Negotiating with Terrorists? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Kathianne

07-13-2014, 11:24 AM

Obama was wrong. Very, very wrong. It angered almost 100% of this board, not to mention it was illegal.

Bergdahl was a deserter, which is why there wasn't a massive operation to get him back when he turned up missing. His letters and notes told them what he'd done, so that's why American lives weren't risked to send them in to get him back.

Negotiating and trading with terrorists is something we don't do. Obama, not caring, broke that rule.

It was monumentally stupid and unnecessary, which can be used to sum up his entire presidency... Obama is an embarrassment to the USA and dangerous to the world with his incompetence.

Thankfully it wasn't just this board, Americans are not as idiotic as Washington believes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/09/obama-bergdahl-opinion-poll/10234425/

WASHINGTON — Public opposition to the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for captive Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has less to do with Bergdahl himself and more with how President Obama handled the transfer, according to a new USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll.The poll shows 43% of Americans say it was wrong for Obama to make the deal, compared with 34% who say it was the right thing to do.
Thirty percent of those surveyed have a strong opinion of Bergdahl, whose decision to leave his post in 2009 and subsequent capture by the Taliban is under investigation by the Army. Of those, half say they were sympathetic, and half say they are angry with Bergdahl.
The 128 veterans included in the poll are much more harsh in their assessment of the 28-year-old sergeant. Only 6% of veterans who responded say they sympathized with him, while 33% say they were angry. By 68%-16%, veterans say Obama made the wrong decision.
"If he was a captured prisoner of war, we wouldn't be having this discussion," says Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He put his teammates in jeopardy, and you absolutely don't do that in a combat zone."
Veterans are worried about the precedent set by the transfer, Davis says. "We have a long history in this country of not negotiating with terrorists," he says. "And we just did."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-13-2014, 12:00 PM

No Negotiations period, Obama gave these terrorist a new way to bargain, he put our military at greater risk.

The traitorous bambastard gave them a damn gift!!!!
And it was to let out terrorist leaders into the rising M.E.,
into the coming Caliphate.
I hate that so many can not see or else just refuse to admit that Obama is an ally to certain terrorist groups--certain Muslim groups!!
Say, answer this if you can---
What is that sweetest sound he ever heard????????????????
And if you do not know Google it to find out, then try to tell me
that the ffing scum isn't a damn lying "Muslim in hiding"!!!!--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-13-2014, 12:02 PM

Negotiate with a bullet or a bomb!!!!
Al else is foolhardy and deadly to our freedoms and future generations!
Kill them all is the thing to do.. every damn terrorist, should be shot down on the spot=
no ffing prisoners...-Tyr

fj1200

07-13-2014, 12:43 PM

The Western agenda says no negotiation with terrorists...

Share your thoughts.

Define terrorist.

Gaffer

07-13-2014, 12:45 PM

Define terrorist.

Bill's here. What is the meaning of is?

fj1200

07-13-2014, 12:46 PM

Bill's here. What is the meaning of is?

It shouldn't be to hard to define terrorist. Of course then I'll likely have a follow up. :)

Gaffer

07-13-2014, 12:56 PM

It shouldn't be to hard to define terrorist. Of course then I'll likely have a follow up. :)

You do this every time and derail the thread. STOP IT. Either respond to the OP or go talk about motor cycles with Jeff. Definitions are not needed, just a simple opinion. I use to like to read your posts and opinions, but you have become a troll over the past few months.

This is my last comment to you here because it derails the thread.

fj1200

07-13-2014, 01:01 PM

You do this every time and derail the thread. STOP IT. Either respond to the OP or go talk about motor cycles with Jeff. Definitions are not needed, just a simple opinion. I use to like to read your posts and opinions, but you have become a troll over the past few months.

This is my last comment to you here because it derails the thread.

So you only want comments and opinions that line up with the group think that is prevalent here. Got it.

Kathianne

07-13-2014, 01:04 PM

So you only want comments and opinions that line up with the group think that is prevalent here. Got it.

That's not what he's saying and if you'd pause a bit, you'd know that.

The echo chamber here gets annoying and not just to you. Crap, sometimes I agree with folks, but their way of expressing their viewpoints just makes me move on. Yes, we get where you developed this way of challenging everything, every f'ing word. That's no better than the others. You are just creating a new annoyance.

Drummond

07-13-2014, 01:20 PM

So you only want comments and opinions that line up with the group think that is prevalent here. Got it.

Gaffer is right. You're just trolling.

This thread asks a question, the answer to which would be a decision, opinion, belief. It does not call for a definition. You are just trying to derail this thread.

Will you give your opinion, or will you instead just play diversionary word games ? To suppose that you may listen to reports of terrorist incidents and have only an idiot's comprehension of what is being reported on is an entertaining prospect, but highly questionable.

My opinion is this: NEVER negotiate with terrorists. The Bergdahl issue was proof of how easily terrorists can profit from negotiation .. from criminality which should never have happened in the first place.

Setting a precedent of negotiation invites lots more of the same. The prevailing approach should be one of deterrence, and not invitation !!

aboutime

07-13-2014, 01:40 PM

Bill's here. What is the meaning of is?

Didn't know Bubba Clinton was a member here. "IS" DAT YOU Bubba?"

Liars, and Trolls seem meant for each other. Which one is 'fj'?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-13-2014, 05:26 PM

So you only want comments and opinions that line up with the group think that is prevalent here. Got it.

Actually he asked that the thread not be derailed or spun off into endless talks of definitions.
One reason I started posting less is too many times I was having to give definitions to ordinary everyday concepts, words and standards.
Hell, one can combat group think by reasoned opposition without going down the path of waging an irritation campaign.
Gaffer made the comment that he once liked reading your posts but now not so much.
Perhaps you should look at your many recent posts for a clue and not blame him IMHO.
Or just present your views without leading up to a clever "got ya moment" if that is was where you were headed with that reply.
Or ignore me since I once was the "group think leader", at least I was once accused of being so..;)--Tyr

Daniyel

07-13-2014, 06:04 PM

Define terrorist.

Taliban Organization is terrorist organization.

aboutime

07-13-2014, 06:26 PM

Taliban Organization is terrorist organization.

Daniyel. Perhaps we should pull a switch on 'fj', and do as he so often does. Like our Democrat, Leftist, Progressives here in the U.S. who always ask questions, rather than answering them.

Namely..... "DEFINE 'fj'.?

SassyLady

07-14-2014, 01:50 AM

Define terrorist.

terror - violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people to achieve a political goal.
terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
terrorist - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims

So, fj, now that you have a definition for terror, terrorism, and terrorist ..... what say you?

fj1200

07-14-2014, 03:22 PM

That's not what he's saying and if you'd pause a bit, you'd know that.

The echo chamber here gets annoying and not just to you. Crap, sometimes I agree with folks, but their way of expressing their viewpoints just makes me move on. Yes, we get where you developed this way of challenging everything, every f'ing word. That's no better than the others. You are just creating a new annoyance.

I challenge everything??? That's just funny.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 04:01 PM

Gaffer is right. You're just trolling.

This thread asks a question, the answer to which would be a decision, opinion, belief. It does not call for a definition. You are just trying to derail this thread.

Oh, I completely disagree. Anything that government does requires a definition unless of course you just want to grant broad authority; I certainly don't.

And about trolling; I did a little experiment and did a search for the number of threads in which you've brought up 'Hamas.' 138 and counting, that's trolling for you.

Will you give your opinion, or will you instead just play diversionary word games ? To suppose that you may listen to reports of terrorist incidents and have only an idiot's comprehension of what is being reported on is an entertaining prospect, but highly questionable.

My opinion is this: NEVER negotiate with terrorists. The Bergdahl issue was proof of how easily terrorists can profit from negotiation .. from criminality which should never have happened in the first place.

Setting a precedent of negotiation invites lots more of the same. The prevailing approach should be one of deterrence, and not invitation !!

My opinion? It would be based on logic and reason and not fear. But these are the types of problems we create for ourselves when we start setting up Gitmo type camps where anyone we choose automatically is typed as a terrorist. Are they a terrorist? Were they a terrorist? Do they oppose the US or our allies? Are they a threat to our national interests? I asked before what some dude in Gitmo was guilty of and you said something along the lines of, "er'm terrorism." It should take a bit more than that IMO.

The Bergdahl 5? They should have been sent back to Afghanistan once we got anything useful out of them and it was feasible to do so unless they were to be convicted/martialed? of offense against the US. Bergdahl? I'm not sure what we do with such people but if a deserter it wasn't worth the trade. Your Bergdahl "proof" is not how easily they profit from negotiation. It's more proof that we made a bad deal.

Actually he asked that the thread not be derailed or spun off into endless talks of definitions.
One reason I started posting less is too many times I was having to give definitions to ordinary everyday concepts, words and standards.
Hell, one can combat group think by reasoned opposition without going down the path of waging an irritation campaign.
Gaffer made the comment that he once liked reading your posts but now not so much.
Perhaps you should look at your many recent posts for a clue and not blame him IMHO.
Or just present your views without leading up to a clever "got ya moment" if that is was where you were headed with that reply.
Or ignore me since I once was the "group think leader", at least I was once accused of being so..;)--Tyr

I know what he asked and I know the implication. And you getting a little push back on your "ordinary" posting is not really my problem if you don't like to back up what you state. FWIW I liked my former postings better too but I don't have as much to work with nowadays.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 04:05 PM

So, fj, now that you have a definition for terror, terrorism, and terrorist ..... what say you?

My opinion on that? A bit broad to tell you the truth and it seems to be a definition that almost demands that we fight "terrorism" anywhere it may be found. It leaves no room for what may or may not be in our national interest. I don't think I can add any more than this right now.

My opinion? It would be based on logic and reason and not fear. But these are the types of problems we create for ourselves when we start setting up Gitmo type camps where anyone we choose automatically is typed as a terrorist. Are they a terrorist? Were they a terrorist? Do they oppose the US or our allies? Are they a threat to our national interests? I asked before what some dude in Gitmo was guilty of and you said something along the lines of, "er'm terrorism." It should take a bit more than that IMO.

The Bergdahl 5? They should have been sent back to Afghanistan once we got anything useful out of them and it was feasible to do so unless they were to be convicted/martialed? of offense against the US. Bergdahl? I'm not sure what we do with such people but if a deserter it wasn't worth the trade. Your Bergdahl "proof" is not how easily they profit from negotiation. It's more proof that we made a bad deal.

aboutime

07-14-2014, 04:07 PM

So, fj, now that you have a definition for terror, terrorism, and terrorist ..... what say you?

Sassy. The one, and only thing fj hasn't identified with a DEFINITION is. 'fj'. Secretly. fj is DP's definition of ignorant terror.

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 04:08 PM

My opinion on that? A bit broad to tell you the truth and it seems to be a definition that almost demands that we fight "terrorism" anywhere it may be found. It leaves no room for what may or may not be in our national interest. I don't think I can add any more than this right now.
I was pretty clear about it, Taliban.
You may say tthey shouldnt be considered terrorists but they are, since you care about all life forms in think you would've exchange for ideology reason and not military goals unlike what you said they should be sent back to Afghanistan after investigation .. what do you think? :

fj1200

07-14-2014, 04:14 PM

I was pretty clear about it, Taliban.

Yes, I saw that earlier and forgot to respond. You've proffered an example, not a definition. Besides IIRC George Bush was set to negotiate with the Taliban by not invading them in return for OBL and KSM? being delivered to the US. Of course that's the best position to be in when negotiating; one of strength.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 04:18 PM

You may say tthey shouldnt be considered terrorists but they are, since you care about all life forms in think you would've exchange for ideology reason and not military goals.

All of them? :dunno: They are a disgusting totalitarian regime that fit a broad definition of terror but we don't go about invading all countries that fit that bill and undoubtedly in the past have allied with some.

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 04:35 PM

All of them? :dunno: They are a disgusting totalitarian regime that fit a broad definition of terror but we don't go about invading all countries that fit that bill and undoubtedly in the past have allied with some.
Including the last comment replay also, you say that you agree to exchanging for military goals and not for releasing after investigating is that what you were trying to say? I'm still confused.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 06:00 PM

aboutime

07-14-2014, 06:10 PM

Including the last comment replay also, you say that you agree to exchanging for military goals and not for releasing after investigating is that what you were trying to say? I'm still confused.

Daniyel. In case you haven't noticed. The member who goes by the two letters 'fj' has no real purpose for coming here to create any conversation with you, or any other member.

You see. 'fj' has asked all of the questions, and knows, long before anyone can answer; what 'fj' knows, and believes...should be the ONE answer.

He is so impressed with himself in every way. It's actually a wonder fj bothers to interject any typed words, idea's, or thoughts here since fj, and only fj feels qualified to provide...first...his own dumb questions, and second...his own dumb answers.

That's how (as some say) fj rolls.

Drummond

07-14-2014, 06:25 PM

Oh, I completely disagree. Anything that government does requires a definition unless of course you just want to grant broad authority; I certainly don't.
What a load of rubbish !! Your post, FJ, said ...

Define terrorist.
So imagine this scenario. 9/11 happens. America reels from the shock of the events of the day. GW Bush resolves that there must be an answer to the atrocities reported, to the deaths of that day.

So ... with all this going on, along comes a somewhat clueless Leftie, with a question (.. or maybe a demand ? ..). This is expressed with the words ..

'Define terrorist'

Could even LEFTIES be that clueless ????? :laugh:

So you see, FJ, you're talking rubbish. Government - your Government - knew full well what sort of reaction to give to the terrorism of the day. They understood what had happened. They knew what was deservedly called for. What they DID NOT NEED was some opinionated pedant coming along, with his demand ..

'Define terrorist' ..

.... in order to know how to proceed !!!!!!

And about trolling; I did a little experiment and did a search for the number of threads in which you've brought up 'Hamas.' 138 and counting, that's trolling for you.

Nope.

An example of trolling, FJ, is a troll coming along and trying to find a basis for interrupting - or defining - or interfering with - a contributor's RIGHT TO POST ON A SUBJECT TO THE EXTENT HE CHOOSES.

You are not an Administrator here, FJ, much though your impromptu, gratuitous, and above all, arrogant, post rewrites suggest to me that you'd like to be.

If I wish to bring up 'Hamas' 138 times, or indeed, much more than that, WHO ARE YOU TO PASS JUDGMENT ON IT ?

... perhaps what you're telling me is that you don't believe in free speech ? H'mm ?

Or perhaps you just believe in working hard to derail threads.

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 06:37 PM

Daniyel. In case you haven't noticed. The member who goes by the two letters 'fj' has no real purpose for coming here to create any conversation with you, or any other member.

You see. 'fj' has asked all of the questions, and knows, long before anyone can answer; what 'fj' knows, and believes...should be the ONE answer.

He is so impressed with himself in every way. It's actually a wonder fj bothers to interject any typed words, idea's, or thoughts here since fj, and only fj feels qualified to provide...first...his own dumb questions, and second...his own dumb answers.

That's how (as some say) fj rolls.
I See but I also would like to give him a chance to speak up for himself, I want to give him a fair chance.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 06:39 PM

So imagine this scenario. 9/11 happens.

.... in order to know how to proceed !!!!!!

Nice strawman. A definition of terrorist/ism was not necessary to respond to 9/11

... WHO ARE YOU TO PASS JUDGMENT ON IT ?

I don't particularly care if you keep bringing it up, I can roll my eyes and move on, but I do like to point out your hypocrisy. Besides, all I did was ask a clarifying question by which to better judge the premise of the poll.

fj1200

07-14-2014, 06:41 PM

I See but I also would like to give him a chance to speak up for himself, I want to give him a fair chance.

Thanks for quoting the banana, it reinforces my knowledge that he is unable to add substance and can only make trolling remarks about other posters. Not that anyone will call him out for it though. :shrug:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-14-2014, 06:44 PM

I know what he asked and I know the implication. And you getting a little push back on your "ordinary" posting is not really my problem if you don't like to back up what you state. FWIW I liked my former postings better too but I don't have as much to work with nowadays.

Fair enough. I see in that an honest answer. Only exception is no push back has ever made me change my posting methods or style. So you went down a wrong path there. I too have very limited time and had to cut out wasteful postings that served only to entertain the person making trivial and useless requests.
Obviously I do not come here to exchange replies with people that either are or else pretend to be on a 6th grade level of understanding.
Questioning such everyday known standards and concepts is not only just annoying it is more importantly very time wasting.
I just now have no time to indulge such !
You yourself just pleaded a great lack of time.
So consider the requests you make in your replies and if it is truly something you really need an explanation from the member or not.
If not don't ask or just use Google to find out on your own.
Methinks this is also pretty much the gist of Gaffer's post to you.-Tyr

fj1200

07-14-2014, 06:54 PM

Fair enough. I see in that an honest answer. Only exception is no push back has ever made me change my posting methods or style. So you went down a wrong path there. I too have very limited time and had to cut out wasteful postings that served only to entertain the person making trivial and useless requests.
Obviously I do not come here to exchange replies with people that either are or else pretend to be on a 6th grade level of understanding.
Questioning such everyday known standards and concepts is not only just annoying it is more importantly very time wasting.
I just now have no time to indulge such !
You yourself just pleaded a great lack of time.
So consider the requests you make in your replies and if it is truly something you really need an explanation from the member or not.
If not don't ask or just use Google to find out on your own.
Methinks this is also pretty much the gist of Gaffer's post to you.-Tyr

1. I don't care about your posting style. But that doesn't mean I'll not challenge.
2. I'm really not sure what you're talking about with the "everyday." Proclaiming globalists, commies, chinese, muzzy domination, etc. may happen every day but it doesn't validate your proclamation.
3. I might have the time but the inclination is not there and the level of debate is not there. Ecclesiastes again.
4. I know the gist of Gaffer's post and I've been around long enough to know the history of the site and the changes since I've been here.

Having said all of that, I can certainly google the definition of 'terrorist' but that won't make any difference if no one else agrees to it. If one is going to just say 'terrorist' then I can only presume that they have some sort of definition to work with.

aboutime

07-14-2014, 07:07 PM

I See but I also would like to give him a chance to speak up for himself, I want to give him a fair chance.

That sounds fair to me as well. But allowing him to speak for himself, as we have seen. Provides fj with that WELCOME PLATFORM to patronize anyone with more patronizing questions that never include answers from fj.

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 07:33 PM

So can we put this behind and stick to the poll instead?

aboutime

07-14-2014, 07:35 PM

So can we put this behind and stick to the poll instead?

Daniyel. I hope so. I voted NO yesterday.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-14-2014, 09:39 PM

Short and sweet of it....
I voted no and now add -- shoot them all with extreme prejudice!!!!
Now , let no man ask me for definitions of any of those words!-Tyr

fj1200

07-14-2014, 10:31 PM

Short and sweet of it....
I voted no and now add -- shoot them all with extreme prejudice!!!!
Now , let no man ask me for definitions of any of those words!-Tyr

That seems pretty short sighted given what you think the administration's definition of terrorist is. But some folks trust government and some don't. :dunno:

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 10:51 PM

That seems pretty short sighted given what you think the administration's definition of terrorist is. But some folks trust government and some don't. :dunno:
I trust governments over the press - not blindly, but still over the press - but both stated by footage or by press conferences that Taliban is a terrorist organization, if someone (and I'm not talking about WikiLeaks or theoretical organizations) tells me that I tend to believe since Taliban didn't really made any attempts to try to prove me wrong.
But lets just get to the point, what is Terrorist according to you?

fj1200

07-14-2014, 11:05 PM

I trust governments over the press - not blindly, but still over the press - but both stated by footage or by press conferences that Taliban is a terrorist organization, if someone (and I'm not talking about WikiLeaks or theoretical organizations) tells me that I tend to believe since Taliban didn't really made any attempts to try to prove me wrong.
But lets just get to the point, what is Terrorist according to you?

1. I thought your poll was more broad than just the Taliban.
2. OK, it's a terrorist organization. Are all Taliban terrorists? Just wondering, when were they declared a terrorist organization?
3. Good question. This is a good start:

Terrorism: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)

In the international community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community), terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law) definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#In_international_law).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-Martyn-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-2) Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant) (e.g., neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)) military personnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_personnel) or civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilians)). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence) and war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War).

Daniyel

07-14-2014, 11:39 PM

1. I thought your poll was more broad than just the Taliban.
2. OK, it's a terrorist organization. Are all Taliban terrorists? Just wondering, when were they declared a terrorist organization?
3. Good question. This is a good start:
I'm glad you mentioned it, all based on Wikipedia.

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-25)

Terrorism against civiliansAccording to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-UNAMA-36)[168] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Kegley-168)
According to Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch), the Taliban's bombings and other attacks which have led to civilian casualties "sharply escalated in 2006" when "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at non-combatants."[169] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-169)[170] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-170) By 2008, the Taliban had increased its use of suicide bombers and targeted unarmed civilian aid workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_worker), such as Gayle Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayle_Williams).[171] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-171)
The United Nations reported that the number of civilians killed by both the Taliban and pro-government forces in the war rose nearly 50% between 2007 and 2009.[172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Arnoldy-172) The high number of civilians killed by the Taliban is blamed in part on their increasing use of improvised explosive devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device) (IEDs), "for instance, 16 IEDs have been planted in girls' schools" by the Taliban.[172] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Arnoldy-172)
In 2009, Colonel Richard Kemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp), formerly Commander of British forces in Afghanistan and the intelligence coordinator for the British government, drew parallels between the tactics and strategy of Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) in Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) to those of the Taliban. Kemp wrote:

Like Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban in southern Afghanistan are masters at shielding themselves behind the civilian population and then melting in among them for protection. Women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect intelligence, and ferry arms and ammunition between battles. Female suicide bombers are increasingly common. The use of women to shield gunmen as they engage NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) forces is now so normal it is deemed barely worthy of comment. Schools and houses are routinely booby-trapped. Snipers shelter in houses deliberately filled with women and children.[173] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-173)[174] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-kemp2-174)
—Richard Kemp, <cite>Commander of British forces in Afghanistan</cite>
Which is why I consider them all terrorists as they support the cause and the justification of it within this group, supporting murder means you are also responsible for the murder, they ignore human rights for political goal, with no election, this is what happens.
So I hope the general discussion about it is done, but feel free to continue, and about the poll I set an example while asking if you think it was right to do so, as American.
Peace,
Danny.

SassyLady

07-15-2014, 12:50 AM

fj ... you asked:

OK, it's a terrorist organization. Are all Taliban terrorists? Just wondering, when were they declared a terrorist organization?

With the recent release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity after nearly five years--in exchange for five mid- to high-level Afghan Taliban figures--criticism immediately emerged questioning not only how the deal suddenly came about but also whether dealing with the Taliban could set a dangerous precedent for U.S. national security.
“This is a complete change of our national security strategy of not negotiating with terrorists,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, told ABC News Monday. “I think it sends a terrible national security message – not just to Afghanistan, but to the rest of the world.”
But did President Obama’s White House, through the Qatari government which brokered the deal, negotiate with terrorists, as suggested by Rogers and a number of high-profile Republicans?
When asked Monday if the White House considered the Taliban terrorists, Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged.
“We don’t get to choose our enemies when we go to war,” Carney told reporters. “We regard the Taliban as an enemy combatant in a conflict that has been going on, in which the United States has been involved for more than a decade. In this case--as you know we dealt with the Qataris in order to secure [Bergdahl’s] release--it was absolutely the right thing to do.”
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt) (SDGT) byexecutive order (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-07-03/pdf/02-16951.pdf) in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-taliban-terrorist-organization/story?id=23981888

fj1200

07-15-2014, 07:03 AM

I'm glad you mentioned it, all based on Wikipedia.
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-25)

Terrorism against civilians

According to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-UNAMA-36)[168] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Kegley-168)
...

Which is why I consider them all terrorists as they support the cause and the justification of it within this group, supporting murder means you are also responsible for the murder, they ignore human rights for political goal, with no election, this is what happens.
So I hope the general discussion about it is done, but feel free to continue, and about the poll I set an example while asking if you think it was right to do so, as American.

Yup, they suck, no question. They should have been sent back to Afghanistan and dealt with there.

Gaffer

07-15-2014, 07:23 AM

Yup, they suck, no question. They should have been sent back to Afghanistan and dealt with there.

No they should have been taken out to sea, had a bullet put in each of their heads and then fed to the fishes.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-15-2014, 09:21 AM

No they should have been taken out to sea, had a bullet put in each of their heads and then fed to the fishes.
Exactly and that is where fj misses the damn boat IMHO. To me he tends to want to treat these savage murdering animals with to mush respect!!!
A bad policy since they only themselves respect pure brute and savage force.
To stop or slow them that is exactly what should be administered until they are all exterminated!!
Subject is murdering terrorists= Taliban.--Tyr

fj1200

07-15-2014, 12:34 PM

No they should have been taken out to sea, had a bullet put in each of their heads and then fed to the fishes.

Exactly and that is where fj misses the damn boat IMHO. To me he tends to want to treat these savage murdering animals with to mush respect!!!
A bad policy since they only themselves respect pure brute and savage force.
To stop or slow them that is exactly what should be administered until they are all exterminated!!
Subject is murdering terrorists= Taliban.--Tyr

I guess we're not a nation of laws, including treaties, anymore? I like my government accountable.

Daniyel

07-15-2014, 01:06 PM

I guess we're not a nation of laws, including treaties, anymore? I like my government accountable.
"Be Mercy on cruel and you will end up cruel to the merciful.." - Talmud.
Children murderers along with women offenders are not the type of criminals I can ever see to be forgiven beside death penalty which is also not compared to the life of innocent ruined.

fj1200

07-15-2014, 04:35 PM

"Be Mercy on cruel and you will end up cruel to the merciful.." - Talmud.
Children murderers along with women offenders are not the type of criminals I can ever see to be forgiven beside death penalty which is also not compared to the life of innocent ruined.

Not exactly responsive to my question. But summary execution is the alternative to your poll question?

Daniyel

07-15-2014, 04:53 PM

Not exactly responsive to my question. But summary execution is the alternative to your poll question?
The poll summary is not how to eliminate or fight terrorism, I was explaining my opinion in relation to yours about how I think the law SHOULD be.
The poll is about something else - recognition of terror and its cost for fighting it or no recognition, the third option relate to the "benefits-only" option as well..don't be mistaken, I already stated my opinion is an absolute no although I might agree about some military goals out of the assumption the terrorism will be eliminated afterwards.

SassyLady

07-16-2014, 01:33 AM

I guess we're not a nation of laws, including treaties, anymore? I like my government accountable.

Doesn't it seem the laws keep changing to suit the major players? Also, many treaties have been broken in the past.

I also like my government to be held accountable .... how do we go about doing this with Holder as head of the DOJ?

fj1200

07-16-2014, 08:40 AM

The poll summary is not how to eliminate or fight terrorism, I was explaining my opinion in relation to yours about how I think the law SHOULD be.
The poll is about something else - recognition of terror and its cost for fighting it or no recognition, the third option relate to the "benefits-only" option as well..don't be mistaken, I already stated my opinion is an absolute no although I might agree about some military goals out of the assumption the terrorism will be eliminated afterwards.

I'm pretty sure I'll never agree that the law SHOULD be summary execution. AFAIK much of the idea about Gitmo is about getting intel. Can't get any intel when someone has been executed summarily.

I also think you have a simplistic view of your poll. One can recognize terror and fight it effectively knowing its cost without selling out principles. Too much of what is posted around here is my "way or the highway."

fj1200

07-16-2014, 08:46 AM

Doesn't it seem the laws keep changing to suit the major players? Also, many treaties have been broken in the past.

I also like my government to be held accountable .... how do we go about doing this with Holder as head of the DOJ?

I'm pretty sure terror laws aren't being changed to suit the major players and I don't think the Geneva Convention is on the chopping block.

And Holder is a temporary figure.

Daniyel

07-16-2014, 08:50 AM

I'm pretty sure I'll never agree that the law SHOULD be summary execution. AFAIK much of the idea about Gitmo is about getting intel. Can't get any intel when someone has been executed summarily.

I also think you have a simplistic view of your poll. One can recognize terror and fight it effectively knowing its cost without selling out principles. Too much of what is posted around here is my "way or the highway."
I Think you mixed between those two, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about it.
1.Terrorism must be eradicated, death penalty for terror would prevent the occurrence or the support of terrorism. (My opinion)
2.During the fight with terror we must seek the best way to fight it. (The Poll)
This is my perspective and I never think that principle of Human Rights deserved to those who choose act of violence as it encourage them to do so, execution to terrorists would ensure diplomatic way about issues as the only possible solution.
Getting intel by exchanging hostage troop for terrorists can be an option since it will only assist the goal to fight the terrorists.
Exchanging of a hostage troops for terrorists without a significant military goal is giving recognition to terror and encouraging terrorists to be braver and continue the acts of violence.

jimnyc

07-16-2014, 08:51 AM

red state

07-16-2014, 09:04 AM

Unfortunately, Daniyel, Obama doesn't feel he's an American so, of course, he did something that was supposed to be verboten. My personal philosophy is that if you negotiate once, then the stakes get higher and higher each time. How many soldiers will be captured and held for ransom.

I might not do the honorable thing if I were in charge. I might do the swap, but I guarantee, the guys I release will have something implanted that will eventually cause the death of those I just released....maybe poison, a flesh eating bug, etc.
:dev2:

Au contraire, Sassy, I believe it to be very honorable when one is protecting our GREAT Republic and what you suggested was or would have been BRILLIANT!!!!

The sad truth is; B.O. probably -DID- have them implanted so that they'd know where to re-direct our troops when the turds we released are up to their old tricks of blowing up innocent people or taking pop-shots at our troops (AGAIN).

Drummond

07-16-2014, 03:03 PM

Nice strawman. A definition of terrorist/ism was not necessary to respond to 9/11

OK, fine ! If that's the case .. and considering that the response was the War on Terror .. it has to follow that if you're going to base a WAR on your understanding of terrorism, you can't need 'terrorist' defined for you !!

Unless, of course, you're saying that you don't understand why your Government ever went to war against them ?

Though that wouldn't particularly surprise me about you, equally, I think it very much more likely that you DO understand. In which case, I can't see why your 'define terrorist' question was ever asked. Trolling notwithstanding, of course.

I don't particularly care if you keep bringing it up

... you cared enough to comment, and to try and make it an issue !!

I can roll my eyes and move on

By all means.

.. but I do like to point out your hypocrisy.

As you haven't encountered any, that statement cannot be true. I have every right to bring Hamas up, in debates, any number of times. What if it's 200 times ? 400 times ? Substantially more than that ? SO WHAT ?

How many times has Islam been debated on this forum ? Would you now wish to so curb freedom of speech that you'd like to demonise any more of those debates ?

Besides, all I did was ask a clarifying question by which to better judge the premise of the poll.

... apparently without needing to. In truth, WHO, considering world events during this century, could FAIL to understand what a terrorist is ????

Drummond

07-16-2014, 03:10 PM

Speaking of negotiating with terrorist scum, here's what happens...

Egypt tried to negotiate a cease fire with Hamas and Israel, which Israel quickly accepted. The powers that be in Hamas scoffed at it, said they would never accept it, and started shooting rockets again. That's what happens when you negotiate with terrorists - as they have ZERO desire for peace.

This is what I don't get. It's a matter of documented MANDATE, from their own Charter, that Hamas neither desires, nor will ever accept, any meaningful peace.

How is it possible that those, for example in the Obama Administration, are so blind to that ?

For that matter, why does Israel make attempts at peace ? However much they may want peace, why do they think they'll ever get it ?

If I were in charge in Israel, I'd bite the bullet and decide that Hamas had to be smashed completely. I'd concentrate my efforts on achieving that, knowing that the sooner the goal succeeded, the safer my people would be.

Drummond

07-16-2014, 03:12 PM

No they should have been taken out to sea, had a bullet put in each of their heads and then fed to the fishes.

Agreed, with the thought that maybe they don't deserve to have the petrol wasted on making the effort.

fj1200

07-17-2014, 03:41 PM

OK, fine ! If that's the case .. and considering that the response was the War on Terror .. it has to follow that if you're going to base a WAR on your understanding of terrorism, you can't need 'terrorist' defined for you !!

Unless, of course, you're saying that you don't understand why your Government ever went to war against them ?

Though that wouldn't particularly surprise me about you, equally, I think it very much more likely that you DO understand. In which case, I can't see why your 'define terrorist' question was ever asked. Trolling notwithstanding, of course.

You should stop letting your imagination post here, it's distracting to actual conversation. If we're going to do something like have a War on Terror it would make sense to know what we're fighting and why we're actually fighting it. We clearly don't have a war on terror we have a war on some who create terror. By trying to make war on a word you have yet to define is to make war that has no end and probably no method of winning because it is essentially unwinnable. How many examples of terror worldwide that we're not making war on does it take to show you that the WOT is a misnomer?

Here's a thought question for you, try hard on the thought part please; Why are so many on this board who are convinced that the administration considers them terrorists so jumping at the opportunity to put a bullet in the head of anyone that has been declared a terrorist?

... you cared enough to comment, and to try and make it an issue !!

I don't have to try and make your hypocrisy an issue. I also did a search for the number of threads in which I posted 'terrorist.' It came to 77, well below your 138, so unfortunately for you the numbers say you're a hypocrite.

By all means.

I wish I could but sometimes it just deserves comment.

As you haven't encountered any, that statement cannot be true. I have every right to bring Hamas up, in debates, any number of times. What if it's 200 times ? 400 times ? Substantially more than that ? SO WHAT ?

How many times has Islam been debated on this forum ? Would you now wish to so curb freedom of speech that you'd like to demonise any more of those debates ?

It just proves ever more so that you are a hypocrite. And I don't demonise debates, I demonise you. You have dangerous opinions especially for one who thinks he's a conservative.

... apparently without needing to. In truth, WHO, considering world events during this century, could FAIL to understand what a terrorist is ????

You miss the point you big government hack.

And FWIW I am managing to have a completely rational conversation with Daniyel about the subject whereas you can't help but prattle on about how I'm supposedly trolling this particular thread. More proof that you are mucking this up. :)

fj1200

07-17-2014, 03:58 PM

I Think you mixed between those two, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about it.
1.Terrorism must be eradicated, death penalty for terror would prevent the occurrence or the support of terrorism. (My opinion)
2.During the fight with terror we must seek the best way to fight it. (The Poll)
This is my perspective and I never think that principle of Human Rights deserved to those who choose act of violence as it encourage them to do so, execution to terrorists would ensure diplomatic way about issues as the only possible solution.
Getting intel by exchanging hostage troop for terrorists can be an option since it will only assist the goal to fight the terrorists.
Exchanging of a hostage troops for terrorists without a significant military goal is giving recognition to terror and encouraging terrorists to be braver and continue the acts of violence.

Well I am trying to pick my way through the mine field here. :poke:
1. I agree that we need to address terrorism. I disagree with your opinion although it would certainly prevent occurrences from that particular dead terrorist.
2. This thread isn't really about the best way to fight it, it only addresses a infinitesimally small subpart unless I'm underestimating how much is actually going on out there.
My personal perspective on terrorism is that it is an outgrowth of the poverty and totalitarianism that engulf so many.

Daniyel

07-17-2014, 04:14 PM

Well I am trying to pick my way through the mine field here. :poke:
1. I agree that we need to address terrorism. I disagree with your opinion although it would certainly prevent occurrences from that particular dead terrorist.
2. This thread isn't really about the best way to fight it, it only addresses a infinitesimally small subpart unless I'm underestimating how much is actually going on out there.
My personal perspective on terrorism is that it is an outgrowth of the poverty and totalitarianism that engulf so many.
I agree on that one, but you cannot educate people and teach them to walk the long road once they can get a shortcuts which is why the fear factor is the most efficient in the end, totalitarianism is pretty much the eternal proof of the wrong use of fear, but you can counter that by creating more fear, those who stuck in between are unlucky, but the past few years proved to me that eventually they will resist and do what nobody else can, choose the long road themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

fj1200

07-17-2014, 04:21 PM

I agree on that one, but you cannot educate people and teach them to walk the long road once they can get a shortcuts which is why the fear factor is the most efficient in the end, totalitarianism is pretty much the eternal proof of the wrong use of fear, but you can counter that by creating more fear, those who stuck in between are unlucky, but the past few years proved to me that eventually they will resist and do what nobody else can, choose the long road themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The problem is that WE can't teach them anything especially if we keep focusing on the symptom (terrorism) and not the disease (totalitarianism), that just makes the road longer for them to travel because it's easy to distract from the failures of their society by focusing on our actions. I think the Arab Spring was the great hope but our (read BO) response bungled the outcome.

Daniyel

07-17-2014, 04:28 PM

The problem is that WE can't teach them anything especially if we keep focusing on the symptom (terrorism) and not the disease (totalitarianism), that just makes the road longer for them to travel because it's easy to distract from the failures of their society by focusing on our actions. I think the Arab Spring was the great hope but our (read BO) response bungled the outcome.
The Arab Spring proved different and this is what I'm trying to say, my logic tells me to go on the shortcut and steal or murder or jihad to get 72 virgins instead of getting a job, pay taxes, do chores, starve to death and whatever else, but once you show tell me I'm going to die instantly the very first basic instinct of survival takes over and its called fear, than I start to look around me to see if anyone think like me, and the first thing I see is Qaddafi having orgasm with hot chicks and shooting with a golden ak47 anyone who doesn't serve him kush fast enough, who do you think I would've blame?
here is what history already taught us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si1sbcjEVXY

Kathianne

07-17-2014, 04:54 PM

Drummond

07-17-2014, 04:56 PM

Why, FJ, do you try so very hard to turn threads into personalised attacks, particularly against me ?

Why the continued trolling ?

I see the post edits are back, for example. Something I have NEVER, ONCE, done to you. Oh, well ....

If we're going to do something like have a War on Terror it would make sense to know what we're fighting and why we're actually fighting it.

... which surely implies, otherwise why make the point (?) that you really think your Government didn't know what it was they were fighting ??

We clearly don't have a war on terror we have a war on some who create terror.

Not everything can be done at once. Or do you think the US is capable of waging wars against all terrorists, whoever they are, however many there are, no matter where they are ?

By trying to make war on a word

Those who died on 11th September 2001 weren't killed by 'a word'. How ridiculous ! The War on Terror was launched not against a word, but against terrorist scum.

that has no end and probably no method of winning because it is essentially unwinnable.

I see.

Well, then. We'd better all just surrender to it, then. Eh, Mr Leftie ?

How many examples of terror worldwide that we're not making war on does it take to show you that the WOT is a misnomer?

Essentially the same comment. Personally ... I for one am not looking for excuses to surrender to it (... the alternative being, yes, to FIGHT such a war). I'm sorry to observe that you apparently choose as you do.

Why are so many on this board who are convinced that the administration considers them terrorists so jumping at the opportunity to put a bullet in the head of anyone that has been declared a terrorist?

Care to name those you have in mind ?

And your question strongly implies that you think 'the administration' (taken to mean Obama's mob ? Sadly, you excel in less than total clarity) ... has views deserving of serious respect ?? Now, why would that be ?

I also did a search for the number of threads in which I posted 'terrorist.' It came to 77, well below your 138, so unfortunately for you the numbers say you're a hypocrite.

What on earth are you going on about ?

I don't care if your 'terrorist' total is 77, or 770, or seventy seven thousand. So what if you've used the word 'terrorist' fewer times than I have 'Hamas' ? If you have good debating cause to use a word hundreds of times, or if I do ... what of it ? If good CONTEXT exists for its usage, then the number is irrelevant.

It just proves ever more so that you are a hypocrite. And I don't demonise debates, I demonise you. You have dangerous opinions especially for one who thinks he's a conservative.

You do both, according to whim, it seems to me. And who are you to judge my opinions 'dangerous' ?

Is it because their truthful content is 'dangerous' in the face of their ability to discredit Leftie propagandising ?

If you can't cope with the truth when it stares you in the face, then I'm afraid this is not MY problem. And I have every right to my views, AND to express myself. And this without censure from you !!

And FWIW I am managing to have a completely rational conversation with Daniyel about the subject

... and I'm glad that you are !!! By your own admission, you seek - when you choose to - to demonise individuals. It is something you should NOT do to anyone.

It's high time we all saw no more of it.

.. whereas you can't help but prattle on about how I'm supposedly trolling this particular thread. More proof that you are mucking this up. :)

You posted .....

And I don't demonise debates, I demonise you.
There's no 'supposedly' about it. THAT, FJ, IS TROLLING.

aboutime

07-17-2014, 04:59 PM

Yeah, I'm not sold on the 'totalitarian' 'poverty' argument. Bin Laden wasn't from poverty, far from it. Neither were his 2nd, 3rd, and further. The Saudis that carried out 9/11? Not poverty, nope they were radical Islamacists.

Indeed, those that act in the name of Allah, in big scale attacks are not from the poor and oppressed.

Kathianne. Odd as it may sound now. But, most Obama supporters, and Democrats have no idea how intelligent OBL actually was. He was highly educated...like Gabby, and very well versed on Our Western Ways.

And today. Like OBL. Obama is following through with OBL's promises to destroy America, and Capitalism to bring his desired CALIPHATE idea's into the NATION where people from around the World know they can find FREEDOM...as long as Obama doesn't try to stop them.

Drummond

07-17-2014, 05:19 PM

Yeah, I'm not sold on the 'totalitarian' 'poverty' argument. Bin Laden wasn't from poverty, far from it. Neither were his 2nd, 3rd, and further. The Saudis that carried out 9/11? Not poverty, nope they were radical Islamacists.

Indeed, those that act in the name of Allah, in big scale attacks are not from the poor and oppressed.

Agreed ! Wealth and leading terrorist figures seem to go hand in hand.

Besides, to NOT give total attention to terrorism and terrorists is to play an exceedingly short sighted and dangerous game. If/when terrorists get their hands on WMD's (.. who, here, believes they never will ?) ... it will be the very height of stupidity to CEASE to focus on terrorists and their actions !!!!

fj1200

07-18-2014, 01:39 PM

The Arab Spring proved different and this is what I'm trying to say, my logic tells me to go on the shortcut and steal or murder or jihad to get 72 virgins instead of getting a job, pay taxes, do chores, starve to death and whatever else, but once you show tell me I'm going to die instantly the very first basic instinct of survival takes over and its called fear, than I start to look around me to see if anyone think like me, and the first thing I see is Qaddafi having orgasm with hot chicks and shooting with a golden ak47 anyone who doesn't serve him kush fast enough, who do you think I would've blame?
here is what history already taught us.

Um... moving on.

Yeah, I'm not sold on the 'totalitarian' 'poverty' argument. Bin Laden wasn't from poverty, far from it. Neither were his 2nd, 3rd, and further. The Saudis that carried out 9/11? Not poverty, nope they were radical Islamacists.

Indeed, those that act in the name of Allah, in big scale attacks are not from the poor and oppressed.

And they weren't the ones engaging in the majority of terrorist-on-the-street activities. Besides OBL was waging war, even though he was essentially stateless, via terrorism to further his goals.

According to former CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) analyst Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer), who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States) has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-Scheuer_2004_9-47) condensed in the phrase, "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Surely you're not suggesting though that the entirety of terrorism is exhibited by the 9/11 perpetrators? Because there is certainly far more to it than just that. The foot soldiers in Afghanistan are probably extremely poor; the Bergdahl 5 weren't blowing themselves up, they had others to do that for them and I'm sure their recruiting pitch had at least a hint of totalitarianism in it. As far as my poverty and totalitarian argument goes, I wasn't intending to make an economics argument that merely raising income levels will defeat terrorism. This is probably along the lines of what I'm suggesting:

In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, several prominent observers and policymakers have called for increased aid and educational assistance as a means for ending terrorism. "We fight against poverty," President George W. Bush has declared, "because hope is an answer to terror." But a careful review of the evidence provides little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or an increase in educational attainment would, by themselves, meaningfully reduce international terrorism. Any connection between poverty, education, and terrorism is indirect, complicated, and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or lack of education, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration (perceived or real) that have little to do with economics.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/91841/does-poverty-cause-terrorism

To make any headway investigating the determinants of terrorism, one must have a working definition of terrorism. This is a notoriously difficult task.
:eek: ;)

Agreed ! Wealth and leading terrorist figures seem to go hand in hand.

Besides, to NOT give total attention to terrorism and terrorists is to play an exceedingly short sighted and dangerous game. If/when terrorists get their hands on WMD's (.. who, here, believes they never will ?) ... it will be the very height of stupidity to CEASE to focus on terrorists and their actions !!!!

Um, 'wealth' and 'leading' always go together; That is certainly not proof of any point. Also, if you could point out who is suggesting we not give total attention to terrorism and terrorists that would be great.

fj1200

07-18-2014, 02:13 PM

Why, FJ, do you try so very hard to turn threads into personalised attacks, particularly against me ?

Why the continued trolling ?

I see the post edits are back, for example. Something I have NEVER, ONCE, done to you. Oh, well ....

Because you suck at this and your garbage need to be turned back on you. Do I need to point out your hypocrisy on your trolling charge again? Oh well... your parsing pull apart begins again. God invented paragraphs for a reason, use them.

... which surely implies, otherwise why make the point (?) that you really think your Government didn't know what it was they were fighting ??

You are wrong. Of course they knew who they were fighting, they/we were/are fighting specific perpetrators of specific acts. We also have a war on drugs and aren't fighting drugs everywhere in the world. We also have a war on poverty and aren't fighting poverty everywhere in the world. Do you require more examples of a War on fill-in-the-blank?

Not everything can be done at once. Or do you think the US is capable of waging wars against all terrorists, whoever they are, however many there are, no matter where they are ?

OMG, you may have stumbled into an actual point. We can't do everything at once so on what basis do we do something? I'll answer for you. We basically prioritize the actions that must be taken. How do you do that? I'll answer for you. We acknowledge where the dangers are by :eek: defining :eek: what we are after and take appropriate action.

Those who died on 11th September 2001 weren't killed by 'a word'. How ridiculous ! The War on Terror was launched not against a word, but against terrorist scum.

Which is why we took action against specific individuals and specific countries. Geez, I can't believe I'm explaining this to you.

I see.

Well, then. We'd better all just surrender to it, then. Eh, Mr Leftie ?

:laugh: You idiot. Of course we don't surrender to it, we take actions that have expectations of success and not create a war on a word. Actual people want to do us harm, a dictionary doesn't. Why are you so scared of a definition?

Oh, and point out my leftie positions you big government hack. I await your failure.... again.

Essentially the same comment. Personally ... I for one am not looking for excuses to surrender to it (... the alternative being, yes, to FIGHT such a war). I'm sorry to observe that you apparently choose as you do.

Your imagination again you moron.

Care to name those you have in mind ?

And your question strongly implies that you think 'the administration' (taken to mean Obama's mob ? Sadly, you excel in less than total clarity) ... has views deserving of serious respect ?? Now, why would that be ?

Because you're dumb as F' and don't know how to comprehend the written word? Besides I think we all know who we're talking about. ;) I'm surprised there's been no comment from people who think they're number one on the hit list and who are chomping at the bullet-in-the-head bit. Unless they don't actually believe their own words. And it doesn't matter if BO should be taken seriously, it's what people think about what he and/or his administration publishes. If no one takes him seriously why would there be multiple threads, and even more posts, on the subject?

What on earth are you going on about ?

I don't care if your 'terrorist' total is 77, or 770, or seventy seven thousand. So what if you've used the word 'terrorist' fewer times than I have 'Hamas' ? If you have good debating cause to use a word hundreds of times, or if I do ... what of it ? If good CONTEXT exists for its usage, then the number is irrelevant.

I'm going on about your hypocrisy, the numbers don't lie. And of course the context doesn't justify that type of usage, you troll jafar to a ridiculous extent... like you're hiding the lack of an intelligible argument or something.

You do both, according to whim, it seems to me. And who are you to judge my opinions 'dangerous' ?

Is it because their truthful content is 'dangerous' in the face of their ability to discredit Leftie propagandising ?

If you can't cope with the truth when it stares you in the face, then I'm afraid this is not MY problem. And I have every right to my views, AND to express myself. And this without censure from you !!

Your opinions are dangerous because you're an idiot. Your "truth" is lacking. But of course you can have your views. Be warned though that your type of drivel is more helpful to the Globalist, Socialist, Muzzy conspiracy that you rail against then it is against them.

... and I'm glad that you are !!! By your own admission, you seek - when you choose to - to demonise individuals. It is something you should NOT do to anyone.

It's high time we all saw no more of it.

I see that you need a history lesson. My involvement started in this thread by asking a question as I do in so many threads. You are the one who's argument is so weak that you need to deflect into something completely off topic and for some reason need to refuse to answer an easy question.

You posted .....

There's no 'supposedly' about it. THAT, FJ, IS TROLLING.

Which is why your hypocrisy is on parade every time you thank 'at' for his posts which do nothing but attack other posters. When you call him out for his trolling then I might rethink my opinion that you are a hypocritical little B'.

Drummond

07-18-2014, 06:30 PM

STILL doing your level best to derail the thread through troll feuding, FJ ? Tut tut.

I won't so indulge you as to reply with long-winded answers this time. You seem to feed on all this stuff.

Because you suck at this

Oh, when it comes to trolling, you are WAY better than me. No question ! Must be all the practice you get.

Do I need to point out your hypocrisy on your trolling charge again?

Depends on how driven you are to invent things, FJ.

Oh well... your parsing pull apart begins again. God invented paragraphs for a reason, use them.

'God', eh ? Did God invent your post edits and rewrites ? Your jibes ? YOU criticise ME ??

You are wrong. Of course they knew who they were fighting, they/we were/are fighting specific perpetrators of specific acts. We also have a war on drugs and aren't fighting drugs everywhere in the world.

Very good. OK then ... define 'drug dealer'. Then reflect on the utter idiocy of the question !!! It compares remarkably well to your own 'DEFINE TERRORIST' ..

We also have a war on poverty and aren't fighting poverty everywhere in the world. Do you require more examples of a War on fill-in-the-blank?

Of course not. However .. it wasn't 'the poor' who hijacked Jumbo jets and flew them into skyscrapers !!

Such acts deserved a remedial response. The War on Terror was one.

OMG, you may have stumbled into an actual point. We can't do everything at once so on what basis do we do something? I'll answer for you. We basically prioritize the actions that must be taken. How do you do that? I'll answer for you. We acknowledge where the dangers are by :eek: defining :eek: what we are after and take appropriate action.

Fine. Well, drug dealing has its own problems. Doesn't it ? So, following from your, ahem, 'logic' ... it must be totally reasonable, even essential, for you to answer ....

DEFINE DRUG DEALER.

Despite everyone knowing what a drug dealer is .. just as they're well aware of what a terrorist is .. the question 'really' needs to be put .. eh ??

Which is why we took action against specific individuals and specific countries. Geez, I can't believe I'm explaining this to you.

Neither can I !!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:laugh: You idiot. Of course we don't surrender to it, we take actions that have expectations of success and not create a war on a word. Actual people want to do us harm, a dictionary doesn't. Why are you so scared of a definition?

This is getting to such a ridiculous extreme that I must assume you're trolling again. No 'war on a word' has been tried. Equally, when police do their jobs, they are not going to war on the word of 'crime'. No, they're TACKLING crime, just as terrorism has to be tackled.

Oh, and point out my leftie positions you big government hack. I await your failure.... again.

Lefties do a lot of trolling .. it substitutes for actual, fact-based substance.

QED ..

Besides I think we all know who we're talking about. ;)

Translation: avoidance of a challenge to answer my question.

I don't blame you ...

I'm surprised there's been no comment from people who think they're number one on the hit list and who are chomping at the bullet-in-the-head bit. Unless they don't actually believe their own words. And it doesn't matter if BO should be taken seriously, it's what people think about what he and/or his administration publishes. If no one takes him seriously why would there be multiple threads, and even more posts, on the subject?

Why are there multiple threads in the comedy section of this forum ?

Try to be less judgmental of people 'daring' to have an opinion defying your own.

I'm going on about your hypocrisy, the numbers don't lie. And of course the context doesn't justify that type of usage, you troll jafar to a ridiculous extent... like you're hiding the lack of an intelligible argument or something.

Ditto above comment. I have considerable REASON to disagree with Jafar. I argue accordingly. It isn't 'trolling' to challenge his positions and statements.

It IS trolling to offer criticisms, however, which if taken on board would set you up to be my self-appointed censor !!!!

Your opinions are dangerous because you're an idiot.

More trolling. Will you ever stop ?

Your "truth" is lacking. But of course you can have your views. Be warned though that your type of drivel is more helpful to the Globalist, Socialist, Muzzy conspiracy that you rail against then it is against them.

This is so ridiculous that I'm just going to challenge you to back this up. Until you do, I dismiss this as a load of rot.

I see that you need a history lesson. My involvement started in this thread by asking a question as I do in so many threads. You are the one who's argument is so weak that you need to deflect into something completely off topic and for some reason need to refuse to answer an easy question.

Define DRUG DEALER.

My request for this information makes about as much sense as YOURS did. We all KNOW what a terrorist is !!

aboutime

07-18-2014, 07:04 PM