It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

war on terror! Red herring!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
The whole "war on terrorism/war on terror" idea, was for me atfirst comical, now it p*sses me off! The very fact that "war on terror" has become a catch cry for the sheeple who support it shows the lack of logical reasoning.
You cant fight a "war on terror", with all the arsenal of the great United states and the world combined! Why? because terrorism is a mentality,
you cant bomb a mentality, you can bomb people with that mentality till theres none left but you'll have to nuke the whole globe back to the stone age.
you can kill osama but there will always be more osama's in line. Terrorist teach their children who themselves become terrorist, and they will teach their kids and so on. The more you kill the more you create, hate begets hate. The idea of war on terror with military hardware is a fallacy. And the idea such a war can be won and finished is also fallacy.
How did the administration in the us convince the bulk of 230? million Americans that they could shoot and bomb terrorism?
Terrorism must be fought not with guns and bombs but with education.
It must be fought not in the battlefeilds but in the classrooms of the world.
It must be taught by example, not by daisycutter bombs.
Teach the worlds children against social and religious discimination, teach them equal values, teach them the value and sanctity of life of any kind and the battle is won. Teach them love, compassion, wisdom, and they will teach their kids, and they will teach theirs, eventually there are no more terrorist because there is no cause or catylist for terrorism.
The sheer illogical lunacy of a military war against a mentality is almost unbeleivable, but here we are 3 years into just such a war and yet nobody has said, "wait a minute, theres something wrong with the whole idea of "war on terrorism".
Im sure alot of proud patriots will jump up from their easy chair where they are polishing there grenades and shout about my post being left wing or liberal or some such. never the less, you cant argue with the fallacy of fighting a mentality that could apply to any citizen in any nation, with guns and bombs. You cant pin point your enemy so you "pick a country, any country" and bomb the sh*t out of it because your constituents want payback for an equally mindless act (wtc).


[edit on 033131p://33013 by instar]




posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
A logical post instar.
I've been saying much the same all along too, we are obviously in need of medication to modify our attitudes


Seriously though, all of a sudden we are told that a small ME based outfit has sleeper and active cells worldwide planning to do us all harm. All the weaponry and troops deployed and 3 years on the main bogeyman has still not been caught but pops up now and then to issue a new videotaped warning to us all. We now have his endorsement of another shady terrorist in Iraq, thus making the Iraq campaign part of the "war on terror" as they didn't find any of the massive WMD stockpiles. All that despite the actual fighters in Iraq saying many times that they are not following this terrorist or that he is even there.
It's classic scare tactics on the part of our own governments in shaping opinion and getting the people (or sheeple) behind them in protecting us from harm.
Those that do wish to do us harm didn't just get up one day and think "I'll start a holy way against whitey today", there is always a reason, some catalyst to make them act this way. That is the part that is always ignored.
What have our governments done to warrant attacks on it's people?



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Exactly, the "powers that be" refuse to negotiate a peaceful solution and fair trade because they deeply beleive in the "might is right" mentality.
Why cant dubya jump on the world stage and propose a deal, a comprimise?
"Ok enough is enough, your people are dying, our people are dying and were no further ahead than were were yesterday or the day before. We are calling immediate cease fire and ask you (osama?) to do the same, we will lift trade sanctions against the middle east as a gesture of good will.
we want [insert whatever it is] ,what is it you want? can we strike a deal
suitable to both of us?"
No, instead they say "we will not negotiate with terrorist", but they did not negotiate before they were terrorist!
One party or the other MUST comprimise, one party or the other MUSt take the first step towards peace.
Isnt Peace what dubya and the gang spout about so much, peace freedom and liberty? They make out they are the global voice of reason, out to make the whole world see the value of peace freedom and liberty that the great United States enjoys, yet they dont practice what they preach.
If they are big enough to preach to world about peace and freedom and liberty then they are big enough to be the first to lead by example no?
They remind my of my two kids 8 & 11, both blame each other and say "she started it" and I tell them to apologise and they say "make her apologise first" And then i tell the eldest that she if she wants her sister to apologise, she must teach her by example, if she says sorry first this time, her sister will say sorry first next time.
If children can learn this, why can world leaders not?



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
"If children can learn this, why can world leaders not?"

Maybe extreme wealth and power for them and their corporate backers has something to do with it. After all, war and conflict is, for some, very good for business. It's not like they have to go do the fighting. If peace broke out everywhere a lot of already very rich and powerful people would stand to lose a lot of money and influence.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Instar, A very insightfull post.

The only downside is can you rationalize that Osama is the leader of the entire middle east? As you said with your own words, terrorism is a state of mind. Even if we make OBL a deal, you still have independant minds who hate what america stands for, and many years of crappy foreign policy that lead up to modern terrorism rooted in Muslim Vs. Jew/Chrisitian/Western developed countries.

Hit me in the past, and I will remember, Hit me in the present and I will seethe with anger, hit me in future I will fear that it happpens.

This is a form of terrorism, when you begin to flinch.

I am going to vote you a way up, while I disagree only to a small extent but agree with you about 90%.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

The only downside is can you rationalize that Osama is the leader of the entire middle east?

actually thats not my rationalisation, its what seems to be Dubya's, and that of those who beleive in the whole thing, that Osama is somehow in control of and the head of all terrorist organisations. What I meant was that unilateral negotiations with the middle east in general would be a good thing, lol where i wrote [osama?] (my sarcasm) you can insert any middle east leader or all of them.
you make a good point though, what is osama's nationality? There is no country called terrorism, shame for Georgey, I bet he looked on the map and was dissapointed.


thanks for the vote.


[edit on 063131p://51016 by instar]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

"Ok enough is enough, your people are dying, our people are dying and were no further ahead than were were yesterday or the day before. We are calling immediate cease fire and ask you (osama?) to do the same, we will lift trade sanctions against the middle east as a gesture of good will.
we want [insert whatever it is] ,what is it you want? can we strike a deal
suitable to both of us?"
No, instead they say "we will not negotiate with terrorist", but they did not negotiate before they were terrorist!


Great idea. What do you think we could possibly offer them in return for changing their extremist views? Lift all sanctions? strip Israel of it nuclear weapons, stop funding them, drive them from their homes and give it all back to the Palestine? Pull all troops from the Middle East? Release Sadam and all other prisoners they want from around the world? Apologise for all our wrong-doings over the past centuries? Give them a few billion dollars cash? We could do all that and they would still find something to blow themselves up for. Really, if you can find a way (short of converting the western world to Islam) to make Bin Laden and his kind happy, I'd like to know!


Terrorism must be fought not with guns and bombs but with education.
It must be fought not in the battlefeilds but in the classrooms of the world.
It must be taught by example, not by daisycutter bombs.


It's not lack of education that makes somebody a terrorist - it's a choice they make themselves. If somebody wants to take the word of Islam and warp it to suit there own bitter little agenda then what can you do? Unless all religious teachings in the world are changed to be a lot more compatible with each other, then you're always going to get the odd extremist. There will always be friction between different religions, political ideals and cultures - sometimes there will be periods of peace and other times periods of conflict. I don't ever see that changing, regardless of education. Maybe one day in the distant future we will all have evolved into supreme and enlightened beings, and there will be no differences or conflict. But I'm not holding my breath.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Great idea. What do you think we could possibly offer them in return for changing their extremist views?


something more than brainless sarcasm! and bullyboy threats which acheive nothing and more bloodshed which acheives nothing but give them more reason to hate and shed blood. and you tell me education is not needed?

It must be taught by example, not by daisycutter bombs.
you dont quench a fire with gasoline, why cant folk learn that?

[edit on 073131p://22017 by instar]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

as posted by instar
Exactly, the "powers that be" refuse to negotiate a peaceful solution and fair trade because they deeply beleive in the "might is right" mentality.


Yo, instar?
Who the hell we "negotiating" with, dude? A state? A nation? A national leader? Who, instar?
You cannot "negotiate" with militant extremism, they simply kill ya or hey, cut your head off! Good grief, "negotiate"?!
Tell that to Israel and Palestine, k?

Talk about a frailin' "red herring"?!
"Negotiate"......
Okiiiiiiiiiie doooookie.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by instar
Exactly, the "powers that be" refuse to negotiate a peaceful solution and fair trade because they deeply beleive in the "might is right" mentality.


Yo, instar?
Who the hell we "negotiating" with, dude? A state? A nation? A national leader? Who, instar?
You cannot "negotiate" with militant extremism, they simply kill ya or hey, cut your head off! Good grief, "negotiate"?!
Tell that to Israel and Palestine, k?

Talk about a frailin' "red herring"?!
"Negotiate"......
Okiiiiiiiiiie doooookie.



seekerof


If you negotiate peace with nations, they will deal with their own, no?
It gets back to why terrorist terrorise, whats behind the religious facade?
nobody cares to find out. What nationality were those who destroyed the WTC and pentagon? Are those nations at war with the us? why did afghanistan not route out the perps? did the us ask? were they iraqis? who were they? laws are there to be applied in any nation. did the us just pick a country with the most persons of islamic persuasion to bomb? seems to me they gave not much time or resources to the nations involved to track them down, before they decided to bomb. did the us say to afghanistan, we want you to find osama/al quida and bring them to justice in a world court? or did they decide they were the world court, judge jury and executioners?

[edit on 073131p://34017 by instar]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
No, instar, no.
Your simply wrong here.

We have relations with Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, Suadi Arabia, talks with the Palestinians, etc, etc.....!
As such, instar, do you see them "dealing with their own"?
These nations sponsor and distribute their own brands of militant extremism and terrorism, but hey, they can "deal with their own'" huh?
None of these nations, besides those that go unmentioned, can fully constrain or curtail militant extremism and terrorism. That's just straight and simple historical fact, instar, yet you seem to think otherwise?
Why do you think that many upon many nations simply have foreign policies where they do not negotiate with terrorists?
Please, enlighten us all.



seekerof



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

We have relations with Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, Suadi Arabia, talks with the Palestinians, etc, etc.....!
As such, instar, do you see them "dealing with their own"?
These nations sponsor and distribute their own brands of militant extremism and terrorism, but hey, they can "deal with their own'" huh?


Great relations obviously pffft! "Talks" thats about the size of it isnt it, talks but no headway. why no headway? because no compromise, no deals, no negotiation. These nations COULD deal with their own, if they had reason to. It stands to reason they dont beleive they have reason to do so, why?
Thats the crux of it. What does it all boil down to, whats the bottom line? Oil perchance?



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Regardless of "great relations"!
You simply cannot deal or negotiate with militant extremism and terrorists. Not going to happen, not going to be any type of success.

Again, instar, why do the majority of the world community simply have foreign policies that forbid them from dealing or negotiating with terrorists or militant extremist groups and.or organizations?

Again, instar, who are we negotiating with?
Lets take Al-Qaeda for example: who we negotiating with here? In what nation? What country? How about Hamas? Who we negotiating with here? Islamic Militant Movement? Etc., etc.




seekerof

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Again, instar, who are we negotiating with?
Lets take Al-Qaeda for example: who we negotiating with here? In what nation? What country? How about Hamas? Who we negotiating with here? Islamic Militant Movement? Etc., etc.




Exactly seeker, so you bomb the Sh*t out of afghanistan and iraq?
If the terrorist were mormon would you bomb Utah? Or id buddhist would you bomb tibet? Please reread last post as I edited to add after you read it.


[edit on 073131p://55017 by instar]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
You keep dancing around that bush, k?
It was you that stated that we could "negotiate", not I.
Keep up the good work and the circle logic.




seekerof

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
No circular logic. you find the cause of a problem before you treat it. simple enough. If you have one tree with disease you dont destroy the whole orchard. To get to the root of a problem you must first know what it is. its no good assuming. If you describe symptoms to your doctor, he doesent just give you a whole bunch of drugs incase because hes not sure where the problem lies, he does test, he finds out.
You hide behind the fallacy that terrorist hate americans because allah told them to. Why do they call you capitalist pricks? Whats behind that? oil? why do they really attack you? look behind the rhetoric.
When you de-humanise a man, he becomes inhumane.

[Quote]You simply cannot deal or negotiate with militant extremism and terrorists
You simply cannot run a mile in 4 minutes
you simply cannot fly
you simply cannot reach the moon

.....See a [pattern emerging here?

[edit on 083131p://08018 by instar]

[edit on 083131p://10018 by instar]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Oh, you must be refering to when Clinton had a number of opportunities to take out or capture Bin Laden and didn't, huh? Is that the type thing your refering to when you mention: "If you have one tree with disease you dont destroy the whole orchard"?

As to hiding behind the fallacy that terrorist hate Americans....get a grip, k? Since when have I mentioned that? Are you assuming? You know the cliche on making assumptions, right?

No, instar, terrorism is not restricted to the US, its an international problem and has been. The problem is that when 9/11 happened, the stakes went to a new level. You fight fire with fire, not appeasement, as you suggest.

You keep mentioning oil. Have you seen where that "oil" has benefitted anyone yet? Thought not.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Oh, you must be refering to when Clinton had a number of opportunities to take out or capture Bin Laden and didn't, huh? Is that the type thing your refering to when you mention: "If you have one tree with disease you dont destroy the whole orchard"?


No I wasnt And why didnt he? I was referring to bombing iraq


As to hiding behind the fallacy that terrorist hate Americans....get a grip, k?


your quoting me out of context deliberatly , I said


You hide behind the fallacy that terrorist hate americans because allah told them to. Why do they call you capitalist pricks? Whats behind that? oil? why do they really attack you? look behind the rhetoric.




You fight fire with fire


Terrorism is not fire but your right on the money, you fight a moronic mentality with a moronic mentality, so your analogy rings true.


You keep mentioning oil. Have you seen where that "oil" has benefitted anyone yet? Thought not.


Yes, exactly my point, its filtering through .



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I think (I think) that instar's point is that terrorism occurs because arabic people are being treated unfairly by the U.S., with trade etc, and so they start to hate the U.S. and eventually they use any excuse to attack the U.S. I think when instar was talking about 'negotiations' he means to generally deal fairly with countries. After all, if they have no quarrel with the U.S. they aren't gonna attack, are they?

I'm using the U.S. as an example as most terrorism seems to be aimed at them. But it applies equally to all countries. I don't think terrorism is ever really about religion.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Instar, I agree with you, a war on terror is a war against ideologies, it has not government or country, it has more than one leader and has not borders.

That is why it can not win, a country that is fighting a war like this it end punishing the innocents that have not said so in the beliefs of a few.

It only proves that their cause is genuine and that their fight is for an enemy that is killing his own people.

The western way of thinking is and always be in conflict with the eastern way because at the end one god always has to be better than the other god.

Not body wants to compromised.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by marg6043]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join