philosphy of terrorism

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by imimim, Feb 23, 2002.

  1. ImaHamster2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    220
    Justagirl posted:

    “They have asked us to leave them alone since 1948 and we haven't because we "wanted their oil" and thats the truth.”

    This hamster isn’t an expert on this topic. Perhaps Justagirl could explain what is wrong with this hamster’s capsule view.

    The issue isn’t leaving them alone. What Arabs want is for the US to stop supporting Israel. Abandoning Israel would solidify US relations with the Arab Middle East and guarantee US oil supplies. The Israelis provide nothing the US needs. (During the cold war Israel helped counter Russian influence in the Middle East.)

    Here’s a quick summary of the modern history of this conflict as presented by a British paper. http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/flash/0,6189,380127,00.html

    Nothing in that summary seems to provide moral justification for giving into Arab demands. (That does not mean that everything the Israelis have done is justified. In such dire straits no country could keep its hands clean. Some Israeli actions have angered the US, including an Israeli attack on a US ship.)

    The reason the US does not abandon Israel is that it would be wrong to do so. (Something the Jews living in the US would make very clear.)

    That is the “truth” as this hamster sees it. (This is over-simplification of a very complex subject.)

    PS If the US did abandon Israel, the terrorism would continue. Israel would be less constrained once US influence was gone. The Israeli economy and military might begin to deteriorate. That might encourage an Arab neighbor to invade. At that time Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Hardly a peaceful outcome.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ICARRYALOTOFBULLETS Quit smoking...:) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    I must agree with the furry little rodent.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    I posted it once in this thread and to be honest this debate is like the debate if God exists or doesn't exist and I will never change your opinion and you will never change my mind. I am tired of this debate as this isn't the first time I have been in it nor it is this first time you have been in it. But I will talk about being openminded as your source for their side of the story was England and not "the middle east" and as you know There is always two sides two every story but in this issue there is more like 40. And as far as you thinking Isreal is God's chosen people than why the hell do the same churches in this country preach Jews are going to hell??Thats how mixed up Christians are,...in one sentance they say Isreal is God's chosen tribe and the very next they say but they are going to hell. The Christians of this country based their religion on the Bible which is the history, beliefs, and roots of the Jewish People and of course written by the Jewish people. They needed an excuse to kill in their wars (Men like Moses that said "thou shall not kill" and then he attacked countries in war because God said so)and their excuse was "we are God's chosen people" and the saddest thing that has happened on this earth is the Christains believe them but still condemn them to hell as the Jews feel Jesus was a prophet and the Christains believe Jesus was God.( Christians love to condemn people to hell that don't believe like them, even if you are a christian. you have to admit that) Shows you how mixed up chrictians are... Hampster you read my entry about how they have asked US TO leave them alone and commented on it in this thread and now you still act righteous as if " I didn't know that or I don't believe it" Informed decisions can only be made by knowing all of the facts and a sincere desire for the truth and ignorance is a crappy answer or said another way an uninformed opinion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2002
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ImaHamster2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    220
    Justagirl, this hamster also finds these political debates fruitless. (Only joined the thread when the debate seemed too one-sided and the information too distorted.) This hamster doesn’t belong to a side or camp. Tends to have own hamster views and beliefs. (This hamster is not comfortable being supported by an avatar named “Bullets” with a machine gun icon and an avowed desire to kill terrorists. No offense to the person behind the avatar, but such images ruffle this hamster’s fur.)

    “There is always two sides two every story but in this issue there is more like 40.”

    This hamster agrees. One reason this hamster felt obligated to post on this thread is that overall (this hamster doesn't mean every post and every poster) the discussion seemed too simplistic and the posters too sure of their conclusions. (Sorry for the impolite arrogance. Tried to come up with a less offensive way to say this. Failed.)

    Bush has access to far brighter and more knowledgeable people than this hamster. Bush also has access to intelligence information. Bush, through his advisors, is also aware of a complicated entanglement of above the table and below the table international agreements. Every country has both public and private agendas. (Wealthy individuals and powerful corporations are also involved.) The story given to the public is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Does this mean that US citizens may sit back comfortable in the belief that the US government will do the right thing? Hardly. There is a long and public history of the US government making mistakes.

    The problems are tough and may have no solution. Political necessity may force action even when the action accomplishes nothing and may ultimately harm US interests.

    Bush and his advisors have access to very bright people with significant insight. That does not mean they will listen to those people or that those people have answers. Bush’s own religious beliefs bias his decisions. His own comprehension of world affairs seems limited. (This hamster would be more comfortable if Bush had a close Muslim friend. Personal contact is an excellent way to dispel stereotypes.)

    This hamster is not at all sure US actions will help the terrorism problem. This hamster is sure that statements such as “all war is bad”, “terrorists are evil”, “the US is a war monger”, “the US is the champion of justice and democracy”, etc. don’t reflect the complexity of modern world affairs.

    "as your source for their side of the story was England "

    The source for this hamster’s beliefs is casual reading on such topics for decades. This hamster searched for a simple summary that would be accessible to the people following this thread. This hamster avoided US, Israeli, and Arabic sites as being seen as too biased. As England was a major player when Israel formed, a British source seemed appropriate. Would guess that all sites contain omissions, errors, and distortions, as history is muddy.

    “And as far as you thinking Isreal is God's chosen people”

    Justagirl, this hamster has been agnostic since age eleven. This hamster has had atheist, agnostic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, spiritualist, Jewish, and Muslim friends and associates. This hamster has no problem with moderate religions. This hamster does take issue with extremist beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews all make the conflicts worse. (Extreme views regarding ecology or capitalism or political systems or nationalism also acerbate problems.)

    “Hampster you read my entry about how they have asked US TO leave them alone and commented on it in this thread and now you still act righteous as if " I didn't know that or I don't believe it"

    This hamster did not mean to act righteous. This hamster did remember Justagirl’s earlier entry on this topic. At that time there was no response to this hamster’s request for clarification. Justagirl’s repetition of the same statement led to the hamster response. (The hamster is pedantic.) This hamster had a different view and offered it. The hamster view contains errors and distortions and this hamster welcomes corrections.

    Justagirl, this hamster admires your willingness to speak out in defense of your beliefs. While having differences on this topic, this hamster suspects that there would be agreement on many others. Possibly this hamster responding to your posts reflects a desire to communicate rather than antagonism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2002
  8. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    well said "hampster" and I I am sorry for the parts of my text that may have sounded judgemental. But Bush can not be trusted to seek the truth anymore than any of our previous Politicians and as we know history is full of BAD decisions by our presidents. It is the peoples fault for not taking matters out of the hand of professional politicians which always have a personal agenda and a long list of people who have donated money to them for favours.
     
  9. ImaHamster2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    220
    Justagirl, already found a topic of agreement. The political process rewards those willing to distort and mislead to further personal ambition and agendas. This occurs in corporate politics as well. Would guess the same is true of all human organizations to some degree.

    Doesn’t mean politicians are evil. (This hamster believes that most people try to do what they believe is right.) Their methods just aren’t hamster methods and their values aren’t hamster values. A hamster would make a poor politician.

    Large democracies don’t handle small, vocal, dedicated groups well. The interest group could be a lobby, a religious sect, a wealthy person, a corporation, an environmental group, etc. The larger group either doesn’t care or wants to avoid conflict and so appeases the vocal and dedicated special interest group. (And money does speak to politicians. They can’t get elected without it.)

    The vested special interests may lead the US into policies that are not in the best interest of the country. Only when the damage is done, does public attention focus upon and then question the government action.

    (Free speech and free press bring to light the worst abuses and that makes the system somewhat self correcting.)

    PS When a majority in a democracy does feel strongly about an issue, their wishes can roll right over the objections of those with less popular views.
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
  11. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    Q

    He sure got my vote!

    Hamster

    Well said! You did a very good job explaining yourself. I wish I could do a better job at explaining myself, unfortunately, I suck at it!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Groove on
     
  12. Counterbalance Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    373
    Same for me, Hamster. But you can set up your own camp next to mine anytime. Won't vote you into the White House, but if you camp close enough, I'll communicate your (furry) ears off.

    (Communication? What a concept!)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    CB
     
  13. ImaHamster2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    220
    A hamster in the White House would quickly become pet food. Discussing ideas with friends around a campfire is much more appealing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS StRgrl are you certain this hamster is a he?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2002
  14. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    Smiles we have made some progress. Now can we agree that the world would be a safer place to live if we had peace in the Middle East? For now forget the US/Iraq question, we can have that discussion later. The biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Isreal/Palestine. Isreal does not want to grant Palestine any country and if we do nothing, they will fight for the next 40 years too. Isreal has no real motivation to change its policy as long as the United States is funding their war effort and arms. Palestine has no motivation to stop because they have a "just cause" as they are people without rights and without a country. That conflict is the largest reason the Middle East is upset with our foreign policy and we should change our policy for world peace.
     
  15. posted by ICARRYALOTOFBULLETS:

    If your anti-american, say it.

    Well, I thought I'd made myself clear on this, but obviously it got lost somehere in the translation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not anti american.

    You never seem to know what I'm saying, it seems to get lost in translation somewhere.

    Yeah, well it seems that you never know what I'm saying, so the feeling's mutual.

    Posted by strgrl:

    1) Doesnt matter what we did, it does not excuse the events that took place.

    Yes, agreed. I've made that point myself. The terrorists were not justified in their actions, but it still doesn't change the fact that they had their reasons.

    2)If this is the best way to - at least - try to rid and protect the world from future threats, then I support it.

    That's the thing though, it won't solve anything. It will not wipe out the threat of terrorists. They'll still exist, they'll still be angry, and they'll still attack if they want to.

    If we stop the terrorists - they cant come back to attack. And when we do succeed, I dont think anyone will be crazy enough to mess with us.

    But this war isn't stopping terrorists. Even if you get rid of bin Laden and Al Qaida, that's not getting rid of terrorism. The thing is about terrorism, is that no ones a terrorist until they make an attack. Before then, they're simply a potential terrorist (you could say that everyone on the face of the earth is a "potential terrorist", of course most people will never evolve to be an actual terrorist).

    So you see, you'd have to wipe out everyone on the planet before you actually erradicated the threat of terrorism.

    And don't be so sure that if you attack back, everyone will be too scared to attack you again. Remember that these terrorists all died in the attacks. If they're gonna die in the attack anyway, why would they be scared of the retalliation?

    Io
     
  16. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    Hamster!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No way! Im dying to know now! I just ASSUMED! Well if you are a chick, your one smart cookie - and now Im jealous of you and dont want to side with you anymore

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That was a total joke, please excuse my sick sense of humor. Hmmmm.... I guess it really doesnt matter, you dont have to answer if you dont want to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Keep up the good posts - your very good at explaining yourself without sounding egomanical! Heyyy... maybe you are a chick

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Peace!
     

Share This Page