World Trade Center

Remove all ads!

Alex you write this

you are a smart guy.Do you have any opinion on how this could be done without armed interventions? should we send them a letter with flowers on that says "we are sorry". You think that will make them stop?

EDITED HERE: it is easier if you quote people, like voltric, using UBB code.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

Yeh so we'll go and kill everyone in the Middle East, that'll make us feel a whole lot better.

BOLLOCKS TO IT!!!

Lets concentrate on the poor people who SUFFERED in this incident rather than pointing fingers and charging off to war, fer god sakes people get your priorities right.

 

Eradicating terrorism does not prevent us from helping those who suffered too. Geeez

 

Nobleman, i think Alex isn't proposing an alternative plan. Probably he's saying that this plan stinks, but he can't think of a better one. I can't think of a better one. This one does stink though. And i think the main thing Alex wants to get at is that america should do some things to prevent such things in the future.

 

These recent events are unbelievable. I just kept thinking, and this is no joke, of the huge Emperial Starship crashing into the Death Star in ROTJ. Major loss of life and catastrophic damage.

I don't have much new content to add, but I do remember my activity on the ol' US v. the world thread, and figured I'd check out what was happenning these days. Plus, I've had some cancelled classes this week and a lightened load for a little while.

Terrorism is a major problem for everyone. Its difficult to deter a group whose aim is to die by their cause. Its also difficult to act in compliance with democratic principles to fight such a group, and by democratic I mean largely "Western" ideals, not "American".
I keep hearing how "sophisticated" the attack was, but I think all the people on this board could probably pull something like that off, if we had a couple mediocre pilots. Thats another problem. Attacks like these can be prepared without raising much attention.
As far as "act of war" or a "decalration of war" goes, there's a rationale behind it beyond blind revenge, and it has to do with american law.
Without a declaration of war, investigations into the perpetrators of this act or any prosecution means following guidelines for any criminal investigation. A case is built to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If war is declared, however, that burden is lessened and the scope of action is broadened. Under a war declaration there is a whole different set of rules and principles. I don't think it means indiscriminate bombing of Afganistan or anywhere else, i.e. "punitive damages". I don't know what the shape of action will be. It's difficult to imagine an "ideologocide", you'd have to kill everyone in the same intellectual boat as the terrorists to prevent it in the future.
I do find it interesting that Afganistan urged "dialogue and discourse" instead of rash action. Dialogue? Interesting. Not much precedent for dialogue with those guys in the past, unless the USSR was trying to destroy them. Oh, talk talk, help help.

The world, by and large, is moving in a particular direction, there's a kind of historical momentum. I suppose there are nations on the margins of that momentum. American policies, or "NATO" policies, encourage participation, they don't comply and get left out of the benefits of participation in a largely global scene. Its kind of like the Federation in ST. General principles a large number of civilizations agree to act on. Then there are the Romulans. I've seen some posts here and on other threads that appear sympathetic to the plight of mid Eastern nations, or Eastern European nations, in light of these policies. Palestinians in the street celebrating? Sure. There were groups in the US in the streets celebrating. The funny thing is, here that right is protected. If I were there and were sympathetic to the US, would *that* right be protected? Could I write about it? Could I walk in the streets claiming it to be my view? Probably not.
I would go so far as to claim, as retro as it sounds, that there remain "backward" nations. Typically, theocracies.
I personally don't care much about preserving the liberties of persons, groups or nations when they use that liberty to curtail the liberty of their own people, and thats the deal. Without any public assent or participation, many mid-Eastern nations control access to information, conduct, even clothing. That is backward.
As far as other nations joining in the general mission, they kind of have to. They already agreed to it when they joined NATO. If war is declared on one, it is declared on all. I don't think thats the motiviation, anyway. Think of all the other targets in the world;
London Bridge
Buckingham Palace
The Louvre
Versailles
The Hague
Hoover Dam
Eiffel Tower
Library of Congress
Any major metro area anywhere
You can brainstorm infinitely. The nations of the "west" are more and more interdependent for stability, growth and wealth.
I'm kind of rambling without a real central point, so I'll stop.

"It was as if a thousand voices cried out and were suddenly silenced"-Obi Wan Kenobi.


[This message has been edited by Orkrist the Cleaver (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

please ignore this post:

It did have sensible solutions on this page but then some of my explanations were thought to be against others opinions and i was called a disgrace. Therefore there is now nothing here.

[This message has been edited by Sir Dargorn (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

Is it a flaw to discuss on the board Dargorn?

Anyway. If we leave them alone wont they just destroy themselves in afghanistan?. The problem as you point out is agression. From both sides, if you will. Terrorism is agression. Agression wont dissapear if we listen to it. only if we obey.

The world is twisted. empathy is extinct, my friend. The world changed the 11th september 2001. I know you like principles, but how many billionaires do you think support terrorism? If he dies, I'll wager that the risk of another billionaire taking over is minimal.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

I've been watching this for a while now and I can't bite my tonugue any longer. Sir Dargorn, I respectfully call BS.

The idea that the only way to hinder terrorism is to do what they want is pure unadulterated BS and is born out by history. Prior to WWI terrorism was rampant within Europe but what we found out is that terrorism isn't quite so commonplace with all the terrorists dead.

You say that the heightening tension in the Middle East is due to the US being too involved while the overwhelming majority of the world points out that the tension has increased dramatically since the US has drifted more toward isolationism. Indeed, the greatest complaint about the US that I heard while discussing foreign relations with visiting professors from Australia, Sweden, China, and Switzerland recently was that the US is too isolationist.

Terrorism, like many things is a matter of supply and demand. To effectively combat it both must be addressed. You are correct that we need to seek to undermine the demand for terrorist activity but the suggestion that we capitulate to their demands makes me think you do not comprehend those with which we deal. Hide behind relativism as you might the pictures of non-Muslims, women, or people who just happened to own a TV having their hands and feet amputated and paraded around the city can not be justified as just part of their beliefs which are different from ours. Decrying such behavior is NOT racist and I take offense that you imply that it is.

The US is not simply lashing out as some seem to be suggesting. They are slowly builiding a coalition and gaining support from nations such as Pakistan and Iran. The US must use its strength to persuade these nations to no longer support terrorism because by withdrawing their support they withdraw the water that the weeds need to continue to flourish. When a nation chooses to defy the world and proclaim that it will continue to support known terrorists then that government must be overthrown and that will require force but it is hardly the blind retaliation some have suggested.

Finally, the US is quickly but methodically building a case against Bin Laden. It is known beyond any shadow of a doubt that he attacked the Cole and the US embassies and the Afghan government sheltered him. By the time the evidence is gathered we will be able to persuade even the most sceptical he is responsible for these attacks (hence the painstaking investigation.) The Afghanistan government will then be presented with the evidence one more time and asked to cooperate. When they refuse the answer isn't to give in to the terrorist demands for a modern day holocaust in Israel but to do something about it.

 

Since Nobleman pointed me (again *sigh*) here, just a quick spam:

Sure, pal. And I am Madonna herself. Quickly but methodically they are removing my cover ups. Ahhh, and if Tal refuse to admit he is hiding me, imagine what will happen to him.

 

2 points:

I am not saying do what the terrorists want....I am saying LISTEN and then do what you think is best.

And Yes, Nobleman they will destroy theselves. But that will not affect us so what is the problem eh?
they would not help us. It is not my opinion personally but it is an opinion.

 

The problem is pal, that you are calling whole population in one country as terrorists just because few real terrorists came from that country.

So, I'm a cretin. There are perhaps 20 real cretins in my country, but what the hell? If they are cretins - all people in my country are cretins - means I'm cretin too.

Nice Logic. Brilliant!

[This message has been edited by Extremist (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

Dargorn, You want the Afghans to die?? everyone of them??

I am done in this thread. pointless.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

I'd like to say one more thing I suppose after reading what I take were responses from Extremist. I no where equated the people of Afghanistan with terrorism and I think if that was read into my post it is because you saw what you wanted to see. I've worked in the Sudan and personally find the Suthern Sudanese to be some of the most warm and caring people I have ever had the privilege of meeting and this is commonly an area regarded as supporting terrorism so I would not and did not make the mistake of equating the action of the terrorists and the government which support them with the Afghan people. Hell, most of the terrorist in Afghanistan are from abroad. This in no way impacts upon my belief that a government that defies the world by openly supporting terroists forfeits its legitimacy. I'm not sure how you think it would.

As far as the post regarding Madonna? To be honest I found it incoherent and so am unable to respond.

 

"Madonna" post was for you.

"Cretins" post was for Sir Dargorn. OK?

 

I found this theoretic part repulse Dargorn.

Implying that if it happened you wouldn't mind.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 16, 2001).]

 

i know you find this part hard to deal with so i will take it through with you slowly.

This is what i said:

And Yes, Nobleman they will destroy theselves. But that will not affect us so what is the problem eh?
they would not help us. It is not my opinion personally but it is an opinion.

Read the last bit will you???!!!. Please i don't want to argue with you but if i commented on the opinions of hitler would that make me evil?
what?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
What gets me is that you have already quizzed me on this in the chatroom!

 

no attack goes unprovoked

 

Well if those terrorists are not laden then can't we take out Osama bin laden anyway cos he would do anything to wipe out the Americans and her supporters... at least that would be one threat out of the way.

a couple million can play at 4's game. Lets just invade everysingle damn terrorist country we can and attack wave after wave ... sorry just got alittle carried away with anger

 

I only brought it up so other people wouldn't misunderstand you Dargorn. I didn't want anyone to think that way about you. It can easily be misunderstood by those of us who are not so clever.

What brought up the confusion is that that you suggested that we should withdrawn from the middle east entirly and let them mind their own business. that is an entirely valid opinion.
I thought on the other hand that this, with the lack of foreing aid and military influence, would cause the civil wars in afghanistan to eventually kill the country of poverty and death losses. So I asked you to see if you had considered that.. Then you say Of course the'll die. Implying that you had thought about it and didn't care at all. But meanwhile you have obviously changed opinions as you write yourself. Confusing? I didnt want people to have the wrong impression of you. Friends?



[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 17, 2001).]

 

"And you think the standard of the US-army year 2001 is equivalent with the russian army 1979?

I hope that the US-army is more competent."

I might offer that the US military may have a tough time if a ground war occurs. The Afganistan army and it's supporters live and breath ground wars everyday - it is their lives, part of the reason why the Russians were thwarted. (And also because of support from the very countries who are out for their blood at present)

Let me say first that I think terrorists must be punished. I don't have the solution for how to accomplish this, but I just believe that if taken lightly, these actions will only occur again. The world must learn that terrorism will not be tolerated by the rest of the free world. Anyone who thinks that terrorism is only an American problem, you are sorely mistaken. This time the world is involved, and the whole world is going to be affected.

Secondly, it is understandable that the American members here would express shock and surprise at comments that perhaps the US had it coming or in some way deserved this attack. The US is the world power, and has a very difficult role to assume. If a problem breaks out and the Americans get involved then they are called 'meddlers'. If they turn a blind eye, then they aren't compassionate to the problems of the less fortunate. American foreign policy could probably use some work, I think every country's foreiegn policy is under review in light of last week, but the fact remains that if the Americans support one side of a conflict, they are opposed to the other other side. This policy will win followers but also gain mortal enemies.

To talk to an American, is to talk to someone who is proud of their country, someone who is patriotic and believes that their nation is the best in the world, someone who cannot believe that their fellow countymen are dying on their own soil and someone who cannot accept that the rest of the world would not want to live the 'American Dream'. You must be aware of the fact that many people may regard you as arrogant and self-indulged. I'm not saying that these observations are true, but that they are the accepted stereo-type, and that seems to be all that matters. It doesn't surprise me that such strong feelings of patriotism could be misunderstood.

All life is precious, no matter where you live or what beliefs you hold dear. I have no respect for anyone who thinks that our fellow humans should have to experience such atrocities.