My three step plan to stop terrorism against the U.S.

[PorscheNGuns]

<<Well if they do attack us afterward then we can kill as many of them as you'd like. I'd even piss on all their graves afterward. That';s how confident I am that that won't happen. >>

I'm actually really interested to know, what makes you so confident that they, after roughly 1500 years of Jihads, many of them unprovoked power thrusts that have shaped and destroyed empires and even continents as per their religious doctrine, would just completely 100% stop?

-Matt

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda will have no reason to attack us after this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that's what Chamberlain thought after letting Hitler have the Sudentenland. What I think is wrong with your logic is that you're trying to give reasonable motivations to unreasonable people.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWII / WOT comparisons are officially ILLEGAL because they are UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

NT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if they do attack us afterward then we can kill as many of them as you'd like. I'd even piss on all their graves afterward. That's how ignorant I am that that won't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[natedogg]

Didn't the WTC get demolished *before* we invaded Iraq?

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda will have no reason to attack us after this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that's what Chamberlain thought after letting Hitler have the Sudentenland. What I think is wrong with your logic is that you're trying to give reasonable motivations to unreasonable people.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWII / WOT comparisons are officially ILLEGAL because they are UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the part about trying to appease unreasonable people makes sense to me. You can't do it. Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that pulling out of Iraq will mollify these cretins?

natedogg

[nothumb]

BTW, the problem with Dead's plan isn't that withdrawing from these nations won't end terrorism against the US. We could do a lot less in terms of withdrawal and effectively achieve that goal. The problem with Dead's plan is that eliminating US military presence around the globe and US influence abroad would bring an end to our prominence in world trade, destroy our ability to influence or strongarm allies and vulnerable nations, throw our energy supply into jeopardy until we get off the fossil fuel kick, and basically force American consumers to face reality. The bubble would pop.

And we would look like such pussies. Seriously.

NT

[FrankTheTank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the other way around. Economic and political issues lead to resentment and hate, and then radical fundamentalism is used to galvanize support, because it's always easier to get people to agree with you if you convince them God is on your side (see GWB). Radical Islam is a symptom, not the primary cause, of hatred toward the west, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparently think radical Islam is a relatively modern phenomenon. It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. There's a long tradition of religion (not just Islam) being twisted to justify atrocities, i.e. the Crusades and Manifest Destiny. Just as it would be a gross oversimplifaction and a disservice to the religion to say those events were based primarily on radical Catholicism, it's an oversimplification and a disservice to blame the recent terror attacks primarily on radical Islam.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda will have no reason to attack us after this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that's what Chamberlain thought after letting Hitler have the Sudentenland. What I think is wrong with your logic is that you're trying to give reasonable motivations to unreasonable people.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWII / WOT comparisons are officially ILLEGAL because they are UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the part about trying to appease unreasonable people makes sense to me. You can't do it. Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that pulling out of Iraq will mollify these cretins?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. However, the WW2 analogy has been used for all sorts of fallacious logical purposes far beyond this issue. It's hyperbolic and a transparent attempt to appropriate the legitimacy of our invasion of Europe during that time.

NT

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all. However, the WW2 analogy has been used for all sorts of fallacious logical purposes far beyond this issue. It's hyperbolic and a transparent attempt to appropriate the legitimacy of our invasion of Europe during that time.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, because Nazi Germany didn't declare war on the US and Pearl Harbor didn't happen? WTF do you expect the US to do?

And of course, the real "invasion" happened after WWII ended, with the Marshall Plan making sure that America gained control of Western Europe, not the Soviet Union, which effectively won the Cold War.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not at all. However, the WW2 analogy has been used for all sorts of fallacious logical purposes far beyond this issue. It's hyperbolic and a transparent attempt to appropriate the legitimacy of our invasion of Europe during that time.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, because Nazi Germany didn't declare war on the US and Pearl Harbor didn't happen? WTF do you expect the US to do?

And of course, the real "invasion" happened after WWII ended, with the Marshall Plan making sure that America gained control of Western Europe, not the Soviet Union, which effectively won the Cold War.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read g00t.

I wasn't criticizing the US invasion of Europe, or the aftermath of the war. I was saying that, when people compare it to our current situation in Iraq, it is often a misleading debate tactic that is intended to create a heightened sense of necessity regarding the Iraq war by comparing it to a conflict with which it is utterly dissimilar in most substantial areas.

NT