Sounds Like Bin Laden's Dead

midnight rain · 05-07-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Because terrorists and millions of ordinary people can have the same goal.
If you can get a political party that represents the terrorists/freedom fighters and the wishes of millions of ordinary people to sit down at the table, then you're in business.

You'd be better served asking the millions of ordinary people of Ireland and Ulster on both sides of the divide how they prefer to live.
30 more years of violence, or now.
The bullet, or the ballot?

And I never said terrorists groups were political representatives. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

There's nothing wrong with accepting the wishes of millions that terrorists also happen to be supporting. However, that doesn't change the fact that terrorists like Al-Qaeda shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

right-track · 05-07-2011, 06:45 PM

I think it's safe to say that the majority of Muslims in the world would gladly hand over all the terrorists for punishment if it meant the withdrawal of allied forces from the middle east and Afghanistan.
And until that happens...

midnight rain · 05-07-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

I think it's safe to say that the majority of Muslims in the world would gladly hand over all the terrorists for punishment if it meant the withdrawal of allied forces from the middle east and Afghanistan.
And until that happens...

I think the U.S. would willingly accept that offer... if the majority of Muslims had the capacity to do that. It's a pipe dream.

Phantom Limb · 05-07-2011, 06:51 PM

Osama bin Laden’s Useful Death by Paul Craig Roberts

This is a pretty interesting article.

right-track · 05-07-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

I think the U.S. would willingly accept that offer... if the majority of Muslims had the capacity to do that. It's a pipe dream.

It is when we keep putting puppet governments in place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abearmauledme

Osama bin Laden’s Useful Death by Paul Craig Roberts

This is a pretty interesting article.

You should read that article, Tuna.
He knows someone who's selling a bridge you might be interested in buying.

midnight rain · 05-07-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

It is when we keep putting puppet governments in place.

Are you talking of the U.S. government or the Afghanistan government (or whichever country we're talking about).

Zaqarbal · 05-07-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

If you can get a political party that represents the /freedom fighters and the wishes of millions of ordinary people to sit down at the table, then you're in business.

In exchange for what? If they honestly want to turn into a political party, then it's all up to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

And I never said terrorists groups were political representatives. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

In that case, all this is unnecessary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Because terrorists and millions of ordinary people can have the same goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

The demands included the removal of U.S. forces from Saudi soil following the first Gulf war, home of Islam's two most holy places Mecca and Medina.

midnight rain · 05-07-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

You should read that article, Tuna.
He knows someone who's selling a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Ok, let me write my opinions of the article.

The CIA prison tortures I think were wrong. I will say though that the World is in a better place now that Osama is dead, as a result of those tactics.

Parts like this I think though hurt the author's argument.

Quote:

How many Americans will have the wits to wonder why the "terror mastermind" – who defeated not merely the CIA and the FBI, but all 16 US intelligence agencies along with Israel’s Mossad and the intelligence services of NATO, who defeated NORAD, the National Security Council, the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US Air Force, and Air Traffic Control, who caused security procedures to fail four times in US airports in one hour on the same day, who caused the state-of-the-art Pentagon air defenses to fail, and who managed to fly three airliners into three buildings with pilots who did not know how to fly – has not pulled off any other attack in almost ten years? Do Americans really believe that a government’s security system that can so totally fail when confronted with a few Saudi Arabians with box cutters can renew itself to perfection overnight?

This is the classic conspiracy theory arguing style. The whole "I don't have any proof, but how is this possible? I can't wrap my mind around it, so it must not be possible" tactic. It proves nothing. Further, I think he just lists as many organizations as he could to lend credence to his argument.

Finally, I'd like to point this out:

Quote:

As the Guardian and European newspapers have revealed, the photo of the dead bin Laden is a fake. As the alleged body has been dumped into the ocean, nothing remains but the word of the US government, which lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, about yellowcake, about Iranian nukes, and, according to thousands of experts, about 9/11. Suddenly the government is telling us the truth about bin Laden’s death? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll let you have for a good price.

First of all, no one claimed those Bin Laden death photos to be real, not least of which in the US Government.

He also says that 9/11 was fake, "according to thousands of experts". Of course those experts he must be referring to are people like Dylan Avery.

In short, that article was a peace of ****.

right-track · 05-08-2011, 02:37 AM

Tuna, I won't debate what you've just posted because I was only joking about that article in the first place.
I wouldn't know if there was any truth to the rhetoric in there no more than you do.

MoonlitSunshine · 05-08-2011, 03:08 AM

Zaqarbal, The situation in Northern Ireland during the troubles was possibly a little more complex than you realise. Basically, there were two sides: the largely Protestant Loyalists (loyal to England) and the largely Catholic Republicans (loyal to Ireland). Due to the manner in which NI had been settled by the british sometime earlier, there was close to a 50/50 split of opinion in the country, which was quite literally divided between the two: cities like Belfast had Protestant streets and Catholic streets, and walking in the wrong ones generally got you in serious trouble.

There were paramilitary forces on both sides: the Ulster Defence Force (UDF) were in many ways just as bad as the IRA, and both represented the wishes and desires of their respective sides, but they were not unanimously supported in their extremity of actions. There were an unfortunately large amount of people who did, but that's what happens when you have that much tension built up. The bombings, however, were not supported by anyone, as far as I know.

However, taking the republicans as an example, the republican political Party, Sinn Féin, represented the wishes of the republican people, and were also sympathetic with the IRA. So getting them to the table to discuss peace led to them putting pressure on the IRA to keep the peace, and eventually disarm. It was not that the terrorist group was given political recognition, but rather that those who could control them were. I think that's what RT is saying: I am sure that there are fundamentalist muslim representatives out there who are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and their demands, but wish to achieve them my means other than violence. If they could be found, and negotiated with, they could help stop the violence from the other side - if you remove the cause of oppression, the terrorists have nothing to pressure people into joining with.

One of the big things that stopped the Troubles was the realisation that just because each side had a different religion didn't make them that different to each other - people started going to joint masses, and having cross-religious marriages, something which would have led to effective exile in the past. Once you humanise the other side, it's a lot harder to justify any action against them. Similarly, we know little enough about muslims (in general), and I doubt they know that much more about us. So if each side realises that the other isn't actually that different when it comes down to it, it might help bring those pacifist representatives to the table.

05-08-2011, 03:08 AM	#450 (permalink)
MoonlitSunshine Dat's Der Bunny! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,088	Zaqarbal, The situation in Northern Ireland during the troubles was possibly a little more complex than you realise. Basically, there were two sides: the largely Protestant Loyalists (loyal to England) and the largely Catholic Republicans (loyal to Ireland). Due to the manner in which NI had been settled by the british sometime earlier, there was close to a 50/50 split of opinion in the country, which was quite literally divided between the two: cities like Belfast had Protestant streets and Catholic streets, and walking in the wrong ones generally got you in serious trouble. There were paramilitary forces on both sides: the Ulster Defence Force (UDF) were in many ways just as bad as the IRA, and both represented the wishes and desires of their respective sides, but they were not unanimously supported in their extremity of actions. There were an unfortunately large amount of people who did, but that's what happens when you have that much tension built up. The bombings, however, were not supported by anyone, as far as I know. However, taking the republicans as an example, the republican political Party, Sinn Féin, represented the wishes of the republican people, and were also sympathetic with the IRA. So getting them to the table to discuss peace led to them putting pressure on the IRA to keep the peace, and eventually disarm. It was not that the terrorist group was given political recognition, but rather that those who could control them were. I think that's what RT is saying: I am sure that there are fundamentalist muslim representatives out there who are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and their demands, but wish to achieve them my means other than violence. If they could be found, and negotiated with, they could help stop the violence from the other side - if you remove the cause of oppression, the terrorists have nothing to pressure people into joining with. One of the big things that stopped the Troubles was the realisation that just because each side had a different religion didn't make them that different to each other - people started going to joint masses, and having cross-religious marriages, something which would have led to effective exile in the past. Once you humanise the other side, it's a lot harder to justify any action against them. Similarly, we know little enough about muslims (in general), and I doubt they know that much more about us. So if each side realises that the other isn't actually that different when it comes down to it, it might help bring those pacifist representatives to the table. __________________ "I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?" - Arthur Dent

05-07-2011, 06:45 PM	#442 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	I think it's safe to say that the majority of Muslims in the world would gladly hand over all the terrorists for punishment if it meant the withdrawal of allied forces from the middle east and Afghanistan. And until that happens...

05-08-2011, 02:37 AM	#449 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	Tuna, I won't debate what you've just posted because I was only joking about that article in the first place. I wouldn't know if there was any truth to the rhetoric in there no more than you do.