How do you reason with Terrorist?

[Hobo]

Well if they're willing to give their life for their cause, then the Governments are going to make sure htat they can give their lives in a way that effects as few other people as possible

[Fez]

they are doing this, thats how we lost over 50 men recently.....

[Volsung]

Wow. My main problem with dubya isn't that he's a moron. It's that that moron is in charge of (Let's face it) one of the most powerful countries in the world. Having him in charge during 911 is the best thing that could ever have happened to AQ. Think about it. You want to blow stuff up in the US and you want to arouse anti-US sentiment at the same time. That's difficult. Bombing some place without any (Immediately obvious) provocation generally makes the victim seem sympathetic.

Enter Bush. The only man dumb enough to think that bombing ENTIRE COUNTRIES in hopes of killing, say, 50 people, was a good idea. That's afghanistan. As for Iraq there are reports of meetings he had two weeks into office where he said "(about saddam) Let's find a way to get rid of this guy" If you recall, Saddam was put into power by the US in the first place. It's only when George Sr. finds exception with him that anything bad was suspected. I wonder why that is?

Suddenly, (HA! suddenly...) tons of anti-US all over the place. Leading the people into a war based on WMDs we had every reason to believe were not there, (as stated by the intelligence reports) is a HUGE breach of presidential authority. Come on! We impeached Clinton because he got head from an intern and lied about it. Nobody was hurt. Yet Bush gets to go on a war rampage fueled in great part by complete lies. Thousands of people die on both sides; everybody hates the US; and there is nothing to show for it. Where's the poetic justice, damnit?

As for reasoning with Terrorists, it's pretty obvious you can't. The entire UN tells Bush that this war is a bad idea and will kill lots of civilians for minimal, or as it turns out, NO results, but does he listen? He couldn't do that! They hate our freedom! It's time to kill people who have absolutely nothing to do with it!

And of course in the process of this witch-hunt more and more people see the US as a capitalist blight intent on hurting others for their own benefit. Rightly, I suppose. As 911 was in fact in response to the US murdering hundreds of citizens via bombing during what was supposedly peace-time. What will this bombing do but create more terrorists? Kill some people. Get us some more oil. I think that's about it.

[Esus]

PA, you're what? 22? What say makes you appear like an incredibly naiave person half your age...

- Isn't it hilarious how Kerry voted FOR the PATRIOT Act, and now he opposes it?

The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House:
“Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03).

Not surprisingly, now Kerry wants the act repealed:
“We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, Iowa City, IA, 12/1/03)

- How he supported the Iraq War and the 87 billion dollars towards the rebuilding process, but now is against it?

FOR:
“George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

AGAINST:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

- How he supported the first Gulf war, but now opposes it?

AGAINST:
‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

FOR:
‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]”

I can go on and on, there are mass amounts of issues in which John Kerry has DIRECTLY contradicted himself. Perhaps i'll put afew more out there a little later.

How can anyone in their right mind vote for John Kerry come election day?

I may not be American, but I do love me politics!

Anywho, back to your question (How do you reason with Terrorist?), you reason with them the same way as anyone else. Not with a gun, not with killing but by trying to acheive both ends. Trying to give way and let them have what they want - to an extent, but make sure it's fair all around. Every terrorist is generally doing it for something - they're not going into it blindly with no cause. To stop them, remove their cause or remove their motive.

[Havoc]

Anywho, back to your question (How do you reason with Terrorist?), you reason with them the same way as anyone else. Not with a gun, not with killing but by trying to acheive both ends. Trying to give way and let them have what they want - to an extent, but make sure it's fair all around. Every terrorist is generally doing it for something - they're not going into it blindly with no cause. To stop them, remove their cause or remove their motive.

Thats a rather easy solution isnt it? Just giving them what they want to get rid of the problem?
"Oh, America will do whatever we want to prevent a terrorist attack! Lets demend even more things like a milion dollar per month for not blowing up half the city of New York with stolen WMD from an AMERICAN base..."
Thats not gonna work... if you take away a motive or reason that usealy mean that you GIVE them something... mostly freedom, money or a new goverment. But in the end ppl wil start abusing that and it will al go to downright blackmailing...

[Jacob]

'How can anyone in their right mind vote for John Kerry come election day?'

I don't see how a man changing his mind can make him seem bad...care to elaborate?

[Esus]

Well, somebody who is running for president should have consise and clear thoughts on the issues. If he is forever changing his mind about major things, then how can you vote for him?
You should vote for a president because you agree with their policies/ideas and stances on various subjects. If he is going to go back on what he previously said then how can you possibly continue to agree with him?
Example: Lets say he's against the war in Iraq. If you vote him president because of that, how can you be sure he won't launch an invasion on Iraq. As we can see, he has a history of changing his mind about major things.

[Statikk HDM]

Gee, would you rather have him be WRONG or pragmatic? This guy doesn't need to clutch these beliefs till his dying day.Hell, I'd be overjoyed if Bush stopped being such an antagonistic, dogmatic prick and learned to be flexible.
Also, The Volsung has raised some great points and I'd just like to elaborate. You don't have to be a Republican to love America. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LIKE GEORGE BUSH! Esus and paramiteabe bitch that Kerry flips flops? Pleaaase. How about bush saying that he was going to give 10 times what he actually gave to fund education? How about Bush saying that he was not in favor of regime changes when hes already attempted two of them? How about Bush saying that he was all about fiscal responsibility when he's spent more money than any other president since Lyndon B. Johnson? How about Bush saying the main cause for war was WMDs. Then it was about regime changes. Then it was containing terrorists. How about Bush promising that he would not pass a massive tax cut for the rich and called Gore's PERFECTLY ACURATE assessment of the tax cut "fuzzy math? But what did he do? Use "fuzzy truth" A.K.A. lies and pass one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the world with the vast majority of the money being funnelled to the richest 1 percent of America?

[Jacob]

To add on from Stads point, i would just like to say that if Kerry did change his mind, it must be for a good reason. One that atleast a few would agree with him about...and so i don't see a problem.

[paramiteabe]

For one we are bringing these terrorist to justice. Saddam is going to be put on trial in a few months and in June we are going to hand over the power to the Iraqis so they may start their new Government.

We have Bin Ladden at our fingertips now and its only a matter of time until we bring him to justice.

The terrorist are running scared and we are winning this war.

[Codek]

How do you reason with a terrorist? No I think that's not the question. The question is "How do you reason with a bearded afgahni guy?". The answer is "Do it the American way! Shoot him in the head and accidentally kill his daughter at the same time!".

Enough said.

[Volsung]

I was about to give up on this thread when I had an Idea. PA, I can't quite follow your reasons as to why American Pre-emptive attacks on countries like Iraq are good. You're obviously capable of setting up an argument more effectively, so I was wondering if you, or someone who shares your views on war and terrorism, could state the basic assumptions or inherent truths that lead you to believe the way you do. I know this is a broad request, but please, think about it, define some terms, and maybe the forum can discuss where the ideas diverge.

[ClaireBear]

How do you reason with a terrorist? No I think that's not the question. The question is "How do you reason with a bearded afgahni guy?". The answer is "Do it the American way! Shoot him in the head and accidentally kill his daughter at the same time!".

Enough said.

To that I just ...

I was about to give up on this thread when I had an Idea. PA, I can't quite follow your reasons as to why American Pre-emptive attacks on countries like Iraq are good. You're obviously capable of setting up an argument more effectively, so I was wondering if you, or someone who shares your views on war and terrorism, could state the basic assumptions or inherent truths that lead you to believe the way you do. I know this is a broad request, but please, think about it, define some terms, and maybe the forum can discuss where the ideas diverge.

Yes... I want to know where PA's thoughts and ideas have come from too... I'd like to know if his ideas are a widespread belief (as far as he's aware from his own experience of his fellow countrymen) or whether his views are a singular, personal notion.

[Esus]

@Statikk
It would really help if you had some type of references for some of these claims. I can't really believe all of these, as i'm sure some of these would have made huge news. Regardless, i'll respond...

How about bush saying that he was going to give 10 times what he actually gave to fund education?

That is not a "flip-flop". He never changed his opinion on the matter. You obviously have failed to realize that congress as a whole is who is spending the money, and what a President wants is not always what he gets.

How about Bush saying that he was not in favor of regime changes when hes already attempted two of them?

When did he say such a thing? If it was pre-9/11, it's kind of irrelevant, don't you think? Sure, he isn't in favor of regime change, but sometimes it must be done. Even that dolt John Kerry recognizes this (or at least he DID...).

How about Bush saying the main cause for war was WMDs. Then it was about regime changes. Then it was containing terrorists.

I am sick of people constantly bringing this moronic argument up..

Would you like to know WHY he said those three things? Because, sir, all three of those were listed in the multiple UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush cited those resolutions, notably 1441, as his reasons for operation Iraqi Freedom. It is apparent that you have yet to read any of those - why attempt at a forein policy debate, then?

lies and pass one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the world with the vast majority of the money being funnelled to the richest 1 percent of America?

You do realize that this 1% you speak of is actually paying 75% of the nations taxes, right? Naturally, if tax cuts are based on PERCENTS, and man A makes more than man B, who is going to get more of a tax cut?

Let's say i make $100, and you make $10 - i am taxed 30% and you are taxed 20%. Who is keeping more money? Yes, the "rich", but who is PAYING more money? Bingo - the rich. What's so hard to understand about this? Democratic politicians are constantly pushing the cliché that "Bush is for the rich", which is nothing more than propaganda for dinner-time discussion.

THE "RICH" MAKE MORE - SO PROPORTIONALLY THEY WILL KEEP MORE.

[ClaireBear]

@Statikk
It would really help if you had some type of references for some of these claims. I can't really believe all of these, as i'm sure some of these would have made huge news. Regardless, i'll respond...


That is not a "flip-flop". He never changed his opinion on the matter. You obviously have failed to realize that congress as a whole is who is spending the money, and what a President wants is not always what he gets.


When did he say such a thing? If it was pre-9/11, it's kind of irrelevant, don't you think? Sure, he isn't in favor of regime change, but sometimes it must be done. Even that dolt John Kerry recognizes this (or at least he DID...).


I am sick of people constantly bringing this moronic argument up..

Would you like to know WHY he said those three things? Because, sir, all three of those were listed in the multiple UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush cited those resolutions, notably 1441, as his reasons for operation Iraqi Freedom. It is apparent that you have yet to read any of those - why attempt at a forein policy debate, then?


You do realize that this 1% you speak of is actually paying 75% of the nations taxes, right? Naturally, if tax cuts are based on PERCENTS, and man A makes more than man B, who is going to get more of a tax cut?

Let's say i make $100, and you make $10 - i am taxed 30% and you are taxed 20%. Who is keeping more money? Yes, the "rich", but who is PAYING more money? Bingo - the rich. What's so hard to understand about this? Democratic politicians are constantly pushing the cliché that "Bush is for the rich", which is nothing more than propaganda for dinner-time discussion.

THE "RICH" MAKE MORE - SO PROPORTIONALLY THEY WILL KEEP MORE.

Esus! You're heading into true socialist and dare I say.... communist views here!

I see nothing wrong in that though... our (British) system of government at the moment is an, all be it, flawed socialist system and communism is the perfect solution to a lot of ills ... in theory and on paper!... in reality... its track record speaks for itself!!

[paramiteabe]

I get my point of view from what I hear on an every day basis from the News media mainly radio to the general public. Everyday these issues rise to discussion with people and what I am hearing is that more people are actually for this war as oppose to being against it. I know this because I hear it on the radio every single day. You ever hear Glen Beck a talk radio host out of Philadelphia? He is actually libral he is for the war and for the true America. He has a book out called "The True America" And it explanes the justification of America and shows whats really false about the United States. When the extreme left starts complaining about no jobs and the war I see no truth to that because its just not true because I see new jobs forming every day. And when middle people like me want to explane to the extreme left this, we can't because we can't reason with them. They lack rationality and it mainly comes down to being extremely ignorant. I am observing how the extreme left isn't being rational thus I tell them that.

Mainly I am trying to be the middle man and steping back and stateing what I am hearing around me. I make these topics to express that view and try to convince that the extreme left and this whole thing on this war is just a bunch of bull. Because thats not the true America and if you read this book you would agree with me. I am mildly libral myself but I am a real rational person whome agrees with our efforts in Iraq.

As a citizen of the United States I support my country and my troops because what we are doing over there is right.

[ClaireBear]

So what is the name of the book?

"The True America" by Glen Beck... ?

[paramiteabe]

Yes but if your in Europe I dunno if they sell it there.

[paramiteabe]

If you read this book you will see that America is not the fat pigs that Europe and the mainstream media made us out to be. There great people among us who do little things that help and well thats the True America. Just read the book and your opinion towards our country will indeed change.

[ClaireBear]

If you read this book you will see that America is not the fat pigs that Europe and the mainstream media made us out to be. There great people among us who do little things that help and well thats the True America. Just read the book and your opinion towards our country will indeed change.

So maybe I should forget what I read in "Stupid White Men" first then!?!

Maybe that would help in the opinion changing?

[Oddsville]

Oye veh(sp?), I just am joining in on this conversation and I have no clue where to begin. When it comes to Bush, well at first I thought he was the right choice. Seemed to know what he was doing during 9/11 and acted as though he had a decent plan twoards our future, but then war comes along and everything slowly unravels. Now Im not saying that Bush is bad but for God's sake everyday we loose more and more men to some stupid road side bombing in Iraq while the Iraqies have been protesting for us to leave. To me that sounds like a great idea, they don't want our help; enjoy your freedom then. Just don't whine to us when something happens again.

Now to Kerry, well I don't really like him either. In my oppinion non of them should really be running. We need somebody that can nullify the terrorist threat without causing a massive war. And when it comes to the WMD's, well I think if we have indeed found some then Bush better put out before Kerry takes his place. Excuse my mispelling and all of my awefully backed up points but Im kinda tired right now and not in the "zone" for a decent argument, just wanted to put in my two cents..enjoy!

[paramiteabe]

Thats true I think we should pull out and I think in June when we hand over power to the Iraqis I think things will slow down. But it was right to go in and get rid of Saddam before he could become an iminant threat. If anybody who is violent it is the Saddam loyalist. Those are the enamy and those the people responsible for the roadside bombings. We are there bring order and they want to be violent.

Thats the reason why I think the war was justified.

[Mac the Janitor]

So maybe I should forget what I read in "Stupid White Men" first then!?!

Maybe that would help in the opinion changing?

Actually, the stereotypes are pretty much right on the dot.

Of course, there are many of us who are not fat ignorant pigs, but the majority of Americans are.

[Jacob]

'I get my point of view from what I hear on an every day basis from the News media mainly radio to the general public. Everyday these issues rise to discussion with people and what I am hearing'

So, effectivly, you believe the Media. Yet, you obviously select very carefully what you believe in the Media because when they say something of dire importance and intellect, you choose not to believe it...which is interesting, since it makes you even more of a moron.

[ClaireBear]

Thats the reason why I think the war was justified.

IMHO War is NEVER justifiable... never!

Some wars may be commonly seen as more righteous than others but violence is never justifiable... nor is it acceptable.

[Esus]

PA, are you sure that book was created merely for propaganda purposes? You speak of it as if it is your bible, and:
"So, effectivly, you believe the Media. Yet, you obviously select very carefully what you believe in the Media because when they say something of dire importance and intellect, you choose not to believe it...which is interesting, since it makes you even more of a moron."

Thats true I think we should pull out and I think in June when we hand over power to the Iraqis I think things will slow down. But it was right to go in and get rid of Saddam before he could become an iminant threat. If anybody who is violent it is the Saddam loyalist. Those are the enamy and those the people responsible for the roadside bombings. We are there bring order and they want to be violent.

Thats the reason why I think the war was justified.

What the hell? You didn't give a single reason there! You said they're the bad guys and america was right to kill them. That's your reason?!?

[Mac the Janitor]

Guys, let's just let PA be. He has his opinions, and as retarded as they may be, he's not going to change them.

[Jacob]

'he's not going to change them.'

Well, with an attitude like that it's no wonder there are people dying of AIDS...

[Volsung]

Unfortunately I'm with Mac on this one. Until someone sets up the known facts of the war and the situations that brought them on, this argument is likely to devolve into flaming. Perhaps a level-headed conservative (or liberal) could start a thread which clearly stated how we got to this crossroads. I'd really like to understand where PA's coming from and see both sides of this issue; but either I'm too close-minded or I'm simply missing some basic assumptions.

Aids is a completely different (equally controversial) ethical mess. I'm not sure we should get into that here. Good connection though, Jacob. When should we leave well enough alone?

[Jacob]

Umm...i was just blaming Macs attitude for AIDS. Yes. His fault.

Vols - you never will understand PA's arguments...ever. Because PA never has a decent argument, mainly because he doesn't take the time to explain his argument logically. He either ends his arguments with "I'm right, God's on my side. You're all going to burn in the damnation of Lucifers urine." or "I'm right. Bush's on my side. You're all going to burn in the damnation of Bushs incompetance.".