the guy had pulled a weapon and threatened my life you would think I was perfectly justified.

The only difference between myself and the man pulling the gun is our motivation. We both kill, but our reasons for it are completely different.

The same rationale applies to our current situation. While this isn't meant to condone anything and everything our government has done, we usually don't fool with friendly countries. Its only those nations that take a hostile stance towards us that we take aggressive stances with.

Thus, to sum it all up, no one would think any differently if I was fighting dirty in order to protect myself from an attacker. A shot to the pills, hooking, eye gouging, doesn't matter. Id probably get accolades for being effective, and rightfully so. Because I do these things that have been traditionally thought of as dirty fighting doesn't change anything because my goal and motivation is just.

The same applies to us as a nation. I'm not suggesting we start drilling kneecaps or anything of the kind, but neither do I think that what we do, whether torture or not, makes us the "same as them".

 

[Slugthrower]

If printing money at whim is equivalent to terrorism, then the Federal Reserve is a major contributor to that endeavor.


"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from
defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor
or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of
coin, credit and circulation."
John Adams

One day we will awaken from the drunken stupor that has taken hold of the people and their incessant need for instant personal gratification. All things that are not earned are never kept. Only from the sweat of our own brow shall we trully profit.