Reasons for WAR

[abe]

Ive always seen the American Revolution as a large-scale tax revolt........im sure im gonna get shit from everyone for saying that.

Bondo, the United Kingdom IS a member of the EU. they just decided not to adopt the common currency. it is true that they are in an identity crisis over whether they identify more with the guys across the atlantic or the ones across the channel.

russia had its nose as deep in the middle east as we do during the cold war. france is as involved in west africa as we are in the mideast. i think this is a little more complex than: they dont like us because we have interests in their region and defend them. its like saying that it is ok for mexicans and south americans to come to the US and start shit because we stick our nose into their domestic politics. its a pretty weak defense of terrorism......besides you shouldnt be defending terrorists or trying to find lame justifications for what they do.....they are murderers and psychopaths. can you make a good justification for jeffrey damer or ted bundy as well? when you justify what they do or look at the "root-causes" of terrorism you are being a sucker, because there is no justification for murder and all you are doing is giving in to their demands.

[BTs_Colin]

Bucc you act like they picked the WTC because they were tall and shiny.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No Colin, I act like trying to justify their crimes is almost criminal itself.  I'm not saying that they didn't have whatever twisted reasons of their own.  I'm saying that terrorists can twist just about anything into a reason.  And that when you look at it, there just can't be any true justification for that kind of criminal action.  

Did those PIRA bombers think they were doing the right thing?  Sure.  Does that make it right?  Reasonable?  Justified?  No.  And if you say no, you can't say that they were provoked.  Because saying that, is just a little justification.  No terrorist deserves that much.

That is what I'm saying.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Let me give a few analogies that show that feeling the terrorists had provocation is not supporting the terrorists.

Take abortion.  There are many pro-life people who understand the reason someone would shoot an abortion doctor.  Are these people supporting the killing of doctors even if they say they they disapprove of the action but merely understand why it happened?

Or how about PETA.  I support their general idea that animals should be treated ethically.  I find some places distasteful that they do things to.  I don't however support radical/illegal action in response.  Does my understanding why they'd do those illegal actions say I'm supporting or condoning them?

So with these examples why is it any different for terrorism.  I understand there have been some attrocities commited against Arab/Muslim areas by Israel and by the US and so there is reason for them to be upset (although there have been greater attrocities commited against them by their own leaders and so they should probably commit terrorism against the leaders).  I understand what makes them angry but in no way shape or form support using terrorism as a means to get better treatment.  I am supporting the terrorists no more than I am supporting PETA in the above example and should be free to feel the way I do without being called a terrorist sympathizer.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Well I posted the speech from upstairs and I was dumbfounded because Byrd is normally a conservative democrat he seems a lot like Im guessing you Bucc but I might be wrong buut he has been great on Iraq. I will let you guys argue but I think the speech could not have been better for the topic, somewhere in between Bucc's 99% good and Bondo's 100% is where I rest so yea cool.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Are these people supporting the killing of doctors even if they say they they disapprove of the action but merely understand why it happened?

IMO, yep.  They are.  They are giving it a tiny bit of right.  A tiny bit of ok.  "I don't approve of killing, but I understand them hating enough."  And that's just murder you are talking about, not terrorism.  

Or how about PETA.  I support their general idea that animals should be treated ethically.  I find some places distasteful that they do things to.  I don't however support radical/illegal action in response.  Does my understanding why they'd do those illegal actions say I'm supporting or condoning them?

There's no real example there, but in general I'm going to say yes, by saying that you understand why they did it, you are in a small way condoning them.  

Here is the difference in what you are talking about and what I'm talking about.

I support a free Ireland.  I do not support the PIRA.  I do not, nor ever will understand why they would bomb innocent people in London.

I support a nation of Palistine.  I do not support the PLO.  I do not, nor ever will understand why someone would run into a crowded marketplace and blow up people.

I support that if an American wants to live seggregated, he has that right.  I will never understand why the KKK would burn down a church.

You see, terrorism is what I don't support.  What should never be supported, in any way.  You can understand why people hate the USA, but you can't understand why they'd fly planes into the WTC.  There is just no understanding them.  How can you understand the illogic of terrorism?

It's different to say that you understand why people in the middle east don't like the USA.  Or why muslims may find it offensive.  But that has nothing to do with understanding why terrorist would do what they do.

Now, provoking it is a step further.  NOBODY PROVOKES TERRORISM.  Terrorism would have to be logical to be provoked.  

The US was provoking a war with the USSR by putting nukes in Turkey.  The USSR was provoking a war with the USA by putting nukes in Cuba.  Those are good examples of provoking.

But how do you provoke terrorism?  That's like saying you were provoked to hold hostages because the police showed up when you were robbing the bank.  It's like saying that the police trying to arrest you provoked you into shooting him (or saying we all understand it, since you wouldn't want to go to jail).  

That's another good example.  I understand a normal, rational person not wanting to go to jail.  I do not understand anyone that would shoot a cop to not go to jail.  

That's the bottom line right there.  I can understand and even sympathize with people that think their rights are being trampled.  But those aren't the people that fly planes into buildings or set bombs in markets.  

Terrorist just shouldn't be given the least little validation by saying you understand them.  If anything, it should hurt their cause, not further it.  Because anything less than complete and total contempt only encourages it.

So, to finish with your example Bondo.  Don't support PETA.  Support animal rights.  The difference is small but so very important.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Can someone run Zaitsev's last post through the universial translator?  Besides saying he posted the stuff by Byrd, and being happy that it was really liberal, I didn't quite get any point.

Anyone, was there a point?

Should that be a new forum game?  Find the point in Zaitsev's posts?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Well I posted the speech from upstairs and I was dumbfounded because Byrd is normally a conservative democrat he seems a lot like Im guessing you Bucc but I might be wrong buut he has been great on Iraq. I will let you guys argue but I think the speech could not have been better for the topic, somewhere in between Bucc's 99% good and Bondo's 100% is where I rest so yea cool.

"WEL I POSTED DA SPECH FROM UPSTARES AND I WAS DUMBFOUND3D B/C BYRD IS NORMALY A CONSERVATIEV DAMOCRAT HA SEMS A LOT LIEK IM GUESNG U BUC BUT I MIGHT B WRONG BUT HA HAS BEN GR3AT ON IRAQ111!1! WTF LOL I WIL LET U GUYS ARGUE BUT I THINK DA SPECH CUD NOT HAEV BEN BTER FOR DA 2PIC SOMEWHARE IN BTWEN BUCS 9% GOD AND BONDOS 10% IS WH3RA I REST SO Y3A COL!1!11 OMG WTF LOL"

Heh.

Zaitsev, your post does lack a point, next time try to include one. Or maybe you are trying to include a point, but you can't since it is all smashed together in long run-on sentences.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I have this vision of Bondo, reading these last few posts, wanting to come to Rush Zaitsev's defense, to help the poor liberal.  He's shaking like a junkie trying to quit, but looking at the keyboard like it's bag of the pure stuff, uncut.  

Will Bondo continue to break the cycle.  Or will he give in, plunge the needle of the dumbass back in his arm, and try to say it's a good point and he can ignore the hard to read post.  And supports Zaitsev fully.

Sorry Bondo.  I'm not trying to pick a fight, but it was a funny image.  Think Pookey (Chris Rock) from New Jack City.  Looking at his crack pipe.  You, looking at the keyboard, not wanting to be a dumbass but wanting to post.  I'm actually laughing my ass off thinking about it.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hmm, sort of like trying not to want to smoke pot again (damn that one time)?

Anyway, I don't see what specifically Zait said wrong...it was a mild fairly innoculous post.  He was saying that like you, Byrd is a moderate liberal...you after all admit to being a bit more left than right but having views on both sides.  So he was saying that Byrd is like you in that respect but is clearly against the War in Iraq.

I aslo agree with Zait that the speech was a good post for the topic.

The thing I don't understand is him saying you agreed 99% with the speech which clearly you didn't.  I did agree pretty much 100% though...he was saying he was in between the two of use in agreement with the points of the speech.  But seeing as you seemed to agree with very little that leaves much room.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, what happened to posts written that bad not being worth reading?  

I'm not saying that he said much wrong, I'm saying that it's pretty hard to tell what he's saying, and what point he's trying to make.  

So, I guess you still bother when it's someone you agree with.  Well, it was too much to hope for.

My only other thought, why the hell not post a link like everyone else does?  

As for the the Bondo translation, meh, I don't buy all of it.  You sugar coated it (he called him a conservative democrat, not a moderate liberal).  But even you couldn't follow all of it, and you seem to really try.

And I hope you would agree, that's the kind of shit post we were talking about before.  When you need to call out a search party for the actual point, it's pretty bad.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Lol, well, until you made a point of saying I was dying to defend Zait I hadn't even read his post.  I only bothered because you said it.  I agree it wasn't written well.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

 Sin I know it was all good hearted but I dont think your version of me was that good. At any rate your comparasions I agree with your views on Palestine PLO and then Ireland PITA and what about Chechnyia but not the free Chechniyan army or whatever thier called (sorry i dont know) or even Basque country in Spain. But I was just wondering, not trying to be jerky her just wondering about one thing

You dont support PLO but you do support a Palestine nation
You dont support PITA but you do support a free Ireland
You dont support KKK but you do support segregation

I KNOW thats not what you said but I mean if you kind of catch my drift like you sort of were on a roll there of no terror yes views and Im sure you dont have that in case of the last one, no worries just someone might misinterperte that ya know?

My point on the last post, which was ridiculed, was that one of the flaws you citied Bucc: the disregard that Iraq has responsibilities in this affair I agree with. However the 50% children thing, at the time, I did not understand. So I was saying You said there was much to disagree and that wasnt true for me and Bondo said there was nothin to disagree with and that wasnt true. I simply meant I was in the middle of that

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Gee, some asshole tossed a gasoline filled milk carton into a subway car full of peple in South Korea.  

The first person that tries to justify this, just a little, deserves his teeth knocked in.  

I'm only going to say this.

It was terrorism. (even if it was a single nut, the unibomber was a terrorist in this same light).

120 (estimated) innocent South Koreans lost their lives while doing nothing but their daily commutes.

Nobody provokes this kind of action.  Nobody deserves this kind of action.  

Any kind of justification to this will provoke a good, swift punch in the mouth.  If I were a terrorist, I guess I'd go burn down a curch instead.

I haven't read anything but the bare outline on it so far, no editorials or speculations at all.  But I want to point out, here's another case, and it's every bit just as bad as the WTC, just not here or as many people.  But it still sucks ass big time.  And people that try to excuse it, in the smallest possible way, they really deserve to be in one of those buildings.

And Zaitsev, I don't support segregation.  I support a persons right to live that way if he choses.  There is a difference.  A big difference.  The way I said it is important.  That's why you should quote and not paraphrase.

I didn't mention the Basque seperatists because, frankly, I don't know where I stand on them.  I don't know where they stand on everything either.  I haven't seen much news about them as terrorists in a long while.  Same with the PIRA, but I remember them from my youth.  I was in England and scared as a child.

As for the Chechniyan Revolt.  I have mixed feelings there too.  I don't know which side I would come down on.  But I do know that the terrorists that held the theater in Moscow got better then they deserved.  Terrorism hurts the causes more then it helps.  And terrorism is a war the whole world should fight against.  

[abe]

would it help if somone posted links to speeches by democrats who support bush's iraq-policy? how about republicans who disagree? because they do exist. bondo even admitted this wasnt a partisan issue, even if the public opinion is split 50-50 (or 60-40 in favor of bush, depending on how the question is worded). it is clear that this debate transcends party lines, so there is really no use in pointing out the fact that moderate democrats in the senate don't support bush on this. its still an interesting speech and i have a lot of respect for sen. byrd (hes the white haired guy from west virginia, right?), but i dont see why you had to post the whole thing instead of a link. if asking people on this forum about their opinion on the saudi arabia thing is spam, as you have claimed zaitsev, shouldnt this qualify as ueber-spam??? do i smell hypocrisy, or did you forget to wipe your ass? because i smell bullshit.

zaitsev, does the fact that neither bucc nor i care much for bush or the GOP make it harder to argue your case? wasnt it easier to just label us republicans and call us warmongerers? well, maybe this has taught you that people can have opinions that are independant of which party they vote for. maybe thats hoping for a little much...

i actually think its impressive that you even care about this stuff at your age, but you simply havent learned to take other peoples viewpoints seriously or factor what they say into your thinking. you are also pretty uncritical of your sources and tend to misinterpret them and twist them around so that they fit your arguement better. if you do that on a polisci paper, youll get an F. if you do it on the forums, youll get a lot of shit from bucc.

also, i think that your perspective on bush's iraq policy is shaped primarily by what you think of the United States and it's foreign policy. instead of focusing on what the US' motives are and what the US did during the cold war, try looking at iraq and saddam hussein. you even admit that hes a brutal and despotic ruler. for one minute just ignore the US completely: can u honestly tell me that what saddam is doing is ok? and this is my harshest criticism of all the anti-war people: YOU ARE DEFENDING AN OPPRESIVE TYRANT IN THE NAME OF PEACE AND HUMANISM. no matter how often these people point out that saddam is a bad guy, the fact of the matter is that they are, inadvertantly, helping an dangerous and oppressive dictator stay in power and this is truely ironic and, imo, completely absurd. stop letting your dislike of the US and its policies blind you to the fact that saddam is a bad guy. saddam himself couldnt wish for any better supporters than the anti-war protester or the "human shields" ("target idiots" seems a more apt description, imo), who are willing to disregard all of his atrocities (in this case this word is appropriate, although you zaitzev seem to have it reserved only for things the US or israel does), simply because they think america is an imperialist power. well, i personally would rather live there than iraq. if anyone disagrees, i suggest you get packing and move to Bagdhad. im sure saddam would be ecstatic....

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Sin I know it was all good hearted but I dont think your version of me was that good.

Zaitsev, Bucc refered to the translator and I simply through your post through the translator that Bondo posted earlier. In no way, shape, or form could I have thought of making something that looked so damn idiotic.

But it is pretty funny, I must admit.

Anyway, I think I am handling the situation rather well, I swore to myself not to erupt in arguments over war or many other international issues and I seem to be doing a good job (except for a couple occasions). Let's hope no one pushes me over the edge and makes me bring the flamethrower and the hammer of common sense.

[Saberian 3000]

Well, for the picture is concerned I like it heh.  It has some class to it heh.  And states a very bold point.  Far out!

[jn.loudnotes]

Continuing the off-topic rambling, here's my take on the whole condoning issue.

I don't understand why the terrorists bombed a station in South Korea.  I don't condone it in any way.  However, I can understand why the terrorists might have been upset.  Likewise, I can sort of understand why Osama bin Laden hates the United States.  Don't pretend you can't at least see his point of view.  

What we all should be against, and generally are whether we can see the viewpoint or not, is the method of expression.  Sure I can understand why someone would hate the US, but not why they would kill 3000 innocent people because of it.

Or another take:  I can understand it, that is, I recognize that they are in some form or fashion, insane.  Simply acknowledging that doesn't support them.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

I thought it was a middle aged guy with metal problems which lit that station on fire...but then again I havent caught the news recently.

Terrorists do things to make people afraid - to disrupt people's everyday lives. In Israel, people are afraid of taking the bus, much less eating a restauraunt because they do not know if a suicide bomber will walk in and blow them up.

Here is an interesting opinon article from my school's newpaper. He is Jewish and he has his opinions on the terrorism which goes on almost daily.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=23110

I do not advocate this article in any way, I am just saying read it and formulate your own opinions.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

It seems the premise of his whole article is that Israel wants peace...which is debatable.  The citizens do, but the goverment/military don't seem to want it too much.

Also about this "Israelis know that the terror won't stop unless a solution is found."

One solution although Israelis won't confront it is that Israel not be where it is.  I don't know of any solution that is as sure to work as that...or for that matter any solution that will work at all beside that.