BoredShirtless wrote:Can you see the difference between saying something false with intent, and without intent? The first is a lie, the second is incompetence. Because I don't know whether there was intent, I can't call Bush a liar.
However, the evidence he presented WAS a lie. Your government KNEW beforehand that the doc was a forgery, but passed it to the President anyway.
Once again, Bush war relaying the fact that the British lad learned Saddam sought uranium in Africa, which is true, the Britain had learned that, and they still stand by that, even though the Niger document was found to be a forgery, because it's not the only source of information they were relying on to make that claim.
So even absent the Niger document, Bush can still truthfully report the fact that the British are reporting Saddam to have sought uranium in Africa.
BoredShirtless wrote:I worded that poorly. The point I was making is you can't defeat terrorism by force.
You can't defeat it by just talking with the terrorists either. And attempting to do so sets the unacceptably dangerous precedent that you can be coerced by anyone who has a grievance and is willing to be ruthless.
BoredShirtless wrote:So what is the goal of Al-Qaeda?
BoredShirtless wrote:Perinquus wrote:
It is hardly necessary to kill all your enemies, and everyone who believes a certain idea. It is possible to pacify areas by military force; it's been done countless times in history.
One of Osama bin Laden's stated goals is the destruction of Israel, though he's focused his network more at hitting us than them.
But his illustrates why we simply cannot negotiate with these people; their demands are simply not ones we can
ever acceed to. Even if you do not support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict, you simply cannot sanction the destruction of Israel. This is not a realistic or acceptable demand, but the really radical Islamic terrorists out there are not willing to back off from it. What too many people are not willing to face up to is that these people want to see the Jews made extinct as much as Hitler ever did.
Can you please give some examples?
The Romans pacified Gaul, have to put down more than one revolt, and eventually turned Gaul into one of the most productive and loyal parts of the Empire. Charlemagne conquered and pacified parts of his empire. They did the same thing in Britain. Later, in Britain again, the Normans pacified Saxon England by conquest, especially in the north of England where there was strong resistance to the Norman conquerors.
The Turks conquered Anatolia by force following the disastrous Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071, and changed it from predominantly Christian to predominantly Muslim. The Spanish reconquered and pacified the Iberian peninsula, completing the job in 1492, turning Muslim Spain into Christian Spain. The Reconstruction South was conquered by force, and occupied for a time by Union armies.
These are just a few examples.
BoredShirtless wrote:I agree, and like to add that an elimination of a grievance doesn't have to be born from force. For example Israel pulling out of Lebanon.
Which hasn’t secured the Israelis any peace from that quarter, as it turns out. See below for details.
BoredShirtless wrote:Perinquus wrote:
You can also act against states and regimes that shelter and finance terrorist groups.
There's no Taliban in Afghanistan sheltering Al Quaeda now, is there?
BoredShirtless wrote:You're confusing religion with cause. It isn't religion which makes them fanatics, it's the behaviour of your country.
BULLSHIT!
While I grant that there may be a number of legitimate grievances with the United States, if you really believe that a religious fanatic cannot be a true beliveing, dyed-in-the-wool, wild-eyed fanatic simply because of his faith in his religion you don't understand much of anything.
BoredShirtless wrote: Perinquus wrote:
These are people who want to impose the Sharia, Islamic law, on the rest of the world.
Which terrorist organisations want this?
You haven't paid much attention to what people like Osama bin Laden and his followers have been saying have you. There is a radical islamist movement calling for holy war - Jihad - against infidels worldwide.
Guided by a deviated interpretation of Islam, the Radical Islamists believe that they will rule the world because of their conviction in the superiority of their religion. Their propaganda mirrors such beliefs as in the Middle East, where they call for the takeover of secular governments in Muslim countries, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Christians in Lebanon and South Sudan. In Africa, they call for the conversion to Islam of Black Africa. In Russia, they call for the violent secession of Chechnya, and Dagestan. In Pakistan, they promote Jihad to sever the multi-ethnic province of Kashmir from India. In China, they call for the creation of an Islamic state in Xinjiang. In South East Asia, they support the elimination of East Timor, the destruction of Christian and Chinese minorities in Indonesia, the establishment of a Radical Islamist state in the South Philippines. In Europe, they encourage Radical Islamist separatism in Bosnia and Kosovo, and now in Macedonia. In America and Europe, they have taken over the leadership of the growing Muslim communities to radicalize them and pave the way for Radical Islamist political action in the service of a global Jihad. In every instance, their message is carefully tuned to promote the legitimization of Jihad movements by the international community. To accelerate that goal the Radical Islamists of today are planning, and implementing a Jihad to re-establish the universal Caliphate.
Fortunately, the Radical Islamists are a fringe group of fanatics, though the mainstream Muslim world hasn’t said or done nearly enough to disown them.
BoredShirtless wrote: Perinquus wrote:
It's a holy war for them.
Funny. The perception from their POV is it's a holy war for you too.
I hope your not lapsing into a case of moral relativism "everybody's equally at fault" etc. etc.
BoredShirtless wrote: Perinquus wrote:
What demands are they making that you could possibly concede to?
- Stop taking sides in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. This is one grievance EVERY Muslim has. It's the backbone of every Muslim terrorists hatred. If you remove that by supervising the creation of a Palestinian state, you'll go a long way to eliminating the reason for them to be terrorists.
Seems to me like they were making a big step toward that at Oslo. Then Arafat decided to relaunch the terror campaign. Don't listen to what he says in English, listen to tranlation of his speeched in Arabic - he's still calling for the destruction of Israel.
BoredShirtless wrote: [*]After supervising the establishment of a democratically elected government, pull out of Iraq. If what your government says is true and the people of Iraq are glad Saddam is gone, they will stop of their own volition any attempts by Saddam loyalists to reform the Baath Party.
We are not planning to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.
BoredShirtless wrote: [*]Completely pull out of the Middle East every single bit of military equipment and personnel. Your military has no business being in the Middle East, and vice-versa.[/list]
We have national interests to protect, and allies to support. This makes this demand an unrealistic one. Both the US and world economies depend to a great extent on Middle Eastern oil, and a lot of that oil was drilled after US money was invested and skilled American workers sent to the region to drill it out of the ground. If you expect the US to leave such a vital interest completely unsecured you are kidding yourself. That is not going to happen. This is not a demand to which the US could ever accede.
BoredShirtless wrote: That depends. Can you show how Israels concession to HAMAS [Israel's pullout from Lebanon] hurt Israel?
Sure can. On, 21 January, 2003, at approximately 3:00 pm (local time), Hezbollah terrorists fired anti-tank rockets and mortar shells at positions on the Israeli side of the Blue Line in the Mount Dov area. The unprovoked cross-border attack lasted about 30 minutes during which time approximately 25 missiles and shells were fired. Hezbollah interrupted programming on its satellite telvision station, Al Manar, to claim responsibility for the attack.
This attack is merely the latest in a long series of cross-border attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah since Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, in full and confirmed compliance with Security Council resolution 425. That resolution further required the Government of Lebanon to establish its effective authority in the area and restore international peace and security. These obligations have been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent Security Council resolutions.
To date, Lebanon has not taken any significant measures to fulfill its obligations nor has it acted to bring its policies into accord with the global campaign against terrorism. Consequently, Lebanon stands in breach of international law and Security Council resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 1310 (2000), 1337 (2001), 1365 (2001), 1391 (2002) and 1428 (2002), which call for the restoration of international peace and security and the return of effective Lebanese authority in the area. The Government of Lebanon is also in violation of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and established principles of international law, which call upon all States to refrain from providing any support, whether active or passive, to all persons or entities involved in terrorist acts, and to ensure that their territory is not used as a base for cross-border attacks.Negotiation and compromise with terrorists doesn’t usually end with the peace you hope to attain. Many, if not most of these radical Islamic terrorists are simply
not willing to negotiate in good faith.
BoredShirtless wrote:Terrorists/freedom fighters have wants and needs just like you and me, they have families and friends. They don't want to die, but are willing. The terrorists/freedom fighters of the Middle East just want a fair go. If the United States stopped playing sides over Israel/Palestine, you'd not only make friends, but make your country safer.
You have a really firm grip on unreality. In the first place, you are in a state of denial regarding the terrorists and their motives. Not all of them are the rabid fanatics, but if you think that type is not prominent in these organizations you are simply kidding yourself. These are people who really, truly, deeply believe that dying a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven. It will grant them everlasting happiness in paradise, and great glory among their friends, family and admirers that they leave behind here. For these true believers, there can be no great glory. They
want this.
People who don’t want to die, but are willing, do not strap on semtex belts and spread their own guts all over the street in order to take a few Israelis with them. They don’t climb into planes and crash them into skyscrapers. These are people who
want a martyr’s death. They
want to become heroes for the cause – the most admired kind of hero; the kind who willingly makes the ultimate sacrifice for the cause. They
want this. If you don’t see it, you are kidding yourself.
As I say, not every single one of the terrorists is this sort of fanatic, but terrorist organizations attract this kind of person because that’s the place where they can fulfill their sick dreams of martyrdom,
We could become as isolationist as we were in the 1930s and that would
still not be enough. I grant you it would probably placate some in the Middle East, but the real diehard fanatics like the 9/11 hijackers would still hate us. They don’t just hate us because we support Israel and send soldiers to the Middle East. They also hate us because we are decadent, licentious, corrupt, godless, infidels, and we keep spreading our culture. They see the material prosperity of the West, they see McDonalds going up in Middle Eastern cities, and see their kids watching Hollywood movies, and listening to American music, and adopting decadent Western customs and they hate us for this. This is why they call us the Great Satan. And to Muslims, Satan is not the awesome and powerful Prince of Darkness of Christian theology, the Muslim Shaitan is the tempter, the deceiver, the one who leads the faithful astray. This is precidely how they see American culture today. These people see the influence Western culture in general and American culture in particular exert, and they hate and fear us because they feel their way of life is threatened by it.
This is not the complete explanation. As I said, I realize Middle Easterners do have some grievances, and the US probably can do things to improve relations with them. But if you think what I have just described above is not a factor you are kidding yourself. Just because you don’t share this worldview, do not make the mistake of thinking nobody else does either.
