Terrorism: Here to Stay? [Archive]

Cpt_Fluffy

19-Nov-2003, 20:34

I think the point is, we've totally ignored terrorists for most of our lives and recently they've become "the big thing" in news reporting yet they've been there all along.

Those of you from London will recall all the terrorist attacks/warnings experienced in the run up to the Good Friday agreement being signed but yet, despite the actual and real threat we largely carried on regardless, but now Al'Qaeda are in the frame we fear their attacks all over the place despite (I don't think) a major incident having taken place in Britain yet. Are we being rational suddenly fearing this phenomena ?

The other question raised is surely one of wording. Why do we cal such acts "terrorism" ? It's simply direct political action, one step beyond what Greenpeace are doing on a daily basis, it's only that we don't believe/want to believe in what the perpetraters (sp?) stand for. As the poster mentions, an early example would be Guy Fawkes, a man who believed the King had too much power and wished to blow him up at the state opening of Parliament; Guy Fawkes was beheaded for this. Nowadays, we've adopted much legislation to control the role of the monarchy which one can fairly jump to say that Guy Fawkes views were correct, yet still he's a terrorist.

At the end of the day, we don't physically consent to the political system we are born into, we have no choice, we just have this 'democracy' forced upon us. And how can we change things, a democratic election will never see radical change so some people are left in a political void (the far right and the communists specifically): whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion but surely, those left out of the political loop are going to represent themselves somehow, and this terrorism is just about the only option they have.

Solutions ? Something has to change in the system, globalisation of markets is leading to the West trying to impose it's homogenous political system onto all the Middle East/Third World countries we can find and it's simply alienating the citizens of these places. We aren't necassarily 'enlightening' them to the way of 'democracy', we're more forcing it on them. We need to rethink our global relations, and definately see non-Western countries as something more than cheap labour sources or crazy despots.

Edit: I wrote "Far East" instead of "Middle East"... useless wandering mind... now fixed :D

EvilGrin

19-Nov-2003, 23:13

now Al'Qaeda are in the frame we fear their attacks all over the place despite (I don't think) a major incident having taken place in Britain yet. Are we being rational suddenly fearing this phenomena ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the exact effect terrorists want to cause?

The other question raised is surely one of wording. Why do we cal such acts "terrorism" ? It's simply direct political action, one step beyond what Greenpeace are doing on a daily basis, it's only that we don't believe/want to believe in what the perpetraters (sp?) stand for.

Indeed, is the opposite end of the scale to writing letters to your MP and going on protest marches but they all aim for the same goal. To put pressure on the government to help their paticular cause.

Sonic Samurai

20-Nov-2003, 00:13

the difference is that the bible doesn't tell catholics to eradicate all other religions from the face of the earth. the qu'ran does.

the islamic extremists are one of the very few factions on the earth dumb enough, and wealthy enough, to use a black market nuke in a terrorist attack.

Cpt_Fluffy

20-Nov-2003, 00:43

now Al'Qaeda are in the frame we fear their attacks all over the place despite (I don't think) a major incident having taken place in Britain yet. Are we being rational suddenly fearing this phenomena ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the exact effect terrorists want to cause?

well, the key word was "suddenly". I mean, we didn't care before, but now we do, terrorism as a thing is not new, just in this current context.

]the difference is that the bible doesn't tell catholics to eradicate all other religions from the face of the earth. the qu'ran does

Well, the IRA don't read the qu'ran (as far as I know), the Basque separatist movement don't read the qu'ran so I don't think we can blame Islam for terrorism.

Sonic Samurai

20-Nov-2003, 08:16

Well, the IRA don't read the qu'ran (as far as I know), the Basque separatist movement don't read the qu'ran so I don't think we can blame Islam for terrorism.

don't be a silly bear. nobody is suggesting that islam is responsible for terrorism, the simple fact is that the islamic terrorists hold westerners' lives in much less regard than our indigenous gangs of morons i.e. terrorists.

Paranoid

20-Nov-2003, 16:36

]the difference is that the bible doesn't tell catholics to eradicate all other religions from the face of the earth. the qu'ran does.

That is totally wrong m8 :/.

The way i see it that bible and the qu'ran do not preach violence/destruction/terrorism, but u get the nut cases that interpret whats written in the books in the wrong way. For example, certain christians did it during the crusades and certain muslims are doing it now.

That why i say lets do away with religion altogether.

Bugstomper

20-Nov-2003, 17:21

The other question raised is surely one of wording. Why do we cal such acts "terrorism" ? It's simply direct political action, one step beyond what Greenpeace are doing on a daily basis, it's only that we don't believe/want to believe in what the perpetraters (sp?) stand for. As the poster mentions, an early example would be Guy Fawkes, a man who believed the King had too much power and wished to blow him up at the state opening of Parliament; Guy Fawkes was beheaded for this. Nowadays, we've adopted much legislation to control the role of the monarchy which one can fairly jump to say that Guy Fawkes views were correct, yet still he's a terrorist.

direct action on the green peace scale and terrorism are poles apart, thats like saying UN peace keepers are the same as Nazi SS execution squads just because they both have guns.

There is a difference between driving a boat in the way of something to annoy it and flying a plane into a building to kill or planting a bomb in a busy shopping centre and detonating it without warning.

Terrorism is an extreme version of direct action used by a minority to get their point across because they have failed to do it through peaceful means, or in some cases unable.

how can we change things, a democratic election will never see radical change so some people are left in a political void
<snip>
those left out of the political loop are going to represent themselves somehow, and this terrorism is just about the only option they have.

i disagree, in the vast majority of terrorism cases the perpetrators hold the extreme view that is not welcome by the majority, in which case they should just accept that this is the case and move on, otherwise they are just forcing their minority view on to the majority which cannot be right for any society to function correctly and to change accordingly.

Solutions ? Something has to change in the system, globalisation of markets is leading to the West trying to impose it's homogenous political system onto all the Far East/Third World countries we can find and it's simply alienating the citizens of these places. We aren't necassarily 'enlightening' them to the way of 'democracy', we're more forcing it on them. We need to rethink our global relations, and definately see non-Western countries as something more than cheap labour sources or crazy despots.

totally agree with all of that though, just differ on how we get to the same conclusion i guess. Extremism is blended into the mainstream when entire nations are ignored and exploited for the good of the richer nations, but they themselves then appear to exploit their poorer neighbours in the same fashion so it would appear to just be a case of human nature rather than any particular regional dogma sadly.

I personally think the only true solution is the one most people will not accept, that is a UN that is a genuine UN, acting as the worlds police force and no longer standing for dictators and oppressive regimes, allowing the entire world to experience democracy and education in whichever way is appropriate for the populations.

I just refuse to believe that people in the middle east don't want democracy, ancient cultures and different ways of doing things is bollocks, no human being likes being bossed around and imprisoned for thinking outside of the box. The difference lies imo in the way that democracy is done, pretty much every democracy in the world is slightly different to the next, so it should be left to them to decide how they want their democracy to be.

Bugstomper

20-Nov-2003, 17:25

i'm surprised to see you write something like that elrond, have you actually read the bit in the qu'ran where it says they must kill all non-muslims or was it a headline in the media ?

islam is actually the most tolerant of the worlds religions, acknowledging budha and jesus as existing unlike catholocism and judaism. Sadly a lot of the people that follow it are ill educated and as happened in the west with christianity the people are brainwashed into believing things that aren't said.

T3CH

20-Nov-2003, 18:15

Assholes will always use religion as an excuse to cause misery and suffering. Doesn't matter which religion, or which country, assholes are everywhere.

Cpt_Fluffy

20-Nov-2003, 18:39

Assholes will always use religion as an excuse to cause misery and suffering. Doesn't matter which religion, or which country, assholes are everywhere.

I don't think that this thread is about religious terrorism specifically, more terrorism in general. To me that includes the above mentioned Guy Fawkes plot (downfall of monarchy), religious terrorism, political terrorism (state boundaries such as the Tamil (sp?) Tigers were trying for, and the Basque separatists).

direct action on the green peace scale and terrorism are poles apart, thats like saying UN peace keepers are the same as Nazi SS execution squads just because they both have guns.

Fair on teh scale point though I'm not happy with the comparison, but I'm saying the basis of the actions of Greenpeace and al'qaeda are similar. Both parties surely feel unrepresented in the global political situation and presumably feel so strongly that actions must be taken, it's just a matter of personal ethics (on our part) that we frown on one and accept/condone the other... I think :o

in the vast majority of terrorism cases the perpetrators hold the extreme view that is not welcome by the majority, in which case they should just accept that this is the case and move on, otherwise they are just forcing their minority view on to the majority which cannot be right for any society to function correctly and to change accordingly.

Hypothetical Situation: A frontier town in the Wild West

After a recent spate of murders the local sheriff arrests a man and places him in jail until a trail can be arranged. Locals are sure that this man is the murderer and demand he be released so they can deal with him their way. In this case the majority want to bypass the trail and basically kill this man themselves, but would you say the majority were right? I think democracy is often misunderstood (by certain politicians usually) as a perfect political system, however, in some cases it may be. It just seems to me that if some people can get alienated so far from it that they take to blowing themselves/others up then somethings failed.

'tis an intriguing discussion really, as while I totally can't advocate the taking of life to put forward a political opinion, I really see that the blame must fall on the West and it's imperialistic view towards the Middle East

Hotel2Tango

20-Nov-2003, 19:31

Guy Fawkes was part of the whole protestant/catholic thing wasnt he? Our monarch was one, while he was the other.

Elrond the first 3 commandments in the bible deal with the christian god being Right and all the others Wrong. You could conceivably argue that wiping other religions off the face of the Earth is merely enforcing the first three commandments. Apart from the fact that converting people by what ever means is in their (the convertee's) best interests. Does it matter if you were forced to become christian on pain of death if your eternal soul has been saved?

I dont think islam does tolerate other religions. Jesus is an islamic prophet, but this doesnt mean they accept christianity. Not sure where buddha fits in.

Interesting articles on 'Religion's Guided Missiles' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html) by Richard Dawkins.

leady

20-Nov-2003, 19:43

The basis of the direct action of Greenpeace and that of terrorists is not the same though. There is a fundamental difference.

Greenpeaces direct action is an attempt to focus the public eye on the issues that they stand for and increase public support. Terrorism on the other whilst it will raise public awareness its main purpose is the coersion of the public and its representatives.

Question: Why do you think that its the west imperialistic influence on the middle east that causes terrorism? I would have thought that really the two countries that should be held up for this are France and the UK. I stand by the belief that it mostly stems from jealousy personally.

~~ArdEnuff~~

20-Nov-2003, 20:24

Jealousy causes terorism? A little simplistic that, and somewhat offensive to the causes fought by some movements. I doubt the 'terrorists' fighting to reclaim their lands in Palestine are motivated by something as mudane as jealousy.

My belief is that in many cases terrorism is simply a result of a breakdown in the politcal process. When people feel they are not being heard or have nowhere else to go they resort to violence.
In a democracy, terrorism is deplorable. Sadly, in some political climates, it is probably the only way to get yourself heard.

Cheers.

Karmic

23-Nov-2003, 04:33

Terrorist organisations rely on people who are either fanatical or desperate.

The fanatical ones may inspire a few people to rise up if their cause is seen as just, but for the most part they require people who can see no other way to achieve their goals.

Whilst injustice exists on the scale of say Palestine for example, then terrorism will be a part of the lives of the Israelies.

Whilst wealthy nations support oppressive regiems it will be a part of the world.

Whil

mr_o

23-Nov-2003, 11:39

I see no point in religion in this day and age personaly and I think that without religion you would get rid of some of the people who blow themselves up.

however.

The mindset that these people have means that without religion you would lose a few but the hard core, the ones who "inspire" others, who think up the attack and follow thru with terrorist acts, will remain. they are the one who u have to remove or change if u were to rid the world of terrorism.
So how do u do it?
U kill them. they become martyrs.
More people take there place.
Buy them?
Ok give the people who are attacking u the means to do it more efficiently.
Educate them?
Probably the best bet. But how do u get these people to listen to you?
Negotiate?
great. Now anyone who wants to change something will threaten to blow something up.
Just my thoughts. glad im not the one tasked with sorting it all out.

Mind u we could just drug everyone in the world??

MALLET

23-Nov-2003, 12:37

or.
*high tech police state *cough*

Beef~

23-Nov-2003, 14:39

islam is actually the most tolerant of the worlds religions, acknowledging budha and jesus as existing unlike catholocism and judaism.

Interesting you say that. I don't believe that all religions are equally bad, I personally have no time for any of them, but there are some religions I personally believe are worse than others. I think thats true of most people. I've met people of all religions and generally they're cool but if you look at some of the rules and laws applied in the name of Islam, its pretty disgusting. I've never read the Qu'ran but there must be something in it about women covering themselves (never been a fan of those veils) and about jihad. I can't think of a single war that Buddhism has ever been the cause of and they've never launched a holy war. When you compare Buddhism to Islam, christianity the bottom line is that there is a difference in the religions. Poorly educated people were followers of both religions, people have tried to control the religion for personal gain yet look at the blood caused by the religions, I think that there is more than just the social surroundings of religions that cause its aggerssiveness. I think that part of the blame has to be put upon the religion itself and its "teachings".

mr_o

23-Nov-2003, 15:24

good points. but its all down to the magical thing called.....Interprotation. In esscence the Qu'ran and the Bible are the same. its just the origional interprotation that casued the difference now.
Jihad was a, i think, a holy war. But these terroists who claim there doing it for a higher purpose basically nick the idea.
its not a higher purpose.
its someone trying to get there voice heard using any means possible.

Poor education?
spot on. if people had education and access to information, then, they might be able to make up there own mind rather than the rantings of some utter nutter.

Buddism i have to admit is the religion ,if i was told tommor i had to pick, i would pick. I like how its err's more to personal enlightenment than appeasing some architypal father figure.

Sorry. another wee rant there :E

Bugstomper

23-Nov-2003, 21:09

i agree with what you're saying beef, what i meant by tolerant was in respect to what someone else said about all muslims wanting to kill anyone not one. I should have added a 'probably' in there somewhere.

I think in respect to budhism, there has been bloodshed associated with it (india, burma, nepal throughout the last two centuries), not on the same scale as the others though because the numbers are reduced and i guess because it is passed on as more of a philosophy than a fact ?

Hotel2Tango

23-Nov-2003, 21:41

Christianity has holywars as well, they just dont have a word for it (apart from "Holy War").

Christianity is also pretty hostile to women. They were created second (out of Man), and are second class citizens throughout the bible. For instance they are considered dirty, and therefore arent allowed to be touched, during their period. FFS

Fundamentalist Islam is equally as bad as fundamentalist Christianity.

The Middle East was the most enlightened scientifically/mathmatically/etc place in the World in the Dark and Middle Ages while at the same time the church was throwing all Galileo and Copernicus type people into jail.

Bugstomper

24-Nov-2003, 12:58

I guess the bottom line is all the worlds major religions are based on peace and humanity but the people that end up in charge of them tend to stand for greed and power so they need to pervert the religious teachings to maintain their power.

As a religious person myself i often wonder what will happen to these people when they have to face god. (i'll add the "nothing because when you die you die there is no god" for you to save this forum 10 more posts)

Beef~

24-Nov-2003, 13:28

I always felt Bill Hicks (rip) had the right idea. Beliefs as long as they're not thrust on other people are cool and I think organized religion just gets in the way. Believe what you believe not what some 89 year old senile dribbling man whose supposed to be the designated representative of God who is so out of touch of reality tells you to.

Norfolk'n'Clue

24-Nov-2003, 13:34

As a religious person myself i often wonder what will happen to these people when they have to face god.

as a religious person myself, although not in the strict sense of following an established religion, I think you will be facing yourself. What I mean is, your soul will judge your actions in the life, and you yourself will see where you went wrong/right etc and how you may fix this.

Lungboy

24-Nov-2003, 13:47

Luggage

29-Nov-2003, 20:13

The other question raised is surely one of wording. Why do we cal such acts "terrorism" ? It's simply direct political action, one step beyond what Greenpeace are doing on a daily basis, it's only that we don't believe/want to believe in what the perpetraters (sp?) stand for.

that is quite accurate. i think you are right to say they are "poles apart", bugstomper, but that doesnt mean they arent both types of political action. this is the danger, and the lie: that "terrorists" be dehumanised by opposing governments. dehumanisation is precisely how people are able to kill other people; the governments of the coalition repeatedly call the terrorists "evil", and then go and do precisely the same things, often on an even larger scale. how many civilians died in the bombing of afghanistan and iraq? iraq alone has a minimum reported civlian death toll of 7918 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). and the terrorists of the World Trade Centre are called "evil"...they killed half that amount.

how to solve terrorism...well, thats the rub isnt it really :roll: one thing is for sure, you will never beat terrorism with force. that merely creates more martyrs on both sides, causing a vicious circle. seeing terrorism as a political action with a definite logical goal in mind is a serious step - although it requires people of questionable rationality to carry it out, it always has its leaders, who are quite, quite sane.

christianity DID and does have a word for holy war: Crusade.
violence involving buddhism has generally the buddhists being attacked rather than the attacker because harming various living things is opposed to buddhism (see monks setting themselves on fire etc).

I've never read the Qu'ran but there must be something in it about women covering themselves (never been a fan of those veils) and about jihad.

this is precisely why you SHOULD read it - context is essential. don't just believe the implications of other people telling you so. think about the whole of the bible - only a complete fundamentalist believes and acts upon every single word in it literally, and christianity has some of the worst regimes in history to its name who did just that. (example: Spanish Inquisition, Puritan governments in Britain, witch hunters etc etc)

margaret thatcher believed in "no negotiation" with terrorists: good friday agreement anyone? considering that the Ulster situation has been going on for a bloody long time, and the various politcal chaps who agree with the terrorists are being bound into a political system, im surprised the uk is still standing if what mr_o says is right.

people who want to change things by blowing things up tend only to turn to blowing things up out of despair of an answer in more usual channels - see pretty much all of the Middle East. most places that spawn terrorists have oppressed minorities or even oppressed nations: Ulster, Palestine, plus the various Middle Eastern states to name but a few. there is no way you can convince me that so many people blow themselves up while feeling there is another way to solve their grievance.

Whilst injustice exists on the scale of say Palestine for example, then terrorism will be a part of the lives of the Israelis.
precisely.

"jealousy" seems to be a bit of a crap way of explaining terrorism. "belief in fundamental justice" might be a better - what right did the european powers have to oppress the rest of the world? none. also the "jealousy" argument is generally changed somewhat to "they are jealous of our freedoms", which is the kind of bollocks that Jack Straw says (not that you have said it there).

I personally think the only true solution is the one most people will not accept, that is a UN that is a genuine UN, acting as the worlds police force and no longer standing for dictators and oppressive regimes, allowing the entire world to experience democracy and education in whichever way is appropriate for the populations.

well, yes, but you seem to imply there the use of force Bugstomper - and whats more, the use of force to force your political ideology (democracy) on other people. would that not make you a terrorist? one of the most important things you can realise is that democracy is merely another political system like totalitarianism or utopian socialism - they have good points, and they have bad points. democracy is a long way from perfect, and certainly shouldnt be forced on a country.

just refuse to believe that people in the middle east don't want democracy, ancient cultures and different ways of doing things is bollocks, no human being likes being bossed around and imprisoned for thinking outside of the box. The difference lies imo in the way that democracy is done, pretty much every democracy in the world is slightly different to the next, so it should be left to them to decide how they want their democracy to be.
am i the only one who sees the irony in that post?

edit: dammit, long post, last time i reply to a whole thread at once tbh :E

Bugstomper

30-Nov-2003, 13:40

well, yes, but you seem to imply there the use of force Bugstomper - and whats more, the use of force to force your political ideology (democracy) on other people. would that not make you a terrorist? one of the most important things you can realise is that democracy is merely another political system like totalitarianism or utopian socialism - they have good points, and they have bad points. democracy is a long way from perfect, and certainly shouldnt be forced on a country.

not at all, i'm saying you can't join the UN unless you are a free country, if you democratically elect a dictator then you're still a free country which is why i said there are differing forms of democracy. Dictators that have usurped power using military force or denial of fair elections that have been expressed as a will of the people should be removed from the UN and helped where possible.

am i the only one who sees the irony in that post?

nope, but maybe the others got what i meant so didn't feel the need to point out the obvious. There is inherent irony in anything, but the principle of saying that people don't want democracy because it's not in their culture is bollocks imo (note the 'opinion' part). There is not a country on this earth that wants to be dictated to by another, so why assume that people don't mind being dictated to ? again people make the assumption that democracy has to mean a parliament/senate and a president when they hear the word democracy, it doesn't have to and it doesn't in practice, not that many do have presidents and loads that do don't have a president with supreme executive powers like america. america is not democracy and democracy is not america.

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 13:51

As with most things, all religions have different groups that believe different things. Mainstream Islam is a tolerant religion, whereas fundamentalist Islam isn't. It's the same with Christianity, Judaism etc. For Elrond to say that the Qu'ran teaches muslims to wipe out other religions is total ignorant bullshit.
have you read it? if not, then i think the total ignorant bullshit is coming from your direction

From The Holy Quran:
003.021
Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom

009.029
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

008.038
Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
008.039
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

Orange

30-Nov-2003, 14:08

]
From The Holy Quran:
003.021
Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom

This verse is effectively saying that if someone kills a prophet of Islam unjustly, then you should kill them.

Any thoughts on how this squares with the old "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" of Christianity?

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 14:11

the "and slay .." is definitely optional

Orange

30-Nov-2003, 14:12

Why's it optional? Surely if it was optional they'd have used "or slay..."?

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 14:15

I dont think islam does tolerate other religions. Jesus is an islamic prophet, but this doesnt mean they accept christianity. Not sure where buddha fits in.

Interesting articles on 'Religion's Guided Missiles' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html) by Richard Dawkins.

for an insight into how Buddhism is tolerated under Islam, check out the destruction of the two Sacred Buddha statues in Afghanistan, as one of the last acts of the Taliban government.

Orange

30-Nov-2003, 14:17

]for an insight into how Buddhism is tolerated under Islam, check out the destruction of the two Sacred Buddha statues in Afghanistan, as one of the last acts of the Taliban government.

Or you could take a look at the Inquisition and ask yourself how tolerant Christianity is. Or maybe it'd be better to realise that the misappropriation of a religious faith by some doesn't imply that they're following that faith as it was intended.

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 14:20

Why's it optional? Surely if it was optional they'd have used "or slay..."?

interpretation, frankly.

i am not attempting to paint Islam as the big baddie of religions; far from it. christianity has and always will have that title. it's important to understant the cultural motives and subjective interpretation. the quran is still primarily followed by a largely illiterate, subsitence led people. it has to be clear cut and unambiguous because of that.

of course, it's just as contradictory as any other religious text. like i said, the main difference is that islam teaches its followers to erdaicate unbelievers, whereas the bible, and other such books, merely suggest it.

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 14:21

Orange

30-Nov-2003, 14:31

] like i said, the main difference is that islam teaches its followers to erdaicate unbelievers

But your quote teaches no such thing.

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 14:50

] like i said, the main difference is that islam teaches its followers to erdaicate unbelievers

But your quote teaches no such thing.

it does, you're just choosing to be naive.

008.055
To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers

005.033
Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country

047.035
Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them

hmmm ... sub-human? lower than beasts? sounds familiar to some political directions espoused in the 30's ...

simple fact of the matter is that the quran was written at a time when it's principal religious leader, mohammed, was trying to unite over 300 tribes, who were already engaged in a variety of conflicts with believers of other religions. much of its content directly applies to an espousal of thought relevant to that time. a lot is largely irrelevant. however, as it's "holy", it's all true, it's all relevant and it is the word of god, so people will act upon it.

Lungboy

30-Nov-2003, 17:08

]

it does, you're just choosing to be naive.

No mainstream Imam would ever espouse those beliefs. You seem to want to tarnish all Muslims as fundamentalists.

Luggage

30-Nov-2003, 19:41

i'm saying you can't join the UN unless you are a free country, if you democratically elect a dictator then you're still a free country which is why i said there are differing forms of democracy. Dictators that have usurped power using military force or denial of fair elections that have been expressed as a will of the people should be removed from the UN and helped where possible.
how are you planning on defining a "free" country? and how precisely do you "democratically elect a dictator"? Hitler was democratically elected dictator - the dictator bit came after he got democratically elected. so Hitler gets into the UN, but Castro doesn't. how precisely would you "help" countries that are not democratic? send the troops in to depose the "undemocratic" government, like the USA did with Allende in Chile? (for people who don't know, Allende was the democratically elected Communist leader of Chile for a very short period of time; pretty much as soon as he gained power, Pinochet took over in a CIA funded coup) and if you want dictators usurping power by denying fair elections, maybe the USA should be removed from the UN forthwith and "helped" ;)
There is inherent irony in anything
pardon me?
There is not a country on this earth that wants to be dictated to by another, so why assume that people don't mind being dictated to ?
you still miss the point. telling someone "you must have democracy" is dictating to people what they should have which is precisely what you say shouldn't be done. saying "you must have democracy but you choose what sort" is still dictating to them what they must have, even if it gives them an element of choice.
i agree that it is ridiculous to say the "cultural differences" argument, that certain nations dont "want" democracy themselves. what i don't agree with is your assumption that they DO want it, or that it should be forced upon them on pain of expulsion from the UN. if that occurred, the UN merely becomes a club for "democratic" nations, however you define that, against the rest.

you eloquently argue against a point i haven't made - that democracy can only be the British or American or French or whatever model. i never said that. and i certainly never said america = democracy. what i did say was considering your championing of self-determination, saying "you must have democracy in whatever form" is a contradictory (hence ironic) thing to say.

Sonic Samurai

30-Nov-2003, 20:52

Hitler wasn't actually elected to government. he was elected as a representative to the Reichstag, and Von Papen of the BVP, and later Von Hindenburg, established a coalition government with the NSDAP following that election in 1932.

The Von Papen and Von Sleicher coalitions aimed at keeping the NSDAP out of power failed miserably, and lasted only a few short months each. in the end, Von Papen formed the coalition with Hitler, and uncle Adolf was made Reich Chancellor on 30 Jan 1933.

Of course, the Reich Chancellor had executive powers during periods of martial law and national emergency ... the rest, as they say, is history.

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 01:21

Hitler wasn't actually elected to government. he was elected as a representative to the Reichstag

well Tony Blair isn't elected to government either: the Prime Minister is chosen by the monarch. you don't elect the Prime Minister, you elect your representative MP, and then if enough MPs support one MP, they are recommended to the palace.

so if Adolf isn't allowed into the UN under Bugstompers regime, then Tony Blair isn't either. Unless you define a "free" country in the way it has always been done - ie "chappies that we like, dontcherknow old boy". "chappies that we like" tend to have something we (ie America Britain et al) want, like control of oil rich Middle Eastern nations (Saudi Arabia), and be responsive to donations to help them do what "we" want. Osama and Saddam both started that way - Osama annoyed the Russians and Saddam annoyed the Iranians. when they start wanting other things, like other countries in the Middle East who we like (Kuwait), or the destruction of the Western infidel, "we" change our tune. We were fine as long as Saddam was fighting the Iran-Iraq war.
would Saudi Arabia make the grade? they don't have democracy but they have an absolutely marvellous system of government involving a royal family that is incredibly unpopular, propped up by Western donations. they most definitely are "chappies".

obviously this isnt what you have in mind for your UN.

Sonic Samurai

01-Dec-2003, 09:59

Paranoid

01-Dec-2003, 12:24

ooo didnt know that. Every day is a school day :D

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 12:29

i dont fail to understand at all. the fact that Hitler was in a coalition rather than a single party government is immaterial. are you saying that Germany as it is now isn't democratic, or any other country with a coalition government isnt? its different forms of democracy, as no doubt bugstomper would be keen to point out.

even though he gained power AFTER he was elected, which i mentioned a few posts ago, he was still an elected representative. the way he gained power wasn't through a military coup, or by perverting elections, it was by confusing an old man amongst other things, (such as lining the Reichstag with SA members during critical votes - but by then he was already in power :edit:albeit not total power)

Ventral

01-Dec-2003, 13:13

Sorry to go slightly off the current political debate but....

Any thoughts on how this squares with the old "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" of Christianity?

Technically that's Judaism. Christ taught to turn the other cheek and forgive others.

Carry on :)

Bugstomper

01-Dec-2003, 13:23

how are you planning on defining a "free" country?

lots of things i guess, akin to how the current UN rules are supposed to be applied to nations, this is an idealistic view and any realistic option that would come close to it would require many rules that i don't have the time or interest to sit down and write out just because you want to be pedantic. Thats what people at the UN would do, but the basic premise would have to be that the people of each country are free to choose their own government.

and how precisely do you "democratically elect a dictator"? Hitler was democratically elected dictator - the dictator bit came after he got democratically elected. so Hitler gets into the UN, but Castro doesn't.

you tick the "dictator" box ? hitler was a democratically elected member of parliament not an elected dictator so thats not the same thing is it.

how precisely would you "help" countries that are not democratic? send the troops in to depose the "undemocratic" government, like the USA did with Allende in Chile? (for people who don't know, Allende was the democratically elected Communist leader of Chile for a very short period of time; pretty much as soon as he gained power, Pinochet took over in a CIA funded coup) and if you want dictators usurping power by denying fair elections, maybe the USA should be removed from the UN forthwith and "helped" ;)

er no because what happened in chile goes against my UN's basic principle doesn't it, as i said nothing of the sort i can only assume there is some other issue you want to talk about and decided to use my post as a launchpad for it, very odd. The USA wouldn't be part of my UN unless it changed it's actions so yes, it should be removed forthwith and helped (if it's people wanted it)

you still miss the point. telling someone "you must have democracy" is dictating to people what they should have which is precisely what you say shouldn't be done. saying "you must have democracy but you choose what sort" is still dictating to them what they must have, even if it gives them an element of choice.
i agree that it is ridiculous to say the "cultural differences" argument, that certain nations dont "want" democracy themselves. what i don't agree with is your assumption that they DO want it, or that it should be forced upon them on pain of expulsion from the UN. if that occurred, the UN merely becomes a club for "democratic" nations, however you define that, against the rest.

I don't think i miss the point, i think you're choosing to argue a different point and be pedantic. Dictating to someone would be telling them to do what you want them to do or letting someone else do it, letting them choose for themselves is the opposite. My irony comment was agreeing with you that this is ironic because by telling someone to make a choice themselves you're still telling them to do something, but that is the irony inherent in anything (perhaps i should have written 'everything'). Better to dictate this one issue with someone than have every issue dictated to them imo.

I have no problem with the UN being a club for democratic nations, thats what it should be imo, if other countries want to have a dictatorship club thats up to them i guess.

Help could be in whatever form would help, sanctions, economic, military etc.

you eloquently argue against a point i haven't made - that democracy can only be the British or American or French or whatever model. i never said that. and i certainly never said america = democracy. what i did say was considering your championing of self-determination, saying "you must have democracy in whatever form" is a contradictory (hence ironic) thing to say.

i said it because your post implies it by assuming i mean to force western style democracy on everyone, if it didn't mean to imply it then fair enough, but either way it's just a general comment.

just to clarify, by democracy i mean at it's very base term, that each country is governed for and by the people in whatever form THEY choose.

I'm well aware this is an entirely fictional outcome for any UN organisation but this is a forum not parliament so i can come up with whatever ideas i like :)

Orange

01-Dec-2003, 13:55

Christ taught to turn the other cheek and forgive others.

Alternatively take a look at Romans 13:4

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. "

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 15:12

I have no problem with the UN being a club for democratic nations, thats what it should be imo, if other countries want to have a dictatorship club thats up to them i guess.
brilliant! roll on world war III/cold war 2. the point of the UN, as i see it, is inclusion. if you include as many nations as you can in a political process, you might just stop them from blowing the shit out of each other - a kind of larger Northern Ireland. considering that there are loads of wars going on all over the place, often between members of the UN, it probably isnt working too well. :|
you repeatedly refer to me as "pedantic" - if you state an opinion, you should be able to defend it in detail, otherwise its not an informed opinion its just a pie-in-the-sky ideal that hasnt been thought through.
see my post re: hitler and tony blair if you don't believe hitler was an elected dictator. he was a democratically elected dictator in the sense that he was democratically elected, and he became a dictator - which is what you have quoted me on ffs. now whos being "pedantic"? he seized power because he was better at politics, more lucky, whatever you want to call it, than everyone else. Blair has become the leader of the labour party through internal politics, and got elected because he promised a lot of things that he had little intention of delivering. Hitler became leader of the Nazis through internal politics (they thought he could deliver a speech well, and had some good ideas), got elected because he promised everything to all classes, and then gained power through internal politics again. gaining power isnt just winning an election, you have to do all sorts of dirty shit before you even get to the leadership of a party, let alone win an election.

im assuming your UNs basic principle is self-determination. in which case, you continually contradict it by wanting to force everyone to have a democracy.
Help could be in whatever form would help, sanctions, economic, military etc.
what is that if it is not forcing? and military "help" seems rather similar to Allende's problem, which you claim is against your UNs principles. contradiction again, sorry to be so "pedantic".
there is no other issue i want to talk about - i am not using your post as a "launchpad" for some sinister hidden agenda, i am replying to it with examples from history. how are you justifying your "helping" in whatever manner of countries that are not democratic? by saying that democracy is the best governmental system in whatever form the people choose. how is this different from Russia saying communism was the best economical/political ideology, or America saying capitalism was? answer: it isnt.
are you saying people of every nation should vote on what sort of government they want? is that the basis of your UN? if so, you are not living in reality if you think it could be done - this is my fundamental point, hence all the "pedantic" questions that you fail to answer. granted, detailed questions on form perhaps are beyond your scope, but you still seem to see as "pedantic" attention to detail, accurate english, and pointing out your own contradictorary stupidities. inform your opinions and then you might be able to answer detailed points. if you cant defend them and have to refer to attacks on them as "pedantry" then frankly you should not hold that opinion. you can indeed come up with what ideas you like - and anyone is allowed to say "thats bollocks, what about x,y,z?", which you should be able to answer. if you cant, and are rational, you should abandon your ideal, instead of dismissing their questioning as pedantic or an attempt to divert the issue.
my post doesnt imply "western style" democracy. it only mentions democracy. you took that reading of it - obviously you want to use my post as a launchpad for your own issues(!) :P this is sarcasm btw.
the people have never chosen the form they are governed in, they can only acquiesce once the decision has been taken. under your use of democracy, no nation on earth is a democracy: the British people didnt have a vote saying "lets have a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch, no written constitution, two chambers, one unelected..." etc etc. the American people didnt write the constitution. if that is pedantry, let it be: it is accurate.
it is not possible to boil down to a simple statement that you could put on a voting form all the governmental possibilities in a form that the wide electorate could understand. they could not choose their form of government through a vote. and if they could, the UN would not be able to enforce such elections under your UNs principle, unless you want to apply it to some situations and not to others - which it seems you DO want to do:

Better to dictate this one issue with someone than have every issue dictated to them imo.

what about countries that dont want democracy dictated to them? cultural values aside, what do you do if, when your UN invades, sanctions, cuts of diplomatic relations, whatever, a country, and they end up resisting by force your aggression in a popular uprising? does that count as the people speaking? or do they have to vote for the UN to count it?
you are spouting imperialist bollocks, imperialist for democracy to take over the earth because it is the best. this is just the same as "white mans burden" - "you people arent advanced enough to run your own countries, so we'll take over, we're doing you a favour really" was the original thesis, with you its "you people obviously want democracy, cos EVERYONE wants democracy, its the best, so we'll take over and install democracy, but we are letting you choose what type. arent we kind?"

Karmic

01-Dec-2003, 18:11

Nice posts there luggage, I though you presented your arguements in a informative relevent and most importantly, interesting way.

Sonic Samurai

01-Dec-2003, 18:43

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 19:18

yeah a lot of people miss a lot of stuff about old Adolph, bastard that he was.

thats why hes a good example (the reasons, not that ppl miss stuff :E) - he achieved power by subversion, but i might even go so far as to say all political leaders have to use some subversion to gain power.

Sonic Samurai

01-Dec-2003, 19:30

which is why politicians are not the people you would feel comfortable about running the country

Bugstomper

01-Dec-2003, 20:01

brilliant! roll on world war III/cold war 2. the point of the UN, as i see it, is inclusion. if you include as many nations as you can in a political process, you might just stop them from blowing the shit out of each other - a kind of larger Northern Ireland. considering that there are loads of wars going on all over the place, often between members of the UN, it probably isnt working too well. :|

but why deal with a government that doesn't have the peoples mandate to be there ? this hasn't really done anything to stop wars in the past, the UN played little part in stopping the cold war and has done very little to prevent or control any wars since it's inception, the only people that tend to talk in it are the ones that aren't involved it seems.

you repeatedly refer to me as "pedantic" - if you state an opinion, you should be able to defend it in detail, otherwise its not an informed opinion its just a pie-in-the-sky ideal that hasnt been thought through.

but thats exactly what it is meant to be... you're being pedantic by choosing not to read the principle of my post but instead picking out the exact meanings of each and every word and implication.

see my post re: hitler and tony blair if you don't believe hitler was an elected dictator. he was a democratically elected dictator in the sense that he was democratically elected, and he became a dictator - which is what you have quoted me on ffs. now whos being "pedantic"?

but there is a fundamental difference between the two things, if you elect a dictator you elect a dictator, if you elect a representative who then usurps power and becomes a dictator then it's different. Tony blair is not a dictator in the principle of my post because he is an elected representative, again just being pedantic over the term dictator.

what is that if it is not forcing? and military "help" seems rather similar to Allende's problem, which you claim is against your UNs principles. contradiction again, sorry to be so "pedantic".

how so ? democractically elected government interefered with by another for it's own gain (chile,usa) or dictator removed for democracy of some kind determined by the people of whatever country that may be, there is no contradiction as they're poles apart.

there is no other issue i want to talk about - i am not using your post as a "launchpad" for some sinister hidden agenda, i am replying to it with examples from history.

yeah but with examples that are nothing to do with what i was talking about, how is a democratic government being replaced with an american stooge related except in the sense that it supports my position that this shouldn't be allowed to happen, but you've used it as an example of why my position is wrong ? which makes no sense other than to bring up some issue for the sake of it.

how are you justifying your "helping" in whatever manner of countries that are not democratic? by saying that democracy is the best governmental system in whatever form the people choose. how is this different from Russia saying communism was the best economical/political ideology, or America saying capitalism was? answer: it isnt.

see you're trying to argue like i said any different, which clearly shows you didn't bother to read my posts or couldn't understand them, i've said numerous times it's an IDEAL, which means just that. I don't run a country and i don't run the UN, just because i think dictatorships are wrong doesn't mean anyone else cares or would ever consider doing anything about it but there is no harm in having an ideal that people could choose their own governments and be given that choice as a basic human right.

are you saying people of every nation should vote on what sort of government they want? is that the basis of your UN? if so, you are not living in reality if you think it could be done

yes, yes and yes.

- this is my fundamental point, hence all the "pedantic" questions that you fail to answer. granted, detailed questions on form perhaps are beyond your scope, but you still seem to see as "pedantic" attention to detail, accurate english, and pointing out your own contradictorary stupidities.

no i see as pedantic the fact that you're picking out the wrong things or answering and posing questions that have no relevance to what i said, clearly this is my fault for not putting it in bigger letters that it was an ideal and that i don't work for the UN.

inform your opinions and then you might be able to answer detailed points. if you cant defend them and have to refer to attacks on them as "pedantry" then frankly you should not hold that opinion. you can indeed come up with what ideas you like - and anyone is allowed to say "thats bollocks, what about x,y,z?", which you should be able to answer. if you cant, and are rational, you should abandon your ideal, instead of dismissing their questioning as pedantic or an attempt to divert the issue.

but they're not opinions in the style of "i think the government is doing X because of Y" they're just opinions of the "i wonder if Z" which is what you have failed to grasp as you try and tear apart what i say like it's an essay question and must be weighed up with detailed checks and balances of each point, it's not and it doesn't.

under your use of democracy, no nation on earth is a democracy: the British people didnt have a vote saying "lets have a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch, no written constitution, two chambers, one unelected..." etc etc. the American people didnt write the
constitution. if that is pedantry, let it be: it is accurate.

that is what i mean by pedantry, you can keep on going to however many levels of a word you like, you didn't see it the first time, i clarified the level i meant and you still prefer to see beyond it, not much i can do if you're unwilling to listen.

it is not possible to boil down to a simple statement that you could put on a voting form all the governmental possibilities in a form that the wide electorate could understand. they could not choose their form of government through a vote. and if they could, the UN would not be able to enforce such elections under your UNs principle, unless you want to apply it to some situations and not to others - which it seems you DO want to do:

why not ? that is how actual governments work, people get voted in, those people then change the way the government works with the policies they were voted in with, it's the same idea in principle.

what about countries that dont want democracy dictated to them? cultural values aside, what do you do if, when your UN invades, sanctions, cuts of diplomatic relations, whatever, a country, and they end up resisting by force your aggression in a popular uprising? does that count as the people speaking? or do they have to vote for the UN to count it?

well if it was a popular uprising then they would be for the same thing, being ruled by themselves, can't say i've heard of many popular uprisings that support a dictator that they don't want, so there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

you are spouting imperialist bollocks, imperialist for democracy to take over the earth because it is the best. this is just the same as "white mans burden" - "you people arent advanced enough to run your own countries, so we'll take over, we're doing you a favour really" was the original thesis, with you its "you people obviously want democracy, cos EVERYONE wants democracy, its the best, so we'll take over and install democracy, but we are letting you choose what type. arent we kind?"

so you're against people choosing their own form of government ? within the limitations of practicality, if you insist on making an ideal into a practical possibility. In my clearly stupid and uninformed opinion it's better to have a country that is run by the people in some way, shape or form than to have them under the heel of a dictator that they have no say in and cannot remove.

I cannot back up a dream with facts, figures and examples because by it's very nature it isn't possible, in the same way people wish there was no more war etc.. the only thing i can do is make a very loose statement that i would like a UN where all the members in it represented their people, if you can't accept that and just ignore it as wishful thinking then thats your problem not mine at the end of the day.

Kick

01-Dec-2003, 20:24

Stew Foo you Stupids

The Real Rod Hull

01-Dec-2003, 20:25

Look just shut the fuck up you mentally deficient fucktard.

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 20:28

long post, read the first bits after my quotes and you are still on about "pedantry", so theres no bloody point in posting any more on this. continually calling me pedantic is merely a way of avoiding dealing with the issues and problems with your ideal im raising.

you are being bloody stupid: Allende was removed, and the justification was that he was a Communist. If you remove someone else with your UN, the justification would be that he was "undemocratic".

you are saying "i wonder if" - i am saying "if that occurred what about this?" and then you call it pedantry.

and briefly scrolling up to see the end of the post, apparently im anti-self determination.

i really cannot be arsed any more.

Bugstomper

01-Dec-2003, 20:40

it's not a way of avoiding the issues, you're making an issue out of something that isn't there in the first place just for the sake of saying something from all i can see.

why am i being stupid for disagreeing with you, you're saying my UN would remove him because he was voted in but i've said that my fictional UN wouldn't for the fact that he was elected in so his chosen form of 'democracy' doesn't matter so they're totally different cases. I can't come up with an example for my ideal case because there aren't any, thats the problem.

I can't argue on the detailed intracacies of any of the rules because there aren't any, i'd have to write out an entire constitution for my UN in order to argue over points of history and precedents set, the only thing i can say is that in my ideal case every member would be there because their people chose them to be, if that principle is stupid and ill thought out then thats really sad for the world imo, but thats all it is, opinion.

Luggage

01-Dec-2003, 20:51

christ, you even say in your post "yes it is an unworkable ideal". WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND IT THEN?! jesus.

you are stupid not for disagreeing with me, but for continually saying "well, you are just being pedantic" because i am asking "how would your ideal work? what about this? how would it deal with thus and so?". you are not rational if, when you find an ideal you have thought up (perhaps in an idle moment, it doesnt matter) doesnt work, continue to pursue it. dismissing refutations of it as pedantic is just nonsense.

and im done :E

Bugstomper

01-Dec-2003, 20:53

thats not what you asked though

Cpt_Fluffy

01-Dec-2003, 21:25

One person's view of an "ideal" is often not someone elses view of "ideal". It is that which causes it to be unworkable, not a failing of the original "ideal".

It is this simple fact that leads to the "happy medium" government we have in most places nowadays. You cannot argue against idealism on the point that it's unworkable. If it were undesirable, then you'd have a point, but I see very few political ideals that have ever been tried simply because everyone's view is different and by the time it gets utilised, it's been distorted.

Also, I fear this thread may have gone off-topic.

Squire

01-Dec-2003, 21:51

Down with Cpt Fluffy !

Dogma

01-Dec-2003, 22:04

I havent read the whole thread cos i cant be assed.
But i just reckon as long as everyone had different opinions and are willing to make them known in a harmful way, Terrorism is here to stay.

Cpt_Fluffy

01-Dec-2003, 23:42

Down with Cpt Fluffy !

and all who sail upon him !

MALLET

02-Dec-2003, 00:16

I havent read the whole thread cos i cant be assed.
But i just reckon as long as everyone had different opinions and are willing to make them known in a harmful way, Terrorism is here to stay.

until it becomes like 1984 :)

Luggage

02-Dec-2003, 01:09

yes fluffy, but you actually have to incorporate some of the other guys ideas. you have to say "oh i hadnt thought of that", or "yes, that might happen but we could get around it with such a thing", rather than just dismiss critics as pedants.

Bugstomper

02-Dec-2003, 09:47

ok i don't want to keep going over this but i explained why i said it's pedantic and also answered your points despite them being what i see as pedantic, or overly literal use of a word if pedantic sounds like an attack.

an example of how i read your posts would be if i was talking about a film:

me: i thought the film was very dark

you: but dark means the absence of light, but the whole point of a film is that it's medium is light and therefore you can't possibly say that the film is dark because by it's very nature it's not dark at all. This is a stupid and ill thought out comment to say and reminds me of the fact that BIG was a good comedy and is related to what you're saying because it was also made of light.

me: but thats not what i mean by dark, i don't mean it literally like the opposite of light.

you: I see, so you're incapable of denying that darkness is the lack of light and therefore no film can ever be dark or you wouldn't be able to see it in the first place, you're an idiot!

Anything you talked about that did relate to what i said i answered, anything that was irrelevant or in my opinion just being overly literal on a specific word (in this case 'democracy' and 'freedom') i pointed out why i thought it was so. If i just said "it's pedantic" then you'd have a point, but i backed up why I feel it's pedantic and missing the point.

anyway, whatever, i think you were being pedantic, you say you're not, you think i didn't answer your questions i think i did, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

back to the actual topic, there will probably be terrorism so long as there are humans and greed sadly.

Paranoid

02-Dec-2003, 11:59

:lol: @ first part of that post Bug :D

Luggage

02-Dec-2003, 14:02

i know what pedantic means ffs :P
lets boil it down, drawing a parallel:
you: wouldnt it be great if everyone lived on mars? then we wouldnt have terrorists
me: how would we breathe? where would the water come from? how would we get there?
you: i only meant it as an idle thought, i cant answer detailed questions like that. i only meant "live" in its most base sense. dont be so pedantic. how we get there is irrelavent.

and heres me token "terrorism" thought for the day: wouldnt it be great if we could mind control everyone in the world? then they could all give me mon...er.....stop terrorism....:E

Ventral

02-Dec-2003, 14:38

Why would you want them to give you money? Just ask for what you want and they'll give it to you..... "willingly" :E

If we take Al'Qaeda as an example. What does it stand for? What is its purpose? Why does it fight? If you can understand that, not the reasons that are given by the press, but the true reasons. Then you may begin to be able to work out how you can stop them.

Luggage

02-Dec-2003, 15:55

very good point ventral.

Ventral

02-Dec-2003, 16:11

Well it cuts out the middle man :E

Karmic

02-Dec-2003, 17:01

Yeah, but the USA needs "evil" to fight!

That way people don't stop to ask "why" because evil needs no reason, so why try and understand it!

Don't get me wrong I do think the people who fly planes into buildings (well the people who make people fly plan.......oh you get the idea) have serious issues, but its very hard iradicate these extremists by declaring "war" on them, infact that's probably what they want.

Looking at the paper today.... a new peace accord is being started in Israel... Sharon is up in arms about it (as he claims there is no one on the Palestinian side to talk to) so what does he do.....sends in the tanks killing three people! (1 kid shot in the head for throwing stones)

Whats he gonna achieve by this....well maybe he was trying to get the number of Palestinians killed last month up to 30, in which case he was only 1 short*, so 9/10 for effort. But most likely he knows that these numbers of dead (plus the dozens of arrests) will always encourage Hamas to launch another round of attacks, and so the circle continues.

*Over half of those killed fall into the elderly,young or female catagory.....

Bugstomper

02-Dec-2003, 18:21

do you think sharron has any interest in peace? he really does seem to do everything he can to stir up more trouble each time it looks like something good might appear.

whats in it for him to keep the conflict going? personally i think that his background is so entrenched in hatred for the palestinians that this is why he doesn't want peace, but does he have any other reasons that you know/think of ?

Even if you look america very cynically, you'd still have to wonder why they don't do anything of any note, if the americans were seen to force the israelis into freeing the palestinians then you'd think that the arab countries would warm to america a bit more, or at the very least become ambivalent towards them, which would only be good for american oil companies which is what most people feel the american government is only concerned with.

Jewish lobby is powerful, but you'd think the oil lobby was even more powerful monetarily so it would be in their better interests commercially to sort it out even if they really didn't care about the palestinians on a human level?

Beef~

02-Dec-2003, 18:35

The jewish lobby controls the media. Media influences public opinion and culture. Governments follow public opinion (usually).

You ask the average US citizen what he thinks is going on in Palestine. There was some kind of stupid statistic like 80% of those asked thought that Palestine was occupying Israeli land. At the moment most of the US are wary of arabs (terrorism) and for the last 30 years films, news reports, newspapers and government officials have been very pro-Israel (and to be fair it did start as a good idea). Finally though I think the US is getting dragged into actually sorting it out and not just ignoring it while hadning cash to the Israelis for military gear.

Ventral

02-Dec-2003, 19:18

The average US citizen thinks Great Britain is in England (seriously, a woman told her child that!) and that the United Kingdom is a country.

The only reason the US are doing something about Isreal is that when they gave the reasons for attacking Iraq, a lot of people shouted back "What about Isreal?"

Bugstomper

02-Dec-2003, 19:19

doesn't surprise me i guess, reading a book at the moment "Why do people hate america?" by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, some of the quotes in there from the american mainstream media, not even considered right wing or extremist beggar belief. Granted the nature of the book could have misquoted some but i looked a couple up and they weren't misquoted so i think it's reasonably unbiased.

Saddens me the way our media is going(gone) the same way though as the BBC feels the need to try and compete with ITV by having "kewl" news where 45 minutes is dedicated to beckhams latest hairstyle and 2minutes on the fact that the israelis have just mowed down another bus load of school children (not an actual event, just being fasicious, although wouldn't surprise me).

Hotel2Tango

02-Dec-2003, 23:57

Everyone: In english you are supposed to begin sentences with a capital letter. Like this. See? It helps to increase the readability of what you write.

I dont give a fuck about grammer or that kind of stuff, but some of these post are completely unreadable.

Luggage

03-Dec-2003, 01:10

Bugstomper - read that one, great book. It begins a bit dodgily....some time since I read it, can't remember why, but it gets pretty good. Loads of great info about the amazing scale of American military power and stuff like that, and then poses the question: Considering America is so amazingly ahead of every other nation on Earth, who the hell is it scared of to keep increasing its defence budget? Interesting stuff.

I won the top English Lit prize at my school (which is, btw, a grammar school in the heart of Southend, Teddy Taylors dead safe seat), so I went to Waterstones looking for the two books that were a mixture of controversial and interesting - one was that one, the other was "The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky, which really is very good.
Best thing was, it was Southend Councils odious mayor who gave them to me :E

Sparky

03-Dec-2003, 04:45

Saddens me the way our media is going(gone) the same way though as the BBC feels the need to try and compete with ITV by having "kewl" news where 45 minutes is dedicated to beckhams latest hairstyle and 2minutes on the fact that the israelis have just mowed down another bus load of school children (not an actual event, just being fasicious, although wouldn't surprise me).

I remember watching the news last week, and I do know that England's rugby win was a long time coming, and it's the biggest sports win in ages, but still... news went something like this:

England won the rugby world cup (Opening title "Winnaaaarz")
Here's some people in the pub cheering
Mr kicker man's mum went shopping instead of watching the match
Here's some clips from the match
Here's some more people cheering
Oh, and btw, there's been a coup in Georgia.

(The previous evening's news had been almost identical except without the coup bit)

Sparky

03-Dec-2003, 05:01

Considering America is so amazingly ahead of every other nation on Earth, who the hell is it scared of to keep increasing its defence budget? Interesting stuff.

Well - obviously it's so that when China's economy eventually catches up with Americas' in about 50 years or so and they have the option of huge military spending, America will be able to send in it's team of Mechs / EVAs to zap them - unless of course they can call in a japanese bloke to stop them in their tracks by muttering philosophical crap about instrumentality (hence confusing them all so they forget to attack).

That's my take on it :oP

Lungboy

03-Dec-2003, 10:17

As long as Israel keeps provoking Palastinian attacks, Sharron keeps his job. Me? A cynic? Also, wasn't Sharron a member of some Jewish underground paramilitary type thing, akin to Hamas, when he was a teenager? Not exactly the best bloke to have leading your country in current conditions.

mr_o

03-Dec-2003, 10:51

right ive cracked it. the problem is free will.
if people can make there own descision then they can make the wrong ones and there for I think I should be made Emperor of Earth and eventually The Solar System.

Your thoughts?

Bugstomper

03-Dec-2003, 11:53

I agree with sparky, well maybe not the mech/EVA bit but the jist of it being v china.

A lot of people suggest the only reason our government is finding the money for the two new aircraft carriers is so we have something to defend our offshore oil fields with, not the north sea but the ones we own elsewhere in arctic/antarctic waters (international treaties be damned), and also potentially help out america on attacks overseas (china, korea etc..).

I do think that the americans are just going through the first stages of an arms race with china, but ironically china have made no real outward aggressions or interest in anyone, they had to have their arms twisted to open their markets to foreigners and take any part on the world stage, it would seem to me that it was america that opened the eyes of the beast as it were.

I do think this all relates to terrorism so is on topic still, the americans seem to have it ingrained in their psyche that they always need an enemy as Karmic pointed out, at the moment that enemy is Islam but I don't personally think it's Islam itself thats the enemy just the fact that Islam is a convenient enemy, it could be the church of the holy goat for all they care.

It will change to china as soon as the cash cow gets too big for it's boots as far as the yanks are concerned.

(p.s hotel, sorry didn't notice i was doing it, i know i don't put my i's in capitals because i'm lazy but i hadn't noticed that about half of my first sentences don't start with a capital, but bizarrely all the second and subsequent ones do.. i'll try and get some typing skills :) )

Bugstomper

03-Dec-2003, 11:54

Forgot to add, mr_o has the best solution :E

/me bows

Lungboy

03-Dec-2003, 12:29

but ironically china have made no real outward aggressions or interest in anyone,

Ah yeah, but they are shifty little buggers. They probably have some fiendish plots up their sleeves.

Norfolk'n'Clue

03-Dec-2003, 12:41

Ah yeah, but they are shifty little buggers.

Care to support that?

Bugstomper

03-Dec-2003, 12:44

Well they want taiwan, hong kong and tibet and probably a number of other small areas to be fully integrated into china, but that's more of a cultural thing it seems than a desire to own territory or influence.

Then do influence places like vietnam and korea but they don't come across as overly interested in ruling them, if anything it seems more of a case of making sure no one else influences them. Have never taken a great deal of interest in them, just the general impression i get from the things i have read.

Bugstomper

03-Dec-2003, 12:45

That was a reply to lung rather than answering norfolks question, damn you and your inter-posting skill !

Lungboy

03-Dec-2003, 12:46

Good grief, do i really need to put a sodding smiley in every post just so people recognise a joke?

mr_o

03-Dec-2003, 12:57

where else do we have oil fields?
i honestly thought the North sea was our only oil?

I think we need china. People Like North Korea etc will stick two fingers up at america, europe etc but will watch what they say to china for instance.

Luggage

03-Dec-2003, 12:59

Norfolk'n'Clue

03-Dec-2003, 13:14

yeh, but the US is currently at full stretch militarily. If it keeps the 'standard' level of troops at tehir air bases etc, and an attack Iraq pushed to breaking point, how could they be expected to take on china? (should they want to)

Bugstomper

03-Dec-2003, 14:19

where else do we have oil fields?

I can't remember to be honest, there was a thing about it on the Janes website a couple of years ago when they were talking about the new carriers, apparantly we 'own' the rights for a load of deep sea fields and areas, something to do with some of the random islands we own dotted about the world, i'll have a look later see if i can find it.

Ventral

03-Dec-2003, 14:33

I'm sure we have some near Basra now :naughty:

Luggage

03-Dec-2003, 15:07

Fair point norfolk, there have been rumours of perhaps a need to reintroduce the draft in the USA if certain sets of events occur. I suppose its all very well having the capacity, and quite another thing getting it in all in one place etc.

Sonic Samurai

03-Dec-2003, 15:35

Read Bugstompers book, chaps :E

The theory is that "the US is more than two-and-a-half times larger than the militaries of the next 9 largest potential adversaries combined: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba."

The bit before that mentions the whole "Chinese threat", "Russian threat", "Cuban Threat", "axis of evil" dimension that Sparky developed. He's right when he says that the Chinese economy may catch up, and that if and when it does, it shouldnt matter too much because the Americans will still be militarily strongest by a massive stretch - current defence budget is somewhere around $400 billion :o

btw, sorry to ruin the end for you Bugstomper - it was teh butl0r that dunnit, reet? :E

more poweful, possibly (not definitely), but certainly not larger. US is good at power projection; the other main military superpowers have large indigenous forces but not the same abaility to project power. with the decline of the russian navy, their closest competitors fell away.

take a look at the current treaty-authorised ceilings on armament. Clicky (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/295/29508.htm).

Sparky

03-Dec-2003, 16:30

The bit before that mentions the whole "Chinese threat", "Russian threat", "Cuban Threat", "axis of evil" dimension that Sparky developed. He's right when he says that the Chinese economy may catch up, and that if and when it does, it shouldnt matter too much because the Americans will still be militarily strongest by a massive stretch - current defence budget is somewhere around $400 billion :o

Yes - the country with the second biggest defence budget is Russia @ ~ $65bn followed by China, France, Japan etc. The US has a budger that it at least 3.5x all of these other countries combined. I think it's merely doing the sensible thing when playing this game - press your advantage.

China could be a threat in the future, but by the time it catches up the difference will be too big. Russia is busy being huge but economically terrible, so unless they get their act together there's no problem there. Oh and.... America has just made sure that NATO takes president over any possible European Defense Force (which I'm sure they'll press to make sure it's almost toothless), so there's no threat there. There's also terrorists, but they are going out and trying to bomb the poorer countries where these people might choose to have a base of operations.

As for China, they might ruin it all for America by starting a conflict before they have a big enough advantage. America sure has a big advantage now, but their troops are spread out all over the place. The thing is that Taiwan passed a bill allowing referrendums to take place, and you can bet your ass that they'll have a referrendum next year saying "Hey ppl, should we become independent?"..... to which the people will vote "err, yes.", which China won't be too pleased about - and then there were the threats by Presi. Bush to China about Taiwan at the beginning of his presidency - i.e. America *will* defend Taiwan (whether or not they actually *do* is another matter).

There's my - little bit less Anime influenced take on things :oP

-Sparky

Luggage

03-Dec-2003, 18:06

Depends how you define larger I suppose elrond. Am I right in my interpretation of that link - that countries are limited by treaty on the number of certain units they can have, so that the USA's limit is lower than Germany, Russia etc? It all depends on who can reach their limit I suppose. The graphs below it (nice use of Excel :E) arent particularly clear - are the bars on figure five how much space the each have left in their quotas? Which means the Russians have 5000 tanks according to the MoD. I note that the MoD mistrust the Russian declaration but not the American :)
What would have been more helpful than a "headroom" graph is a graph showing comparative sizes of the forces straight up instead of making you extrapolate them :/ bloody civil service :E
The Agreement allows for this by introducing arrangements permitting states, within specified limits, to trade elements of their national and territorial ceiling entitlements with one another.
so theoretically a country that wants to gain some diplomatic favour with the US could decrease its ceiling and give the US the extra in a diplomatic quid pro quo (ie in exchange for aid or something). There are still limits on the extent to which this can be done though, so you are right about the US not being the largest in terms of potential numbers of conventional equipment, or even in actual numbers if the MoD are right and Ive interpreted that graph right.
Wouldnt it also depend on the type of tanks? If the Russians or the Ukrainians have thousands of tanks, but they were all made in World War II or something, and the Americans have 800 that are up-to-date, that would make a serious difference, assuming that modern tanks are more difficult to destroy than older ones.

Is it that the US has higher numbers of stuff like cruise missiles, cluster bombs and the like, stuff that takes out people at long range without need for large bodies of conventional forces?
I thought there was something about each cruise missile costing a tens of thousands of dollars - thatd explain where all the money was going from that defence budget.