Thank you Dana for explaining it to me. Since it is a few people making trouble after most everyone else reached a peace agreement, then I have to agree with you. In this case, according to what you've said here, it really does sound like a few troublemakers.

I wonder what they want though? I can't imagine they really want continued war. Who wants that? Honestly, and I mean this from every fiber in my being, I really don't get why people can't live together - live and let live, you know?

In the case with Israel and Palestine, I have to say the Palestinians definitely have a legitimate beef and reason for fighting though.

Incorrect.
again incorrect.
ahh another assumption. . .Again
Well now, I've been taken out of context. I assumed that since SHE went off of this particular issue and into terroristic attacks IN GENERAL, I followed suit. I again did not state that I believe we should or should not take any particular course of action. I ASKED if that was what SHE WAS SUGGESTING.

How were you taken out of context? I don't mean to pursue this but Sugarpop either pointed out particular terrorist groups or said the word generally while you put in an absolute. Also, there seemed to be a high level of sarcasm and you presented a strawman.

Edit - Explain your last post, don't just say incorrect because I have no idea why you believe I am incorrect..

OMFG! I ASKED A FUCKING QUESTION BASED UPON HER POST - I NEVER STATED MY OPINION!
For you to say that I did is incorrect, hence my last post.

classic, it seems clear that although you didn't actually spell out your opinion....it was stated clearly by contextual inference.

i gathered that a) you don't like sugarpop and b) you dont think we should grant the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others.

but then, i'm pretty fucking perceptive.

I have nothing but the highest respect for sugarpop and her opinions. I certainly disagree with some of them, but that is irrespective of the point being made here.
My opinion remains unstated and the question I originally asked still goes unanswered. A simple yes or no would suffice.

oh, that seems honest. i'll buy it!

Good, cuz I'm serious - I have no problem with her - at all.

This helps reflect the opinion of people in Northern Ireland.

Yes, it is a British website, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. And Ireland (which I have always called Eire due to my heritage) is geographically part of the British Isles.

I am half Irish in the way Americans assess things. I was brought up Catholic - and only my brother and I have no faith. And I don't mean Christmas and Easter, I mean weekly Mass and fasting on Holy Days and denying yourself through Lent and reflecting through Advent and all the kit and caboodle. No, I don't believe a word of it, but if you're going to do it at least commit to it. And I heard not a word of support for the IRA from any of the priests or Nuns I was taught by.

I am far less tolerant than Dani. I already know that. I have admitted before that although I truly mean my liberal ideals, I am aware they are a veneer that can be scratched away. And I fight it. But even fighting it I have no acceptance of terrorists. We were set an assignment in Religion Education in class once, about how we would feel about the Romans if we were Jews - I was one of only two people that said they would not kill them. I might want to, but wouldn't. Because of my personal experience of terrorism

I know I am being reactionary here. I admit it. Of course I don't hate every pale skinned red-headed person. Or black headed person with wiry hair and freckles. Or anyone called Doyle. Literally, that is my family. And me (if I'd got the hair colour I deserved). But I hate people who kill innocents to get their way.

In my mind the bell tolls for the armed forces and the soldiers. But also for the pizza delivery mean. The builders. The taxi drivers. The people in pubs. The OAPs in Enniskillan who shined their medals up for Remembrance Day. The Dads out shopping with their kids for Mothers Day.

You had one attack in America.

How would you feel? How would you feel if it was your Grandad celebrating surviving WWII? Your Mum going into Woolworths in Omagh? Your sister's boyfriend in a pub in Birmingham? Your friend who was a pizza delivery man right up until last weekend?

I'll leave it to people more intelligent and balanced than me to argue the politics. I hate the fucking murderous bastards. Death is never a poltical tool , unless it's suicide (and even that I query).

I've posted this before. You might roll your eyes. But it was shown here at the time (in advance of the film Rattle & Hum). And I think it shows the true voice of the Irish. It was originally an atrocity by the British forces. So was Amritsah (look it up). But so was American treatment of fellow Americans who happened to have different coloured skin. We are all guilty by our ancestry. But those of us who do not believe we are damned by the sins of our father's fathers (ad infinitum) can say, "I'm so sick of it!"

Bono on Enniskillan.

Quite clear and well put ... depending upon the definition of terrorist.

I disagree with that - I am not guilty of anything that another human did. Especially what was done during a different time an place in the world. Things have changed so much so rapidly, especially the last 20-50 years, that to hold me somehow responsible for something someone else did seems ludicrous to me. But hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine.

Tagline!

Ohhhh thanks! Been thinkin bout a new one!

Hypothetically speaking, if Madoff's kids weren't involved with defrauding billions from investors, but they clearly benefited financially, are they guilty of anything? What if they don't return the money once they find out about the fraud? Are they guilty then? They don't know exactly how much was ill gotten and who is owed what. Are they guilty to keep it, if they weren't involved in the original fraud? Are they guilty at all for living high on the hog for all those years? Assuming they didn't know?

Hmmm, without guilt then, there is no sense of responsibility to others. Huh.

Glatt - I was referring to my ancestors, sorry for any confusion on your part.\

Pico - Put your stick elsewhere, mkay?

Its my stick and I'll play with it if I want to...

Oh Wait...I dont have one.

There was no confusion. At least not on my part.

I asked you about Madoff and his kids because the question is whether the guilt of the fathers is passed on to the sons. You say it isn't in your case, and I was asking if it is in Madoff's case. Assuming the sons weren't in on the fraud. It's a hypothetical question.

No
No
No
No
This is very similar to a conversation I believe you and I have already had in another thread . For the record, you asked very specific questions which I answered.

Hey Classic, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not sure what other thread you are talking about, but it's possible we've talked about something similar before.

I didn't expect you to answer the way you did for one part, that the kids wouldn't be guilty to keep the money their dad had stolen. I figured you would find them guilty in some way if they did that. But it fits with what you were saying before about not feeling guilty for anything your ancestors have done.

I personally have a feeling that if we benefit somehow from bad things that our ancestors have done, then we share some of the guilt. I find it's not enough to do anything about it, but I acknowledge that it's there.

None of this has anything to do with the different groups of Christians killing each other over their differences in how they follow Christ.

SG, I'm glad you don't hate people by the name of Doyle. I'm only one generation away from being a Doyle. ;) Or is it two? My Nana was a Doyle, that made my Dad half Doyle, so I'm a quarter, but my Mum has Doyle's on her side too but they're a generation back.

That being said, I don't consider myself Irish in any way even though that's where they came from. Australian all the way for me. It's really the only culture I identify with.

Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.

There is a difference between guilt or remorse and empathy. If someone was wronged by my great grandfather, for example, thats on him not me. What could I have done about it? I wasn't there I wasn't born yet. I feel no responsibility for the actions of someone else, what difference does it make if they were/are a distant relative or a complete stranger? If my cousin kills someone, should I go to jail?

Its usually never that simple.

Lets take glatt's example and expand on it. Lets say you are the son of someone who made a living off stealing money from others and your father never got caught. Now, because of the money your father stole, you were able to go to private school with a tutor, go to a nice college and get a good paying job (CEO lets say) while the families that your father stole from could not pay for college or even apply for loans and their children now had to work for you in a working class job.

You would at least have to acknowledge the fact that everything you have now is the result of your father's actions along with everything that the other children do not have. By exploiting the immoral actions of your father, how are you any different? If I steal a car and give it to you is it still not a stolen car? Do you still not bear some responsibility for it?

To go off in a tangent, this is the best reason why I do not believe in ideal justice. There is no good solution in this situation. Honestly, the best solution in my opinion would be for you to acknowledge that everything you have is the result of crime and not think yourself any better then the people that work for you, especially the children that your father stole from because the situation could easily have been switched.

That brings me to this. If you still knowingly benefit from the fact that your lifestyle is the result of past crime, how you can not argue that you do not share at least some responsibility. Would you not feel bad if I robbed an old lady and then bought you a candy bar from that money? I mean....you didn't actually rob the old lady...

According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has? Every employee, vendor and anyone else even remotely associated with his organization then, according to you, shares in the responsibility of this one mans (or small groups) actions? Where do you draw the line? When does the responsibility end? With the janitor, window cleaners, the guy that delivered pizzas? Where??? All that was presumably bought and;/or paid for with "dirty money."

I am by no means saying that I am right or more importantly that you are wrong, just asking how far you are willing to go with the responsibility or guilt?

You need to read more carefully.

Key words:
knowingly benefit

Key phrase:
There is no good solution to this problem



Also, I'm really curious how you got "take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has" from?

I didn't think this part was serious. My response:
I might feel bad for you after I beat you within an inch of your life, stuff that candy bar you bought up your ass and then held you down so the "old lady" could kick you repeatedly in the balls till the police arrived. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but only for a moment.

But again, thats just me.

I took it to the extreme - Now, where do you draw the line?

You too - see the question mark?

Don't be stupid. You are fully aware that the point was to show that it can be possible to be guilty from actions of your predecessors when you KNOWINGLY BENEFIT from them. That was the point then and that has always been the point.

A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical. I try my best not to knowingly benefit from crime but that is still a load of idealistic crap. Take it how you want.

What? Just because you have a question mark there doesn't mean you don't imply something. For example

Person A - I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Person B - Do you believe we should start giving heroin away as well?

As you can see, even though Person B asked a question, it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.

In your comment, you made an implication that I was getting at a point where everyone that was around Madoff should be stripped of everything they have, which is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, the implication is also a straw man.

This happened earlier in this tread as well. Don't make ridiculous statements and hide behind the fact you put a question mark there.

I'm still curious of where you got that from.

And I respect yours. Honestly though, I thought I had pretty much anwered the question in all my other posts, and that my opinion about this was pretty clear. I will state it again though.

I think, when people are desperate enough to turn to terrorism, they do so because they are not being heard. I believe people use those kinds of tactics, usually, because they do not have the resources of the people they are fighting, so they turn to radical methods to make a point. I believe that, in places where terrorism is common, people need to find common ground or they will never solve the problem. In order to DO that, you have to be willing to LISTEN to the people who are committing terrorism. You know, sometimes, they have a legitimate beef. Both sides have to be willing to make concessions. That means sometimes you have give terrorists some of what they want in order to gain peace.

Personally, I do believe you can fight terrorism, especially using conventional military means. If you could, Israel would be the safest country on earth.

Everyone is guilty of something. :D

I'll try not to be stupid. lol
I got your point. I disagree with you. Have you gotten that yet? I don't know what my great grandparents did and if I found out today that they supplied guns to martians or some other illegal shit I AM STILL NOT GUILTY!
If you find out tomorrow that your education is/was being paid for with drug money from your long lost uncle/father/mother/sister.... Are you responsible or guilty in some way with this newly acquired knowledge?

That is why I took the argument to both extremes. Good job! Welcome aboard.
You're paranoid. Actually I see that as "Do you think we should legalize heroin too?"
You have twisted the scenario a bit. Nice try.
FALSE. No implication intended. Perhaps my post was not as clear as I thought it was. As I have said that was to establish a point of where the line is drawn. Since you now agree that there can be no line drawn, this has become moot.
I'm not hiding. With respect to the earlier reference with sugarpop. As I stated previously, my intention was to have
her clarify what she was saying. You may choose to believe me or not.

SG, I understand. I do. And I can honestly say I don't know how I would feel if we were under attack all the time. I can only say that I would hope I could overcome the hate in order to look at the issue objectively. Having said that, I do believe my country played some part in our being attacked, because of our foreign policies in other countries. I believe in cause and effect. Things do not happen in a vaccuum, and the actions we take in other countries have consequences for those of us here at home.

By the same token, the way we chose to handle the whole thing, by starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack, I believe ultimately that decision may come back and bite us on the ass. While Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, he did help stabalize that part of the world. In the end, I have to wonder if, after we finally leave, the very people we helped will turn on us. Because let's face it, that is exactly what happened with both Saddam Hussein and also with Osama bin Laden. If that does happen, I think we will have to examine our part in creating that reaction. But most people in this country, when talking about this issue, they don't want to look at where we are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur, because they don't want to think we are ever guilty of anything bad.

1) Don't quote the entire post.

2) Don't quote the entire post and then make an mostly unrelated point.

3) You don't know what the hell you're talking about, so consider not posting at all.

[Marv Albert] And in comes Undertoad with the backhand from downtown![Marv]

@ Sugar, your post delves into my area of interest/degree major of history and how it's done. You should look into John Gaddis' book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map The Past. It goes into detail of how chaos and complexity theory determines how we should view events in history. War is a great example of a complex system in which the macro-level behavior of the system as a whole is non-linear, meaning that there are so many variables that are so interdependent that calculating their effects on the course of the whole is near impossible. What if Cleopatra's nose had been ugly, would history have been different? Etc. "We are culpable in helping to create the environments that allow these kinds of things to occur" is a particular generalization that relies upon the idea that all the phenomena within this complex system of The War on Terror is linear in nature, when in reality as said before, macro-level behavior of a complex system is in fact non-linear.

1) I quoted the entire post out of respect to SG.

2) It was related, it's not my fault if you're too dense to connect the dots.

3) Whatever dude. I have a right to express my opinion, and I believe my opinion is VALID. Only stupid people don't learn from history.

I will check it out when I get a chance, thanks.

I don't believe I was necessarily talking about linear vs non-linear though. I was talking more about human nature, cause and effect, and the clash of civilizations that have very, very different belief systems. When you don't take the time to try and understand or respect the other side and where they are coming from, you will never get anywhere.

One other thing about history- it is written by the winners. You can learn a lot by looking at it from the other side, because the winners will always write history so it is favorable to their actions and beliefs, so it is never completely accurate. Just look at how certain people are trying to rewrite the past 8 years...

I cant speak to the Brit's "homegrown" terrorist problem, but I do believe the US approach to terrorism has been woefully misguided for the past eight years.

IMO, a "war on terrorism" is no better than a 'war on drugs".....bombastic rhetoric that has no underlying strategic response and far too great a focus on military force...ie, the invasion/occupation of Iraq which by many measures only increased the world-wide recruitment by terrorists organizations.

The Rand Corp, a DoD contracted think tank published a report last year on "How Terrorist Groups End."

The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_br...es/figure1.gif

....military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

How Terrorist Groups End

The other focus that deserves far more attention IMO.....understanding and responding to the root causes of terrorism.

Hey look, it's a peace sign.

2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.

Not quite as long as the number of days between the first World Trade Center bombing in '94 and 9/11/01.

I attribute it to better policing and intel, including implementing many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (with all its faults) and certainly not as a result of our "war on terrorism" in Iraq, which was the focus of US anti-terrorist actions from 2003-2008.

You may recall how Bush/Cheney initially opposed the 9/11 Commission and the creation of a Dept of Homeland Security.

added:

I also think the FBI/NSA/DHS "terrorist watch list" which is now over 1 million and increasing at a rate of 20,000/month, needs to be more carefully monitored to respect individual liberties and protected constitutional rights.

Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas. I believe you believe that if we all just try hard we can all get along and make the planet a hunky dory place, but unfortunately interpersonal and international interactions don't quite work that way.

You mean like the Bush administration, most notably Dick Cheney ("overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida"), insisting that Saddam Hussein had some nebulous connection to al queda and thus a role in the 9/11 attack?

As late as this week, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, in an exchange with Chris Mathews:

Fleischer: "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."

Matthews: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument...and the American people are too."

No. I KNOW that there are some people who, no matter what, will CHOOSE to continue fighting. I am not stupid. I know how human nature works. It's messy, and complicated, and things are rarely as simple as they seem. I am not trying to warp anything to fit my ideals. I am trying to look HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY at how OUR ACTIONS cause certain results. If people aren't ever willing to look at their own behavior, then how smart are they? I would say, not very.

You know how Albert Einstein defined insanity?

Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there? And if you recall, Osama bin Laden's target was our financial district. He even said, all they had to accomplish, was to get us to bankrupt ourselves, which we have done. We collapsed our own economy, which was his goal. We helped recruit more terrorists than he ever could have done without us. Fighting smart means getting your enemy to do to themselves what would be too difficult to do yourself. Isn't that part of the Art of War or something?

Redux: "The lack of attacks on US soil has nothing to do with the Iraq war."

sugar: "Why should they attack us over here when we have so many targets over there?"

You two now get to work that one out.

:rolleyes: Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? Hello!

Right...that was my point exactly.

It's a shame (bordering on criminal) that the Bush administration made a connection between the two..or between Saddam and al Queda...and still does.

And for 5+ years now, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been at the center of the so-called "war on terrorism."

I dont think he read the rest of what I wrote either. :headshake

Everything else you said was weak, silly rhetoric that I've heard 1000 times before and am not interested in addressing.

LOL....ok.

Have it your way.

I guess you wont bother to read the Rand report or several of the NIE's for Bush that raised serious concerns about the impact of our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq as a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements.

You two don't want to work that one out? You were directly at odds with each other.

From reading the posts, I think sugarpop and I are in agreement that the use of military force, particularly an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, is the least effective way to respond to terrorism.

And many defense, national security and anti-terrorism experts agree.

I wasn't talking to you dux, but if you like, bringing Iraq into it was kind of strawmanning. If you believe that the WoT and WoIraq were not connected, don't be all busy connecting them.

What I noticed immediately about the report was that

#1 Politics
#2 Policing
#3 Victory
#4 Military

Assuming we don't care for #3, what I noticed is that #4 makes #s 1 and 2 available to us, in places where they are not previously available.

In Pakistan, they are available. In Iran and southern Lebanon, they are not. In Iraq, they were not... but are now.

Thats quite an interpretation of the report as well as the facts on the ground.

I simply disagree.

That wasn't exactly the question. The question was, 2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil, why?

Part of your answer was "certainly not Iraq". sugar's number-one answer was, "Iraq".

And, really, I agree with most the report and with your belief that Iraq became a cause celebre. I don't know that it increased recruiting -- will need a good cite for that. I know that it caused a bunch of people to jump in their cars and drive to Iraq to have a shot at the great satan, but there are morons everywhere.

Here is what I saw in sugarpop's post:
And I agree.

As does, to some extent, the 06 NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism" prepared by the US intelligence community:

*The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

*Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

*The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

*Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

I agree particularly with the first finding that "the Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."

Yet, our actions (by invading and occupying a sovereign country that had no connection to 9/11 nor posed no direct threat to the US) created that scenario and have often been counter-productive (see Gitmo, torture, extraordinary rendition to countries with no respect for human rights...) and have turned many Muslims against the US.

Or the finding that "the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."

IMO, an interpretation of that to mean "many Muslims love the West and want to be more like us" is also misplaced and counter-productive.

Yup and this garlic keeps away vampires.

C'mon toad. You know that's no proof that we're doing any better at anti-terrorism than pre-911.

What better measure do you have?

No, we weren't. The Iraq War had nothing to do with the attacks against us on 9-11, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. WE supplied al qaeda, who DID attack us, with plenty of US targets in the form of young US soldiers, in Iraq, when we attacked without cause. The whole reason al qaeda wants to wage war with us is to bring us down economically, hence the target of the World Trade Center, which we have effectively now done FOR them, without them having to DO anything. What exactly don't you get?

Let's see. The first attack on the WTC happened on February 26, 1993. The second one happened on September 11, 2001. That is 8 1/2 years apart. From what I've read or heard from experts, al qaeda takes a long time to plan out their attacks. Who is to say whether Bush has kept us safe or not? For all we know, there are sleeper cells here just waiting for the right time. I pray you are right UT and I am wrong, but I fear it is only a matter of time before we are hit again. I do not believe that is a reason to give up OUR freedoms though. You can't not live your life because of something that might happen.