That may be true with terrorists who really have a
goal.
The IRA wanted the British out of Northern Ireland,
not the death of every British citizen
The Basques want their own homeland, not the death of
every Spanish citizen.
The Muslims want the death of all non-muslims.
Totally non-achievable.
--- Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> At 10:24 AM 10/11/2006 -0400, Bill Arnold wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >Violence is not
> strength.
>
> > >compassion is not weakness.
>
> > >revenge is the most worthless of causes....
>
> > Next, I think most people in
> the US hold these views. At
>
> > least in a general sense.
>
>
> But if that were the case, we wouldn't be in the jam
> we're
> in.
>
> No. You're forgetting the other premise that most
> believe in. Justice.
> The real problem is terrorism. Terrorists believe
> they can achieve their
> political goals through violence. Terrorist
> supporters believe they can
> get their political desires by enabling terrorists.
> There has been a
> growing desire for justice since terrorists started
> their actions (and it
> wasn't just started at 9/11). For those that want to
> stand against
> terrorism, there is a reasonable concern over how to
> do it. For most,
> it's become obvious that the methods of the past -
> just trying to grab
> the ones taking the direct action - isn't enough.
> The reason it isn't
> enough is that there will always be someone filled
> with enough hate to go
> out and do terrible things. So in addition to
> finding those that
> perpetrate terrorism, you need to find those that
> fund them and aid
> them.
>
>
> > What you need to do is get on
> the Muslim, N. Korean,
>
> > etc blogs and tell THOSE people they need to
> embrace these
> principles.
>
>
> A quote from the Robert Fisk article I pointed to
> yesterday:...
>
>
> Dude! This guy is nuts! Maybe he's been immersing
> himself in the
> commondreams website as well. If you want to
> understand what the
> terrorists want, you need to go back 1,000 years or
> so. We weren't around
> then. From what I've read and heard so far, the
> 'common' person in ME
> (specifically Iraq) do want to be able to elect
> their own leadership. And
> then most of the Islamic leaders (e.g. their
> 'priests' if you will) want
> {quot}freedom{quot} from western ideas - they don't
> want equality for
> women, they don't want people to make up their own
> minds, and they don't
> want to get along with people of differing beliefs.
> I'll leave it for you
> to decide which 'freedom' you think we should
> support.
>
>
> As for root causes, you seem to keep turning a blind
> eye to the truth.
> The root causes of our problems are hate, greed,
> etc. It's not because
> we've enslaved or attacked them. They raise their
> children in a culture
> of hatred. Terrorists don't desire any co-existence
> with others that
> think differently.
>
>
> You may want to listen to this again...
>
>
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul
>
>
>
>
> We wouldn't be over in Iraq if 9/11 didn't happen.
> We wouldn't've
> gone in to Afghanistan if 9/11 didn't happen. And
> it's not all laid at
> 9/11's feet. The numerous terrorist attacks all over
> the world in the
> past century have caused turmoil and destruction and
> have led to
> increased violence. In a lot of ways, the current
> conflict isn't about
> land or money, it's about whether or not the world
> wants to accept
> terrorism as a viable political mechanism.
>
>
> > I'll bet you any amount of
> money that if those groups stop
>
> > their violence, threats, terrorism, etc, that
> peace would
> actually
>
> break out....
>
> emasculated by virtue of all those
> (some 42) UN resolutions intended to
>
> deal with Israel that were blocked by (only) America
> and Israel.
> Other
>
> countries of the world, and the ME in particular,
> took that to mean
> {quot}one
>
> sided{quot}, thus unfair, and thus a contributing
> root cause for
> hostilities....
>
>
> I'm not sure which 42 you mean. But there have
> probably been 100's
> blocked by various Arab states, with the Soviet
> Union and China. And just
> because a resolution is blocked, it doesn't mean it
> was a good resolution
> to start with. Did you read each of those 42?
>
>
> What about this... If all terrorists immediately
> stopped their actions,
> do you see any way the {quot}neocons{quot} could
> continue their
> {quot}conquest{quot} (if there is such a thing)?
> Nope. No way.
> Conversely, we (the US) have 'had our guard down'
> for most of the
> century. Did the terrorists stop? Nope. Sorry, to me
> it sounds like the
> 'first person' that needs to stop the violence is
> the terrorist. Another
> way to look at it is this: from past evidence, it's
> clear that terrorists
> see 'disarming' as weakness - that they're winning;
> also from past
> evidence, we (the US et al) see 'disarming' as
> peace-seeking. So, by far,
> the most likely way to get to peace is for the
> terrorists to 'disarm'
> first.
>
>
> Are you headed over to the Al-jazeera site now to
> try and convince them
> to stop?
>
>
> There's also the PNAC philosophy
> factor, a profound statement calling
>
> for the use of military power to achieve (their)
> goals. This isn't
> a
>
> statement of an attitude that says {quot}we'll make
> the world a better
> place
>
> so it's attractive to others{quot}, instead it's a
> statement of
> authority
>
> that literally begged a challenge - and it didn't
> fall on deaf
> ears.
>
> Are you quoting directly or paraphrasing. It seems
> any group that
> believes military power as the ONLY way to
> accomplish
=== message truncated ===
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
