Dr The Singh Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 A good many people who lost relatives in the Twin Towers didn't want the event used as an excuse for revenge. And exactly what has has revenge achieved?. That's a very simplified evaluation!!!! Fact remains, the enemy wants total destruction, no negoitation, the allies would have and are willing to discuss a discord!!!!
Thracian Posted 16 March 2007 Author Posted 16 March 2007 You have basically gone through my thinking there. I am sickened by the acts of them all. Hard to explain but in some way I have more respect for those who can carry out their own dirty work than those who willfully send others to die in their place. Terrorists recruit people ruthlessly to blow themselves up in the cause, working tirelessly on people's minds. It is not the leaders who generally do the suicide missions. But I do wonder how a spell on the front line in Iraq would affect Blair's thinking on the subject.
Thracian Posted 16 March 2007 Author Posted 16 March 2007 That's a very simplified evaluation!!!! Fact remains, the enemy wants total destruction, no negoitation, the allies would have and are willing to discuss a discord!!!! Sorry for the simplicity. My point is that, all morality aside, years of war and piles of dead don't solve the problems but simply make more. Having seen how long the Troubles lasted in Northern Ireland I would never have got militarily involved in such futile and self-mutilating conflicts in the first place. It was to crude a way of dealing with situations that require far more subtle thinking. But out of interest how would you have tackled Bin Laden, AQ and the situation with Iraq?.
Zingari Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 That's a very simplified evaluation!!!! Fact remains, the enemy wants total destruction, no negoitation, the allies would have and are willing to discuss a discord!!!! spot on the singh . a point very often overlooked
Dr The Singh Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Sorry for the simplicity. My point is that, all morality aside, years of war and piles of dead don't solve the problems but simply make more. Having seen how long the Troubles lasted in Northern Ireland I would never have got militarily involved in such futile and self-mutilating conflicts in the first place. It was to crude a way of dealing with situations that require far more subtle thinking. But out of interest how would you have tackled Bin Laden, AQ and the situation with Iraq?. The issue is that we are at war with a enemy that have no rules, no accord, no limits, no bounds to it's destruction!! No quick answers to the solution, we must do what ever we can to ensure that the enemy cannot attack us again!! The Iraq war was a mistake, and nothing to do with the our war, hence we are are at fault but we have taken the first step hence we must complete the journey, no matter how painful. I only wish US and UK would show some humility rather then arrogance and resolve the Iraq war and afghan war by dscussions, but again I state al queda are unwilling, what we have done has just added to there resolve!!! I'm very surprised with the UK, after the experience with Northern Ireland they may have learned something but I suppose these things happen when you have your head up Bush's arse!! Al queada, must be destroyed, firstly we must stop the funding, 90% of of all heroin is produced in afghan, so stop that fooker. Secondly, get there allies to become neutral, nobody likes war so why piss the whole of the muslim world, bring them on a neutral front. Third, do a job properly, the arrogance shown by US is immense they have not learned anything from Vietnam, if they did there job properly afghan would not be an issue!! We have to accept that some people on this planet do not want our help and are happy with the way they live, we have no rights in inpeading on there lives!!
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 That's a very simplified evaluation!!!! Fact remains, the enemy wants total destruction, no negoitation, the allies would have and are willing to discuss a discord!!!! That being the case there are only two ways to stop them annihilation (genocide) or negotiation. It's been proven time and time again that eventually talks will be needed. Wars are a lot about one-upmanship to increase your bargaining position once you start to talk.
Dr The Singh Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 That being the case there are only two ways to stop them annihilation (genocide) or negotiation. It's been proven time and time again that eventually talks will be needed. Wars are a lot about one-upmanship to increase your bargaining position once you start to talk. AL quada will not negiotate, afghans, iraqi's and other groups may!! For them it's a religious war, it's there god given right, and they think they are doing gods will!!! There mindset is totally single minded, the US and others should be trying to get the rest of the muslim world on there side and stop such extremism!!!
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 AL quada will not negiotate, afghans, iraqi's and other groups may!! For them it's a religious war, it's there god given right, and they think they are doing gods will!!! There mindset is totally single minded, the US and others should be trying to get the rest of the muslim world on there side and stop such extremism!!! Will that happen while they're perceived as fighting the whole of the muslim world. Based on the assessment that they will never negotiate will even that work?. I believe that eventually negotiations will be needed it might take 5,10, 20, 50 years but they will need to negotiate. One side has to demostrate that killing is not the way. As I say this is a lot about one-upmanship.
James. Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 AL quada will not negiotate, afghans, iraqi's and other groups may!! For them it's a religious war, it's there god given right, and they think they are doing gods will!!! There mindset is totally single minded, the US and others should be trying to get the rest of the muslim world on there side and stop such extremism!!! After reading the last few posts the one conclusion I have drawn is that The Singh should be Prime Minister.
Dr The Singh Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Will that happen while they're perceived as fighting the whole of the muslim world. Based on the assessment that they will never negotiate will even that work?. I believe that eventually negotiations will be needed it might take 5,10, 20, 50 years but they will need to negotiate. One side has to demostrate that killing is not the way. As I say this is a lot about one-upmanship. ON a normal stand point your right, but were talking about people that believe that a book is do all and end all of there existance, there mind is not free to see beyond that, generations and generations will be brought up on the same ideals etc, nothing you or anyone else will change that. Worse still they believe death in this cause will bring them eternal delights in heaven, and any devaition from the cause they will rott in hell, re-education is not an option, we have seen this type of thinking in our backyards, a world of free thinking!!!
Dr The Singh Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 After reading the last few posts the one conclusion I have drawn is that The Singh should be Prime Minister. Too many skeletons in the closet i'm afraid, plus i'm not corrupt enough, but i'm willing to become deputy if Thracian becomes PM!!
Geo V Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 That's right - HAIR! I've been concerned recently that terrorists just weren't taking their appearance seriously - so I was delighted to read this article and find AT BLOODY LAST there is at least one man in this world for whom appearance is all. On a side note - it is nice to see hairy chests with a shaved neck ring making a come back. Didnt this bloke used to be a porn star in the 70s/80s??
Webbo Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Will that happen while they're perceived as fighting the whole of the muslim world. Based on the assessment that they will never negotiate will even that work?. I believe that eventually negotiations will be needed it might take 5,10, 20, 50 years but they will need to negotiate. One side has to demostrate that killing is not the way. As I say this is a lot about one-upmanship. how can you negotiate with a suicide bomber? how can you negotiate with someone who wants to die? some one who thinks they will go to paradise for murdering you? you have got to offer a hell of a good deal to top that.
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 how can you , negotiate with a suicide bomber? how can you negotiate with someone who wants to die? some one who thinks they will go to paradise for murdering you? you have got to offer a hell of a good deal to top that. You don't, you negotiate with those that have brain washed the suicide bomber, you don't think they would ever dream of killing themselves do you? Besides if this 'they will never negotiate' is true the only alternative is genocide - do you really think that would solve the problem? - it would only exacerbate the problem and you'd be fighting all Muslims then which would mean a Holy world war, now there's a nice thought, that should solve the problem, well maybe not as you'd then either have to negotiate or wait until either the Muslim world or the the 'western world' annihilated one or the other. Of course then the Chinese would be in charge
Webbo Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 You don't, you negotiate with those that have brain washed the suicide bomber, you don't think they would ever dream of killing themselves do you? Besides if this 'they will never negotiate' is true the only alternative is genocide - do you really think that would solve the problem? - it would only exacerbate the problem and you'd be fighting all Muslims then which would mean a Holy world war, now there's a nice thought, that should solve the problem, well maybe not as you'd then either have to negotiate or wait until either the Muslim world or the the 'western world' annihilated one or the other. Of course then the Chinese would be in charge i don't believe that all, or even most, muslims want war. most muslim countries, especially those without oil, seem to want the same as the rest of us.
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 i don't believe that all, or even most, muslims want war. most muslim countries, especially those without oil, seem to want the same as the rest of us. Well it wasn't me who said they wont negotiate, so I'm not sure I understand your reply.
Webbo Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Well it wasn't me who said they wont negotiate, so I'm not sure I understand your reply. we,re not at war with every muslim country.
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 we,re not at war with every muslim country. Who said we were if you read what I said you'll see that!
Webbo Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Who said we were if you read what I said you'll see that! you mentioned genocide, which to my understanding means wiping out all of a particular race or religion, sorry if i misunderstood your point.
davieG Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 you mentioned genocide, which to my understanding means wiping out all of a particular race or religion, sorry if i misunderstood your point. Well I'm talking about a particular variant of Muslims, they way they behave and what they believe makes them unique in my mind that makes them a particular religion/cultural group hence my use of the word genocide. Dictionary definition - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Wilson Posted 16 March 2007 Posted 16 March 2007 Seems like the info was tortured out of him to be fair,cant really use that as credible evidence.I also like how the Sun newspaper says he was into drinking and partying etc - if he was a true religious fanatic then that is against his religion.I agree he is probably guilty of being a terrorist but not convinced about this
Steven Posted 17 March 2007 Posted 17 March 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_...rist_confession What did you do today, dad? "Well son I planned an attack which caused thousands of unarmed, uninvolved office workers, and lots of them women, son, to be blasted into oblivion, to lose their arms, their legs, half their brains and to cause their families untold misery. "It was a good day," son. And all in the name of religious idealogy. All in the supposed belief that his "praise be to" God would be delighted. What a hero. And what a wonderful example to the children he presumably believes his God gave him. As I have said before and I will say it again. Neither this man nor the organisation that obtained this "confession" are credible. This is borne out by the fact that one of his "targets" he identified, the Plaza Bank, was not founded until 2006, four years after the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind's arrest.
Jon the Hat Posted 17 March 2007 Posted 17 March 2007 You don't beat terrorism by arming the recruiters with endless examples of murder at the hands of the west. The only thing that will beat this is apathy. You create apathy by ceasing the activities which cause the hatred. This will take a long time, but in the end history suggests this is the only thing which can have a chance.
Zingari Posted 17 March 2007 Posted 17 March 2007 You don't beat terrorism by arming the recruiters with endless examples of murder at the hands of the west. The only thing that will beat this is apathy. You create apathy by ceasing the activities which cause the hatred. This will take a long time, but in the end history suggests this is the only thing which can have a chance. lets get started on whipping up some apathy
Hullfox Posted 18 March 2007 Posted 18 March 2007 My reaction would have been the opposite and would have dignified the memory of those who lost their lives in the Twin Towers. I would have taken the opportunity to make a massive statement on behalf of the real Christian values of decency and non-retaliation. I would have taken what was a massive opportunity to capture the moral high ground which represented dignity and worthwhile values. I would have refused to make the deaths of those people and ruined lives of their families as an excuse for killing more people and the ruining more families. In other words whether it was possible to shame the perpetrators or not I would have shamed them in the wider world and done so sincerely. Because the subsequent and consequent slaughter has achieved nothing. Standing for and demonstrating a stance for decency and shunning the chance of revenge would have done far more. As would all the equally dignified articles for peace and for humanity which could have been written as an additional result of such action. They say the pen is mightier than the sword and it would certainly have had more impact, and at far less cost, that all Blair and Bush's indescriminately destructive weapons and eventually counter productive weapons. Graduating from the University of Hindsight means you always get it right. If Bush had stood upon the rubble at Ground Zero and said "The pen is mightier than the sword, I think I'll write some letters of complaint" the world would be a much better place for sure.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.