Appeasement

[klenke]

I'd like to repose the question Harpell first put forth:

How exactly should we deal with terrorists?

I still haven't read any solutions from you armchair politicians. All I've read is analysis of past events and conjecture as to their meaning going forward. What should the world do about terrorism? All the liberal democrats are pretty sure we haven't done the right thing. And yet, they don't themselves know what is or was the right thing to do. I'm speaking to terrorism in general, not Iraq specifically.

 

It seems to me that to the liberals among us it is not so much what Bush did but what Bush didn't did, if you get my meaning.

[Jim]

I disagree that options have not been put forward. To begin with Iraq was just a distraction we should be putting our resources into intel and picking apart these groups. I'd even be for more resources to Afganistan to weed out Osama and friends, and live up to our promise of making that country a better place. My 2 cents.

[j_b]

Peter Puget is right that the Spanish election results will probably embolden terrorists and maybe help out their cause.

 

if it was all that he said, it'd be fine. but here is what he also said: "To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering" and "There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb". quotes that clearly attest to his thinking that there is no alternative to a continuation of the policies we have been pursuing (despite his subsequent denial when i pointed out to him). next he'll tell us that hating us and our way of life is the reason for terror. don't forget he is "bending surface truth" for our own good

[klenke]

j_b, please answer my question posed in bold letters at the top of this page.

How exactly should we deal with terrorists?

Are you an answer man or just a complainer?

[j_b]

j_b, please answer my question posed in bold letters at the top of this page.

How exactly should we deal with terrorists?

Are you an answer man or just a complainer?

 

you have not been paying attention. i have been saying since my first post in this thread that terror has its roots in despair. stop predatorial policies enforced by the most powerful army/economy in the world and it'll take care of itself.

[Thinker]

j_b, please answer my question posed in bold letters at the top of this page.

How exactly should we deal with terrorists?

Are you an answer man or just a complainer?

 

you have not been paying attention. i have been saying since my first post in this thread that terror has its roots in despair. stop predatorial policies enforced by the most powerful army/economy in the world and it'll take care of itself.

 

I disagree. There will always be somebody or some group who is dissatisifed with the prevailing government, no matter how unbalanced their view may be. It's not always despair that drives these things, many times it's ego or pride, and stopping predatorial polices won't have any effect on these people.

 

For instance,

 

I don't really know much about the Basque separatist movement, but it seems that they really don't have much to complain about except that they don't want to be part of Spain.

 

Domestic US terrorists typically don't like the federal government, but is anyone really being predatorial with them? To the contrary, their personal rights are probably the best protected in the world.

 

There are many other examples.

[klenke]

So, j_b, let me see if I understand you right. The purple text are the questions I'm adding to the discussion.

You're saying we (America) should do the following

1. Pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Phillipines, whereever else.

What timeline do you think is best for this? Right away, three months, six months, three years, six years?

2. Pull all business interests (McDonald's, oil/gas companies, etc.) out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, whereever else they're unwanted.

Shouldn't the governments over there tell these businesses to leave? Isn't it up to them to decide who should be able to do business in their country? If this is true and they're not doing this, aren't then the terrorists misguided in who they should be focusing their anger at?

3. Not impose our economic principles on other countries. They should develop their own principles.

Of course, as you know, the U.S. economic principle (in general, not at this moment) is the best in the world. If they don't want to use our system (which is entirely up to them), then they are free to develop their own. Note that probably most of their economists were educated right here in America anyway.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

After the above three have been done (by the U.S.), the terrorists groups will disband and return to being upstanding citizens of their societies.

 

Well, what about the terrorists' anger with the Zionist state? That isn't really anything to do with the U.S.. The terrorists have been hating the Israeli entity for quite some time. By association, they hate America because we support Israel. I'd like to think America also supports the idea of a Palestinian state but that fostered terrorism within Palestine degrades that support. Note that I am not a supporter of Israel and their aggressive expansionist ideologies, but I tend to give them more of the benefit of the doubt in terms of their methodologies for combating the killing of their innocents (for instance, I am for the security fence).

 

I think that, even if the U.S. does the above three things listed above, the terrorist entities will continue to exist and still go after U.S. interests, kill innocents. They will create new ideologies for themselves once the original ones have been appeased by the civilized world. My thought is that you can't really ever appease terrorists because they themselves have moved beyond appeasement. Or to say it another way, appeasing them won't satiate them.

[j_b]

thinker: i partially agree. many of the exceptions you could think of are for one reason or another fringe lunatics that can be delt with socio-economic/police measures within the framework of a democracy. also don't forget that eta operated for 35years under fascism, and since franco's death most separatists have renounced violence.

 

as for arab extremism, this is an entirely different beast. these groups have the tacit if not overt support of large segments of the population in the arab world. if you want to isolate these groups from their support base (a sine qua non to do away with the weirdos) you'll have to deal with the policies of the empire.

[j_b]

. Pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Phillipines, whereever else.

What timeline do you think is best for this? Right away, three months, six months, three years, six years?

 

the sooner, the better

 

2. Pull all business interests (McDonald's, oil/gas companies, etc.) out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, whereever else they're unwanted.

Shouldn't the governments over there tell these businesses to leave? Isn't it up to them to decide who should be able to do business in their country? If this is true and they're not doing this, aren't then the terrorists misguided in who they should be focusing their anger at?

 

they can deal with the businesses they want to as long as their governement are representative of the wishes of the populations and not our or someone else's puppets.

 

3. Not impose our economic principles on other countries. They should develop their own principles.

Of course, as you know, the U.S. economic principle (in general, not at this moment) is the best in the world. If they don't want to use our system (which is entirely up to them), then they are free to develop their own. Note that probably most of their economists were educated right here in America anyway.

 

that's for them to decide. self-determination is key.

 

Well, what about the terrorists' anger with the Zionist state? That isn't really anything to do with the U.S.. [...] they hate America because we support Israel.

 

you did not wait for very long to contradict yourself. without a $6billions us aid package per year, israel would have delt fairly with its palestinina problem a long time ago.

 

(for instance, I am for the security fence).

 

were you in favor of south african apartheid? there is no difference.

 

My thought is that you can't really ever appease terrorists because they themselves have moved beyond appeasement.

 

you may be right about the individuals but as i mentioned earlier you won't be able to deal definitely with the true loonies until you address the often legitimate gripes of the populations that support them.

[Thinker]

I find it ironic (and tragic) that many politically moderate Arab and/or Muslim nations are being targeted by Islamic extremists.

 

Maybe we can learn a few lessons about how to deal with the problem by watching Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and to a much smaller extent Spain, deal with these issues.

 

And speaking of Spain, Spain was once THE model of tolerance. From roughly 723 to 1200, Moslems, Christians, and Jews lived in relative peace. As 'Children of the Book' Christians and Jews were largely protected under the moderate Moslem government. Though there were outbreaks of intolerance, esp in the later years, the system worked very well. In general, the Christians kept to themselves and degenerated into a very financially poor community, while the Jews integrated into society, held political office, and developed a rich heritage in Spain. Art, architecture, literature, and science flourished in that time period. Numerous Europeon 'scholars' went to the vast libraries in Spain and 'discovered' many astounding scientific facts, which they translated into their vernacular languages and published as their own discoveries.

 

It wansn't until religiously radical Moroccan mercenaries were brought in to fight the northern Christian armies (and subsequently decided to stay) that the overall political climate started to become more radical in Spain...and finally the Islamic government suppressed both the christian and Jewish communities. Most people are only familiar with the ultimate outcome when the 'Moors' were driven out of Spain by the invading Europeon/Christian armies.

[MrDoolittle]

I heard this story one time in college about a guy getting his pecker nailed to the floor of a house. They set the house on fire and gave him a knife.

[klenke]

the sooner, the better

This is not an answer. Give me your ideal timeline for this pullout.

 

they can deal with the businesses they want to as long as their governement are representative of the wishes of the populations and not our or someone else's puppets.

Again, shouldn't those governments unpuppet themselves? What carrot are we dangling in front of them that they can't unpuppet themselves (cut the puppet strings, as it were)? Is it the American government dangling the carrot or the American businesses or both? As wrong as it does seem to me the way American companies expand globally at the expense of where they're expanding in to, it's still up to those governments to say no. Just say no. Easy as that. What a conservative idea that is!

 

that's for them to decide. self-determination is key.

Exactly. We are in agreement here.

 

Well, what about the terrorists' anger with the Zionist state?"

you did not wait for very long to contradict yourself. without a $6billions us aid package per year, israel would have delt fairly with its palestinina problem a long time ago.

How have I contradicted myself here? I don't see it. The original three items I listed (pseudo-transcribed from your original list of things we should do seven posts back) did not include U.S. $$$ support for Israel. You should have put that in your initial list then I would have spoke to it. I agree with you. We shouldn't be giving Israel all that money. But, that said, the terrorists will/would hate Israel regardless of whether we gave them money. That's been going on since Israel became an independent state 50-60 years ago. Actually, you could say it's been going on since before the Crusades.

(for instance, I am for the security fence).

were you in favor of south african apartheid? there is no difference.

Now you're just insulting me. There is a difference and you know it. Please don't insult me like you try and insult PP. I have not insulted you. I have tried only to get your ideas for how to deal with terrorism out of you.

 

My thought is that you can't really ever appease terrorists because they themselves have moved beyond appeasement.

you may be right about the individuals but as i mentioned earlier you won't be able to deal definitely with the true loonies until you address the often legitimate gripes of the populations that support them.

How do we deal with the gripes of the Arab population then? By doing your three things (1, 2, & 3) listed above + stop supporting Israel? Is this enough or do we need to do more? Should we also feed the Arab/Muslim states lots of money (like how we do with Israel)? Wouldn't feeding them money make them our puppets (another dangled carrot)?

[j_b]

listen, i have been sufficiently clear. whenever a specific issue arise i'll let you know my feeling. in the meantime i am not running for public office, so ...

 

as for withdrawing from iraq, first put the troups under international command (un) to make sure the transition is not too bloody. i know some people don't like that idea but we are past this kind of consideration, nobody asked us to go there in the first place and we got plenty of warning about the mess we were stepping into.

 

(for instance, I am for the security fence).

were you in favor of south african apartheid? there is no difference.

Now you're just insulting me. There is a difference and you know it. Please don't insult me like you try and insult PP. I have not insulted you. I have tried only to get your ideas for how to deal with terrorism out of you.

 

me insulting you and PP, where? please provide the quote where i have done so and explain how what i said constitutes an insult. believe me, if i insulted you, it would be abundantly obvious

 

and there is no difference between sa apartheid and israel's apartheid. we should also not forget that conservatives had no problem with south africa until the 25th hour, i.e. when it became clear they had no other choice (and now they all line up to get some of mandela's mojo, too funny really)

[klenke]

Heck, maybe you should run for office because you seem to have all the answers. We need people like you in office, not the ineffectuals we currently have in there. To wit, I will say I have no answers and I know it. I have only scenarios and what ifs. I'm not an auger. I can't tell you what one course of action or another will lead to in the future. That's conjecture. I'm at least smart enough to know that.

 

But actually you don't seem to have any answers either because you keep avoiding the questions I've asked you to answer.

 

Your tone has always been insulting to others. It's just the way you come off I guess. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy in person. You insulted me by insinuating that I hadn't thought the security fence through and that it has a tantamount despicability to South Africa's apartheid program. You painted a picture of me that wasn't me. (You un-scumbled the gray back into black and white.)

 

Since you sincerely believe that SA's former apartheid and Israel's security fence are the same thing ("there is no difference"), I would like you to elaborate in how they are the same. I agree there are facets of both that are similar, but there is one marked difference between the two that you are not seeing (or are ignoring on purpose).

 

And, can I make a request: can you please use capitalization? Thanks.

[chucK]

Klenke, you're the dude making up this thing about being insulted by equating the fence and apartheid. Why don't you start off with why they are different?

[klenke]

No, because I asked first.

[jjd]

How exactly should we deal with terrorists?

 

1. Open a Hooters and a strip club on every corner in Saudi Arabia. Let these backward sumbitches stew on the fact that their idea of reality is a bunch of horseshit. Let's see how these fu#!ers react when they can't kidnap American children and hide behind an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize women as equal.

 

2. Go Mossad style on them. Dress up assasins as women in burkas and kill as many as possible. Hunt these motherfu!#ers to the end of the earth. When they relax becuase they think they're safe, put a bomb in the earpiece of their phone, call them and tell them Uncle Sam has just terminated him for his bullsh#t ideology and blow his head off.

 

3. Continue to assist moderate countries in developing governement systems that protect economic and political freedom. If the people in these countries didn't want American businesses, they wouldn't buy their shit and the businesses wouldn't be there. Stop all this evil corporate empire globalizing at the expense of the poor savages nonsense. It really is a tired argument. You can't have political freedom without economic freedom and vice versa.

 

4. Maintain the moral high ground. We have it, terrorists don't. We are right and they are wrong, period. No suitable conclusion can come from trying to appease or negotiate with terrorists. We need to cut them off at the legs. We do this by enabling the political and economic freedoms discussed above. The more people of these "terrorist hotbeds" experience true freedom, the less they will support megalomaniacal arseholes like Osama bin Dumbshit.

 

Terrorists are a bunch of pussies and they can kiss my secular capitalist ass.

[chucK]

Oooo good idea. We oughta kill those terrorist bastards. Why haven't we thought of that before?

 

Oh wait, that's what we've been trying to do for years now.

[jjd]

Oooo good idea. We oughta kill those terrorist bastards

 

I know it's a good idea, that's why I suggested it.

[scott_harpell]

they can deal with the businesses they want to as long as their governement are representative of the wishes of the populations and not our or someone else's puppets.

 

Doesn anyone else see the problem with this statement?

[klenke]

Due to the bad grammar I don't even understand the statement, much less see the problem. That's why I asked him to use better punctuation/capitalization. Arguments come across much more cogent when they're written well.

[scott_harpell]

Well, one major problem is that most terrorist countries DON'T HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT!

[Peter_Puget]

Peter Puget is right that the Spanish election results will probably embolden terrorists and maybe help out their cause.

 

if it was all that he said, it'd be fine. but here is what he also said: "To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering" and "There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb". quotes that clearly attest to his thinking that there is no alternative to a continuation of the policies we have been pursuing (despite his subsequent denial when i pointed out to him). next he'll tell us that hating us and our way of life is the reason for terror. don't forget he is "bending surface truth" for our own good

 

Egads, busy day and I see that J-B still doesn't have even the barest grasp of logic. Remember earlier he was claiming that I..oh heck I'll just quote the dear: "why do you feel that the spanish people who have expressed themselves massively and continuously against bush's war on terror, should not have the right to choose a governement that will act according to their wishes? this my friend is anti-democratic. "

 

Of course I never suggested that the Spanish should not have the right to elect any goverment they so desired. Now he writes that I said something. Actually I clearly indicated that these were quotes - two out of a total off four.

 

Now he claims that these "quotes that clearly attest to his thinking that there is no alternative to a continuation of the policies we have been pursuing (despite his subsequent denial when i pointed out to him). " This assertion like most of J-B's is BS. (The other quotes express different sentiments) I can imagine many different tactics and strategies. I do believe that the Spanish strategy is BS and is nothing more than the vain hope that appeasement will get the terrorists out of Spain.

[Stonehead]

Oooo good idea. We oughta kill those terrorist bastards. Why haven't we thought of that before?

 

Oh wait, that's what we've been trying to do for years now.

 

I suspect that a terrorist group is similar to a cult. A philosophy has to underlie the terror; otherwise, they are merely common criminals. However, a philosophy alone is not enough. The words are reinforced by the deed to form solidarity within the group by forging a bond of complicity. Blood is bond. Violent action also instills fear among the group to keep its members in line.

 

What do any of us understand about the motivations underlying terrorist actions? Why does terrorist action seem incomprehensible, so foreign to our worldview? I would suggest that perhaps we, as Westerners with our many distractions and gratifications have become subdued and perhaps theirs is the normal state of affairs, that is, to actually believe in something strong enough to die for it. Now consider that although our lives are different, one thing all of us share is our death. All of us will die some day only we don’t know exactly when and in what manner. It seems in some twisted way that death as your premeditated action as part of a mission focuses the meaning of life with laser-like precision in the final act, punctuated by a climactic deed when meaning and existence gain concrete impact, a unity of manifestation before disintegration.

 

I would also suggest that terrorist action that is met by crushing brute force is a tactic that may achieve their desired ends under certain conditions. The deed is intended to provoke a corresponding action that causes the powers in control to become terrorists themselves. From our perspective, the terrorists appear to be the villains but our actions demonize our identity in their eyes. A sad situation indeed for those innocents caught in the middle ground in the battlefield between the oppressing government and the terrorists. However, those of the population not actively engaged who were formerly apathetic may now begin to align with the terrorists by voicing support either in private and perhaps even in public. Some of these people will graduate to providing monetary support.

 

A government cannot take a single solution (kill all the terrorists) approach to this complex problem. Sometimes appeasement may be the answer by losing a battle to win the war. I would think that some thought would have to go into dealing effectively with the challenges presented by terrorism by treating this problem with a multi-pronged approach.

 

So anyway, some unconventional thoughts…

 

What is the meaning of dynamite? An unexploded piece of dynamite is unfulfilled in purpose. Its explosion is its meaning.

 

"I am not a man. I am dynamite." -- FW Nietzsche

[j_b]

you seem to have all the answers.

 

well, i certainly don't feel that way but thank you.

 

Your tone has always been insulting to others.

 

to be more accurate, you should have said that my tone is bothersome to some people but what people find offensive is a matter of sensibility. i will make no excuses for finding right-wing rhetoric the product of either cynical or simple minds. which, combined with my tendency to express my thoughts openly, certainly makes for potentially explosive verbal jousting. the fact that you find what i say offensive certainly says as much about you as it says about me.

 

moreover (and this is also for fellow progressives who may find me too aggressive), right-wing rhetoric in this society is the norm (at least for economic, foreign and labor policies), progressives are supposed to be indirect and guarded in their discourse since everyone with openly progressive views is virtually certain to be branded some kind of collectivist (as we have often witnessed on this board). i'll just say that being direct and forthcoming is necessary if one wants to reclaim freedom of speech for progressives.

 

You insulted me by insinuating that I hadn't thought the security fence through

 

actually, i was being nice in giving you the benefit of the doubt. my comments would have been quite unfriendly if on the contrary i had assumed that you were aware of israel systematic policy of ethnic cleansing toward arabs and you still supported the barrier.