Ok now that people have stated their opinions and beliefs on the subject we can begin to debate the core issue here which people are brining up. Are terrorists, or more specifically Al Queaeda, militaristic, idealistic, or political in nature?
From most of your posts people seem to be dropping on either the idealistic or militaristic side of the fence. Whereas if Al Queaeda is an idealistic group aggressive retaliation will simply fuel their cause and make out all losses as martyrism. For those that see Al Queaeda as a militaristic group a country's aggressive stance against them can cause a "defeat" where after enough losses are incurred they are simply beaten.
Now my own belief is that Al Queaeda is and has always been a political group. I come to this conclusions after taking it's leaders and actions into account. Bin Laden himself might appear like a Fundamentalist figure head, but in truth he is a very intelligent man and highly trained, by the CIA no less. He does not lead attacks as an impassioned madman but as someone who has calculated them to a tee.
When we look at 9/11 we are immediately overwhelmed by the horrible scale of the attacks we immediately want to declare the perpetrators insane and savage for taking so many innocent lives. In a gruesome way the perfect cover for any political action is a lot of distraction, and when you look beyond the 3000 people who lost their lives you see a calculated and strategic exploitation of the US's lapse in defense.
After the attacks happened little pieces of information began to come together, there had been "static" about a massive attack, there were cells training for piloting an airliner, there were massive transactions of funds in the middle east, all this was happening over the course of 3 solid years, hardly an impassioned attack on US values.
Although the 3/11 attacks are too new to make any solid conclusions about I see similarities between them, in Spain explosives were used that were favored by the ETA, public transit had been a target in the past, and remote detonation devices have also been used in the past. On 9/11 the hijacking of planes, the suicide attacks, and the target (WTC) were all eerily similar to things that happened in the past. This left the door open to criticism of the government for not doing enough to stop it and left people doubting the security of their own country.
Now as easy as it would be to say that Al Quaeda are just Fundamentalist running on the premise of Martyrism there is an obvious (in my mind) political aspect to them. So this leaves us in a position where we do not have the two clear options of waging a war against Militaristic Fundamentalists or the placating of Fundamentalist Martyrs. If we do nothing Bin Laden will continue to strive for power if we do too much Bin Laden will claim to be a martyr, but in the end Al Quaeda is only after more political power, influence, and control.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So stopping the terrorist would encourage terrorism, and letting him successfully carry out his mission would discourage terrorism? I think you meant the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe you should try viewing the war from their perspective. You seem to think that because they attacked us, we should retaliate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet you seem to think that they won't retaliate for us attacking them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa whoa whoa.. back the train up. When did I say they won't attack us back? You seem to forget they are ALREADY attacking us. I don't think they are holding back. If you were referring to why they wouldn't attack Spain, it is because by leaving Iraq, they admit defeat to the terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You seem to think that if they backed off, we should stop attacking them,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yet you say that if back off, they would attack us more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not exactly. I said they want us to stop attacking them. If we stop, this is what they want, would you agree? Good, then you'll also agree that what Spain did was what terrorists wanted them to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is it that makes you believe their behavior would be exactly opposite ours?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Terrorists are never going to stop. They were killing people before any wars started, and they are killing people now. They won't attack Spain, because they are withdrawing, and it makes more sense to attack targets still focused on Iraq. That's what I meant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it's exactly the other way around. By cowering and letting yourself taunt into attacking headlessly, splitting your own world into two, you are showing them fear. It's basically a predatorian instinct, show them fear and they begin thirsting for blood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very curious. I would have thought attacking was the sign of not showing fear, and showing cowardice by not attacking was the sign of fear. I thought it was obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!" You want terrorists to continue bombings? If so, then by all means, support Spain's actions. For the rest of us, we're trying to rid this world of such terrorist filth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spain is not nessesarily pulling out. And if they were to pull out, it would because the US refused to get off its friggen high horse and let the UN have control. This has been stated many times. Is ignorance as blissfull as they say Hawkeye?
(Go ahead and ban me. I'm sick of hearing the same baseless argument over and over.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how he calls my argument baseless and then provides no evidence of his own in his argument to my post.
So are you saying Spain is pulling out or not? You seem to jump both sides of the fence like you're not sure. Saying Spain is not necessarily pulling out is not an argument. I won't even argue this.
So, not due to the bombing, but because of the US that spain is pulling out. Is this blind scapegoating, or do you have evidence for this? The burden of proof is on you, not me.
And Dr. D, if I may.. I agree with you on a lot of points. I never said Bin Laden was a madman with a gun. He's quite intelligent. If he tried more peaceful methods of gaining more power, I wouldn't have any problems with Al-Qaeda, however he is killing people for his radical beliefs.
And for all of you arguing against me, I want to apologize if I come across sourly. I don't mean it to be personal. I attack your argument, not your intelligence. You are all clearly intelligent people, or you wouldn't be here probably.
The discussion is about politics, terrorism, and Al Quaeda, not Spain, Iraq and the UN, so if you're fed up with arguing about Iraq feel free to stop : )
I think by now nobody can claim he hadn't been warned, so here it goes...
Hawkeye, Xect, you're being restricted from this part of the boards for one month each for ignoring <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Rule #6</a> as well as requests both by yours sincerely and the topics starter on multiple occasions. Come back when you've learned to pay attention to other peoples posts.
Spit Fire, you'll miss your post. Do yourself a favor and limit yourself to serious contributions around here.
--
<b>Dr.D:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now my own belief is that Al Queaeda is and has always been a political group. I come to this conclusions after taking it's leaders and actions into account. Bin Laden himself might appear like a Fundamentalist figure head, but in truth he is a very intelligent man and highly trained, by the CIA no less. He does not lead attacks as an impassioned madman but as someone who has calculated them to a tee.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You make a number of very good points here and in the subsequent post, but I'd argue that the diversion between 'political' and 'ideological' is superficial in this case. The relatively cynical outlook on contemporary politics that's predominant around us often veils that politicians were at one point idealists who obtained the means necessary to put their agenda through. In so far, I'd argue that in the non-bureaucratically or otherwise structured space Bin Laden and his likes move in, it is possible to be <i>both</i> idealistic in ones aims and political in ones practices. They might be out for "more political power, influence, and control", but we should assume that this strife is not self-purpose, but directed at the completition of their goals. There are historical examples for such behaviour; take, for example Robesspierre, who installed one of the most gruesome terror regiemes in human history not with the aim of personal power, but the creation of an idealistic 'new humanistic society'.
Comments
From most of your posts people seem to be dropping on either the idealistic or militaristic side of the fence. Whereas if Al Queaeda is an idealistic group aggressive retaliation will simply fuel their cause and make out all losses as martyrism. For those that see Al Queaeda as a militaristic group a country's aggressive stance against them can cause a "defeat" where after enough losses are incurred they are simply beaten.
Now my own belief is that Al Queaeda is and has always been a political group. I come to this conclusions after taking it's leaders and actions into account. Bin Laden himself might appear like a Fundamentalist figure head, but in truth he is a very intelligent man and highly trained, by the CIA no less. He does not lead attacks as an impassioned madman but as someone who has calculated them to a tee.
When we look at 9/11 we are immediately overwhelmed by the horrible scale of the attacks we immediately want to declare the perpetrators insane and savage for taking so many innocent lives. In a gruesome way the perfect cover for any political action is a lot of distraction, and when you look beyond the 3000 people who lost their lives you see a calculated and strategic exploitation of the US's lapse in defense.
After the attacks happened little pieces of information began to come together, there had been "static" about a massive attack, there were cells training for piloting an airliner, there were massive transactions of funds in the middle east, all this was happening over the course of 3 solid years, hardly an impassioned attack on US values.
Although the 3/11 attacks are too new to make any solid conclusions about I see similarities between them, in Spain explosives were used that were favored by the ETA, public transit had been a target in the past, and remote detonation devices have also been used in the past. On 9/11 the hijacking of planes, the suicide attacks, and the target (WTC) were all eerily similar to things that happened in the past. This left the door open to criticism of the government for not doing enough to stop it and left people doubting the security of their own country.
Now as easy as it would be to say that Al Quaeda are just Fundamentalist running on the premise of Martyrism there is an obvious (in my mind) political aspect to them. So this leaves us in a position where we do not have the two clear options of waging a war against Militaristic Fundamentalists or the placating of Fundamentalist Martyrs. If we do nothing Bin Laden will continue to strive for power if we do too much Bin Laden will claim to be a martyr, but in the end Al Quaeda is only after more political power, influence, and control.
I believe you should try viewing the war from their perspective. You seem to think that because they attacked us, we should retaliate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet you seem to think that they won't retaliate for us attacking them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa whoa whoa.. back the train up. When did I say they won't attack us back? You seem to forget they are ALREADY attacking us. I don't think they are holding back. If you were referring to why they wouldn't attack Spain, it is because by leaving Iraq, they admit defeat to the terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You seem to think that if they backed off, we should stop attacking them,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yet you say that if back off, they would attack us more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly. I said they want us to stop attacking them. If we stop, this is what they want, would you agree? Good, then you'll also agree that what Spain did was what terrorists wanted them to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is it that makes you believe their behavior would be exactly opposite ours?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terrorists are never going to stop. They were killing people before any wars started, and they are killing people now. They won't attack Spain, because they are withdrawing, and it makes more sense to attack targets still focused on Iraq. That's what I meant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it's exactly the other way around. By cowering and letting yourself taunt into attacking headlessly, splitting your own world into two, you are showing them fear. It's basically a predatorian instinct, show them fear and they begin thirsting for blood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very curious. I would have thought attacking was the sign of not showing fear, and showing cowardice by not attacking was the sign of fear. I thought it was obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, but I also know one other motive terrorists have, which is to cause terror. By Spain pulling out, the bombing did exactly what it was supposed to do. What kind of message is this sending to terrorists? "Keep it up!"
You want terrorists to continue bombings? If so, then by all means, support Spain's actions. For the rest of us, we're trying to rid this world of such terrorist filth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spain is not nessesarily pulling out. And if they were to pull out, it would because the US refused to get off its friggen high horse and let the UN have control. This has been stated many times. Is ignorance as blissfull as they say Hawkeye?
(Go ahead and ban me. I'm sick of hearing the same baseless argument over and over.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how he calls my argument baseless and then provides no evidence of his own in his argument to my post.
So are you saying Spain is pulling out or not? You seem to jump both sides of the fence like you're not sure. Saying Spain is not necessarily pulling out is not an argument. I won't even argue this.
So, not due to the bombing, but because of the US that spain is pulling out. Is this blind scapegoating, or do you have evidence for this? The burden of proof is on you, not me.
And Dr. D, if I may.. I agree with you on a lot of points. I never said Bin Laden was a madman with a gun. He's quite intelligent. If he tried more peaceful methods of gaining more power, I wouldn't have any problems with Al-Qaeda, however he is killing people for his radical beliefs.
And for all of you arguing against me, I want to apologize if I come across sourly. I don't mean it to be personal. I attack your argument, not your intelligence. You are all clearly intelligent people, or you wouldn't be here probably.
Hawkeye, Xect, you're being restricted from this part of the boards for one month each for ignoring <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Rule #6</a> as well as requests both by yours sincerely and the topics starter on multiple occasions. Come back when you've learned to pay attention to other peoples posts.
Spit Fire, you'll miss your post. Do yourself a favor and limit yourself to serious contributions around here.
--
<b>Dr.D:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now my own belief is that Al Queaeda is and has always been a political group. I come to this conclusions after taking it's leaders and actions into account. Bin Laden himself might appear like a Fundamentalist figure head, but in truth he is a very intelligent man and highly trained, by the CIA no less. He does not lead attacks as an impassioned madman but as someone who has calculated them to a tee.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a number of very good points here and in the subsequent post, but I'd argue that the diversion between 'political' and 'ideological' is superficial in this case. The relatively cynical outlook on contemporary politics that's predominant around us often veils that politicians were at one point idealists who obtained the means necessary to put their agenda through. In so far, I'd argue that in the non-bureaucratically or otherwise structured space Bin Laden and his likes move in, it is possible to be <i>both</i> idealistic in ones aims and political in ones practices. They might be out for "more political power, influence, and control", but we should assume that this strife is not self-purpose, but directed at the completition of their goals.
There are historical examples for such behaviour; take, for example Robesspierre, who installed one of the most gruesome terror regiemes in human history not with the aim of personal power, but the creation of an idealistic 'new humanistic society'.