[Grey Wolf]

The very existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example for the stupidity of the United States during the Cold War. Overthrowing the leftist democratic government and reinstalling the Shah is what caused it to be there in it's present form.

[Kosh]

They are keeping people oppressed.

That's what the government here does, but it uses fear and lies instead of bombs.

[Liberator]

You talk about the Cold War like it was just another period in history. Let me educate you a bit.  At no time in recorded history had more people been at risk than during the Cold War.[/b]

In the years following the end of WW2, the world caught it breath and began to rebuild.  The "Cold War" was a conflict that was not fought with armies so much as it was spies and sabotuers, because both sides, what became NATO, defacto lead by the USA and the Warsaw Pact nations, dominated by the USSR, knew that should it come to blows, neither side would win, thanks to Atomic and later Thermonuclear weapons.  Many mistakes were made on both sides, with the USSR being the more agressive.  So much so, that the world almost ended in nuclear fire in late 1962, save for the efforts of a few strong leaders who worked against the Military Machinces on both side who felt that they could win.  Decades passed, technology advanced, finally the US spent the USSR into the ground, because Socialism doesn't lend itself to robust, long lived economies.  Along the way, the US, instead of being imperialist like the USSR, followed the adage, "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend".

And now it's coming back to bite us in our nethers, and we're biting back.

Peaceniks are fools, man is by nature a violent creature.  If not suprised or atagonized he is also a social creature that will live and let live.  But if attacked man is one of two species on Earth that will retaliate, up to and including the annihilation of his attackers.

[Grey Wolf]

Only two? I would think most carnivores that would fight back after being attacked.

[icespeed]

look, deep inside everyone will commit atrocities. you might say you were peace-loving or whatever but when pushed, you will do those things. so what separates us from the terrorists? opportunity. we don't need to do anything to be comfortable; most of us are sitting at home or work or uni or whatever spouting off about the latest political issue. we don't have to fight to live.

and carnivores don't fight for revenge, they fight for the pain to stop.

[Liberator]

Mankind and ants are the only two species that war with their own kind.  

Carnivores hunt to survive, but will usually try to run from conflict unless it's mating season.

[Rictor]

Liberator, don't think I'm oblivious to either the history of the Cold War or the evil of the USSR. I'm not saying they were nice guys, far from it, but what I am saying is that in order to stop an often-times imagined threat, the US, either directly or through military and political support for local tyrants, caused millions to suffer and die.

You make the mistake of equating socialism (or even communism) with Stalinism. The USSR was not socialism, despite the name. It was what we shall for the sake of conversation call Oligarchal Collectivism, that it it was collectivism, but instead of the power being in the hands of the workers, ultimate power lay in the hands of the tyranical government. True socialism would more resemblle anarchism than it did Stalinism.

But frankly, I don't see the connection between stopping the USSR from spreading its power, and murdering Vietnamese and Nicaraguan peasants. The US should have led by example, not by force. If you put everything in the context of "stopping Communism" and the domino theory, than the US had the right to do away with the sovereign right of peoples and nations to decide their own government. If Iran, or Chile or whoever, voted in a left-ward leaning government, who is the US to question that? You wouldn't stand for any foreign inteference in American politics, so why shoukd the US be able to do so in foreign nations? And in any case, being on the left does not necessarily mean that you're in bed with the Soviets. The postwar Labour government in the UK would have been enough to justify invasion or a military coup, had it occured in Latin America or South East Asia. Ditto Canada.

[Ford Prefect]

"Terrorism" is a loaded word; terrorism is nothing but war without national boundaries-- essentially it is the war of the future. Are their actions dishonorable? Most certainly, in my opinion. But think long and hard about what really seperates it from a gentleman's war; governments tell each other when they're about to empty clips at each other. Wonderful. So the ones playing chess with their explosive toys as people are splattered all over the sidewalk are "recognized" officials instead of criminals. I would be a hypocrite to assert that there is no practical distinction, but there is certainly not a moral one. If one views any violence committed against another human being as honorable, then we need look no further for the origin of what we might call "evil." If Osama Bin Laden wanted to fight the United States through nonviolent propaganda, I would let him speak until he was blue in the face because his beliefs, however irrational, are not a crime. It is his actions that are truly destructive.  

Osama Bin Laden hates the United States, but does it really matter? What matters is that he killed people; he submitted to his most animalistic instincts, and he succeeded in bringing them out in Americans, as well. Everyone who spouts meaningless declarations like, "They hate us for our freedom" speaks a reminder that no matter what their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or even ideology, all people are bound by their profound inability to see past their black-and-white world. If you think terrorists like Bin Laden are of a select moral category, you're giving them the credit they want; he is simply an angry man with a war to fight who has made himself into a celebrity by selling his people a bill of goods, and if your response to crimes committed against your nation is to tout your ideological superiority in the context of good and evil, then you have submitted to the same indulgences to which terrorists have yielded. The fiery pulses of patriotic fervor that rise up with every round of "They hate us for our way of life" are more akin to those of "Americans are infidels" than either side will ever be willing to accept. And it is this circular loop of human nature that guarantees us that terrorism cannot be erased from civilization any more than the stars can be erased from the sky.

[vyper]

[q]They hate that because our freedom is so powerful, some of their own people choose it. [/q]

And so do your own leaders.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Liberator
In 1776, the world turned a corner, a nation was formed that was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time in history and led by some of the greatest men who have ever lived.  The first free nation of the modern era was born.  It was a long and winding road from that birth to now and we didn't all get here at once.  But the idea of freedom was set loose upon the world.  The terrorists want to keep/return the world to a sociopolitical enviroment that existed in that part of the world almost half a millenia ago.

French Revolution?

Liberty? Fraternity? Equality?

[Rictor]

"They hate us because we don't know why they hate us"
--Bill Maher

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
You talk about the Cold War like it was just another period in his  Along the way, the US, instead of being imperialist like the USSR, followed the adage, "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend".

Especially if your friend is a puppet?  Whose not afraid to execute a few communists in defense of (cough) democracy?

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


French Revolution?

Liberty? Fraternity? Equality?

To be honest, French Revolution was in 1789, 13 years later.
But at least we helped them get their freedom before.
[Sarcasm]Too bad we didn't do the same for those poor black people[/sarcasm]
I always find it funny that the country that preach the most about freedom was one of the last to abolish slavery....

[Rictor]

And that Thomas Jefferson, the first President and "some of the greatest men who have ever lived", was also a slave owner. Oops.

Now, to be fair, some of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, were against slavery.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Max Sterling
THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDUMMM

Why don't they hate Netherlands more, then?

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Genryu


To be honest, French Revolution was in 1789, 13 years later.
But at least we helped them get their freedom before.
[Sarcasm]Too bad we didn't do the same for those poor black people[/sarcasm]
I always find it funny that the country that preach the most about freedom was one of the last to abolish slavery....

Of course, it was all inspired by French and English philosophers.

[Genryu]

Sorry, but I'm not sure I get your post. Slavery was inspired by French and English philosphers or the freedom for the slaves ? Or is it simply an attempt at sarcasm ?

[ionia23]

hey, terrorists are people too. let's not demonise them and just turn them into words to hate randomly. even in the US there are murderers and rapists and all that- what's to distinguish those people from terrorists except they happen to live in a different place?


"There is only one way to stop a terrorist: Cut his ****ing head off" - James Woods

This was one of those rare occasions when I bothered to read one of these linked articles.  It confirmed what I already suspected: opinion.  *shrug*.

Oh America most definately did not act rationally across the board Post 9/11.  It was an irrational situation, and some of the reactions to it most definately were irrational.  No argument there.

Let me give you an irrational respose to the 9/11 attacks.  Nerve gassing every major city in the middle east until Bin Laden is handed over.  THAT is an irrational reaction (or a disproportionate response, if you will).  Using terrorism in response to terrorism.  THAT is irrational.  Have non-combatants been killed?  Duh.  Was this our objective?  Nope.  And that, oh great leftist terrorist-backers, is what makes us different from you.

These people understand one thing and one thing only, the sword.  They cannot be bargained with, they cannot be reasoned with, surrended to, appeased, period.  You kill them or they kill you.  There is absoltely no middle ground.  To suggest otherwise, while a right to debate, is pointless.   There's no bargaining with someone who has no fear of death.  Better to just help them on their way

[Vaelinx]

Hmm, of interesting points as well as somewhat logical fallacies were brought up in this thread, but I feel that I should reply to the article, as that was the subject:

The author first compares the 9/11 attack to a natural disaster that killed far more people.  As if somehow arguing that deaths resulting from either natural disaster, or a country's own, chosen (by religon/culture, and/or lifestyle) infrastructural lack, is worse than a group of militant human beings ASSASINATING a large group of NONCOMBATIVE CIVILIANS.

I feel very bad for all those lives lost, in 9/11, in India, in Iran, in Iraq, in Africa, North Korea...  every life is precious.  It is one thing for a life to be lost in a mistake or bad choice or natural disaster, one can try and fix mistakes or better prepare for next time.  It is something else entirely to have your fellow citizens and guests MURDERED by a group of people whose only goal is violence.  These people would choose to kill over and over again if we gave them the opportunity... make no mistake.  It was a clear danger that needed dealing with.

I won't spout on about the Taliban.  I payed more attention to them before 9/11 than anyone else I knew...  They did of horrible things, but they didn't do it outside of Afghan, so we let them.  You can read over their history etc (though I suggest multiple sources as many people have written about them since 9/11 with their own spin) online... but it leads to a big question:  Would the US have been justified in an attack on the Taliban (who wasn't directly responsible, but would have fought us) or even their Al Queda allies before 9/11?  I can think of thousands of people off the top of my head who would say yes, but the world at the time would have said "no."

"While few of September's auto deaths resulted from malice, neither were they "natural" deaths: most also resulted from individual, corporate, and societal choices about road safety engineering, enforcement of driving-while-drunk laws, safe car design, and so on."

I agree that there are people lost to car accidents that we may have been able to save.  But that is a problem we have to deal with, and that we deal with every day.  I hate unnecissarily large vehicles (many SUVs), as well as those who take drugs and/or alcohol and drive.  Here in America, we have thousands upon thousands of laws concerning roadways, driving, traffic patterns, and preventing accidents.  This article makes it seem that we do nothing to stop it.  There are thousands of people in the US who spend most of their lives making the roadways safer, and enforcing driving laws.  This is something we here in America take seriously and work at a constant vigilance against.  The writer makes it seem as if we choose to put people in an unsafe driving environment.  Most people strive for the opposite (though many unsafe drivers are out there, with little we can do about it until we find them).  Power corrupts, and there are traffic cops and government officials who feel thay should be above these laws.  These are the exceptions, not the rule.  And in many cases there are checks that catch these crooks, and measures being implemented to prevent them.

Next, he brings up crimes of malace which he claims is all homicide.  Murders are a much better comparison.  So, what must we be doing in America?  I mean, why do we allow so many murders to go unpunished?  The answer is, we don't.  Again, we spend billions of dollars, and mountains of man hours trying to prevent and solve murders.  This is a HUGE area for debate, and I don't believe anyone has shifted their priorities.  Lowering murder rates in America is a huge issue.  Economic problems are linked to murder rates.  Education, wealth, employment...  as these decline, murder rates go up along with drug trade/use, crime, and finacial stress.  There are also social issues, which education falls into, to be addressed.  But this is not an ignored problem.  Our Police are not our Military.  Sending out our military did not drain our Police force (perhaps a few here and there who may have also been Ntl.Grd. members).  But I agree there are certain social programs that need more attention.  Not that we should be less concerned with groups that are aggressive towards our country.

What you may see in your media, is not what all Americans think about and do on a daily basis.  When it comes down to it, some of the same things matter to us: safety, food, health, family, education...  I will do my best to protect my family from a home invader/crazy driver/murderer.  But when it comes to someone flying a freaking airplane into my child's preschool, my place of work, my loved ones' homes...  I personally can't take care of that.  I need help, so I look to the military/FBI/CIA/NSA/Federal Government to do their job.  I don't care if they made a mistake, I care that they do better next time.

But up into now, the writer has yet to actually put forth a valid argument, or even address the issue propused int he title: "How we can defeat terrorism by reacting to it more rationally."  So, 1/3 of the way in, we get to something meaningful:

How do we defeat terrorism?  The writer suggests that we do little to nothing in response here at home, as citizens.  To an extent I agree.  The writer is correct in saying that how we acted as a society following 9/11, had large finacial implications (although many of them were short term).  He/She is also correct in saying that the is the goal of terrorism:  To kill many, and impact the lives of even more via fear, with the actions of a few.

However, something had to be done.  People have to freak out a little.  An act was undertaken by a few horrible people, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents.  We cannot let something like this go unpunished.

I agree that an emotional response may not be the best, but that will be the first response, whether the victims be Australian, American, Israeli, Iraqi, Russian...  It is human nature, we are animals.  Biology plays a far larger role in our lives than many "modern" people give credit.  The media makes a living out of sensationalizing things.  They did much to sew feelings of fear and desperation into the American people even though many of us were completely unconnected to the event.

There are many precautions we have since put into place that are likely ineffectual and inefficient.  That's OK.  That is the way to fix a problem, we try something, and if we find it doesn't work, we try something else, or figure a way to lessen the cost.  The writer tends to think that many of the precaustions were put into place with little to no thought.  This is simply untrue.  We're new at this terrorist prevention thing, give it a few more years.  But airport and stadium security are not what some of the non-Americans in these forums are likely to feel strongly about.  It's the measures taken outside our borders...  which this article is not concerned with.

Back to the article:  It is critical of the sheer scope of the freak out that Americans went through with the antrax and other terorist-like fears of that time.  It claims this is caused by a "misconception of risk."  I agree, and believe that the media made this somewhat worse, and that there was a lack of strong leadership.  But it would be hard to confirm a lack of strong leadership, as most the news we got at the time had nothing to do with speeches from our leaders.  Bad news is good news for reporters...  So maybe our leaders were trying to say all the right things... it just didn't get aired...  But I'm all for free speech... so what do we do?

I believe we should analyze what we have done carefully, and how it needs to be changed to better fulfill the intended goals.  The thing is, this is being done.  Large amounts of taxpayer money are being spent on such research (I know this first hand).  That's what the whole "Department of Homeland Security" is about.

It's true that we spend more money on things like cancer research...  But of that money is private money.  Old people in America have an IMMENSE amount of disposable income or saved monies.  Much of this money is spent helping them to live longer.  Medical research is a big buisiness, but that's another debate.  What I'd like to point out, is that there is private/personal/corporate money and then there is government/tax money.  The writer doesn't differentiate between these in order to make his point better.  Call it a lie by omission or incompetency... whatever.  But it's a prime example of these "misconceptions" that writers should have a stronger obligation to avoid.  But they are in a buisiness ot make money, not some altruistic endeavor to provied the world with the one truth (we'll leave that to those damned priests/shamans/prophets/whatevers).

When it comes down to it, Congress has the most power over anti-terrorist organizations.  They are responsible to their constituency...  But I'll be damned if I pick up a newspaper, and it has ANYTHING to say about how my congressman voted last week...  But I'll be sure to see how Bush, Dick, John or John like their coffee, and that they feel that morality is important in America...  The whole world seems to think that the President has way more influence than he does...  If you're looking for a change in America, it has to happen with those corrupt or lazy (you DO have a choice!) lawyers that we elect into congress.

Ovarall, a good article.  1/3 longer than it neded to be.  A few misleading "facts" included...  but far fewer than you'll find in the average NY Times article.

Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...
There are far fewer sinister conspiracies than you may believe.
Just becasue your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
An honest politician is one that STAYS bought.
Oh, and for the most part they hate us becasue they are not us, and we are not them...

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Flipside
Free? Free to do what? To hide in their houses and hope an artillery shell doesn't turn them into a statistic?

Trust me, from a Middle Eastern point of view, you could say that the Whitehouse has already killed far more people to achieve it's political goals than the Terrorists have.

Well said. From the point of view of the non-combative in the countries America/allied nations have invaded - how are "we" different from terrorists when civilians are killed to achieve "our" aims? Is it comfort to them that the world is told that these are unfortunate losses in persuit of a greater cause?

I seriously doubt it.

If each and every country concentrated on improving their own infastructure, transport, welfare, food and water supplies and so on - and created a truly stable and well supported population in which crime is really kept to a minimum and people can live enjoyable lives then I should think they'd be in a far better position to dictate how other countries should behave.