Understanding terrorism

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Did I say anything against the Navy?

Joke, dear, joke.

That's what the smiley and the mention of a slap fight were to indicate.

I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow!

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow!

I've just been so sensitive today. Just a heavy day I guess.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow!

You should simply say what you mean. Then there aren't any misinterpretations--which can be deadly. "you said my mother wore what?! " that type of thing.


Oh, and by the way, what did you say about my mother..?
Wench.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I don't think you're looking into it deeply enough, Happy. To make Islamoterrorism go extinct, you need to eliminate all of its breeding grounds, which means all of the non-democracies in the Arabic-speaking world, and then further, in all the Islamic world.

Actually, the terrorist breeding-grounds are every country in the world. Pre-war Iraq wasn't much (if at all) worse than average in that regard, and it was lower than pretty much all of its neighbors.

Monkey, that's a damned dishonest spin to put on our effort to fight against tyrannies. Just because we temporarily fail to fight against one tyrant does not make illegitimate removing and hanging another, and you know that perfectly well.

Did I say anything about temporarily failing to fight? The US has actively supported tyrannies and terrorist organization both publically and behind the scenes for decades.

Level with me, can't you? Isn't this less because its being done at all than it is because it's a Republican doing it?

No.

The Democrats haven't presented a President capable of getting this done since Johnson, and he blew it. The record of the last two generations shows the Republicans, on getting this kind of chance, don't blow it. Who's got the winning record here?

Clinton, I guess, by your definition. Bush I left Saddam in power, and the current Bush is putting the Sharia Law people in power in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war Clinton was involved in was successful, had no US casualties, and didn't trash the country involved.

Originally Posted by Brianna

Oh, and by the way, what did you say about my mother..?
Wench.

Yer Mamma wears combat boots!

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

So I've read pretty much most of te posts in this thread and have concluded that y'all really haven't concluded much, other than terrorists are bad, m'kay?

On understanding terrorists... Why complicate it by assuming their justifications and then poking holes in them? There are no justifications, there are no good reasons to perpetrate suicide bombings and inflicting injury, mayhem, and death on innocent civilians. Trying to involve U.S. policy in the cause and effect of terrorism is just plain stupid. It shouldn't matter if every 'Murican pissed on the Koran and called Allah a pig farker. There's really no rational, sane reason to do what these nut cases are doing.

Try understanding folks that target men, women, and children alike in their attacks. Can you honestly even begin to get your head around that? I sure can't and the first thing I feel is dispair when I even try. The next thing I feel is a desire to protect mine and myself from these folks, even if it means supporting military action, which is just so contrary to my character.

Ultimately, I think it is the goal of these terrorists to cause these mental disruptions and psychic traumas. It's one hell of a tactic and used only both folks I'd label as evil.

[Trilby]

kudos, Mouse. I agree. But now tw is going to regale us with some really convoluted shit about...well, you'll see.

[Bullitt]

Indeed, its allll about the details here sometimes

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

urbane guerrilla.

you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:

(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*

(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.

(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.

(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.

* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.

Man, Mr. Noodle, this is too true and a daily source of so much frustration for me. When the hell did folks get so dogmatic about their thinking? Personally, I attribute it to laziness. It seems to be easier to be a lock-step hater or even, for that matter, a lock-step ass-puppet for whatever Authority has to say. (Sorry, can I say 'ass-puppet?' I'm new and don't want to offend.) I'd love to know when everything became to black and white or, currently, red and blue.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Mr.Anon.E.Mouse

(Sorry, can I say 'ass-puppet?' I'm new and don't want to offend.)

Don't worry about offending anyone here.. its a daily thing. Just as long as you can back up what you say, or just fart and leave like Bruce suggests

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.

So tell us how democracy is flourishing in Vietnam. We literally used every military resource (except nuclear) to democratize a country that did not want nor would fight for democracy. Instead they wanted independence. So clearly your vision of liberty is proven by Vietnam.

Clearly democracy is flourishing in Haiti where democracy is also being forced upon the nation. And Somalia?

By now one can appreciate why enlisted men are both dumb and directed. We need such cannon fodder in the front lines. But the lessons of history are lost on these militaristic types. No problem. Knowing why would only keep them from grasping their enlisted man job.

A nation cannot have liberty and democracy forced upon it. That nation must earn those rights. Only fools still claim that the US can force democracy on nations such as in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fools who fail to first learn basic history or even the purpose of war.

Fools said we would save Vietnam when it did not want to be saved. And so those fools even lied to us until they were exposed by the Pentagon Papers. Urbane Guerrilla talks just like Gen William Westmoreland. He would have fit perfectly in late 1960s America - when America foolishly thought we could force democracy and liberty on other nations. When smarter people said Westmoreland, et al were wrong, Urbane Guerrilla types would then insult the better educated. Somehow insults and claims of military service are a replacement for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Deja Vue.

I once thought Americans would learn from the mistakes of Vietnam. Apparently enlisted men need not learn history. They just know better. It explains why enlisted men are not officers. Officers are now required to learn the lessons of history.

[lookout123]

It explains why enlisted men are not officers. Officers are now required to learn the lessons of history.

good thing tw never stoops to insulting people. UG is ridiculous in his assumptions and arguments, but tw - you know this is an asinine statement.

1) a 12 week "officer candidate school" is all that separates the enlisted from the officers in many cases when you acknowledge that a very high percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's and many have advanced degrees.

2) If officers are required to learn the lessons of history and officers are the decision makers, how could the mistake of repeating history be made?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

"We (the USA?) never gave them a chance"? Sorry, Rich, that was all Saddam's doing, as you know perfectly well. Now why in Hell didn't you have the honesty to so state?

"Ask the parents of a dead child"? Ask our dead soldiers' parents. You, Rich, will be surprised, indeed, shocked and awed, at the affirmative responses you will receive. If you have the moral courage to essay it.

My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.

You mean like these parents of soldiers?

You claim to have been in the Navy. You must remember your oath. I was never in uniform, but I also took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies'.

The 'Constitution of the United States', not the Constitution of Iraq. If we really wanted to invade Iraq and commit to nation building, then by all means make the case and ask for volunteers. The men and women in Iraq are doing their jobs as well as they can considering how truly *&(*ed up the planning for this war was. They are abiding by their oath, which also says that they will obey the President. This does not mean that they should be there or that they even think that they should be there. It was the job of Congress and the President to decide when to deploy them and how to support them and they royally screwed up.

If a bunch of gung ho idiots are really up for 'freeing the world', then they should reenlist and let the soldiers who have done their tour and just want to come home do so.

You show me a real, credible threat to this country and I will fight it. Getting cranked up from watching too much GOP TV and getting a hard-on to take on the world is a waste of my time.

I'd love to take a leaf from your book, but I don't read crayon too well.

BTW, if you have a complaint, you can ask for me by name, my real name. I use it to back up every post that I make. How's that for moral courage, Mr. Urbane?

Actually, I really don't need an answer. There are people on the Cellar who I disagree with who I still have a lot of respect for. Their opinions matter to me. Considering the tone, manner, and content of your posts, I think a dialogue with one of Wolf's tenants would probably be more productive than anything you could generate, assuming you are a real person and not a pseudonym of some Cellarite picking the most outlandish personality to stir up trouble. You just seem a little too one-dimensional, Mr. Urbane.

If you are indeed real, your prayers have been answered and there's a war on. Don't let us keep you from your nearest recruiting station.

Originally Posted by richlevy

Considering the tone, manner, and content of your posts, I think a dialogue with one of Wolf's tenants would probably be more productive than anything you could generate, assuming you are a real person and not a pseudonym of some Cellarite picking the most outlandish personality to stir up trouble. You just seem a little too one-dimensional, Mr. Urbane.

Gosh, maybe Urbane Guerilla is really Slang!