|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 8:08:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Anyone who defines the 9/11 attacks as anything but a terrorist act is someone so sick, warped, and twisted
Perhaps this is a product of your emotional investment in the matter. Equally, muslims would suggest that anyone who defines the US government's actions in Iraq prior to 9/11 as anything but state terrorism, is sick etc.
And I would completely agree with them. But that doesn't change the fact that the 9/11 attack, the killing of thousands of innocent people, was also an act of terrorism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Yes, I'm aware that Iraq is not Afghanistan or North Africa, but they hold a different view on matters: an attack on one muslim country is an attack on all of them.
I understand that way of thinking, and don't disagree.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The United States has been meddling in Middle East politics for a long time, and you could argue they have systematically attempted to destabilise the region.
Argue it? I would state it as an absolute certainty. There's no question in my mind that's exactly what the US has been doing. If the MidEast were stable, they wouldn't need us to stabilize it, and then they wouldn't owe us anything. Ultimately, all we have to trade for influence in the MidEast is our military power. And we've been helping create a need for military power in the region ever since World War II.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
As such, they believe they are entirely justified in striking back at a nation that has made it its business to meddle in muslim countries.
I understand that, as well, and don't necessarily disagree with it. But none of this changes the fact that killing thousands of innocent people is an act of terrorism. Regardless of the motivations or the perceived justifications. Regardless of how many terrorist acts may have been committed by the country of which those innocent people are citizens.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Certainly. But we're not talking about the IRA, we're talking about Al Qeada. Just so we're clear on what we're arguing about, are you actually arguing that Al Qeada are freedom fighters, not terrorists?
I'm arguing that its a matter of perspective. From their standpoint, they see US intervention in their countries, and they want an end to it. And, that is the comparison with the IRA. At base level, someone had set up shop in their back yard and they wanted them out.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with their position, but I do understand and agree that that is their position. I see their point of view, and acknowledge that if i were they, I would almost certainly feel the same way.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I'll admit there's an argument that the US was also a murdering neighbor,
Which came first: US intervention in Iran, in the Iran/Iraq war, in Iraq.....or the New York attack?
What's the difference? For the sake of this discussion, what does it matter? Again, the argument that a terrorist attack is justified does not make it anything less than a terrorist attack. If the killing of innocent Iranians by America was an act of terrorism, how is the killing of innocent Americans by Arabs not an act of terrorism? If killing of innocent civilians is wrong somewhere, it's wrong everywhere.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
but that argument (while it may excuse the neighbor's actions, in the eyes of some), does not change the fact that my neighbor murdered my child.
What's the plan then? Carry on down the road of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence?
As a matter of fact, i do believe that was pretty much the original plan by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal. Perpetual war, which of course would require perpetual heightened security and perpetual political power for the party most strongly perceived by the public as having the power to ensure their safety. Fortunately, the election of 2008, and the utter failure of that original plan which set the stage for that election, may now give us a chance to change course to something more rational and more defensible - degrading Al Qaeda's operational capabilities to the point where they pose less of a threat. It's not possible to eliminate them as a functional force, but i do believe that by taking away their safe haven in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and keeping them fragmented and on the run by cooperative police efforts, it is possible to reduce them to something substantially less threatening.
They're never going to go away, and we're never going to leave the MidEast. We will always be in conflict with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. That's not going to change.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
But even though it may be valid, it's still not relevant to the point I'm making. The extension of the argument you're hinting at is that our most appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks would have been to say, "Well, you know, we had that one coming, so let's just let them go." I reject that. If someone attacks you, and kills your citizens, you have to respond. However justified they may have felt in doing so.
I really don't think you can 'win' this one, and you're serving only to stir up a hornet's nest, and you're wasting resources on a wild goose chase. The more you bomb places like Iraq or Afghanistan, the more converts you will have to the idea. You can't win every battle, as per Vietnam, and this is a foe that you can't defeat through conventional means. There is a risk, of course, associated with any action you take, but I think you're best option is to get your forces out of the region and hope that this is the factor that holds the Al-Quaeda glue together.
You may very well be right. I just don't see it that way. I'm open to being persuaded, but I don't see it yet. The problem I have with your argument is that as I look at it, I think the situation has already passed the tipping point. I think our chance to reduce the inflammation by turning down the heat came and went unnoticed several years ago.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
They concern me only to the extent that they continue to facilitate Al Qeada's evasion and ongoing operations. If they confine their activities to their own country, they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned. When they make themselves accomplices in a criminal act against my country, they become my business.
I'm not convinced this is the case. Can you put a link up to a source? I'm genuinely interested to hear about this.
I have to say, I'm really becoming very pressed for time. For the sake of efficiency, can you clarify whether you're talking about the historical symbiosis between AQ and the Taliban, or the current state of their relationship? Because one's easy, the other takes a little more google-diving.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Why are you bringing the invasion of Iraq into this, when I'm clearly talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan? Which one would you prefer to discuss?
That's the way a discussion goes, Panda. Sometimes the lad on the other side will open it up without asking for your permission in advance.
Where you're going to talk about 9/11 and Al-Quaeda, which you have done, then you can't even begin to comprehend the situation where you exclude US intervention in muslim countries.
I acknowledge that, but as I understand it the focus of this discussion is the legitimacy of the American effort in Afghanistan/Western Pakistan, and secondarily the effects of that adventure. The legitimacy of the war in Iraq is an entirely different topic. If the discussion is to include the effects of American military actions overall, then there's nothing to debate, because I doubt we would be in any disagreement.
OK. Now, let's hit the send button and see how well i did with the HTML....
|
|
|
|
