How to end terrorism

Commy

JB811 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

great post. finally someone posts some sense.

As I said before, we should have listened to their demands from the start. The demands have been extremely well thought out and coherent even in 1997 and 1998 when Bin Laden talked about similar things to an ABC news anchor

Do you have two brains cells that can interact? This may possibly be the most hilarious post I've read this year anywhere.

Anyone that thinks bin Laden is right, or can be reasoned with is a fool. A fool that would be beheaded in an instant so you could be the headline on al-jazeera.

good call. lets add gasoline, as outlaw said.

we can bring everything down, including terrorism.

Commy

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Its good to voice your opinion on important topics, but I'm sure glad no elected offical or the majority of voting America shares your view on this one.

what's wrong with ending supports for tyrants and withdrawing armies from some of Islam's holiest sites?

OffHeGoes29

Commy wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Its good to voice your opinion on important topics, but I'm sure glad no elected offical or the majority of voting America shares your view on this one.

what's wrong with ending supports for tyrants and withdrawing armies from some of Islam's holiest sites?

Just that your answer is a little niave and generalized for a very complicated problem thats beyond your scope of current understanding.

Commy

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Commy wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Its good to voice your opinion on important topics, but I'm sure glad no elected offical or the majority of voting America shares your view on this one.

what's wrong with ending supports for tyrants and withdrawing armies from some of Islam's holiest sites?

Just that your answer is a little niave and generalized for a very complicated problem thats beyond your scope of current understanding.

but the current solution to terrorism is?

violence caused it so violence can solve it?

that's a schoolyard bully approach, that's the simple minded solution, and it isn't working.

if they fight- and they say why they fight- and we stop whatever is we've been doing that made them fight- and they continue to fight.....then its complicated.

as it is we have no idea, because Washington's first response has always been violence. that's basic. to me the solution i suggest is much more complex...it deals with the motivation, the reason for terrorism.

you kill a terrorist- what does that do but motivate everyone he has ever known to take up arms against us? you kill 1 you create 10. its not just simplistic, its idiotic, and its the approach they're taking now.

It makes no sense given current stated objectives. it only makes sense if you understand that stopping terrorism is NOT the real objective.

OffHeGoes29

Well its just a little arrogant and way above your understanding to come up with such a blunt approach to a complicated problem. I’m all for new ideas, but what your suggesting is about as blind to the problem like some red neck saying we should turn the place into a glass parking lot.

No offense here dude, but you do not have any idea as to how foreign policy works, you don’t have access to what the people who do this for a living know. You don’t live and work with the people in some remote tribal region of Afghanistan or have had a sit down with a local shik in Iraq to solve issues. You are not an intelligence expert who has their finger on the pulse of whats going on. Your not some Washington insider who has connections and a knowledge of how these things work when it comes to policy. And you’re not some person on the ground there and know how this all works. I don’t do this for a living, but I have a lot of people close to me in my life who do, and have done a lot of great things for us and the people who live there and that are affected.

Its just a little arrogant of you to pipe up on a subject and suggest a disastrous option just because you watch 30 minutes or the daily show every night, attended a couple anti-war rallies led by kids who still depend on their parents for support and have zero life experience, and maybe read some Marxist material, and now you’re an expert on foreign policy. You don’t do this for a living, stop playing Monday morning quarter back or armchair general on a delicate issue. There is nothing wrong with educating yourself on the issue, but cut the people some slack who do this for a living, because whether you want to admit it or not, they have ours and the people in questions best interest at heart here.

This post isn’t for you to get the point, because you won’t understand, but more for anyone else that might read your post.

jlew24asu

excellent post OffHeGoes29

Commy

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Well its just a little arrogant and way above your understanding to come up with such a blunt approach to a complicated problem. I’m all for new ideas, but what your suggesting is about as blind to the problem like some red neck saying we should turn the place into a glass parking lot.

No offense here dude, but you do not have any idea as to how foreign policy works, you don’t have access to what the people who do this for a living know. You don’t live and work with the people in some remote tribal region of Afghanistan or have had a sit down with a local shik in Iraq to solve issues. You are not an intelligence expert who has their finger on the pulse of whats going on. Your not some Washington insider who has connections and a knowledge of how these things work when it comes to policy. And you’re not some person on the ground there and know how this all works. I don’t do this for a living, but I have a lot of people close to me in my life who do, and have done a lot of great things for us and the people who live there and that are affected.

Its just a little arrogant of you to pipe up on a subject and suggest a disastrous option just because you watch 30 minutes or the daily show every night, attended a couple anti-war rallies led by kids who still depend on their parents for support and have zero life experience, and maybe read some Marxist material, and now you’re an expert on foreign policy. You don’t do this for a living, stop playing Monday morning quarter back or armchair general on a delicate issue. There is nothing wrong with educating yourself on the issue, but cut the people some slack who do this for a living, because whether you want to admit it or not, they have ours and the people in questions best interest at heart here.

This post isn’t for you to get the point, because you won’t understand, but more for anyone else that might read your post.

you don't have a point.

You're entire post was a personal attack.. I'm "arrogant" have "zero life experience" have "no idea"etc.


That's one way to get around dealing with the subject matter. And typical. When in doubt, start throwing mud.

Think i'll stick to the issues.

Cosmo

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Well its just a little arrogant and way above your understanding to come up with such a blunt approach to a complicated problem. I’m all for new ideas, but what your suggesting is about as blind to the problem like some red neck saying we should turn the place into a glass parking lot.

No offense here dude, but you do not have any idea as to how foreign policy works, you don’t have access to what the people who do this for a living know. You don’t live and work with the people in some remote tribal region of Afghanistan or have had a sit down with a local shik in Iraq to solve issues. You are not an intelligence expert who has their finger on the pulse of whats going on. Your not some Washington insider who has connections and a knowledge of how these things work when it comes to policy. And you’re not some person on the ground there and know how this all works. I don’t do this for a living, but I have a lot of people close to me in my life who do, and have done a lot of great things for us and the people who live there and that are affected.

Its just a little arrogant of you to pipe up on a subject and suggest a disastrous option just because you watch 30 minutes or the daily show every night, attended a couple anti-war rallies led by kids who still depend on their parents for support and have zero life experience, and maybe read some Marxist material, and now you’re an expert on foreign policy. You don’t do this for a living, stop playing Monday morning quarter back or armchair general on a delicate issue. There is nothing wrong with educating yourself on the issue, but cut the people some slack who do this for a living, because whether you want to admit it or not, they have ours and the people in questions best interest at heart here.

This post isn’t for you to get the point, because you won’t understand, but more for anyone else that might read your post.

...
You make a lot of sense here and make some statements that are true. Foriegn policy is complicated and there are a lot of things that we will never know about. There are alot of Washington insiders who have connections and people in Afghanistan that have open discussions with Tribal leaders there.
But, what does all of that tell you about the policy these experts decide to take? These Foriegn Policy experts are the SAME Foriegn Policy experts that made decisions to support Usama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen in the 1980s... the SAME Foriegn Policy experts that decided to support Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons in that same period in his fight with Iran. The SAME Foriegn Policy experts that figured the job in Afghanistan was done when the Soviet Union withdrew their military occupation and created a power vaccuum that left that nation open to Pakistani I.S.I. influences that morphed the Mujahadeen into al Qaeda and the Taliban. You don't question their decisions... when they come back 20 years later in the form of commercial airliners crashing into office buildings in America??? I do.
I think we should learn from these past mistakes to prevent decisions made today that will end up with disasterous consequences in our future. Do you agree with this one point?
...
And since you are close to these people... can you do me a favor? Next time you see them, tell them that I said they need to quit making descisions based on quick, short-term solutions that will get them big monetary bonuses, promotions and raises in the diplomatic machinery and work harder to solve the tough problems with more difficult work that will result in long-term solutions by working in the best interests off the Afghani people, not ours. These experts work for us taxpayers.
And also tell them I said that the 'Enemy of Our Enemy is NOT our Friend', if they hate us as much as the ones we they are fighting. They are enemies who are taking advantage of our stupidity and deep (tax payer) pockets to take care of the immediate task at hand... and will address their hatred towards us... once we help them destroy 'Our Enemy'.
That our friends are our friends and maybe we need to sit down and make friends with these people. Friends do not fly airliners into our buildings... enemies do.

Avant Garden

If I may butt in;

Step 1
End support for Israel's racists Zionist regime. Stop arming murderers.

Exactly.

WaveCameCrashin

jlew24asu wrote:

excellent post OffHeGoes29

+1

FiveB247x

Off he goes, no one here is down playing or ignoring the complexity of these issues. The entire notion of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" is a fraud and that's exactly the type of policies, actions and results we have shown in the 20th and 21st Century in regards to foreign policy and global issues such as terrorism and similar. The only thing we've done in this timeframe that proved to work is multilateral non-nuclear weapons agreements and since this brief step, we have underminded any type of longterm multilateral efforts to create a long lasting peace and justice in the world. And if you'd like to argue the validity of that statement, please read US History and foreign policy in South and Central America, the Middle East, SouthEast Asia and several other regions of the world. To make a brief synopsis, between the end of WW2 and 2009, the US has backed more human rights abusers, dictators, and underminded democracy, freedom, justice and economic well-being of so many nations and people, its beyond comparison to any "good" we have done by lightyears. In this timeframe, we went from a power to a superpower and became the richest most powerful nation the world has ever seen and history and you know what we did with this power and wealth? Set our place to continue our well-being and growth (economically and militarily) while foresaking everything our nation was founded upon in the process. We are now seeing the results of these issues, largest separation of wealth since the turn of the century during robberbarons; and the current generation will be the first to have less and be worse off than any generation since WW2. Globally, we see much of the same but on larger scales - greater poverty and similar issues. Is it all our fault, absolutely not, but anyone would be biased and lying to not admit we've had a large hand in the process and sometimes directly. Do all of these problems have remedies? Of course, but we're not willing to address them because they require changing how we live, act and deal with the world, globally and locally. Our mantra has become something along the lines of: when you have a big hammer, all the worlds problems start to look like nails", and this doesn't fix the problems or help the world, its further distorts it. Although I don't agree with all of the points originally posted on how to address terrorism and similar by the original poster, the underlaying theme is we can't continue acting in the same manner that help us create or get into the problem into the first place to solve them.

Commy

US foreign policy is not as complicated as a lot of people think.


Anyone can do this. Its really very simple. Pick a country the US has been involved with in past, post WWII. Examine the result of policy. Weigh stated objectives vs the outcome. details may be complex, but that's not the issue here.


Do this 2 dozen times, as i have done (despite what you think, the TV is not my source). and i spend more than a half hour a day on this.

When the stated objectives don't match the outcome, or are rarely met, but the methods and outcomes are consistent....1 logical conclusion remains. That the stated objectives are not the actual objectives, that the result is what they've were trying to achieve all along.

We have dozens of examples of this. See US involvement in South America, to start. There's always a pretext-fighting communism or drugs or terrorists-....but the outcomes are remarkably similar (given stated objectives). What's the saying Bush fucked up "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." how about 30 times? or 40? that's about how many interventions and invasions and black ops we have to go from. Ann if you continue to buy the Washington pretext regarding foreign policy, you are a fool. You can look at the fact that 1-the US got involved and 2 an environment emerged that has been remarkably consistent over the years. Iraq is sliding into that mold perfectly. Resources are a top priority, as is control over the government. The US spent more on a Nicaraguan election one year than both the dems and republicans at home, combined. so we know what they are up to. Its not nuclear physics or something similar, anyone can do an institutional analysis of the US government, if you care to spend some time researching (which I have done)





so call me what you will, (aside from naive and uninformed) at least i've offered solutions. which by no means are concrete, but that's the point of the thread. instead of personal attacks lets deal with the issues, I don't know everything, or pretend to, fuck that's the point of this forum isn't it? to learn about shit like this. its why i come here. (ok and to point out that jlew is wrong about everything, aside from that though, to learn.)

Issues, stick to the issues.


EDit:Five you are right on with all of that, except the part about me being wrong on the solutions

Cosmo

Commy wrote:

US foreign policy is not as complicated as a lot of people think.

...
By complicated... I meant to say each intervention/intrusion we make are unique and carry a different set of conditions, such as language, culture, religious aspects, customs, etc... and there is not a generic template that covers all. What worked in Germany will not work in Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, etc... Each one has to be studied and understood... but, we always seem to think the gun is the only way to go. We can make people do what we want them to do as long as we've got a gun pointed in their face... but, we have to be complete idiots if we think pointing a gun at them will force them to be our friend.
Our basic Foriegn Policy is to pour money and weapons into a place to buy the leader du jour... which works in the short term (reference: Iraq in the 1980s, for example). In Iraq's case... it worked. We fed Saddam Hussein to buffer the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran... which he did. Look how that one panned out for us in the long run. Not too smart, doncha think?
And i agree... we need to STOP our Foriegn Policy that goes to other nations with our best interests at the forefront. If we went with their best interests in mind... they, being the people, not the power hungry leaders... then, maybe we wouldn't end up in their crosshairs. Their governments don't openly hate us (probably because we are making them rich and powerful), their people hate us.

Commy

Cosmo wrote:

If we went with their best interests in mind... they, being the people, not the power hungry leaders... then, maybe we wouldn't end up in their crosshairs. Their governments don't openly hate us (probably because we are making them rich and powerful), their people hate us.

I agree with the idea here, but not the implied notion that we even have the right to go in at all.