Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

[classicman]

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

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?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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...

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.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

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

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Classicman

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

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.

Originally Posted by Classicman

You too - see the question mark?

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical.

That is why I took the argument to both extremes. Good job! Welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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?
it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.

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.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

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.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You need to read more carefully.

Originally Posted by classicman

According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has?

You too - see the question mark?

[sugarpop]

Everyone is guilty of something.

[Undertoad]

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.

[Bullitt]

[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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

[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.

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...

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

1)
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.

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Only stupid people look at history and warp it to support their ideas....

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."

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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?

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.




....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.