Man..these kind of idiots REALLY piss me off! Didn't the terrorists think it was enough with the people they killed in the twin towers, and now they need to blow up a club, where no-one was even expecting it! These kind of freeks make me sick!

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

Mmm it would kind of be pointless if they were expecting it.

"Hey, tonight's the night the terrorists are going to blow up the club....shall we go anyway?"

He was probably making a point of what some branches of the IRA do by telephoning a news agency or a police station before making a terrorist attack giving details of the attack to make sure the area is cleared of civilians in good time. Some only want to cause destruction and chaos, but not harm human life.

- wil

The death toll and images coming out of Bali really are shocking. And Al Qaeda cheers it and calls for more of the same.

These sorts of people aren't interested in human life, liberty, or peaceful co-existence. They seek death and destruction of all who do not ascribe to their doctrine - period.

How do you deal with somebody like that? You can't establish a dialog or negotiate which leaves little else but stomping on them so hard that they can't terrorize (murder) anyone else ever again.

Let us hope there are no further incidents, but I guess we all fear that there must be before it is all over...if it's ever over.

But isn't that what America and Britain are doing too?....we just don't see it like that because we are biased.

Simple answer, no. Our societies are pluralistic, with codified individual freedoms and liberties. Our very existence is anathema to them.

We only believe our way of living is the "right" one because we are brought up to believe that and because society leads us to believe it.

Likewise Muslims have their own beliefs and are brought up to believe that is the "right" way.

Then there are what we consider to be extremist groups who have their beliefs too.

For anyone to say that other faiths are wrong, in my opinion, is likely to mean you are going against your own faith, especially regarding christianity.

You are basing your argument on your own personal beliefs, which has no bearing on the _absolute_ truth.

You can't say one faith is right and another is wrong simply because it goes against what you believe in. Well obviously you can but that doesn't make it right.

People can't seem to see that we are no different to anyone else. Many innocent people were killed in retaliation to Sept 11th, why do you consider that to be any more justified than the Sept 11th attacks themselves?

Are you going to say "oh well they started it?"

If the US people want peace as they claim, why are they still killing thousands of people. Do you really think that is how peace begins and war ends?

Because I live in the real world. The notion that there is no right or no wrong, is not new and it is just as dangerous now as it was then.

Fortunately, we have elected leaders who can tell the difference and have the strength to act. And fortunately there were those in the 1940s who did as well.

Move our conversation through time to 1938 and I wonder if you would offer the same argument?

Can't you see what you are saying is almost identical to what you are condemning?

"They don't believe what we believe, so let's wipe them out."

And let me add that if a group of murders who believe Xylan from Planet X was the true savior of mankind, and attacked free societies in a similar manner our response would be the same.

Al Qaeda no more represents Islam than neo-Nazi skinheads in London represent Christianity.

And keep in mind that it is not just one attack. There is the original basement bombing of the WTC, the embassy bombings in Africa, the plots in the Philipines, the bombing of the USS Cole, the planned attacks for New Year's 2000, the plots in Egypt, Jordan, and yes the 9/11/01 attack against the WTC.

What reasoned person says, "Yes, you have the clear right to continue to murder us because we just don't understand your point of view?".

I could care less about what 'they' believe. That is what is to live in a democratic society that encourages pluralism; many ideas, many thoughts, many beliefs.

However if hypothetically, you and your band of thugs decide to start killing my family...I will defend myself and I will defend them.

You have no right to kill me because you don't like my ideas. But I have every right to stop you from killing me. That is a difference recognized throughout human history.

If I hold up my hand and yell, "Stop, can't we talk about this?"...and you stop, then great!

However, if that does not work and you continue toward me with your knife/gun/bomb/plane-load-full-of-people...what I should I do, lay down and mutter to myself, "well that's just what he believes" and thank you for killing me?

Poppycock!

I think Paul is jerking your chain to get a reaction.

I don't think he is, cause I agree with most of what he has said.
Cheers,
Michael Bray

Possibly, although it's poor entertainment.

I've TA'd a few PolySci 101 classes, and the position is not unpopular. They usually grow out of it when they start paying income taxes every year.

A friend and I were just discussing this "equally valid point of view" this morning in reference to an article in the onion news magazine:

Click here for "Peace in Our Time!"

Are they still teaching enough history in school for this to be funny?

I should learn not to try and initiate a serious topical debate with someone who has...

Spam me and die!

...in their profile.

It just results in ageist comments and ridicule when I provide a stong argument.

>>>I should learn not to try and initiate a serious topical debate with someone who has...

Spam me and die!

...in their profile. <<<

LOL

This topic has really taken off... (excuse the pun Scott..heheh)

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

You've made a few statements as an apologist for Al Qaeda, but I doubt many would find it a strong argument.

The greater point is that your views and my views are tolerated within our societes. We can express our thoughts on the street corner, in our homes, the media, and through elections. You might get shouted down, but you can still express the viewpoint. No such freedoms under a world sought by Al Qaeda.

As to ageism, I plead 100% guilty. Many a doe-eyed idealist changes their views when they finally have responsibilities of their own. They start a family, have children, and purchase a home. There's nothing like having a young life or two completely dependent upon you to clarify a few thoughts like the existence of "right and wrong".

Paul,

You have had a serious debate, but you have chosen a very hard debate position. And that is OK, because we all enjoy a lively chit-chat forum.

But, your position kind of falls apart when you look at Saddam or bin Laden and try to imagine them as simply misunderstood teddy bears wanting nothing more than the best for their people. The basis of your arguement becomes there is no such thing as an autrocity, only differing points of view.

It also falls appart when you look at your position historically. Neville Chamberlain talked with and reached an agreement with another leader, whose views you have arguably deemed as "equally valid", and declared to the world he had achieved "Peace in Our Time" In looking at this history, you are left with the position that Neville's "achievement" was a huge "success".

Those are both tough debate positions and you should not be surprised when they are taken advantage of.

I hadn't seen that one. You have to love the guys at the Onion. It's even better when a newspaper somewhere picks up their stuff and runs it as a real news story! How funny is that?

And no, they don't teach enough history....or hard sciences, critical thinking, civics, etc., etc., etc.

Talk about pluralism:

http://www.cnn.com/...ctions.ap/index.html

---

Fractured Atlas :: Liberate the Artist
Services: Healthcare, Fiscal Sponsorship, Marketing, Education, The Emerging Artists Fund

What a load of crock!!! Of course there is no opposition. Saddam and his government use scare tactics. No way anyone would oppose the "great democratic president" lest they be shot. No way all 11.5 million registered voters actually voted in favor of that bastard. Although with no opposition, what difference does it make?

I say we invade, blow his ass up, wipe out their terrorist army, and occupy Iraq until legitment government is created with legitament elected leadership.

Philip
------------------
Limecat is not pleased.

hmmm ... I say we set up a Gforum for the Iraqi people and use yogi's poll to see what the Iraqi people want. If not, it's not that easy to re-establish a government. If the people want help (somebody really needs to go underground and dig up this information) then I can agree but ... making the assumption that they want help is not too wise I'd say.

---

openoffice + gimp + sketch ...

It would be a bit more than that as a whole language change would be required for both GForum and the Poll Plugin.

Anyway, the people of Iraq under the fearful control of Sadam would only say what he tells them too. With the exception of all those people he gassed of course.

The bottom line, historically the US pulls back their forces too early. Ask Patton, Truman and now Swartzkoph *misspelled I am sure*.

If we would have let Patton go north the cold war would have been much different. Same for Truman and the Koreas and of course our forces were told NOT to go after Sadam when we were already there and had global support.

The global community is wishy washy with their support. When it is good and it looks like we could waltz through the global community cheers us on and even sends in their boys. When it looks like a dog fight everyone sure changes their tune fast. Especially countries that try to sit on the fence.

Countries like having a check mark in the WIN column of their resume but don't like to fight to get it. These are also the countries that would be the first in line to critique the US for its actions and also the first in line to ask for its help when they get in trouble (money, resources or troops).

I am almost to the point that I think the US should let these nations fend for themselves and cut off the IMF in the process. Let them stand on their own two feet for a bit and then they will see how important we are to their economy and wellbeing.

Just my opinion of course (and a few million others in the US )

From what it seems, it doesn't matter if it's fear or free will the result will still be the same. Most people will embrace what they're told.

It would be interesting to see the nations alone. What would they do...?

The more I look at it, the more I see the rest of the world as being jealous towards the Americans as geeks are towards Microsoft. I'll bet every geek wouldn't be upset to be just as rich as Gates. (Strangely enough, the idea of pulling the IMF draws parallels to the arguments in the anti-trust case)

But that's getting off topic. The bombing of that nightclub is tragic, and the victims were so young too. A friend of mine was in Bali just last year and I've tossed the idea around myself. It's scary to think how just being foreign marks you as a target for a vicarious attack.