Commissar

Nuh uh! They hate us for our freedom!

You know those questions on SAT tests where you had to link one analogy to another? I'm guessing you missed those questions. You made an absolute statement, not I. Your statement is that employed men are never terrorists. Therefore, terrorists only come from unemployed ranks. That is flat out untrue as people with jobs have been suicide bombers. You made an absolute statement that was wrong, and you have no proof to back it up. And you're attacking my logic by drawing false analogies. You shouldn't ask for heated debate if you're not prepared to enter it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I said that employed men are never suicide bombers. The one example to contradict me that you managed to come up with was the 9/11 attackers...who only got jobs here so they could carry out their suicide attacks. So yes, I guess you're technically right. They became employed so that they could fly planes into a building. They weren't pulled from middle management to do it, though.

Prove that it's not going to work. Until then, you're just playing games. End of story. Won't know until they've tried, will they?

This coming from the man that directly linked unemployment to terrorism. What else are you going to do when your poor? I understand. It's okay. Well people are poor in Mexico as well in case you weren't aware. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You: "Unprotected sex is linked to the spread of AIDS." Me: "I've had unprotected sex, and I don't have AIDS, so therefore your premise is entirely incorrect." Same logic you're employing, and I come off as a blithering idiot in that exchange. As I said, unemployment is not the sole cause of terrorism. Unemployment is a factor that plays heavily into terrorist recruiting. Argue it all you want, it's still going to remain true.

And if the Palestinians consider themselves to be at war, as many of the militant organizations do? "Doesn't count!" I can hear it now. Revive their faith and interest in the Party, huh? Wonder why it waned? My wife's family lived through this particular period of Soviet history; her father was a member of an underground press association. When one of their number was taken up, they publicized it, they didn't call it a day. The gulags only led to more resistance and more dissatisfaction; it's impossible to make a contrary argument. It'd be kind of difficult not to, to tell you the truth. Actually, I'm hard-pressed to boil your argument down to any one point. Is it that the Palestinians shouldn't be given a state until they stop harboring terrorists? That's essentially an argument for the status quo, and apparently Israel hasn't found the status quo too palatable recently. The status quo just means more suicide bombers, more Israeli airstrikes on apartment buildings, more of the same old, same old. They've decided to, as the hippies put it, give peace a chance. I for one think it's about damned time.

So you're backing off from your "under no circumstances" standpoint of half an hour ago? That certainly sounds like justification for the killing of civilians, to me. So I guess it must exist. Glasnot', for one. That's something internal dissidence achieved. That in turn lead to democratization. I'd say that they were woefully inadequate at managing internal dissidence, yeah. Look at the Baltic states for other examples, or even Armenians in Azerbaijan. Yes, I can see I'm dealing with a truly formidable intellect. I wasn't making an analogy to the Palestinian situation; you stated that you wouldn't even listen to their reasons for committing murder, and gave your example of shooting the trespasser. I agreed that wouldn't be a good reason, and gave you a reason for murder that I, personally, would consider satisfactory, illustrating the highly relative nature of justification. You don't think the Palestinians are justified in what they're doing, and neither do I; I just don't agree with what you'd do in response.

For the present time, yes. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Iraqi consistutional convention, though. One way or another, I imagine I can make a debate out of that, too.

I didn't use it initially - not due to anything high-minded, I'm ashamed to say, but because it simply didn't occur to me - but I did bring it up this time. It's just such an obvious argument whenever anyone goes off the deep end into absolutes about the killing of civilians. Especially when they're arguing from a pro-American standpoint.

I still don't follow. You think the Soviet Union successfully shut down all resistance to its regime by gulag'ing thousands upon thousands of people? If that's the case, I'd recommend a little research into Soviet resistance movements. I'm not disregarding that fact. I was responding to this: Now, it seems to me like you're saying war and the prevention of even greater loss of (American) life is a good enough reason to murder civilians in one statement, and then you're negating that in another. Which is it? And once again I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. There were plenty of underground resistance movements in the Soviet Union - perhaps you've heard of "One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich"? Read again: Alright, if the law is your ultimate source of morality, I suppose I can respect that. I certainly don't agree with it, though. If you rape, torture, and murder my wife and children, I'm going to be the one to kill you; I'm not going to turn you over to twenty-to-life in prison. That'd be murder on my part, too, but to me, it'd be justified.

I'm being genuine here when I say that I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. There's virtually no terrorism in Mexico, either, or Denmark...what does that prove? Could well be. Then again, I'm pretty sure we got the Japanese to accept our terms to ending World War II by killing quite a few civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as has been stated numerous times in this thread. Well, what about Afghanistan? I'd say we used force, and continue to use force, there. I think what you're advocating, however, is something along the lines of a kill 'em all policy, and that's impossible without significant and massive civilian deaths, which is kind of self-defeating, and only breeds fresh recruits in the end. And here we are back at Japan again. We murdered plenty of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the attempts at defending them as valuable military targets have, I think, been put to bed finally. And I do not establish degrees of tolerance. I've said from the beginning of this thread up until now that I do not condone terrorism, simply that I understand where it comes from and why. That doesn't mean I find it acceptable. I do not, in point of fact, think that the Palestinians should be asserting their claims to the Gaza Strip with terrorism. But at the end of the day, I don't negate their right to a state of their own, either, as that condemns thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who haven't so much as thrown a rock at an Israeli tank. Seriously, though, tell me what your alternative is? What do we do if we don't let them establish their own state? Maintain the status quo? Won't work. Hasn't worked. What do we do? C'mon, I'm dying to know.

This is another example of the brand of thinking I love. Terrorists murder civilians with very clear political goals in mind, not because they're bored and decide it'd be fun to do. ObL didn't just wake up one morning and decide that he hated America; he has very specific reasons why he hates America, based on American acts, real or imagined, and he has very clear goals in his campaign. That's not to say that we should give in to him, but it's a little naive to take the "we're victims because they're jealous" approach. Like I said before, it's worthwhile to understand terrorism, and to not get emotional about it. Wave your flag all you want, but it'd be worthwhile to have a more objective view now and again.

Oh, right. So it's better to give in to the demands of terrorists. After all, that's what we have done in this case, isn't it? Yes, that is apparently the only way to defeat it. If it encourages terrorism to pop up elsewhere well, we'll give in too, right? And yes, it worked. It worked in the Soviet Union. Twenty to sixty million deaths, but it worked. No, you don't understand it. You justify it. That's the problem. "Hey, they are unemployed, and their lives suck. What are they going to do?" How does trying to live in peace sound? That's what the jews have done for... well... always, and it looks like it's worked for them. Murdering civilians out of spite is never understandable, let alone condonable. Sorry buddy, but you have no idea what you are talking about. When it comes to terrorism, there is only black and white. And it's attitudes like your own that allow terrorist movements to live on. So, whatever. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What worked in the Soviet Union, exactly? To my knowledge, they haven't defeated any terrorists at the cost of twenty million deaths, let alone sixty million. Last I heard, Russia's still going at it with the Chechens. You call it giving in to the demands of terrorists, I call it negotiating a settlement. The major terrorist conflicts of the last fifty years have been settled not by one side winning a victory of arms, but by negotiating. Negotiation is the only thing that has a chance to work in Israel, and negotiation involves concession. Yeah, the Israelis tried to live in peace, while oppressing the Palestinians. Of course that's a strategy doomed to fail. And you may well believe that there's only black and white with terrorism, but that's not really the way the world works. We're going to learn that pretty soon. Hell, we've learned it; why do you think we're encouraging Sunni political leaders - some of whom are strongly suspected of being part of the Iraqi 'insurgency' - to come to the negotiating table? Because we've been in there for years now and force alone has...not...worked. But hey, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Talk about twisting my words. I said that terrorism is linked to unemployment, as the unemployed are the ones who get recruited to do the suicide bombing. You said that's impossible, because Mexico has high unemployment rates but no terrorism. I'd like to refute this one more time, and I thought of an analogy: You: "The spread of AIDS is linked to unprotected sex." Me: "But I've had unprotected sex, and I don't have AIDS; therefore, your premise is entirely incorrect." No one is defending terrorism. I don't defend terrorism. I've said that it's apparently worked in this case, and that I can understand - note, not condone, but understand - why some Palestinian groups have resorted to it. Before we get into the whole, "But by saying it worked, you're justifying it!" rigamarole again, let me once more state that just because something works doesn't mean it's justified; using my example from earlier in the thread, shooting an annoying coworker would work to keep him from annoying me, but it is not justified. I do not think the Palestinians should be using terrorism. I do think that they should be allowed their own state, and I think that state should consist of lands that contain an overwhelming portion of Palestinians, who were there long before the Israeli state was formed. Your analogy about Mexican immigrants in California doesn't work, because Mexicans already have a state; the Palestinians do not. You argued passionately for the right of Israelis to have a state of their own, and I agree with that argument. I also agree that the Palestinians should have a state of their own. You say that the state was formed, and that both sides were told to share Gaza after the Israelis took it over; would you be so emphatic on the sharing point if it'd been the other way around? The Israelis were told to share - and by the way, it's a little ridiculous to assert that they willingly complied all along the line - and it was their government in control of the area. They 'shared' by cutting off the Palestinian portion of Gaza - the great majority of Gaza, in other words - from everywhere else. Sharing, it seems to me, would involve equal rights, but that certainly has not been the case in Gaza.

The 9/11 terrorists held jobs. They went on a suicide mission. You maintain those that have a job won't kill themself and that unexployment drives people to terrorism. Then why don't we see terrorists everywhere there is unexployment? Maybe because you are completely wrong on the issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe because you're ignoring all the other factors I've spoken of? And again, if you're going to use the 9/11 terrorists, you're going to have to do better. They were sent over here with a mission; getting a job wasn't a career change for them, it was a way for them to accomplish that mission.

Since when does Israel want all the Palestinians dead? Your true colors come forth suddenly. But the settlers living in Gaza don't count as living in Gaza? You say, those living there should own it by living there but then you throw in the Six-Day War. Make up your mind. Which counts? Historical claims or current borders? And outside powers did not create Israel. Palestine was a colony of the UK and was under the purview of the UK. The governing body of Palestine said the Jews could move in. You say that Palestine refused to behave because peace didn't work? Why didn't peace work? Who attacked who? Next you're going to tell me that the sky is green, aren't you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The settlers living in Gaza certainly count as living in Gaza. They're Israeli citizens, however, and while that territory is still Israeli, they're obliged to obey Israeli law within it; Israeli law says they have to move. If, theoretically, they stayed, then I'd assume you'd have no problems with a representative democracy being set up in the Strip? Something tells me Palestinians would get most of the votes. I don't have any true colors; I think the Palestinians have been oppressed by the Israeli government. You'd be hard-pressed to contradict that statement. And peace didn't work because it benefited the Israelis while disadvantaging the Palestinians. If you don't believe me, check out the respective unemployment rates of the two groups.

You said: You made the distinction there that employment makes or breaks a person as a terrorist. McVeigh was employed, as were the 9/11 terrorists, and much of the IRA. Your Jack-Thompson logic of "I saw a criminal who played GTA, so thusly criminals wouldn't commit crime if they didn't play GTA" doesn't work. You know why? Because places like Africa or Mexico City have horrible poverty, yet don't have terrorism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The employed aren't suicide bombers. I didn't say the employed aren't terrorists, I said they're not suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist; he is not a suicide bomber. And what exactly were the 9/11 terrorists employed at? Over here, you mean? That's what the spy world calls a "cover." Terrorists recruit from the disaffected, the downtrodden, the poverty-stricken, and the oppressed (real or imagined), and combine all that with religious zealotry. Edit: Although religious zealotry is not always required, come to think of it. Baader-Meinhof, for example. Point is, it's not the people who have no problems with society, their living conditions, etc. that become terrorists.

They could have. The UN told them to share and play nice and Palestine refused. But let us not punish the petulant child, let us punish the people who had no home and were victims of genocide. Palestine occupied that land because the Jews were forcibly removed from it in the first place. I love how people COMPLETELY discount that fact. So let me ask you, how do you determine who has a right to the land? The people who lived in first or most recent? Because if you say first, then as the Muslims are a later branch of Judaism, the land belonged to the Jews first. If you say current possession is 90% of the law, and we'll rule that if you occupy the land now that you own it, then you cannot justify forcible relocation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Palestine refused for all the reasons I've outlined. Palestine refused because it wasn't working. Punish the petulant child? What are we going to do, force them off their land and put them under the control of a government who wants them all dead? We've already done that. Not sure what more we can do. How do I determine who has a right to the Gaza Strip, if that's what you're asking me? Given that Israel is a made-up state thrust into the midst of other states who absolutely did not want it there by outside powers, gained Gaza in a war that it didn't start and then decided to treat the inhabitants like dogs, and then decided that it didn't really want Gaza, anyway...I'd say the people living in Gaza.

Except that you don't understand terrorism. You link terrorism to unemployment. Check the poorest countries in the world, and in most cases you won't find terrorism. But you will find terrorism camps in relatively wealthy areas? Osama Bin Laden wasn't driven to terrorism because he was poor. Terrorism is a result of zealotry, not unemployment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I link unemployment as one of the factors that contributes to terrorism, yes. It's downright fallacious to suggest that I named unemployment as the sole cause of terrorism. C'mon. Osama Bin Laden wasn't driven to terrorism because he was poor, but he's also not the one strapping bombs to himself and detonating them in a mall. And it ain't the millionaires who are doing that in Gaza, is it?

Edit: Couldn't fix the messed-up quote chains, so just went with this. Actually, he was criticizing Metadigital's rhetorical tactics. Let's see...if the government told my parents to move when I was a child, gave them plenty of opportunity to do so, and yet my parents decided to stick around knowing full well what the consequences were, when I was in fact dragged from my house by armed soldiers I'd blame...my parents! Giving up the settlement is morally right, in my eyes. If the Israeli government has no intention of ever attempting to integrate Palestinians into its state - which wouldn't work, since neither Israelis nor Palestinians want Palestinians to be part of Israel - then it's obliged to move on out. As far as it not promoting peace, well...we'll have to wait and see, won't we? If Manhattan were cut off from the rest of the country, being governed by Iran, since a thousand Iranians happened to live there, I can guarantee you that you'd be advocating for the Iranians to move on out. Because, as I've said many times, you cannot beat terrorism with pure force of arms. We're going to learn that, and the Israelis already have. No, I'm explaining why terrorism occurs in the Palestinian territories. I never said it was a particularly good idea. Forcible relocation of innocent people? Sounds a bit like the formation of Israel, now that you mention it. If you're so positive on a Palestinian state, where do they put it? Israel decided it wanted its "historic homeland" or whatever, so why can't the Palestinians have theirs, by the same logic?

Oh, and one other thing...you'd be hard-pressed to find "they deserve it" or anything resembling it in my statements. I don't, in fact, think the Israelis deserve to be targets of suicide bombings, but I understand why they are. I consider myself lucky to have been gifted with the ability to see the full visible spectrum, not just black and white. Edit: And don't forget, they hate us for our freedom.

That's what you get when you support terrorists or fail to do everything in your hand to foil them. Ah, excellent. Another "terrorism is very bad but I can understand it and they deserve it" discourse. All I have to say to that is ************* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. It's much better to make absolutely no attempt to understand where terrorism comes from, how it can exist; much better to believe that we can actually win by shooting every terrorist we see, rather than attempting to do something about the root cause of terrorism itself. Because that worked in Alge...oh, wait. Well, at least it worked in Northern Irela...uh. Well. I'm sure it worked somewhere, right? I can indeed understand terrorism. I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act. Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

You said you would have criticized a Democrat for the same thing. You didn't actually criticize Democrats on any level however. You simply critized a Republican for a situation that was akward. The guy was surrounded by little children and television cameras while discovering news that the United States had just suffered an attack worse than Pearl Harbor. I'll agree his reaction didn't come across as strong, but he didn't panic either. I'll also note that I never once came across a single Democrat who criticized Clinton save for myself. The guy gave China favored trading partner status as China was threatening to use nukes on Taiwan. Amnesty International and the UN were up in arms over human rights violations, and American businesses were up in arms over China's admission of pirating billions of dollars of IP daily. Clinton just said, "let me rape the trade deficit even more". Clinton was also linked to a Chinese business official that was found buried in Arlington National Cemetary, and illegal campaign contributions from a foreign government, namely China. The guy changed his story every two seconds and refused to admit anytime he was caught in a lie. "It depends on what your definition of is is." Surely Clinton had just as many moments, if not worse when he made himself and his country look bad. To say that you would have criticized Clinton isn't necessarily a bipartisan statement. You only criticized Bush, and I sure didn't notice any Democrats criticize Clinton when he made mistakes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, no one bothered to quote my whole post, so I can understand why you'd think you're right. This is what I actually said: "This is one of those things I've never understood about party politics as we have them. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with people on your particular side of the political spectrum; indeed, it's often necessary if you want to maintain any credibility. People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example. Or people who suggest that Clinton lying under oath was no big thing, and not an impeachable offense. I just don't get why people fall into line so easily on things like that. Why they swallow the Kool-Aid, as Bill Maher put it. "

well, he did do better than kerry at yale, so i guess you guys on the left ran a bigger idiot. both of which, again, have degrees from yale... and btw, exactly where does YOUR lofty perch come from allowing you to comment as such? I'm pretty smart. That's where my lofty perch comes in. And I've always believed college transcripts show how well a person did in college, not much more. yet, no ideas on what he should have done. pretty good poll there. an even better argument. and let's digest your argument... hmmm, WTC hit by planes, president speaking to children, AHHHHH! run, run now, quick, hold up the towers! yes, that's it! I'm fairly sure that wasn't my suggestion, to tell you the truth. I didn't make one beyond a vague 'something.' Because yes, I feel that 'something' would have been better than 'nothing.' He could've gotten up, excused himself, and asked...oh, I don't know, something like, "Who is attacking us?" or "Are our fighters scrambled?" or even something as generic as, "What's being done? What can we do?" now you're simply being a hypocrite. I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. because it wasn't. And this is exactly my point. You can't have a rational argument with anyone who thinks the proper course of action for a president who has just been told the country is under attack is to sit there. Because they don't really think that, they just want to defend their side of the ball. it should be eliminated, or at least the US should withdraw. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why does it need to be eliminated? Other than the absurd communist suggestion, I mean. Simply because it disagrees with US actions a lot? Well, sorry to break it to you, but the UN is not our playtoy. It is usually a pretty accurate representation of what the world thinks, and the world quite often thinks we're doing the wrong thing. I know that doesn't matter to anyone who voted Republican last fall - them durned for'ners don't know what they're talking about, living in their little grass huts and hating Jesus - but it could become a problem in the future. The UN, simply put, is the best forum for the US to get its world policy message out there - whenever it finds a coherent one. And like it or not, UN approval does provide a sheen of legitimacy to actions that would not otherwise be there. Does it need reforming? Certainly seems to. But calling it a lost cause is, in my view, incorrect.

I was actually making a fairly bipartisan point, Taks. You'll notice I included a Democratic example right after the Republican one.