Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[YomMamasHouse]

Radical Islam didn't have beef with Canada until we entered Afghanistan; I guess they didn't realize we were 99% alike to the US in rights and freedoms until that happened.

[KubeDawg]

This was the main reason I stayed away from this thread... I knew it'd get into a feud... Want more debating-friendly forums? Try volconvo.com... I debate there all the time... I know this is chat, but seriously... We obviously know both your opinions on the matter, and going any further would be like allowing you both to bust your heads to a bloody pulp against a brick wall with spikes on it, then eating a bunch of shattered glass, and then swallowing a live king cobra and then televising it world wide. That or 2girls1cup :P.

[YomMamasHouse]

Any forum that isn't boring will have the occasional argument.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Any forum that isn't boring will have the occasional argument.

Good thing Chat is WAY not boring huh?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Vaguely alluding to something you read about rapists being motivated by the desire to dominate their victims is not germane to the above point.

Again, if you think rape is about sexual desire, I personally do not believe you understand the crime, and think we can drop this tangent. I'm telling you this now, so you do not become upset later and say I didn't address your questions properly about XYZ.

Originally Posted by ekiM

You STILL haven't understood that motivation is different from justification.

I'll tell you what ekiM, perhaps your right, perhaps I'm just reading too much into your statements in thinking your putting blame in your statements that the US motivates Al Qaeda. I'm reading "blame" into "the US motivates Al Qaeda" because of past experience and conversations, context of other articles I've read those statements in, etc. I have a way we resolve this issue... Let's revise the statement so we can both agree on it:

Al Qaeda states that their primary motivation is US intervention in the Middle East, this may not be their only motivation, and the United States is absolutely not to blame in any way the actions that Al Qaeda takes in response to their motivation.

Sound good to you?

Originally Posted by ekiM

What facts at hand have we agreed upon?

Well, way back when, I believe we've agree on the following things:

US Foreign policy is not the only thing Al Qaeda dislikes about the US.

Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that they do not "care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy"

We should absolutely not negotiate a peaceful accord with Al Qaeda.

Since we do agree on those subjects, that's a good basis to start a discussion on what can be done. However, I think we can work on our "mutual statement" above to get to common ground. I am not trying to continually change the subject back to your solutions to this problem. I am just very eager to hear from someone of your political point of view, how we can solve the problem. I didn't mean to offend you, or divert you away from subject you felt so strongly about. I hope my solution regarding the motivation and blame topic meets your requirements.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

This was the main reason I stayed away from this thread... I knew it'd get into a feud... Want more debating-friendly forums? Try volconvo.com... I debate there all the time... I know this is chat, but seriously... We obviously know both your opinions on the matter, and going any further would be like allowing you both to bust your heads to a bloody pulp against a brick wall with spikes on it, then eating a bunch of shattered glass, and then swallowing a live king cobra and then televising it world wide. That or 2girls1cup :P.

I think you missed this previous post in this thread:

http://www.fortress-forever.com/foru...9&postcount=84

Scuzzy

[Everything]

What's there to contribute? I mean, you already beaten the dead horse quite alot...

He's right KubeDawg, just..let him, ekiM and uBeR debate and stay of it.

[uBeR]

Is it your contention, Scuzzy, that when a detective is looking for a motive in a homicide, that is he blaming the victim?

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Again, if you think rape is about sexual desire, I personally do not believe you understand the crime, and think we can drop this tangent. I'm telling you this now, so you do not become upset later and say I didn't address your questions properly about XYZ.

And, again, understanding what rape is actually about is irrelevant to the following point.

You've claimed that if we claim that the woman's alluring clothing motivated the rape then we are blaming the woman for the rape.

This is bullshit, whether or not rape is actually motivated by sexual desire.

Statement A: The woman's clothing partially motivated the rape, as it made her sexually attractive to the man.
Statement B: The woman is partially to blame for the rape.

A does not imply B, whether or not A is actually true.

This is basic logic. Not saying anything unless until you understand and acknowledge this.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

And it bugs the hell out of me when people can't just leave well enough alone. If you have nothing to contribute Kenny, back off and stay out of the thread. Allow us to have our debate and just learn to deal with it. i'd be happy if a moderator could delete Kenny's (and this) post, as to not derail our discussion.

Thanks,
Scuzzy

You just failed internet debating 101. Don't ever expect everyone to merrily go along with the debate.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I'm sorry "During World War I, the United States held a policy of non-interventionism, and Wilson got reelected for keeping us out of the war" didn't make it clear enough to you I was talking about WWI.

Good, thanks.

Originally Posted by uBeR

I do not believe Hitler was Christian, no. He may have believed he was, and you might think he was, but he was not. I really don't think most Christians see the Holocaust as an "Us vs. Jews" thing, and I don't think most Jews see it that way either.

I didn't say it was a Christian vs Jew thing, I said it was one Christian using them as a scapegoat. Either way you slice it uBeR, was it ethnic cleansing? Either way uBeR, you answered the question:

Should the US prevent countries from ethnically cleansing millions of people even if that country poses absolutely no thread to the United States? Everything you've said uBeR means your answer is NO. Am I wrong on that understanding? If so, continue, if not, the discussion is over.

Originally Posted by uBeR

I don't see how you think spreading our military across the globe creates a strong military.

I didn't say that it did, I was quite clear when I said "defense", our defense isn't "our military". By having troops in key places we do several things that strenghten our countries defense. We provide an air of defense and interest in countries that normally could not defend themselves, keeping our interests financially and militarily secure. Whether you like it or not, talk of taking all our troops out of other countries and holding up in the US is isolationism. Key stratigic points around the globe we currently hold would be lost, and that would weaken out defense as a nation.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Every military analyst has been saying "we're spread too thin." Our military is in disrepair and we're going broke. It makes no sense taking National Guardsmen from our borders to fight to defend foreign borders.

Then you really don't understand the bigger picture.

Originally Posted by uBeR

America has become a more dangerous place with our intervention in every conflict. Al-Qaeda is now more numerous than ever and has a foothold in Iraq, where they never have before (remember, al-Qaeda and Iraq were enemies).

Actually, it looks like they are on the run. Iraq's themselves are turning against them.

Originally Posted by uBeR

If you think the Middle East could survive without our continuous revenue, you are wrong.

Are the going to build as many golden palaces? No, are they going to survive? Yes. Would people like Osama Bin Laden, if not detered by the US presense in the area, were to take control would he stop the oil just to get his way? Yes. Would he care how it affected the lifestyle of the country? No. Get your head out of the sand son.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Of course they were, under obligatory agreements and unconditional military support, like NATO. Our decisions, however, were unilateral, preemptive, and aggressive.

So basically we need to wait until someone like Germany comes along and begins to invade entire continents, gets a strong enough foothold to be a problem, before we can be sure that the US didn't convince other countries to go to war against their will. Good plan uBeR.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Through the history of the United States, you see businesses colluding with big government to protect their profits by way of allowing harmful pollution. I would say I'd prefer a Pigovian tax, absent regulation. These so-called pay-to-pollute plans are unfair and do not work in reality. There is no law that allows people to pollute other people's land, so property rights should be respected. That is to say, there needs to be recourse for property owners if they are being polluted by other people. At the moment, I really don't think this is a possibility except for the most extreme of cases. You also have to look at one of the largest polluters in America: Big Government. Reducing government will inherently reduce pollution. I also support the use of nuclear power.

So, is that a yes or a no?

Originally Posted by uBeR

As I said earlier, I would be much more accepting if the government were trying to iraddicate disease than fighting other people's wars.

What? Why? Shouldn't that be free enterprises's responsibility?

Originally Posted by uBeR

I do not think government bureaucracy would be able to run health care better than commercial and private entities.

Amen.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

A does not imply B, whether or not A is actually true.

This is basic logic. Not saying anything unless until you understand and acknowledge this.

I absolutely acknowledge and understand that A does not imply B.

Now, we'd agreed on the following:

US Foreign policy is not the only thing Al Qaeda dislikes about the US.

Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that they do not "care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy"

We should absolutely not negotiate a peaceful accord with Al Qaeda.

I'd really like to hear your solutions now on the following:

1. What should the US do in the situation they are in?
2. Should they wait inside the US borders while Al Qaeda prepares to attack us again?
3. Should they leave the US and try to find Al Qaeda and stop them before they attack?
4. Should they prevent Al Qaeda from getting weapons?
5. Should they remove threats that intelligence points to them likely to give Al Qaeda weapons?

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I absolutely acknowledge and understand that A does not imply B.

Earlier you said

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If you contend that the the woman's clothing motivated the rape, that places some blame on the women for the crime committed upon her. To say otherwise is bullshit.

Do you now say otherwise? Were you wrong when you called my claim that A does not imply B "bullshit"?

You also said

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If you want to say that the US is the (or just a) motivating factor in Al Qaeda's slaughtering of innocent civilians that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the United States for those deaths. If the US is in some way guilty of contributing to those deaths, then in turn Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. I do [not] subscribe to that.

Do you now say otherwise? The above was your ONLY argument for your belief that "US interventionism IN NO WAY motivates Al Qaeda". I guess you no longer hold that belief?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Now, we'd agreed on the following:

US Foreign policy is not the only thing Al Qaeda dislikes about the US.

Really? You agreed that US interventionism motivates Al Qaeda to act against US interests? How much, would you say?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Al Qaeda's words and actions demonstrate that they do not "care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy"

Duuhhhhh.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

We should absolutely not negotiate a peaceful accord with Al Qaeda.

Meaningless.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'd really like to hear your solutions now on the following:[LIST=1][*]What should the US do in the situation they are in? [*]Should they wait inside the US borders while Al Qaeda prepares to attack us again? [*]Should they leave the US and try to find Al Qaeda and stop them before they attack? [*]Should they prevent Al Qaeda from getting weapons? [*]Should they remove threats that intelligence points to them likely to give Al Qaeda weapons?

I don't think I have solutions. I have some ideas.

Understand that Al Qaeda is an organisation with a few thousand members, no territory and no significant military capability. They can fantasise about overthrowing western governments and establishing a caliphate but both you and they would be insane if you thought that they had any way of bringing about that goal. What they can actually try to accomplish is futile strikes against western interests, domestic and military, and attempts to disrupt governments local to them through, e.g. assassinations, suicide bombings.

Understand that the direct way to fight terrorism is through effective police and intelligence services. Armies cannot fight terrorism. Cops can. How do we fight terrorism directly? Ensure that our internal security services have what they need to fight terror. Support Middle Eastern regimes in their efforts to fight terrorism within their own borders. It's comforting to fantasise that our sherrif can go out into the hills and round up all of the villains but it's unrealistic.

The indirect way to fight terrorism is to remove support for terrorism. The war in Iraq is a cause of terrorism, not a cure. Pull out of Iraq, as soon as it is reasonable to do so. They don't want us there, we don't want to be there. Same deal in Afghanistan. Don't invade countries without a UN mandate.

Support democratic Middle Eastern regimes in their efforts to fight terrorism within their own borders. Don't alienate and demonize nations such as Iran. Their aims do not coincide with our own but their leaders are not insane monsters and their peoples are human. Support Israel but don't offer unconditional support to Israel. Hope like hell the palestinian crisis gets solved.

Close Gitmo. Stop torturing people. Don't allow another Abu Graihb. Stop extraordinary rendition. Those things are excellent propoganda for anti-US sentiment and should be abhorent to you anyway as a free nation.

In a nutshell - continue all standard counter-terrorism efforts and stop making bad foreign policy decisions. Don't fantasise that we can invade Al Qaeda-stan and kill them all. Throwing military weight around unnecessarily just increases support for terrorism and thus the number of terrorists.

Just for fun, I'd like your answer to the questions you posed above. How do you think that one fights terrorism?

[DarkeN_HellspawN]

US, UK, Aust....etc. = Good

N. Korea, Iran, Al Queda, Cuba, Venuzeula, Nicaragua...etc = Very Bad

Terrorists, African Warlords, South American Drug Lords, US Drug Lords, Racists...etc = Evil

United Nations = NULL

Good - Very Bad - Evil = Happier World "YAY" +/- NULL

All of the US and Friends or Friends and the US deserve hugs.

dh

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Support Middle Eastern regimes in their efforts to fight terrorism within their own borders.

So you are supporting the very motivation behind Al Qaeda's attacks on the US? Or are you saying our support of Middle Eastern regimes counter terrorism efforts is not something that Al Qaeda is against?

Originally Posted by ekiM

The indirect way to fight terrorism is to remove support for terrorism.

Iran's current administration is a supporter of terrorism, how do we remove their support for terrorism?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Pull out of Iraq, as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

And when would it be reasonable to do so?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Support democratic Middle Eastern regimes in their efforts to fight terrorism within their own borders.

Um, isn't that pretty much what we're doing in Iraq at this point? Most of the resistance are external entities, Al Qaeda's rampant there, but you're advocating retreat... You're making mutually contradictory statements, how do you resolve those two?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Don't alienate and demonize nations such as Iran.

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you mean here. In what way have we misrepresented Iran? Are you saying that Iran doesn't support terrorism or sending people into Iraq? Earlier you said we should not negotiate with terrorist, but now you're saying don't alienate them? Again, your conflating two ideas that do not mix.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Hope like hell the palestinian crisis gets solved.

I think most of the groups that are fighting against Israel have made it clear how that situation would be resolved. I have to admit I'm curious, if Israel decides to use nuclear weapons to remove their enemies, should the any country try to unilaterally stop them? Or should they absolutely have to have a UN resolution? If so, what would that resolution have to say? Obviously there are conflicting opinions as to the 17+ resolutions against Iraq and how they'd be dealt with if they didn't comply... I think if it took 17 resolutions to stop Israel that'd be a bit late... don't you think?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Those things are excellent propoganda for anti-US sentiment and should be abhorent to you anyway as a free nation.

I am not condoning what may have occurred in these situations. It seems fairly harsh to say "Close this down" because a few people mistreated others, when in large part the facilities were used properly. It's akin to your request of the US not to blame the entire "country" of Iran for their leadership, is it not? Would you say using cops to prosecute those who did the misconduct and fix the facility would be a better option?

Originally Posted by ekiM

Just for fun, I'd like your answer to the questions you posed above. How do you think that one fights terrorism?

Don't try to change the subject. I'm not answering another question of yours until we resolve the above issues.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Earlier you said

Do you now say otherwise? Were you wrong when you called my claim that A does not imply B "bullshit"?

You also said

Do you now say otherwise? The above was your ONLY argument for your belief that "US interventionism IN NO WAY motivates Al Qaeda". I guess you no longer hold that belief?

Really? You agreed that US interventionism motivates Al Qaeda to act against US interests? How much, would you say?

Aww, you didn't feel like answering my questions? I wonder why? You're pretending that you've changed your mind about Al Qaeda's motivations but that's just an excuse to change the subject to something you feel more comfortable blathering about, amirite? What's your motivation here?

Oh well, I don't feel like answering your questions, either.

Besides,

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'm not asking you to discuss this with me ekiM, I'm asking for your answers. I'm not looking to debate them, I'm simply asking for your sides opinion on the solution to the situation. We've agreed on the facts at hand, please, give me your solution to the problem.

If you're not looking to debate my answers then I'd be doing you a disservice by responding to your comments!

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Aww, you didn't feel like answering my questions? I wonder why? You're pretending that you've changed your mind about Al Qaeda's motivations but that's just an excuse to change the subject to something you feel more comfortable blathering about, amirite? What's your motivation here?

If you're not looking to debate my answers then I'd be doing you a disservice by responding to your comments!

How quickly you shut down when dealt a taste of your own medicine. Hypocrisy abounds. Thanks for the chat chief. My motivation was to see your answers, and I got them. You're looking for the status quo, which is what I expected to hear.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

You're desperately trying to change the subject. I'm refusing to do so. I've always made it clear that I'm uninterested in debating politics with you. Twice in this thread I've indulged you with my answers to your political questions, but am uninterested in debating them further with you. This is in no way hypocritical.

I entered this thread to get you to acknowledge one factual point, and later one logical point. You're not interested in that, making concessions only to give yourself an opportunity to change the subject. You want to pontificate on politics. I'm not interested in that.

That's it, I guess. You don't care that your opinions are based on fantasy and illogic. Good for you.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

You're desperately trying to change the subject. I'm refusing to do so. I've always made it clear that I'm uninterested in debating politics with you. Twice in this thread I've indulged you with my answers to your political questions, but am uninterested in debating them further with you. This is in no way hypocritical.

I entered this thread to get you to acknowledge one factual point, and later one logical point. You're not interested in that, making concessions only to give yourself an opportunity to change the subject. You want to pontificate on politics. I'm not interested in that.

That's it, I guess. You don't care that your opinions are based on fantasy and illogic. Good for you.

I know you don't want to debate substance, you want to debate language, meaning, wording, and not content. I get it, don't worry. I didn't really expect you wanted to debate content, you rarely do, and you often try to nitpick things to get off track. I'm mean, come-on, you think rape is about sex. I didn't expect any different here. I'm at least glad we agree on one statement:

Al Qaeda states that their primary motivation is US intervention in the Middle East, this may not be their only motivation, and the United States is absolutely not to blame in any way the actions that Al Qaeda takes in response to their motivation.

Thanks for conversation ekiM, I'm glad you do not blame the United States, it's big of you to admit that finally.

Scuzzy

[YomMamasHouse]

I'm mean, come-on, you think rape is about sex

What a misguided soul he is...

You spent the last however many pages debating about something ekiM and Uber didn't try to claim. All he wanted you to understand was that the USA's actions in the Middle East did in fact motivate Al Qaeda's actions; since some people have been trying to either deny it or evade that point. For some reason your fallacy-o-matic of a brain conflated that with other things such as him saying it put blame on the USA for Al Qaeda attacks. Neither of them deserve the insolence you have shown in your responses.