Originally posted by SiskinIgnorance is bliss, so you must be a happy man. But since you're obviously tooooooo lazy to actually look at what's going on in the world, before calling for neverending war coupled with limitations on personal freedom, I'll give you Middle East 101.
why the fcuk should I?
Since you know everything why don't you just tell me?
The main target of radical Islamic Fundamentalists is the governments of Muslim countries. They believe these governments are both corrupt and too accomodating to Western politicians, businessmen, troops, culture, etc. Therefore, they want to overthrow them and create theocratic states in the mold of Khomeni's Iran.
Now none of this is really a legitimate concern of the West. Whatever governments Muslim countries have is up to them. I note that in most of these countries where elections were allowed, the Islamic Fundamentalists get the most votes. Elections have been invalidated in certain Muslim countries when this has happened.
Al Qaeda was, of course, a primarily Saudi organization. It begin terrorist attacks as a response to the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia (Muslim sacred ground). These troops, although supposedly placed there for the Gulf War, never left. They are to be withdrawn now because the US has a much better base: the country of Iraq. From there it hopes to threaten Muslim countries in the region, pressuring them to retain or install pro-Western governments. The results of this are apparent.
Thus, the IF's war is primarily directed against the pro-Western governments of Muslim countries, Egypt being one of these. The IF's believe that if they can stop Western military support of these regimes, they will be easier to topple. This is undoubtedly correct: remember the US is paying off Egypt to the tune of over a $1 billion a year for making a seperate peace with Israel (that got Sadat killed by IF's). So the Egyptians have their own little civil war; that's their problem or do you think the US and the Brits should send some divisions to Sharm El Sheikh?
I haven't called for everlasting war or for restrictions of civil liberties in any of my posts. Nor have I posted that I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. You, just out of bigotry, prejudice or just plain ignorance, assumed that anyone who was against indiscrimate Islamofascist terrorism is ipso facto a redneck.
Originally posted by SiskinYou equated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq with "surrender" in the Debates Forum. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25987&page=21
I haven't called for everlasting war or for restrictions of civil liberties in any of my posts. Nor have I posted that I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. You, just out of bigotry, prejudice or just plain ignorance, assumed that ...[text shortened]... indiscrimate Islamofascist terrorism is ipso facto a redneck.
Sounds pretty "rednecky" to me.
Returning to the original theme - this is a copy and paste from the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm):
The man was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.
So the suspect was not shot because he was a terrorist, but because he left the wrong house and was foolish enough to run away - there are rules of engagement which I still feel have been broken. His name has still not been released...
Originally posted by SiskinWhy be coy?
I did no such thing. I mentioned the word 'surrender' sarcasticly to STANG, in no way did that post directly refer to Iraq.
STANG: Yes, it's pretty simple.
There's cause and effect.
You will never remove the terrorists and you're only addressing the effect anyway.
Furthermore, using violence like the invasion of Iraq will only cause more terrorists.
Violence leads to violence which leads to violence, etc.
Try another approach.
SISKIN:
What approach do you suggest? Complete surrender?
Seems pretty clear to me. You're being disingenous to say the post didn't "directly refer to Iraq"; it directly addressed STANG's post which directly discussed Iraq. Don't you have the courage of your own convictions, Siskin?
Stang's post alluded to Iraq, as an example of his 'violence leads to violence' theme, but was not explicitly about Iraq. In fact it only referred to the invasion of Iraq, and mentioned nothing about remaining or withdrawal.
My post was a sarcastic question (here's how you spot a question No!, a question mark, viz '?', is often a strong indicator) intended to provoke STANG into posting some constructive suggestions rather than his usual naive approach of blaming everything bad on the West in general and George W. in particular.
Since my post was a) a question, not a statement
b) in reply to a post that didn't even mention withdrawal from Iraq
I fail to see how this qualifies as a statement about withdrawal from Iraq.
Perhaps your incisive legal mind will clear this up for me.
Originally posted by no1marauderI have to support No1marauder in this post, as well as Stang. Look folks, the U.S. invaded the country of Iraq for what reason??? The Bush administration said, "We have the right to defend ourselves..."
Why be coy?
STANG: Yes, it's pretty simple.
There's cause and effect.
You will never remove the terrorists and you're only addressing the effect anyway.
Furthermore, using violence like the invasion of Ir ...[text shortened]... Iraq. Don't you have the courage of your own convictions, Siskin?
Well pardon me, but BOTH No1marauder and Stang are wise enough to see that the only reason the U.S. invaded Iraq is to set up a puppet government controlled by the U.S. so that they could control the OIL!
The problem here is that there are too many ignorant people (mostly right-wing Christians) who are being deceived by the hideous Republicans!
ðŸ˜
Originally posted by RedmikeAnd being drunk would stop him from shooting them if he had a gun?! Would you prefer they shoot it out of his hand like John Wayne?! When you shoot, you shoot to stop the threat...and yes, that often means dead. That's what the bad guy would do to the cop given the opportunity, and a dead cop can't protect anyone. So what that it wasn't actually a gun...it was brandished like a gun, and perception is the key element that you armchair quarterbacks tend to not grasp. Moron.
The man who was murdered in this case was drunk.
You'd think the police training would be good enough to spot that.
There are plenty of ways to shoot someone without killing them.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou busted him cold. Good job.
Why be coy?
STANG: Yes, it's pretty simple.
There's cause and effect.
You will never remove the terrorists and you're only addressing the effect anyway.
Furthermore, using violence like the invasion of Ir ...[text shortened]... Iraq. Don't you have the courage of your own convictions, Siskin?
=================================
Orignally posted by arrakis
I have to support No1marauder in this post, as well as Stang. Look folks, the U.S. invaded the country of Iraq for what reason??? The Bush administration said, "We have the right to defend ourselves..."
i agree with arrakis. Siskin you are simply contradicting yourself there is no way out of it. And of course conveniently ignoring the main points that No1marauder brings to the table.
=================================
Originally posted by craigiebabythe police shot a guy out here in silicon valley a few years ago, they chased him up into the hills where he pointed a pager at them in the dark.
Bear in mind (if I remember correctly) this guy was brandishing the table leg in a gun-like fasion & making simular threats.
In my opinion, if you're foolish enough to act in such a manner in front of ARMED police, you deserve to get shot.
I think they call it suicide by cop in America don't they?