Wrong route to stop terrorism?

[For-Life]

We are trying to stop terrorism, but are we doing it in the right way?

Look at the airline industry. First off, I think it is narrow minded that this seems to be the main thing tackled. At one point guns and knifes were probably allowed on, but that became a problem so we installed metal detectors and security. We look at the Air India case with a bomb on the plane, so now we have dogs to sniff them out. 9/11 led to box cutters, so we do not let them on anymore and have beefed up security. Someone tried to let off an explosive in their shoe, so now we have to take our shoes off at security. A group tried to use liquid explosives, so now I cannot pass security with a Tim Horton's coffee. Now we see groups planning to bomb the airports from far away or drive explosives into them.

Is it just me who believes that even if we had to go through security naked that the terrorists would still find a way?

[chip anderson]

If they would still let us rednecks carry our guns on planes and re-upolster the planes and airports with pig skin, the problem would go away.

[For-Life]

If they would still let us rednecks carry our guns on planes and re-upolster the planes and airports with pig skin, the problem would go away.

I think you are missing the point. No matter what barriers are put up they are finding other ways. That is why I said what I originally did about the airports, because they can attack so many more things.

[chip anderson]

I think you missed mine. Back in the 40's and 50's and some of the 60's anyone could carry a gun when traveling on a plane, train or whatever, aproximately 20% did. There were no hyjackings. Terrorists, criminals, etc. only attack a defenceless public. No one kicks Dick Butkus in the shins, they know what would happen. If an airplane with 200 passengers had 20 God fearing, gun toating honest citzens, a couple arabs wouldn't dare threaten them. There would be no "federal protections" required.

It should be obvious to you that the "Federal Protections" are rediculous feel good protections run by fools. Who would really be "treatened" by a nail clip? Even if you were attacked by someone with one, you would be scratched, he would be swallowing a nail clip.

Chip

[For-Life]

I think you missed mine. Back in the 40's and 50's and some of the 60's anyone could carry a gun when traveling on a plane, train or whatever, aproximately 20% did. There were no hyjackings. Terrorists, criminals, etc. only attack a defenceless public. No one kicks Dick Butkus in the shins, they know what would happen. If an airplane with 200 passengers had 20 God fearing, gun toating honest citzens, a couple arabs wouldn't dare threaten them. There would be no "federal protections" required.

It should be obvious to you that the "Federal Protections" are rediculous feel good protections run by fools. Who would really be "treatened" by a nail clip? Even if you were attacked by someone with one, you would be scratched, he would be swallowing a nail clip.

Chip

Back in the 50s and 60s there were no arab terrorists like today. Heck there was not globalization like there is today. These are terrorist who believe that they will go to paradise for dying and take their own life in their acts. Why would they be afraid of a gun?

[k12311997]

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't trust myself to not shoot some @$$hole who desperately deserved it. but I think Chip has a point. rather than keeping everyone from having guns (and walking around naked in the name of security) let everyone have guns and conceled carry permits. The only way to hijack a plane then would be to buy all the seats. it would also reduce other crimes, criminals aren't afraid of 5 to 10 or even the death penalty, but if there were even odds that someone would shoot you maybe you wouldn't do the crime.

as someone once said.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

[chip anderson]

There was a second point you missed. No moslem will endanger his life until six months of purification has been completed once he has touched pigskin. If airlines and trains, etc. were upolstered in same they would hve to stay alive for six months after any terrorism or miss out on the fountians of wine and multiple virgins. Ever wonder what makes virgins so valuable anywoay. They are like a bottle of beer, use them once and they are no more.

Chip:D

[cocoisland58]

We are trying to stop terrorism, but are we doing it in the right way?

Look at the airline industry. First off, I think it is narrow minded that this seems to be the main thing tackled. At one point guns and knifes were probably allowed on, but that became a problem so we installed metal detectors and security. We look at the Air India case with a bomb on the plane, so now we have dogs to sniff them out. 9/11 led to box cutters, so we do not let them on anymore and have beefed up security. Someone tried to let off an explosive in their shoe, so now we have to take our shoes off at security. A group tried to use liquid explosives, so now I cannot pass security with a Tim Horton's coffee. Now we see groups planning to bomb the airports from far away or drive explosives into them.

Is it just me who believes that even if we had to go through security naked that the terrorists would still find a way?


Of course they will find a way but wouldn't you rather put up with the inconvenience of airport security than have to wonder if the guy sitting next to you is going to light his shoe sometime in the next half hour? I like to think my main concern when flying is getting to my destination in a timely manner and in relative comfort if possible.

[Fezz]

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't trust myself to not shoot some @$$hole who desperately deserved it.


Don't worry my friend. I've got you covered. I have plenty!

And believe me.....I TRUST myself TOO shoot some @$$---- who desperatley deserves it.


:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[GOS_Queen]

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"If we pursue security to the point where we give up that which makes us Americans, the enemy has won.""

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS:
Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."

PATRICK HENRY:
""The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government——lest it come to dominate our lives and interest.""

THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

NOAH WEBSTER:
"If corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.""

[For-Life]

Of course they will find a way but wouldn't you rather put up with the inconvenience of airport security than have to wonder if the guy sitting next to you is going to light his shoe sometime in the next half hour? I like to think my main concern when flying is getting to my destination in a timely manner and in relative comfort if possible.

I don't feel relaxed. They have found a way to step it up every time. How do I know the guy beside me will not do so.

[1968]

There was a second point you missed. No moslem will endanger his life until six months of purification has been completed once he has touched pigskin. If airlines and trains, etc. were upolstered in same they would hve to stay alive for six months after any terrorism or miss out on the fountians of wine and multiple virgins. Ever wonder what makes virgins so valuable anywoay. They are like a bottle of beer, use them once and they are no more.*laughs* This has got to be one of the best examples of out-of-the-box thinking that I've ever heard!

[cocoisland58]

I don't feel relaxed. They have found a way to step it up every time. How do I know the guy beside me will not do so.

You don't. You take a chance, otherwise you will never go anywhere outside of driving distance. Flying is actually relatively safe in this country.

[For-Life]

You don't. You take a chance, otherwise you will never go anywhere outside of driving distance. Flying is actually relatively safe in this country.

I take the chance, does not mean that I believe that it is any safer.

It is the same with regular life. What is to stop a terrorist from suicide bombing a resturant, poisoning air in a school, shooting up a street? This is my point. If they want to do it they will find a way. It does not matter how much security you have their or if you have a gun on you.

[ziggy]

These are terrorist who believe that they will go to paradise for dying and take their own life in their acts. Why would they be afraid of a gun?

Another red-neck gun owner here. This goes along with what Chip was saying, If we were being good world neighbors, we would help them on their way to paradise with due haste.

[For-Life]

Another red-neck gun owner here. This goes along with what Chip was saying, If we were being good world neighbors, we would help them on their way to paradise with due haste.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Now back to the question.

[OPTIDONN]

Another red-neck gun owner here. This goes along with what Chip was saying, If we were being good world neighbors, we would help them on their way to paradise with due haste.


WOO!!HOO!!! I'm hoppin around shootin' my pistols up in the air!!! I can't say that we are fighting terrorism the right or the wrong way. I'm sure there is so much going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. It cracks me up that people watch a little of CNN and know exctly what were doing wrong and how we could be doing it. I haven't listened in on any chatter so I don't know what the bad guys are planning. I guess we have to just trust the government. Now I know thats not a very popular idea here. For-Life you are far more likely to get struck by lightening, shot in a drive by, murdered by a serial killer, hit by a drunk driver, die from infectious deseases, etc. etc. Point is if your living, your putting your life on the line! There are more scary things to think of. Top of my list are sexual predators! I've got two little girls and that terrifies me more than anything! The most effective way to stop terrorists is to blow crap up 'till there no longer a threat!!! Of course thats how I'd like to solve most of my problems!:bbg:

[For-Life]

and that is fine. I was just wondering if we are going after symptoms of the problem instead of the problem itself. Maybe instead of making us more terrorist proof we can lower the amount of terrorists.

[OPTIDONN]

Of course the best way is to become and ultra conservative muslim country. But I get your point. This is what we try. Kill the bad guys help the good guys. Of course it all ends up being a grey area. Many of these guys are back wood fanatics and will never stop until America and the "great satan" are destroyed. These are the guys we need to wipe out.

[HarryChiling]

If they ever try to smuggle anything in their @$$e$. I am swithching to trains. :D

[OPTIDONN]

If they ever try to smuggle anything in their @$$e$. I am swithching to trains. :D
Aww c'mon Harry! Where do you think I keep my extra PD sticks and screw drivers!:p

[DragonLensmanWV]

Aww c'mon Harry! Where do you think I keep my extra PD sticks and screw drivers!:p

Shhhhh! Don't give them any ideas!!!

Donn, maybe an appropriate Mythbusters quote would be:
Anything worth blowing up is worth blowing up real big.
Poor Buster and his silver-painted pants. :D

[chip anderson]

I recently saw a mythbusting that "dispelled the myth" that splinters could chip off hammers and chisels and possibly cause eye loss. I have made several prosthetic eyes for people that lost eyes in this manner. My mentor, Vernon Lamb lost his from a piece of chisel in a blacksmith shop.
While I pay little attention to them, them warning labels ain't on there for nothin.

Chip

[k12311997]

I recently saw a mythbusting that "dispelled the myth" that splinters could chip off hammers and chisels and possibly cause eye loss. I have made several prosthetic eyes for people that lost eyes in this manner. My mentor, Vernon Lamb lost his from a piece of chisel in a blacksmith shop.
While I pay little attention to them, them warning labels ain't on there for nothin.

Chip


Actually just saw that on 7/3/07 the busted myth was the "exploding" hammer head. they did however state that chips could come off the hammer head and become dangerous projectiles

[OPTIDONN]

Actually just saw that on 7/3/07 the busted myth was the "exploding" hammer head. they did however state that chips could come off the hammer head and become dangerous projectiles

Bingo! a true Mythbusters fan:cheers: The hammers CANNOT EXPLODE!

[rinselberg]

and that is fine. I was just wondering if we are going after symptoms of the problem instead of the problem itself. Maybe instead of making us more terrorist proof we can lower the amount of terrorists.Maybe we should consult about this with the medical profession. Like those MDs that are now under arrest in the United Kingdom ... Actually, I think that For-Life is driving at something, but here's what I think: Whatever it is that you are about to suggest to address the fundamental problem(s) of terrorism and not just the symptoms (i.e. defending against terrorists) - what makes you think that it is something that is not already being done?



http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6053/641753925224843tx3.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721)
The Great Escape. What you didn't already know ...
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721

[braheem24]

Best way to stop terrorism?

Sell your SUV.

[chip anderson]

Of course for the "exploding" hammer head they tried all sorts of heating techniques. No one tried an extreemly cold hammerhead, where I think the results could have been quite different.

Chip

[Spexvet]

Why do some people think the answer to everything is violence and killing? Isn't that just thinking like a terrorist?

[Fezz]

Why do some people think the answer to everything is violence and killing? Isn't that just thinking like a terrorist?


What would you suggest?


Would brewing a pot of tea and having a nice chit-chat work?



I hate to see the violence and killing no matter who, what, where and how.

[For-Life]

Maybe we should consult about this with the medical profession. Like those MDs that are now under arrest in the United Kingdom ... Actually, I think that For-Life is driving at something, but here's what I think: Whatever it is that you are about to suggest to address the fundamental problem(s) of terrorism and not just the symptoms (i.e. defending against terrorists) - what makes you think that it is something that is not already being done?



http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6053/641753925224843tx3.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721)
The Great Escape. What you didn't already know ...
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721

First thing is to figure out how it started. Contrary to what we are told these guys weren't just born crazy with their Qu'rans telling them to bomb America.

Obviously what has been done up to now is not working and only making things worse.

[Spexvet]

What would you suggest?
...

How about some mature diplomacy? Maybe some discussion about a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL solution? How about closing our borders?

[chip anderson]

I don't think the Mexicans think closing our borders is mutally benficial.

[OPTIDONN]

I don't thing violence is the answer to everything but some times it's the right decision. When we go to war we just need to remember that it's never clean, it's never simple, it's never civil, lots of people will die and it always lasts longer than we want. We can NEVER tuck tail and run! We do not negotiate with terrorisits! If you make threats against the U.S. and plan to carry them out you have two options 1) back down or, 2) die. What would you do if your loved one's lives where threatened? seek out some other form of reconciliation and hope the other guy follows through and spares your families lives? This is not some jab. I'm just trying to show that even though we feel we are getting more "civilized", or what ever, there is and will always be a part where our human instinct to preserve things familiar to us i.e familiy, culture, religion, etc. and what more permenante way to resolve the threat than by killing the threat. The scary thing is they other side feels the same way to. What if we back down and they don't? I know it may sound "cave manish" or "backwards" but I love my family and my country. If some one is going to threatin either they need to be taken care of! How could we come up with a mutually beneficial solution? Should we abandon Isreal? Create a government that supports radical Islam? I'm not trying to slam any ones point of view. The more that are givin the more likely we are to find the right one.

[rbaker]

For-Life’s original post emphasizes the benefit of Rocket Sled II.

This Wednesday we will drive 6 miles to our local little airport in Spencer, Massachusetts, pull Rocket Sled out into the sunshine climb in and 11.5 flight hours later land on our next door neighbor’s ranch on the Rogue River in Southern Oregon. No TSA, no lines, no hassle. Jane and I will be treated like Americans and not the residents of some scum bag third world hell hole. And, yes, I’ll be carrying my “carry” handgun and Jane will be packing her full travel manicure kit. We will both be carrying thermoses of ice tea and just for the hell of it I am going to bring my great big scary fillet knife along.

How sweet it is!

[OPTIDONN]

Nice plane!

[Fezz]

How about some mature diplomacy? Maybe some discussion about a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL solution? How about closing our borders?


I'm sure the "Terrorist" will be more than glad to settle for "some mature diplomacy". They are all about that.

I bet that they are open to a "discussion about a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL solution".


We are talking about terrorism here.

[For-Life]

Yeah, I do not think most current terrorists are very rational. The fear is the growth of terrorists, and prevention of said growth.

[Spexvet]

I don't think the Mexicans think closing our borders is mutally benficial.

First, those were independant suggestions.

Second, Those Mexican terrorist are really a threat, aren't they?

[Spexvet]

...What would you do if your loved one's lives where threatened?...

I would do WHATEVER it took to ensure their safety. If your family were to be kidnapped, would you pay a ransom to get them back, or just go gunning for the kidnappers?

[Spexvet]

I'm sure the "Terrorist" will be more than glad to settle for "some mature diplomacy". They are all about that.

I bet that they are open to a "discussion about a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL solution".


We are talking about terrorism here.
And you know that how? One of Bin Laden's reasons for 911 was that the US had military bases on holy Muslim soil. Would it have been worth moving those bases to prevent 911?

[Fezz]

Spexvet-


:D

You got me.

I am a true idiot on these matters.


Please share your wisdom, so those of us who are total morons can learn.


:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[DragonLensmanWV]

For-Life’s original post emphasizes the benefit of Rocket Sled II.

This Wednesday we will drive 6 miles to our local little airport in Spencer, Massachusetts, pull Rocket Sled out into the sunshine climb in and 11.5 flight hours later land on our next door neighbor’s ranch on the Rogue River in Southern Oregon. No TSA, no lines, no hassle. Jane and I will be treated like Americans and not the residents of some scum bag third world hell hole. And, yes, I’ll be carrying my “carry” handgun and Jane will be packing her full travel manicure kit. We will both be carrying thermoses of ice tea and just for the hell of it I am going to bring my great big scary fillet knife along.

How sweet it is!

Don't forget your big bottle of water and maybe some shampoo!:D

[OPTIDONN]

I would do WHATEVER it took to ensure their safety. If your family were to be kidnapped, would you pay a ransom to get them back, or just go gunning for the kidnappers?

If I could pay I would...then guess what would happen to them. I'll give you a hint, it starts with bang. The problem is if we always give the ransom guess what? They do it again because they get what they want. We can make them feel like they are getting what they want but we cannot negotiate with them.
You said you would do what ever it took. Would that include violence if needed?

[OPTIDONN]

And you know that how? One of Bin Laden's reasons for 911 was that the US had military bases on holy Muslim soil. Would it have been worth moving those bases to prevent 911?

This may have been an excuse. People hate us and thats a fact. We are a very wealthy successful country. We have a culture of decadence. This can cause resentment and anger. There are more than a few countries who dislike us because we don't help them out as much as other countries. The fact is with success comes envy, sometimes that envy can lead to resentment and violence. But I have to add again I love people with no military background, no intelengence background, are not privy to classified information and who have a limited understanding of what is going on (we all have a limited understanding) but because we watch the news and maybe read a few books on it we feel we have a better grasp of whats going on than the government (I'm not saying this is just you Spex it's all of us, me included).

[For-Life]

This may have been an excuse. People hate us and thats a fact. We are a very wealthy successful country. We have a culture of decadence. This can cause resentment and anger. There are more than a few countries who dislike us because we don't help them out as much as other countries. The fact is with success comes envy, sometimes that envy can lead to resentment and violence. But I have to add again I love people with no military background, no intelengence background, are not privy to classified information and who have a limited understanding of what is going on (we all have a limited understanding) but because we watch the news and maybe read a few books on it we feel we have a better grasp of whats going on than the government (I'm not saying this is just you Spex it's all of us, me included).

I am sorry, but I do not buy the theory that they are terrorists, because they are envious.

[OPTIDONN]

I am sorry, but I do not buy the theory that they are terrorists, because they are envious.

I'm not saying that being envious is the sole reason but it builds resentment. Look at it like this, imagine being in a country where medical care, food, electricity are not consistantly available. But here's big rich America giving aid to an enemy country. That can sure build some resentment. No imagine being told that America wants to spread it culture (one of the few things you have left) into your world and in fact is in your holy land. I imagine that could put some people over the edge. The fact is that there was not one singl thing that created this. It was a build of for over a hundred years of conflict. Many of the same governments that started this are no longer and the people are long dead but the resentment is still there. We can look back along this very long history of conflict (which we need to do so as to avoid this in the future) but I don't think we will find the answer, we need to create a new one. People want to think that all this started from some simple thing that Bush did but the fact is they were attacking us when Clinton was in office and have hated us for much longer. So, yes, envy can in fact turn a desperate person into a terrorist. I should have been more clear.

[GOS_Queen]

And you know that how? One of Bin Laden's reasons for 911 was that the US had military bases on holy Muslim soil. Would it have been worth moving those bases to prevent 911?


agreed.

I have just started reading the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

[OPTIDONN]

Keep in mind that was only ONE of the reasons. Should we have abandoned Isreal? That may have pevented 9/11. There are a thousand things leading up to 9/11 that could have been done to prevent it, going back much further than Bush or Clinton. Moving our bases would have only postponed 9/11. This is a much larger issue.

[For-Life]

I'm not saying that being envious is the sole reason but it builds resentment. Look at it like this, imagine being in a country where medical care, food, electricity are not consistantly available. But here's big rich America giving aid to an enemy country. That can sure build some resentment. No imagine being told that America wants to spread it culture (one of the few things you have left) into your world and in fact is in your holy land. I imagine that could put some people over the edge. The fact is that there was not one singl thing that created this. It was a build of for over a hundred years of conflict. Many of the same governments that started this are no longer and the people are long dead but the resentment is still there. We can look back along this very long history of conflict (which we need to do so as to avoid this in the future) but I don't think we will find the answer, we need to create a new one. People want to think that all this started from some simple thing that Bush did but the fact is they were attacking us when Clinton was in office and have hated us for much longer. So, yes, envy can in fact turn a desperate person into a terrorist. I should have been more clear.

Oh, it goes much farther back than Bush. It is just his present administration, who I believe in my personal opinion, has been escalating it.

But this would go back to at least the end of World War II. No I do not believe it has something to do with them being poorer and the US being richer. I think they are upset that the western World has used them as pawns for their situations.

[rinselberg]

And you know that how? One of Bin Laden's reasons for 9-11 was that the U.S. had military bases on holy Muslim soil. Would it have been worth moving those bases to prevent 9-11?You mean the U.S. had some military facilities in Saudi Arabia - but not within or directly adjacent to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. OK, according to bin Laden and some other Sunni fundamentalists, all or mostly all of Saudi Arabia is "holy Muslim soil".

Why did bin Laden want the U.S. bases removed? To clear the way so that his bunch could move in and overthrow the governement of Saudi Arabia? Were we supposed to cooperate with that? The government of Saudi Arabia authorized the U.S. facilities. How does bin Laden get a vote? And how did bin Laden pursue this "obviously reasonable" request? Did he send a polite communication to the King of Saudi Arabia or to the President or to one of their representatives? Do you have a copy of that letter or email that you could post for us? "Dear Sirs ... It would be better if the U.S. removed their facilities ... otherwise I'll blow up the destroyer USS Cole which is currently in port in Yemen ... Yours truly, OBL ..."

And what were we to do about the rest of OBL's "wish-list" ... item #2, item #3 and so on ..? What were we to do if he came up with another idea? After we removed our facilities from Saudi Arabia (and relocated them to other Gulf states) and announced to the world that we were doing all this at the request of OBL ... well, he might think of something more that he wanted to have done.

It reminds me of a line from the movie Castle Keep: "Give the Germans anything, and you've given them everything ..."


http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6968/6417539252669904dm8.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721)
The Great Escape. What you didn't already know ...
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721

[chip anderson]

If I couldn't locate them, I would pay, then kill them. If I could locate them, I would look into seeking expert help to extracate them and kill them in the process. If the injured a member of my family they would die very soon. If they presented a threat to my family they would die very soon. If I had the option captureing them and holding them for trial, too bad, it would be a case of as Mickey Spillane said: "I the jury."

While one an never say such things in advance, I would hope that if such proceedures presented some danger to myself I would hope that I had the courage to ignore the possibility.

And no I would not see incarceration with some sort of rehabilitation and return to society as an option.

Chip

[chip anderson]

Reislberg: Did you know that in the filming of the Great Excape, the Germans hired to chase Steve McQueen didn't quite fullfill McQueen's or the director's expectations and Steve McQueen is one of the German's pursueing himself?

[rinselberg]

Reislberg: Did you know that in the filming of the Great Excape, the Germans hired to chase Steve McQueen didn't quite fullfill McQueen's or the director's expectations and Steve McQueen is one of the German's pursueing himself?I didn't know that. Although it might be buried somewhere in one of the online sources that I cited for my post. Thanks - I like having factoids like this rattling around in the back of my brain somewhere - it's relaxing. I think that's why Sean started the Strange Facts thread - same for him.

[Spexvet]

If I couldn't locate them, I would pay, then kill them. If I could locate them, I would look into seeking expert help to extracate them and kill them in the process. If the injured a member of my family they would die very soon. If they presented a threat to my family they would die very soon. If I had the option captureing them and holding them for trial, too bad, it would be a case of as Mickey Spillane said: "I the jury."
....

Chip

Would you expect Muslims to behave differently than you?

[chip anderson]

Spex: If Muslins, Terrorist, etc. would stand up and fight in the field (preferably in uniform) I'll be glad to meet them. I am sure we can fine enough help to prevail, if not is it not written: "If my enemy is too strong, die on this beachead."
I am old enough were I have no fear of death, I am also not fool enough to stand in front of a bus.
An I do not kidnap, throw bombs at, shoot, or behead anyone who does not present any threat to me or my family, or my country (even if they seem to me more affluent than I). I like to think this is the difference between me and the muslins.

Chip

[Spexvet]

Spex: If Muslins, Terrorist, etc. would stand up and fight in the field (preferably in uniform) I'll be glad to meet them. I am sure we can fine enough help to prevail, if not is it not written: "If my enemy is too strong, die on this beachead."
I am old enough were I have no fear of death, I am also not fool enough to stand in front of a bus.
An I do not kidnap, throw bombs at, shoot, or behead anyone who does not present any threat to me or my family, or my country (even if they seem to me more affluent than I). I like to think this is the difference between me and the muslins.

Chip
Maybe the Muslims do what they do because they feel that we present a threat to them or their family, or their country.

[chip anderson]

I haven't heard any of our politicians or other leaders calling for the death of all infidels, Christians, capitalists, affluent peoples, or all people that live other lifestyles. A few ignorant fanatics possibly. But most of us would be perfectly happy to leave the middle east in the 5th century learning for only one gender and from only one book. Who cares what they do as long as they keep it to themselves.
We aren't blowing up World Trade Centers, Civilian Transport Systems, telling them they have to adopt western lifestyles, drink booze on Saturday night, and do whatever else it is we do that they find decadent.

Our preachers don't stand up every weekly Holy Day and call for the destruction of all who do not believe as we do, or live as we do. We don't have bomb making classes or tell idiots that the way to heaven is to blow themselves up killing as many as possible that have different beliefs.

Of course I guess in your book this makes us all the same.

Chip:(

[chip anderson]

Anybody notice how much Steve McQueen's Great Escape bike resembles and English Triumph?
Or to say the least it don't look like a BMW.

[For-Life]

We aren't blowing up World Trade Centers, Civilian Transport Systems, telling them they have to adopt western lifestyles, drink booze on Saturday night, and do whatever else it is we do that they find decadent.

Our preachers don't stand up every weekly Holy Day and call for the destruction of all who do not believe as we do, or live as we do. We don't have bomb making classes or tell idiots that the way to heaven is to blow themselves up killing as many as possible that have different beliefs.

Chip:(

For the first paragraph that is actually untrue. Due to previous western policies and partially due to the Cold War, that area has been treated like pawns in our battles. So we did destroy some important buildings in their area, not to directly hurt them but in war with someone else. We did force our western lifestyle on them to prevent Soviet association on their side.

For your second part for future replies to you I just want to help you out there. You made it clear that the Western world does not desire destruction of their area, with the exception of a few extremists. The second paragraph describes the extremist part, and I think some posters may forget what you originally said.

[For-Life]

Anybody notice how much Steve McQueen's Great Escape bike resembles and English Triumph?
Or to say the least it don't look like a BMW.

either that or a torpedo

[rinselberg]

Why do some people think [that] the answer to everything is violence and killing?For the same reason that other people fall prey to the delusion that every international conflict, whether it's a case of sovereign nation vs. sovereign nation, or sovereign nation vs. guerrillas or terrorists, offers the possibility of an immediate, peaceful, negotiated solution: The reason is human fallacy.


For the first paragraph that is actually untrue. Due to previous western policies and partially due to the Cold War, that area has been treated like pawns in our battles. So we did destroy some important buildings in their area, not to directly hurt them but in war with someone else. We did force our western lifestyle on them to prevent Soviet association on their side ...For-Life, you've been a great poster, but on this thread, I think that you've gone off the tracks. I find many, if not most of your comments on this topic to be convoluted, highly questionable, mostly irrelevant to any current practical concerns and just downright wrong. I would summarize your general direction here in just six words:Criminalize the victims; victimize the criminals.

I didn't realize that I was about to start a veritable subtext (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=172904&postcount=233) within this thread about the 1963 movie The Great Escape. As to For-Life's last comment about that - "a torpedo" - well, I'm lost. I tried to figure that out with Google but I'm still lost. Is that a motorcyle? A BMW "Torpedo" ..? I've never had anything to do with motorcycles myself.

[For-Life]

Rinsie, I disagree. Part of the reason why I started this thread was not to express my opinion, but to hopefully find new ideas of how to solve this problem instead of old, out of date solutions.

I feel that many still do not understand what I originally asked and are looking for me to support those who we are at war with, which I am not. I think this can be proven with the six words that you quoted. I never said anything about victimizing the criminals.

[Spexvet]

...For-Life, you've been a great poster, but on this thread, I think that you've gone off the tracks. I find many, if not most of your comments on this topic to be convoluted, highly questionable, mostly irrelevant to any current practical concerns and just downright wrong. I would summarize your general direction here in just six words:
...

And I would summarize yours as:


If someone does something bad to me, it's not my fault.

[rinselberg]

For-Life, I know that it was not your intention to criminalize the victims. I'm more concerned about the other half of that statement that I made: to victimize the criminals; i.e. to portray the terrorists, directly or indirectly, as having been victimized by "the West". To wit:Back in the 50s and 60s there were no Arab terrorists like [there are] today ...?? You might want to check with some Israelis about that. You can go as far back as the start of the 20th century (1900) and find that the Middle East was simmering with tensions that were expressed in various ways - including terrorism. The Middle East has been churning out terrorism in various forms almost without interruption, from at least that far back (1900) to the present day.

I was just wondering if we are going after symptoms of the problem instead of the problem itself. Maybe instead of making [ourselves] more terrorist-proof we [could reduce the number] of terrorists ...I can't speak for Canada, but if the exact dollar amount that is expended every fiscal year by various U.S. agencies involved in researching or educating about or trying to address the "root causes" of terrorism with overseas programs ever came to widespread public attention, there would probably be a general clamor to shut down all such activities. "We don't need to know more about the so-called root causes of terrorism - we can't even use the knowledge we already have. Stop wasting our tax revenues." That's what I estimate as the general public reaction were there such a disclosure.

"Various U.S. agencies"; i.e. the State Department; the Agency for International Development; the Defense Department, including the undergraduate military academies, service postgraduate schools and the National Defense University; a spectrum of intelligence agencies, starting with the CIA; private foundations, and colleges and universities with Middle East and Islamic studies programs nationwide. Not to mention whatever the U.S. contributes year by year to various international projects and programs under the United Nations banner.

You opened this topic in the form of a question, but it seems like a way of opening the door to certain specific suggestions. That's why I said, when I first posted on this topic: "Whatever it is that you're about to suggest to address the fundamental problem(s) of terrorism and not just the symptoms - what makes you think that it is something that is not already being done?"

Due to previous Western policies and partially due to the Cold War, that area [the greater Middle East] has been treated like pawns in our battles. So we did destroy some important buildings in their area, not to directly hurt them but in war with someone else. We did force our Western lifestyle on them to prevent Soviet association on their side ...We "forced" our Western lifestyle on ... who?

Afghanistan? The people in Afghanistan, for the most part, set themselves to ejecting the Russians during the Carter-Brezhnev era. Are you suggesting that we (the West) forced or manipulated most of the population of Afghanistan into starting an uprising against the Russians? I don't see how anyone could arrive at that. Reagan followed Carter and then the U.S. started arming and supplying the Afghan rebels. But that situation - a rebellion, or a resistance, or a civil war in Afghanistan - wasn't something that the U.S. manufactured out of thin air.

Iran? The 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power? Maybe. But that's just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw puzzle. And the Shah is getting to be ancient history by now.

Iraq? Have you factored into your grand historical calculations the fallout after an anti-British movement in Iraq tried to fall in line with the Germans in the middle of WWII in an unsuccessful attempt to throw the British out? At the same time that many thousands from the Indian subcontinent, who had their own desires to be free of British rule, saw the necessity of defeating the Germans first and went to war on the "right" side - alongside the British - the slogan "Allah is your master in Heaven, but Adolf Hitler is your master on Earth" was reverberating among Muslims across the Middle East, from Egypt to Iraq and Iran. Now that certainly complicates things ...

And what exactly do you mean when you say "We" ..? Is there no distinction to be made among the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other Western powers that have meddled in the Middle East in one way or another over the years? Which Western countries attacked Egypt in 1956 when Nasser wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal and the Egyptian oil facilities? And which Western country put the brakes on that military intervention?

Has the United States forced a Western lifestyle on Saudi Arabia or any of the other Gulf states? Hardly. I wasn't able to find the post that I was looking for, but I think that some of your previous posts have been sharply critical of the U.S. for not being sufficiently forceful or active in pushing these generally conservative, Islamist states towards more Western ways of society and governance: i.e. equal rights for women and a shift towards more open elections and fewer restrictions on the eligibility to run for elective offices ... so I think that you're trying to have this "both ways".

In summary, I think that you're in "over your head" with these patchwork recollections that you post about the history of the Middle East.

Who wouldn't be?


PS to Spexvet: http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/733/tonguedo7.gif

[braheem24]

Iran? The 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power? Maybe. But that's just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw puzzle. And the Shah is getting to be ancient history by now.

I wouldnt say operation Ajax is ancient history...

1979 Khomeini came into power and took american hostages because intelligance told him the 1953 coup was co-ordinated with the help of the American embassy in Iran.

We supported Saddam, armed him and helped him kill millions of Iraqis and Iranians because we wanted to support the enemy of knomeini.

1991 The Iraq/Iran war is over and the the lesser of the 2 evils (Saddam) is now no longer the pawn we created to cause havoc on iran so we fight to 'defend' Kuwait and Saudi from him.

2001 9-11 happens because come crazies believe it's convenient that we make the monster and then offer to eradicate him for a small fee which requires setting up bases in Saudi Arabia.

2001-Present we're freeing the Iraqi people from the sadisctic regime that has ruled them for the past 20+ years after major support from the U.S. when he was slaughtering Iraqis in the 80's Iraqis are now suddenly expected to believe the U.S. has the best of intentions for the people of Iraq.

3,600 Soldiers dead un-necessarily and counting, 70,000 Iraqi civilians dead and counting.

All this and we still cannot see the other side. Our policies are the foundation that gives the terrorists the ammunition to recrute.

[rinselberg]

1979 Khomeini came into power and took american hostages because intelligance told him the 1953 coup was co-ordinated with the help of the American embassy in Iran ...

Intelligence may have told Khomeini that the 1953 coup was coordinated with the help of the American embassy in Iran. He took Americans as hostages because he was a bloody terrorist.


We supported Saddam, armed him and helped him kill millions of Iraqis and Iranians because we wanted to support the enemy of Khomeini.Because the U.S. didn't want Iran to achieve total victory and incorporate Iraq into a greater Iran. The American objective from the very start of the Iraq-Iran war was to end that war with both countries as undamaged as possible.


1991 The Iraq/Iran war is over and the lesser of the 2 evils (Saddam) is now no longer the pawn we created to cause havoc on iran so we fight to 'defend' Kuwait and Saudi from him ...The U.S. didn't "create" Saddam and he was never a pawn of the U.S. You did get the second part right: The U.S. led an international coalition including Egypt and Syria to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia.


2001 9-11 happens because come crazies believe it's convenient that we make the monster and then offer to eradicate him for a small fee which requires setting up bases in Saudi Arabia.The U.S. increased its military presence in Saudi Arabia to protect the Gulf States from both Iraq and Iran - the two countries in the region with a history of aggression.


2001-Present we're freeing the Iraqi people from the sadisctic regime that has ruled them for the past 20+ years after major support from the U.S. when he was slaughtering Iraqis in the 80's Iraqis are now suddenly expected to believe the U.S. has the best of intentions for the people of Iraq.There are the Sunnis in Anbar who are now fighting alongside the U.S. against al-Qaida. And there are the Iraqis who have registered their belief in recent polls that a U.S. military presence in Iraq is required for yet some additional time in order to ward off even greater chaos and anarchy.


3,600 Soldiers dead un-necessarily and counting, 70,000 Iraqi civilians dead and counting.Agreed. Except for the "un-necessarily".


All this and we still cannot see the other side. Our policies are the foundation that gives the terrorists the ammunition to recrute.Congratulations. You've got the al-Qaida "script" (more or less) thoroughly mastered.

[braheem24]

Intelligence may have told Khomeini that the 1953 coup was coordinated with the help of the American embassy in Iran. He took Americans as hostages because he was a bloody terrorist.
Name calling is one way to go about it :rolleyes:


Because the U.S. didn't want Iran to achieve total victory and incorporate Iraq into a greater Iran. The American objective from the very start of the Iraq-Iran war was to end that war with both countries as undamaged as possible.
That worked well, both countries went from leaders in the region to third world countries.


The U.S. didn't "create" Saddam and he was never a pawn of the U.S. You did get the second part right: The U.S. led an international coalition including Egypt and Syria to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia.
His mama created him, we just sold him weapons that we cant find which really seems to irritate the sellers cause they've done everything except show receipts of the weapons they sold him.


The U.S. increased its military presence in Saudi Arabia to protect the Gulf States from both Iraq and Iran - the two countries in the region with a history of aggression.
The agression started when Iran declared itself a Shia Muslim country whereas Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Muslim country, that was in 1979 when instead of doing it the 1953 way by democraticly electing someone, Iran went to extremes to ensure thier success of ousting the western imposed government. Had there been no operation Ajax in 1953, there would not be a Shia Muslim Iran.


There are the Sunnis in Anbar who are now fighting alongside the U.S. against al-Qaida. And there are the Iraqis who have registered their belief in recent polls that a U.S. military presence in Iraq is required for yet some additional time in order to ward off even greater chaos and anarchy.

Agreed. Except for the "un-necessarily".
Could given them arms in 1991 and they would have done the job with 70K less deaths, so I would conclude it is un-necessary


Congratulations. You've got the al-Qaida "script" (more or less) thoroughly mastered.
and you've got "You're with us or against us" script nicely reheased, you start with name calling and end the same way.:rolleyes:

The country has figured out the politics of the "terrorism" label and refuses to be scared into voting for your ideologies. Name calling, "with us or against us" are tactics of the past my friend.

[rinselberg]

The 1953 coup in Iran ... bla-bla-bla

Some of the posters on this topic can't (or won't) stop living in the past.

There's a such thing as "too much history" - some history needs to be forgotten, or at least put aside, in order for the world to move forward.

By the lights of some of the posters (above), the French Army should be marching on Rome. It makes perfect "sense". Caesar was a Roman. Caesar invaded France in 58 BC. (It was spelled "Gaul". Same real estate.) Caesar murdered about a million "antique French" (i.e. Gauls) for no discernible reason other than political ambition. On this day of honor, which is recorded in history as 2007-07-12, I call for the French Army to immediately undertake the invasion of Italy, with the objective of capturing and destroying Rome!

You can't fix dumb with dumber ... and yes, I did call a name. I called Khomeini a "bloody terrorist" ... and I'd do it again.

Yours truly.

[shanbaum]

There's a such thing as "too much history" - some history needs to be forgotten, or at least put aside, in order for the world to move forward.




Unfortunately, we don't get to decide what history will be forgotten when by whom. One of the rather surprising lessons from the demise of the Soviet Union - it surprised me, anyway - was the persistence of seemingly-ancient enmity between the goups held together by Russian imperialism, particularly in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

In any case, the assertion that America's recent actions have been informed by too much history is risible; the assertion that our adversaries must disabuse themselves of their obsession with it in order for progress to be made is unlikely to be helpful.

[For-Life]

Rinsie, I was correct when I said that terrorism was not as prevelant in the 50s and 60s as it is today. I did not say it did not exist, but not on the scale that it does today, and not directly on Western territorty (maybe in Western colonies, but not in England and not in the US). You mentioned Israel, but do not forget that there were Israeli terrorists before the nation became a nation.

Now you discussed Afgahnistan, but who were the citizens behind the upheavel and who caused the upheavel? Islamic extremists, are we seeing what is happening here?

Has the Western world forced Westernization on these other cultures? No, but the US was also not fighting wars in those areas either, going back to what I originally said about being pawns in the War.

I think the other posters have answered your other points, and I better get back to work or I will be fired.

[chip anderson]

Of course there were the moslem terrorists in the Philipenes until they got the Pershing cure. Too bad we have "evolved" beyone this, it worked for fifty years until they preceived we had "evolved."

[Spexvet]

..We "forced" our Western lifestyle on ... who[m]?...

The US government, both repubican and Democratic, have supported repressive regimes all over the world, because it has been "in our best interest" (according to them). I don't think you can deny that. US business has exploited less sophisticated people, in order to increase profit. These practices have not been beneficial to the lower teir wokers around the world.

PS to Spexvet: http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/733/tonguedo7.gif

Thank you. :p

[rinselberg]

... the assertion that America's recent actions have been informed by too much history is risible; the assertion that our adversaries must disabuse themselves of their obsession with it in order for progress to be made is unlikely to be helpful.Thanks for responding, Robert, but let me clarify something: I never meant to assert that current U.S. foreign policies are informed by "too much history". I went to considerable length to assert that some of the OptiBoard posters on this topic - the ones that I've quoted by name - are distorting the lessons of the past and current centuries with their highly selective and risibly incomplete versions of history.

As for my thesis that Islamic or anti-Western extremists of all stripes must disabuse themselves of their increasingly ancient grudges against "us" ... that may be unlikely in the near future, but I can't see any alternative. How are we to get along with people who are still holding on to a "super-sized" grudge against us in a world that's already too closely linked by international communications technologies, trade relationships and security requirements for "us" and "them" to keep safely out of each other's footsteps?

Among these "extremists of all stripes" ... Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade ... to the extent that they work to sabotage peace among Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians ... not to be overlooked in all this talk about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Rinsie, I was correct when I said that terrorism was not as prevelant in the 50s and 60s as it is today. I did not say it did not exist, but not on the scale that it does today, and not directly on Western territorty (maybe in Western colonies, but not in England and not in the US). You mentioned Israel, but do not forget that there were Israeli terrorists before the nation became a nation.

Now you discussed Afgahnistan, but who were the citizens behind the upheavel and who caused the upheavel? Islamic extremists, are we seeing what is happening here?

Has the Western world forced Westernization on these other cultures? No, but the US was also not fighting wars in those areas either, going back to what I originally said about being pawns in the War ...I see. So, the Reagan administration should not have helped the Islamists eject the Russians from Afghanistan. Hmmmn ... wouldn't that make the Islamists in some other countries (like Pakistan) even more hostile to us today than they already are? You're just going around in circles, which is what I predicted you'd be doing, if you read between the lines of my very first post on this topic. You're not going to inform us about how to reduce the numbers or level of terrorist activities with your casual rehashing of whatever odds and ends of history are in the front of your mind at whatever moment ... and why would you think that I somehow forgot that Israelis have in years past and may yet again be drawn in as perpetrators in the back and forth violence that is terrorism?

The US government, both repubican and Democratic, have supported repressive regimes all over the world, because it has been "in our best interest" (according to them). I don't think you can deny that. US business has exploited less sophisticated people, in order to increase profit. These practices have not been beneficial to the lower teir wokers around the world.Bingo! That's hard to dispute. But do you see any signs that the U.S. has been moving away from those policies in recent years? The U.S. didn't invade Iran to prop up the Shah in 1979 ... didn't invade Nicaragua to protect Anastazio Somoza in 1979 ... didn't stop the people in the Philippines from throwing out Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. The U.S. hasn't refrained, of late, from talking up the idea of democratic reforms in Egypt, despite the possibility that it's the Islamists that could increase their leverage through freer elections ... etc.; etc.; etc.

Your posts on this topic are all too often just "preaching to the choir".

Lunch anyone? There's more than enough baloney that's been posted here to go around ...

[For-Life]

I see. So, the Reagan administration should not have helped the Islamists eject the Russians from Afghanistan. Hmmmn ... wouldn't that make the Islamists in some other countries (like Pakistan) even more hostile to us today than they already are? You're just going around in circles, which is what I predicted you'd be doing, if you read between the lines of my very first post on this topic. You're not going to inform us about how to reduce the numbers or level of terrorist activities with your casual rehashing of whatever odds and ends of history are in the front of your mind at whatever moment ... and why would you think that I somehow forgot that Israelis have in years past and may yet again be drawn in as perpetrators in the back and forth violence that is terrorism?



No, it wouldn't. What they wanted is to get the Russians out of there, so that they can run their nation with their extreme ways of doing things (see the Taliban). Unfortuantely, back then stopping communism was the main goal, and our myopia led to today's problems.

[rinselberg]

That statement (post #75; right before this one) is so over-simplified, vs. the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion, that it is feloniously misleading; a distortion of history that is one step along the road to Orwell's 1984 in its reckless revisionism; to wit:

Afghanistan started to go to hell in a hand basket as far back as 1965, when the Afghan Communist Party was founded ...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/timeline/timeline3.html

In 1979 the USSR mounted a large-scale military intervention in Afghanistan with uniformed Soviet troops and battlefield weapons.

By 1982, four million Afghans had become refugees. Most fled to Pakistan. A lesser but considerable number (over a million) fled to Iran.

In 1985 the Reagan administration transformed limited U.S. support for a loose coalition of Afghan rebel groups, including the Taliban, into a covert program of large-scale, across-the-boards military assistance. In 1986 the rebels began to receive Stingers ... U.S.-made shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles ... remarked by many as the straw that finally broke the (Russian) camel's back.

It would take a true foreign-policy nimrod (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=196588&postcount=243) (like Jimmy Carter) not to realize the practical necessity that faced the U.S. at that time, of stopping the undisguised Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.

A case can be made, however, that the U.S.-led program of military assistance to the Afghan rebels considerably exceeded the battlefield requirements ... a serious miscalculation ...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_911_timeline_0986stingers

If there is a better route to stopping terrorism than the one we're already taking (more or less) ... I don't see it emerging from the discussion among our "panelists".



http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7536/67116241147955218yb2.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721)
The Great Escape. What you didn't already know ...
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721

[rinselberg]

America is quietly expanding its fight against terror on the African front ... The Pentagon says Africom—the first new U.S. strategic command established since 2002—will integrate existing diplomatic, economic and humanitarian programs into a single strategic vision for Africa, bring more attention to long-ignored American intelligence-gathering and energy concerns on the continent, and elevate African interests to the same level of importance as those of Asia and the Middle East ...Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657234/site/newsweek/page/0/).


http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9484/40054245345108eca83490ni9.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=204249&postcount=250)
rinsel's latest OptiBoard Word of the Day! (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=204249&postcount=250) lets you experience a time when popular jazz tunes went to war for the "dark side" in a rare multimedia presentation.