“Retaliate??” Doesn’t retaliation involve some person or some group of persons who are wronged in some fashion taking action against the purported wrongdoer? Did I miss something in the news? Were the London bombers Iraqis retaliating against the US or UK for invading Iraq? Are they also “retaliating” against the US and UK when they blow up Iraqi women and children in the marketplaces in Baghdad?
Maybe al Qaeda is simply an independent group of people who are the great vigilantes against injustices perpetrated by the US and UK anywhere and everywhere in the world. It doesn’t matter who is wronged, al Qaeda will champion their cause and retaliate for them.
Seems to me, 9-11 occured before Iraq was invaded so therefore the attack could not have been “retaliation” for the invasion now could it? Rather, it was “retaliation” for (choose one or more) (1) having troops in Saudi Arabia; (2) UN sanctions on Iraq; (3) support for Israel.
I referred to the retaliations when they attacked “coalition” forces, or may be you miss all those news… London, Baghdad civilian bombing is not ‘retaliation’ to me, thats just plain terrorism.
Sis,
demand for change of foreign policy has been made by Muslims from all over the world, does that mean they are all terrorists? Iam sure u dont subscribe to that view. As for the second argument, well what else do u think is the other solution? Isnt the Bush admin doing exactly the same right now, maybe slowly but surely?
Thanks for the clarification. My confusion stemmed from the fact that this topic is about giving up “rights” for safety in an effort to quell terror attacks against civilians.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
And your and the other Americanists’ POV says that it will continue…
Let me reiterate my diatribe again:
Germans killed 6 million Jews…Were they regretting it? Were they feeling remorse? Were they willing to stop despite world opposition?
No…They were doing something which they thought was good for the Fatherland…They were good, honest and hard working Germans from good families who went to work in the morning to concentration camps, killed a few thousand Jews every day, and came back from work after a hard day’s work of extermination…
Americans today are no different…
Every noticeable statesman and almost every politician in the world has opposed the atrocity in Iraq…Mandela declared America a threat to world peace…
Unless Americans realise (Which many do) of the horrors they are commiting and are willing to stop, US will go the way of Nazi Germany…
Everyone gets theirs and its naive to think America will not…
I know for a fact not many Americans think like you or the other Americanists on this board, however their voices are drowned by chants of patriotism and nationalism…
Just like it was when some Germans did object to the Jewish genocide…
You may be blinded by patriotism to justify murder and slaughter…There are those who won’t forget it…
If caught in the act of committing sodomy by 4 witnesses, and have this allegation proven in a court of law, then yes.
At anyrate, that poem epitomises why I’m against discrimination against gays in the workplace. It’s a slippery slope that starts from okaying discrimination against gays and leads to okaying discrimination against Muslims.
I always wondered actually, since you keep trying to imply that I hate gays… I hugged a gay guy 2 months ago, when’s the last time you hugged one?
I agree that Iraq is a circus but for different reasons than you I’m sure. Even in Iraq, your concept of “retaliation” doesn’t really fit. The foreign terrorist contingent under the direction of Zarqawi is hardly an Iraqi insurgency group conducting retaliation against the occupiers. That group cares only about killing, murder and creating mayhem and civil war. Bombing mosques, funeral processions and marketplaces in order to kill other Iraqis cannot fall within the definition of “retaliation” against the US or the UK.
I can, at least, understand the mindset of Sunni and former Baath party members attacking coalition forces and even members of the Shia majority government. Unfortunately, that form of insurgenct attack is far fewer in number than the other. I think you’re living in lala land if you believe any sizeable majority of Iraqis are “retaliating” against US and UK occupation. The fastest way towards the end of occupation is an end to violence. It’s not the end to occupation they are fighting for. They are fighting for power in the end-game scenario where there is no occupation.
It is far from clear that they are actually responsible for everything that they claim responsibility for. Remember, the 2003 power outage in North America was claimed by Al-Qaeda even though it was purely a technical problem.
Whilst in some attacks Zarqawi’s group’s flag is visible (I’m thinking of the Bradley burning incident), they are also likely to be claiming credit for attacks done by local groups that do not have a propaganda outlet.
^^ Agreed. But consider for a moment the mindset of someone who ** wants ** to take credit for blowing up Iraqi women and children in marketplaces and in funeral processions. He is also the guy issuing the communique justifying their killings by praising his victims as martyrs.
In trying to place responsibility among the usual suspects, I think it's pretty clear that the bombings of Shia neighborhoods and Shia mosques is NOT being done by the majority Shia population as retaliation against US and UK occupation.
Giving up some rights for safety is fine. However, one shouldn't have to feel even more scared for the sake of safety. Which is what seems to be the case!
I was reading the research of a Professor who has studied every suicide bombing worldwide in recent history. His research is subtly different. He knows of no circumstance where suicide bombs were used against totalitarian regimes. Suicide bombing has almost always been used against democratic countries, (with Russia being an "emerging democracy"). He explains this because the bombers believe that democracies are weak, and they are casualty averse. Thus the goal is to induce pain. Any pain, anywhere, to anyone. Then they attempt to assign the blame to the democracy. Massive death is a cold blooded strategic decision. Extreme suffering works against the Democracy, it is our Achiles heel.
Ruthlessness is also a potent negociating point in the endgame. Who wants to negociate with those with no morals? Unfortunately we know how regimes run by the ruthless eventually turn out.
MQ: I think it is also important to realize that some of the things we are or may be asked to "give up" are not really "rights" anyway.
Do we really have a "right" to go into a stadium to watch a football game carrying a backpack that won't be searched? Do we have a "right" to board public transportation without going through a metal detector and having our bags looked at? Do we have a "right" to refuse to provide identification to a police officer when he asks for it?
In the US, we became accustomed to living in a world where there was very little intrusiveness. Because we never experienced metal detectors and searches, somehow we looked at the lack of such intrusiveness as a "right." Unfortunately, the world changed and we have to adapt.
At some point, we really need to reassess things and come to some agreement as a society as to what constitues a "right." As to those things that we agree constitute "rights," those are the things that should not be sacrificed in the interest of security. To do so would mean that we have allowed our country to change in fundamental ways and have given up on something that we have fought so hard to attain. The hard part is finding the line because it is not always bright and easily visible.
There is a difference between freedoms and rights. You have a right to a fair trial. You do not have the freedom to get the state to hire Skadden to defend you. People have certain rights which can never be ignored or revoked. Religious freedom is a right. Hate speech is a freedom. A fair trial is a right. No torture is a right. Not a freedom. Dignity is a right. Privacy is a right etc etc. The two must be seperated.
OG, professor’s name is’nt Henson/Hanson is it?
Does the professor know who started the suicide bombing? I will hold my remarks regarding his “study” until you can tell me from professor’s research not your own, if he knew who started this act?
So you do agree, fine, you have different reason to think it that way. As far as “retaliation” is considered, it was against the coalition forces until late (probably around election time) even then they were labelled terrorists and “we won’t return as it’d soothe terrorists” was the slogan. Anyway, lets get back to the topic at hand for now.