 |
| |
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Chris 62:
Finally. Thank you.
I wouldn't agree that I started the insult thing, but we'll put that behind us. 
Now for a summary of my views:
I believe, like most people, that terrorism is wrong. This is more out of a selfish reason than anything else: I have no desire to be killed, without warning, in a violent event, and I don't think anyone else does. After all, morality is based on what society doesn't want to happen to itself.
However, I don't think terrorism can be compared to an "evil empire" that consists of leaders, factories, munitions, funds from shadowy regimes, etc. Terrorism is a "force", a direct result of intense hatred. It is bred in an environment of anger and ignorance, resulting in people who do want to kill civilians to further their cause. It often arises when people have nothing to lose.
Hence, while the leaders and masterminds of terrorist acts are obviously warped in their heads, I believe that the majority of actual perpetrators, be they suicide bombers, suicide pilots, suicide snipers, or a variety of other suiciders, are normal people like you and I. In fact, I firmly believe that had you or I been born into a society like that, we would have become what they have become.
Thus, my conclusion? The war against terrorism, as it is so often labeled, is just one facet of a much wider struggle against terrorism. War may accomplish some goals: disrupt terrorist organizations and their bases, stop the immediate threat of terrorism. However, it is vastly not enough.
Terrorism must be beaten at the core. The core is oppression, is ignorance, is extremism. This core can't be taken out by missiles or assassins. It can only be taken out by improving the lives of those living in oppressed, ignorant, extreme societies. Economic aid, a fairer foreign policy, removal of sanctions would all help. In fact, I would even go far enough to say that America should open its talks to all leaders, however extreme or autocratic they may be, as long as they are willing to reply sanely, as so many are now willing to. I mean countries like Saudi Arabia and even North Korea. Isolation and the "cutting off" of countries serve only to create more hatred, more oppression, more ignorance and more terrorism. You may think that this is being "soft", this is giving in, but the only alternative is much, much worse. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Thus, to summarize: Terrorism is a result of oppression, poverty and ignorance. Overt wars fought by soldiers will not destroy terrorism, it will only temporarily postpone it, as the very ground that created terrorism will create it anew. Isolation won't solve the problem either since it only creates more oppression, more poverty and more ignorance. The only ways are economic aid, removal of sanctions, and talks - not with bin Laden obviously, but with dictators who are still receptive, even if you are disgusted by the thought of it. You have to do it, no matter how soft you think it is. The only alternative is another 9/11 - and another - and even more to come.
Do you want to step back a little, kill terrorism in its cradle, and in addition, improve the lives of millions of poor, embittered people? Or do you want terrorism to continue forever?
Last edited by ranskaldan on 16-07-2002 at 20:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
ranskaldan,
quote:
Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. |
I just want to point one little thing out, for the hell of it. Whenever the US has tried to "pick the lesser of two evils" we've been condemned for it. Our leaders figured the Shah of Iran, for instance, was the lesser of two evils (the other, greater evil being Soviet influence or the fundies who eventually took over anyway). The problem with accepting the "lesser of two evils" is that historical hindsight may show that you picked the wrong "evil."
I think what Chris is trying to say is that we ought to stop trying to pick between evils. I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but conceptually I agree with him. I really wish we (and the rest of the Western world) would stop whoring ourselves to China because we want to sell them stuff (and yes, Che, that's my democratic/human rights morality, not my capitalist morality talking). I wish we'd stop pumping money and arms to ME dictators in exchange for "stability" so we can have our oil. I wish we had a foreign policy that was clear, consistent and principled.
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
The USA is fighting an all out war on terror factions.
Only by direct action can terror be stopped, by a combination of heavy intelligence work, intense pressure on governments that allow terror cells to move about freely, and direct confrontation when said governments refuse to stop terror. |
Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop Pakistan from supporting terrorists in Kashmir. No.
Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop the Tamil Tigers, which the US has declared a terrorist organization, in Sri Lanka. No.
Is the US fighting an all-out war against terrorist in Columbia. No
And the list goes on and on.
The US is fighting a limited war against one group of terrorists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
ranskaldan,
I just want to point one little thing out, for the hell of it. Whenever the US has tried to "pick the lesser of two evils" we've been condemned for it. Our leaders figured the Shah of Iran, for instance, was the lesser of two evils (the other, greater evil being Soviet influence or the fundies who eventually took over anyway). The problem with accepting the "lesser of two evils" is that historical hindsight may show that you picked the wrong "evil." |
Well firstly, while picking the lesser of two evils is pretty evil, picking the greater of two evils is more evil, and you'll get condemed even more for it.
As for picking the lesser evil that turns out to be the greater evil, that's because of poor judgment, not bad reasoning. There's nothing wrong with the principle of "picking the lesser of two evils" itself.
quote:
I think what Chris is trying to say is that we ought to stop trying to pick between evils. I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but conceptually I agree with him. I really wish we (and the rest of the Western world) would stop whoring ourselves to China because we want to sell them stuff (and yes, Che, that's my democratic/human rights morality, not my capitalist morality talking). I wish we'd stop pumping money and arms to ME dictators in exchange for "stability" so we can have our oil. I wish we had a foreign policy that was clear, consistent and principled. |
You see, now you're picking the greater of two evils. Isolating regimes and closing up countries - or talking to regimes and opening up countries? Both are evil in some way, but the second one is less evil. That's basically my point - picking the lesser evil because it's more evil to pick the greater evil.
Besides, from a personal point of view - I'm fervently against closing down China and isolating it. If so then the government will give up trying to modernize and go back to the Maoist days, and everyone will become dirt poor once again. Considering that things in China has been going really well in the past two decades, it will be absolutely disgusting if the US took a more hostile stance. It's inhumane and it's immoral.
That probably applies to the Arab countries as well, though I don't know about their national economic conditions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
I'll never understand why you have this obsession, but I don't like you, and I don't care about your opinion, so stop quoting me.
All it does is lead me to embarrising you again, like now for instance.quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop Pakistan from supporting terrorists in Kashmir. No. |
Didn't Bush make it clear we would fight one war at a time, or did you just ignore that part?
And it's not Pakistan, it's El Qeada. 
quote:
Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop the Tamil Tigers, which the US has declared a terrorist organization, in Sri Lanka. No. |
See above.
quote:
Is the US fighting an all-out war against terrorist in Columbia. No |
See above.
quote:
And the list goes on and on. |
I'm amazed so much stupidity can be cramed into a single post, yet you always manage it.
quote:
The US is fighting a limited war against one group of terrorists. |
All out, and to the end, one front at a time.
Bush made this clear from the start.
You don't believe him, and then you say we are not?
There is deffinatly something very wrong with you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2002 20:39
?
|