224 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

These sure cancel out any possible affect all those live 8 concerts the do gooders put on to put pressure on the G8 to help out poor nations.

If the G8 was feeling at all soft hearted before that sure is gone now.

[jaydfox]

Karomesis, that's exactly the reaction the terrorists want. You should read this article I posted last year, it's very insightful, probably a little overly simplistic, but otherwise makes a compelling case. Terrorists don't want to change people's minds, they want people to overreact and do something stupid. Like invading Iraq and getting the whole world pissed at us.

[lightowl]

Karmesis, so you want to punish innocent people for the actions of others. That seems to be exactly the mentality of these terrorists. While being totally unfair it would not do anything to stop the terrorists. It would only inflame their hatred.

Religion is a problem but in the case of terrorism it is not the enemy.

EDIT:
The post I responded to has been moved:
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=26&t=7120

I do not support this move since the post is a reflection of an often expressed opinion and that opinion needs to be addressed.

Edited by lightowl, 08 July 2005 - 10:14 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

That's a great article Jay. I spread it around to just about everyone I knew when you first posted it.

[scottl]

Interesting how we generalize from acts of terror committed by (anyone want to put money?) muslim terrorists to "religion".

Terrorists (of one flavor or another) will always exist. There is one way to deal with them.

Note: I do not agree with religious people trying to halt/slow progression of e.g. stem cell research on that basis, but thati s a whole nother ball of wax.

[Karomesis]

jaydfox, I understand your argument, but I think brutality is the only real way to get throught to them. They only understand machiavellian tactics.

I also think that the invaion of iraq was a waste of money and lives that could have been better spent performing more productive tasks.


Lightowl, if there are women in mosques right now thanking thier worthless allah for the destruction caused by these bombings do you believe them non complicit in these horrors? The fact that I don't at present own a ferrari is unfair, if I burned to the ground the birthplace of this type of terror, how is that being unfair?

And I disagree strongly that religion is not a problem, when 911 occured there were celebrations in the streets of gaza by women and children. I am unmoved by tanks bulldozing thier homes or people for that matter.And it was not the fact that they liked watching american idol that led to these celebrations, it was thier religion and description of us as the great satan.

[lightowl]

Lightowl, if there are women in mosques right now thanking thier worthless allah for the destruction caused by these bombings do you believe them non complicit in these horrors?

They can not be blamed directly, but I can see your point. But see my point that not all Muslims are extremists just like not all Christians are republicans. Just because people have the same "name" of faith does not mean they have the same convictions.

The fact that I don't at present own a ferrari is unfair, if I burned to the ground the birthplace of this type of terror, how is that being unfair?

Not all the people living there are terrorists.

And I disagree strongly that religion is not a problem

I did exactly say it is a problem, but not THE problem resulting in terrorism. Terrorism is in my opinion a direct result of suffering and inequality.

[scottl]

Terrorism is in my opinion a direct result of suffering and inequality.

And your solution?

Or Yours Jay?

[jaydfox]

Terrorism is in my opinion a direct result of suffering and inequality.

And your solution?

Or Yours Jay?

Hehe, I'm in the peanut gallery on this one. I can tell you what the solution isn't, and it isn't bombing mosques or punishing the civilian populations of predominately Islamic nations. I know it sounds like some PC liberal bullshit answer, but it's 95% true: inflicting suffering or economic depression on these civilians/nations will only worsen the problem.

Pride's a funny thing: you kick someone while they're down, and you expect them to treat you with respect. Guess what? Most of the time, it doesn't work. Fear and economic depression, mixed with nationalist fervor and anti-foreigner sentiments, leads to one thing: irrational behavior. If a nation harbors terrorists, and its citizens sympathize with the terrorists, even support them, then the rational thing to do—when the U.S.A. comes bombing the doors down and killing the civilians and the destroying the infrastructure—is to stop harboring the terrorists, stop sympathizing with them, and go door to door and hunt them down yourselves. That's what Americans think is going to happen when we repeatedly bomb these people back into the Stone Age. We expect them to say, "I'm tired of this shit, I'm not going to put up with these terrorists any more!"

But what they're really going to do is hate America more for bombing them, for being too stupid to realize that the five-year-old girl and her family that just got blown up by a satellite-guided bomb had nothing to do with the suicide bomb that killed Americans. They'll think we're stupid and ignorant and evil and trying to systematically steal their oil and take their land and destroy their religion.

And for the most part, they're right. So they're not going to do what we think is the rational thing. They're going to fight back, and hate us more, and be even more willing to harbor terrorists. It's a vicious cycle, and it's exactly what both sides want. Bush doesn't want to fight an underground network of 5,000 to 20,000 terrorists. He wants to invade a country: a nice big, well-defined target.

And terrorists want us to bomb their countries, because it means they'll get more local support, meaning they can be more effective at fighting us.

So I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't bombing civilian populations or levying economic sanctions based on flimsy or fabricated evidence.

[lightowl]

And your solution?

That's a tough question. Obviously there are no easy and quick solutions. I think the immediate action has to be better security. You may say that it is giving up, but I don't think so, as long as a long term global political solution is found. That solution is in my opinion full peaceful cooperation between leaders around the world to give every human being a decent life. This is my opinion. I obviously don't know with out a doubt it will work, but I think its a far better plan than to start provoking each other with insults on beliefs. Even worse is it to lead war against an inexhaustible and hidden enemy.

[Mind]

Jay, most of the terrorists are not the economically depressed. That is a myth. Bin Laden is a multi-millionare. Most of the terrorists that have committed atrocities in the last five years were well educated and wealthy (by the standards of their home countries). They are either true-believers or machiavellian types, as Karomesis pointed out. Either way, the only thing they understand is power and violence. I say we deal with them as violently as possible. Granted, this is tough because too many innocent people get in the way. I don't condone killing innocents even if they are sworn believers in Allah.

[kevin]

terrorism is not about religion, its about terror, period.

Only with the cooperation of the countries which spawn the likes of these dream world play station nightmares will there be any progress. There have been some studies done that humans are wired to enjoy seeing the mighty suffer a fall even at the expense of ourselves... kind of a self-levelling mechanism. If the 'mighty' rule by force, fear and measures which reduce the quality of living of others while protecting their priviledged status, they will continue to earn the ire and lack of respect and the abundant enmity we see issuing forth from the middle east today.

It all comes down to a sense of 'fair play' really.

When 80% of the wealth of the world is controlled by 2% of its population, you might expect that imbalance to be reflected in emergent sociological phenomenon [mellow] as that imbalance becomes more visible to the 98%.

[jaydfox]

Jay, most of the terrorists are not the economically depressed. That is a myth. Bin Laden is a multi-millionare. Most of the terrorists that have committed atrocities in the last five years were well educated and wealthy (by the standards of their home countries). They are either true-believers or machiavellian types, as Karomesis pointed out. Either way, the only thing they understand is power and violence. I say we deal with them as violently as possible. Granted, this is tough because too many innocent people get in the way. I don't condone killing innocents even if they are sworn believers in Allah.

All 20,000 members? I find that hard to believe. I believe the leadership is wealthy and well-educated, and I believe the most important atrocities are too well-planned to be left to the common grunt, but it is the assistance, in man-power, supplies, intelligence, and safe harbor, of the economically depressed, as well as the political support of bombed nations, that allows them the freedom and success they enjoy.

[jeromewilson]

I gather Bush has been having a bit of a hard time recently, trying to convince US citizens that the continuing Iraqi occupation is a good idea. Do you think he'll try to twist the events in London today, holding them up as some kind of vindication?

I would not be hard pressesd to burn to the fucking ground every mosque ever built

In the UK you could be arrested for saying somthing like that, then maybe they'd use the new police state laws against you and keep you imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. Can I ask why this nasty little fuckwit has at least been banned from Imminst yet?

[scottl]

If you allow people to perpetrate (sp?) terror against you without retribution, you invite more terror. Simple.

I’m not sure I could condone it, but what the Israel’s did in return for the olympic massacre has something to recommend it. (I’m sure that will get an interesting reaction. Be clear I did not say I would do that) . Anyway exactly what to do is tricky. Certainly one wants to minimize civilian causalities but make sure the people who did it know that you will not allow them to continue to do that to your country. Similar for any country that harbors them.

The threat of radical Moslem is that one that must be faced in this coming century and Mind said it very well:

“Either way, the only thing they understand is power and violence”


Lightowl,

Better security would be great but e.g. alas neither party has the balls to close the borders. So it will take a suitcase nuc from allah or something similar before that happens.

Kevin,

“It all comes down to a sense of 'fair play' really.”

Soooo the answer is worldwide socialism where everyone has the same and we all live happily ever after?


BTW Iraq was probably not a good idea, but we are stuck. 9/11 happened before Iraq and we needed to do Afghanastan.

[eternaltraveler]

Take iraq for example. Do you think we would have that much of a problem with the insurgents if the population at large wasn't looking the other way. Of course not. We are learning more and more that only a brutal madman like sadam could control the place. If we left right now there would be a three sided civil war, the Kurds would break off and try to form their own country, turkey would come in and try to stop that. The remnants of sadam's government would pop out of the wood work. The end result would be 1-3 countries with insane lunatics in charge, and a blood bath besides.

In afghanistan we have very little control outside of a few cities. The rest of the country still has it's petty warlords like it always has. if we were actually trying to control the place we would get just as humiliated as russia was.

Doing some crazy genocide like karomesis suggests would only result with every last surviving person over there swearing a blood oath to piss on our graves, and they'd be justified if we did something so ridiculous. I don't believe that anyone on here thinks that a Naziesque final solution is the answer.

The muslim world as a whole is pissed at us for our support of israel, and invading iraq, and a host of other things leading back to when the British controled most of the place. It doesn't have anything to do with our religious differences. Even if people on both sides think so. They aren't attacking china even though the religious differences are even greater. As far as they are concerned they have good reasons.

Are we going to stop supporting israel? Of course not. Are we going to un-invade iraq? Not possible.

We are stuck in a petty circle of vendetta, and it isn't likely going to change.

The solution? HA!

[eternaltraveler]

The threat of radical Moslem is that one that must be faced in this coming century and Mind said it very well:

“Either way, the only thing they understand is power and violence”

do you think that someone who is willing to blow themselves up knowing full well that his town will be attacked in retaliation is scared of anything we would do.

if i was one of these terrorists it wouldn't matter one bit, but if I was the father of two little girls who get blown up in the retaliation it just might make me fall off my rocker and become an insane terrorist too.

[Infernity]

http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=92&t=7117

~Infernity

[scottl]

The threat of radical Moslem is that one that must be faced in this coming century and Mind said it very well:

“Either way, the only thing they understand is power and violence”

do you think that someone who is willing to blow themselves up knowing full well that his town will be attacked in retaliation is scared of anything we would do.

if i was one of these terrorists it wouldn't matter one bit, but if I was the father of two little girls who get blown up in the retaliation it just might make me fall off my rocker and become an insane terrorist too.

I'm open to suggestions. Here I do like the israeli solution--if possible find the terrorist's parents's house and bulldoze it (giving them e.g. 48 hours warning to leave).

Iraq is a mess and it is unfortunate we are there, but again 9/11 happened before that and when we pull out it will not end it. What was the artist's name in Holand...Von Gogh? Iraq will come and go but the issue of moslem terrorism will not. Truly Elrond, I would not kill a cat in lab in medical school and I really dislke violence but if there is any other ways to deal with what is the scourge for this century, I'd love to hear it.

Chip,

Care to address e.g. the Van Gogh killing in Holland.

Edited by scottl, 08 July 2005 - 04:51 AM.

[kevin]

“It all comes down to a sense of 'fair play' really.”

Soooo the answer is worldwide socialism where everyone has the same and we all live happily ever after?

Hardly. The amount of energy that would be required to keep naturally turbulent economic systems balanced would be a waste and it is not necessary to go that far. What is needed is a rational plan based on the realization that our ultimate welfare is connected to the welfare of others.

With increasing globalization and faster communication, poorer nations are trading ignorance for information and are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with what is becoming to be obviously a finite amount of rapidly dwindling resources which the fat nations have been gobbling up for decades. Its no real surprise that they turn a blind eye to the problems their compatriots are providing to what many might see as hogs at the trough. It is obvious to them and pretty much everyone that under current global regimes, the poor will remain poor for the foreseeable future and will never have the full belly we have enjoyed. A sense of injustice and a violation of fair play is quite natural.

It is unlikely however that a socialist utopia is necessary to quell the rumblings of global dissatisfaction. It never has been.

This is the reason governments were created in the first place, only they have never been challenged to handle global resource allocation. Governments have really been used as a method of dispersing and balancing resources in sufficient amount so that some sense of 'fairness' is developed and social stability is maintained at the municipal, state/provice and national level.

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks is a solution Scott, the reality is that from an evolutionary standpoint we are not far removed from our knuckle scraping tribal ancestors and our psychological genetic underpinnings reflect that by our inability to expand our group consciousness globally. We are just simply not programmed to care that much about those who are not genetically related to us.

It may be that some visionary leaders will come to the conclusion that at least SOME of the wealth we have accumulated and a good portion of the energy around the waistlines of my countrymen may be better off enabling people to have refrigerated medical supplies and enough food to fend off starvation. Of course if science is able to come up with some breakthroughs where we can all remain chubby energy sucking sloths while affording others to become so, it will be no skin of our nose except maybe we'll just be so pissed at them that we'll act true to the form of our childish propensities and withhold that aid out of spite... to the detriment of the safety and well being of ourselves.. but that would be no different than the situation we have now really.

Until people are assured of dramatically extended lifespans, little is going to change, except perhaps for the worse.

[Mark Hamalainen]

Pride's a funny thing: you kick someone while they're down, and you expect them to treat you with respect. Guess what? Most of the time, it doesn't work.

This is the most important point thats come out of this thread, in my opinion. Force will only be successful if you completely kill or break the spirit of the enemy and their followers. This is not possible, as history has demonstrated, and protracted conflict is the inevitible result.

Jay, most of the terrorists are not the economically depressed.

Its hard to gather recruits from a population that is comfortable and at least moderately wealthy. Why go to war when you're happy drinking long island ice tea by your pool?

BTW, there are no terrorists. They are all freedom-fighters.

I think its rather naive to assume that. But perhaps freedom-fighter is one of those words for which you have your own definition different from the conventional, which you use without informing anybody.

What is needed is a rational plan based on the realization that our ultimate welfare is connected to the welfare of others.

How about private property as a means of protecting individual's from coercion and promoting economic growth? Wait, someone thought of that already and nobody listened...

[chris_h]

The muslim world as a whole is pissed at us for our support of israel, and invading iraq, and a host of other things leading back to when the British controled most of the place. It doesn't have anything to do with our religious differences. Even if people on both sides think so. They aren't attacking china even though the religious differences are even greater. As far as they are concerned they have good reasons.

Are we going to stop supporting israel? Of course not. Are we going to un-invade iraq? Not possible.

So few people are willing to admit to this simple truth.

"Even if people on both sides think so"
The terrorists have said that support of Israel is the reasons for their attacks, but the media mostly ignores this and most people are clueless to the fact.

I will go ahead and suggest the easy solution for Europe and the US that as you said will never happen:

1. End financial and military support for Israel.
2. Apologise and leave Iraq.
3. Deport to Israel all of those who care more for the well being of Israel then for their nation of residence. The support of Israel and the war on Iraq is clear proof that a significant portion of the leadership takes into consideration things other than what is in the best interest of the nation they are leading. North Korea threatens us all of the time and actually has weapons of mass destructon, so the US made the decision to feed the Noth Koreans and attack a country that was never any real threat and in the process create more terrorist related deaths than it will ever prevent... It seems that most here realize that it is not about oil.

The gains are obvious, so what would the US and Europe lose by ending its support for Israel? Why do we give money to a relatively rich country while letting the citizens of other harmless nations starve?

I have nothing against Israel, I just dont think their problems should be ours. Israel is powerful enough to take care of itself and no longer has much claim to victimhood compared to other nations.

[Mark Hamalainen]

here's an interesting and level-headed analysis

http://www.reason.co...s/mueller.shtml

[scottl]

It ain't (all by far) about Iraq:
---------------------------------------------
2 November, 2004

Gunman kills Dutch film director

Van Gogh directed TV series and wrote newspaper columns
Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch police say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Bali bombing

The 2002 Kuta bomb explosionThe Bali terrorist bombing occurred on October 12 2002 in the town of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring a further 209, most of whom were foreign tourists. It is considered the deadliest act of terrorism in Indonesian history.

Were all these tourists US? Did they even think that?

If the US disappeared tomorrow the rest of the world would still have to deal with muslim terrorism...

[jaydfox]

Ack, I was going to quote prometheus, but the quoting bug reared it's ugly head, giving me reams of html code I'd rather not wade through. Alas, back to manual mode:

(prometheus)

(jeromewilson)

(karomesis)
I would not be hard pressesd to burn to the fucking ground every mosque ever built

In the UK you could be arrested for saying somthing like that, then maybe they'd use the new police state laws against you and keep you imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. Can I ask why this nasty little fuckwit has at least been banned from Imminst yet?

I quite agree Jerome - I'll bring it up with Leadership. I'm all for free speech but this is pathetic.
Karomesis: If you can't keep your sick fantasies to yourself you will lose your welcome here. You endanger the credibility and perhaps even the very existence of these forums with such posts.

For what it's worth, karomesis has provided a valuable insight, which I already pointed out, but I'll point it out again.

That attitude is EXACTLY the response the terrorists want. They blow up our innocent civilians. What do they expect?

Do they expect this?

(hypothetical response A)
Oh no, the terrorists have attacked us, we must be subjugating their people. This is all our fault, we shouldn't have been bombing them and stealing their land and oil. Okay, we need to have compassion on these people. Let's leave them alone, stop supporting Israel, give them back their land, pay them more for their oil, and let them do whatever they want. We need to ship them more foreign aid, and stop trying to export our hedonistic culture. In fact, we should convert to Islam! Praise Allah!

No, they expect this:

(hypothetical response B)
I am not a fan of religion to begin with, I would not be hard pressesd to burn to the fucking ground every mosque ever built. Although the argument could be made for the mock raping and torture of thier beloved allah And the spraying of pig guts over the mosques after they burnt to the ground for good measure.  These sons of bitches need to realize whats up. When will people get realistic with this shit? When smallpox is released in NYC? Or perhaps a dirty bomb? Is religion the enemy? you bet your ass it is.

Of course, bear in mind, this is just a hypothetical response, but it's exactly the kind of response the terrorists want. Karomesis and millions (tens of millions?) of Americans and Brits already have or soon will play right into their hands.

[scottl]

Chip,

I do not agree with Iraq. Bush is an idiot. OK? (doesn't mean I'd rather have had Mr. Vietnam in the office).

9/11 happened before Iraq and other terrorist attacks will. Think withdrawing all support from Israel would stop them? Kevin's argument argues not.

On the one hand we could develop other energy sources (discussion for another thread) withdraw from the UN and avoid as much military entanglements as we can. Sure help those....(again another thread) who need it..... Anyone think this is the answer? I'd be surprised.

"Ack, I was going to quote prometheus, but the quoting bug reared it's ugly head, giving me reams of html code I'd rather not wade through. Alas, back to manual mode:"

Heh I thought that only happened to me Jay.

jaydfox
"Do they expect this?
Oh no, the terrorists have attacked us, we must be subjugating their people. This is all our fault, we shouldn't have been bombing them and stealing their land and oil. Okay, we need to have compassion on these people. Let's leave them alone, stop supporting Israel, give them back their land, pay them more for their oil, and let them do whatever they want. We need to ship them more foreign aid, and stop trying to export our hedonistic culture. In fact, we should convert to Islam! Praise Allah!"

Only if they live in the bay area :-)

Jay the point is they murdered a dutch man who wrote a book disagreeing with things about their culture. They....appeared to have a significant effect on the spanish elections via terrorism. So we just let them have whatever they want and turn the other cheek?

The question is what does the world need to do about moslem terrorism? Or perhaps we can let them...move here, become the majority of the population and learn to pray to mecca.

What is the alternative to "playing into their hands"

[chris_h]

For what it's worth, karomesis has provided a valuable insight, which I already pointed out, but I'll point it out again.

That attitude is EXACTLY the response the terrorists want. They blow up our innocent civilians. What do they expect?

I just read your post here: http://www.imminst.o...&f=56&t=4551&s= If it is possible to totally win, should "our side" still find only a middle solution satisfactory?

Europeans would not be in this mess if they had not adapted a *biologically false altruism and completly abandoned natural selfishness. People tend to forget that they are no real military threat if we just stay out of their countries and keep them out of ours. We only have a Moslem problem because we were stupid enough to let them into our lands. We will be abused by the selfish until we lose our foolish drive to help our enemies.



*biologically false altruism is when the natural altruistic drive, which is intended to serve as a tool for indirectly increasing one's share in the gene pool, is instead misdirected and used to decrease one's share within the gene pool. Consider a (racially) western European women adopting a poor third worlder from Africa or Asia. She is driven by her altruistic drive, but her actions are actually counterproductive because she is decreasing the proportion of her genotype and phenotype within her land. The human species is at no risk of extinction due to underpopulation, so the reproductive drive should include intraspecific reproductive competition among gentically different groups as indicated by geography and phenotype. The key component to my philosophical system is that a human being as a conscious and rational animal should work towards the purpose (which is not difficult to determine through philosophical evolutionary analysis) of his drives intstead of the working towards emotional incentives like an unaware animal is forced to. I mentioned this in an earlier thread, "I believe that pleasure and pain are nature's incentives which guide animals towards their purpose. As rational beings who understand the purpose of these incentives, we should pursue the goal to which the incentives are leading us instead of the incentives. "

[scottl]

Chip,

How do we tighten security when neither party will close the borders and profiling is not politically correct? That is what the sig is about.

Chris H is quite correct, but we are too far down that path now to turn back. The fall of rome is inevitable. In what form, and what will come after...is the question.

prometheus,

I do not agree with Karomesis. I am quite content to live with any race, creed species, planetary dwellers, etc as long as they are content to leave me be. But...some portion of the moslems are not. So be it.