Walsingham

Mr Scruff - Fish!

Save the species! Another good one: "Every time I send off one of my offspring I get a token towards a free cup of coffee at Starbucks. "

Pre-Iraq and Afghanistan Islamist propaganda said that US _non_ -involvement was the problem. Refusal to take action on Afghanistan (I know), Chechnya (because clearly going to war with Russia would have been achievable), Bosnia (I know).

OK, Yuusha, I'm trying to be civil here, but maybe I'm too long winded. I'll restrict myself even further to one point at a time. Simply because an act involves fear does not make it terrorism. You can hook me up to an intravenous drip full of fear juice and give me a big horror sandwich and it still isn't terrorism. For comparison, because jihad is involved in a terrorist's motivation does not make every muslim's pursuit of jihad terrorism. *chews stub of cigar* Or maybe I'm not very bright?

kirottu that was just scary.

Stupid people breed stupid kids through memetics, not genetics.

Is 'add to my protective layer of rancid sweat' and option?

The same thing I do every week, Pinky...

I don't believe we need a duplicate of the other threads on this area.

He represents New Orleans. As corruption goes in Louisiana, that is little league. Look at hat happened to the New Orleans Police. Over 40 police officers drawing paychecks who only existed on paper? I heard an interesting story from an officer who had worked in a 'certain' African state. On his instigation they had a single day pay parade nationwide, and discovered that 20% of the persons involved in the lists was fraudulent. In fact the Minister for the Armed Forces or what have you was actually listed as KIA and thereby producing a pension for his wife! Even better, when he was taken off the list, he rang up to complain! This story sounds straightforward, but so many people were involved that the mission did not remove everyone immediately, because there were plenty of families depending on the cash who would have starved.

As a freelance scientist, may I suggest you GET SOME FREAKING SLEEP, YOU NUTCASE.

Off to volunteer again for Blighty. I'm too old and fat for 'owt but the Signals this time, but by god I'll try! That'll teach me to waffle on endlessly about war.

But wouldn't the corporate lobbyists have made the case?

Who is it that would investigate an illegal act committed by the administration?

OK, GDM, I guess I understand your position better. I also now understand what I think is your main point about how whenever the topic comes up in some circles it leaps immediately to how bad the USA is. Personally I dislike such arguments because they serve as a legitimising smokescreen for the a-holes who perpetrate such acts. I thought it was particularly interesting that of the 'Muslim' countries surveyed recently support for suicide bombings had plummeted in the last seven years except in two places - Palestine, and Nigeria. In Nigeria it had actually risen. I feel the fact that Nigeria has experienced few if any suicide attacks may have something to do with this. Far too many of the countries where radicalism is rising seem to have too little concern for what would actually happen if the jifascists get their way and a confrontation occurs. Removing this tacit 'approval' of terrorism will not stop terrorism. But it would serve to halt a number of recruits who sign up to be heroes of the people.

You mean like if he enjoyed the music of Vanilla Ice?

Wait, GD, I'm confused. Does that mean it's OK?

Hold on, GDM, I think you're getting too het up with Yuusha. Fwiiw I don't think he's advocating anything close to terrorism. And you can hardly accuse me of being forgiving on this topic! Thsi is an opportunity to get an insight into Indonesian views on the subject from educated mature chap. So let's keep it civil if possible.

I always assumed it came from when members of Parliament gathered to lob things at peasants. I don't know if your Rangell example is him being ignorant, or merely playing the game to the voters. The voters are more likely to perceive it that way than a guy who sits on tax committees, surely?

Hot spam.

Tigranes has asked most of the question I was going to. He/she has also addressed your question of UN peacekeepers. The only other actors capable of large scale intervention would be (In order of willingness) China, Russia, and France. Given their behaviour right up to the invasion, and their past performance in (respectively) Central Asia and Africa, I don't know what you are suggesting. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but we aren't talking in the abstract here. Solutions have to be practicable. BTW, I would rarely accuse anyone of supporting terrorism. It's a horrible thing to say. However it is reassuring to hear an affirmation from anyone from any background. You'd be amazed who IS willing to say that they do, and smugly barf out the old lie about freedom fighters. Finally, Lare, are you serious about he Rape of Nanking being equivalent to Coalition behaviour in Iraq? I think such a statement deserves more proof. Unless you are happy making grossly insulting statements and running off.

I don't want to sound like I'm averse to changing my mind on this, but my firm belief is that if you limit the terms you simply move power to the guys behind the scenes, who spend their whole lives in power. Haven't we seen this with the Bush administrations?

Obviously I'm not in any position to render judgement on quality of argument. However, I personally feel it is permissible to address the question of the nukes in light of the terrorist question. If only because so many people do. There are two substantive questions raised in my opinion, given the topic we are in: 1. How does the motivation of the crew of the Enola Gay (the nuke bomber) differ from our example jihadi/jifascist? 2. More tenuously, but linked to the above, is large scale warfare morally and intellectually distinct from acts of terrorism? I haven't seen any attempt here to answer the first question. As for the second question I shall have to forcibly restrain myself, and restrict my comments to a single point. This is that if civilisation is to exist (with all its benefits to the human condition) it must depend upon the axiom that actions by a freely appointed state can have legitimacy over the actions of an individual. Terrorism at the coal face is quite simply the decision by an inidividual that their opinion of right and wrong is sufficient to immediately go out and kill another human being.

Who in their right mind would come here in the first place?