If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No, and that wasn't what I suggested either.
It doesn't take an injustice to create a terrorist, just a perception of injustice. Anti-abortionists, animal rights, Basque separatists etc - from injustice?
@ Clandestine - I don't dispute that we could do more, but that isn't the issue here. The point I have been trying to make is that we can do our best but it is impossible to please all of the people, all of the time. I thought that was an accepted belief from anywhere.
Take a look at Israel - there are some terrorist group who will not be satisfied until the State of Israel ceases to exists. Now please them.
Oh, hang on though, wouldn't Jewish terrorism rise again if you did that?
As for causation, have you ever considered that culture may have something to do with it? What you are doing is looking at this from the perspective of someone who lives in a democratic, free culture. Other people don't have that luxury and one would question whether they actually want it, or maybe even are capable of it. The oldest cultures in the world can be found in the middle east - yet how many democratic free states are there? How many militarily, or religion, controlled states are there - how many ruled by divinity? Think this is a coincidence?
I think you will find that self-determination is a intrinsic desire of all people wherever they may be and whatever culture or tradition they may be a part of. I speak of the average citizen of course, not necessarily the ruling elite of any particular country.
Now, I know full well that you cannot please all the people all the time, one need only look at the nutcases running around the US shooting people on practically an hourly if not daily basis to see that. Nevertheless, my point of contention with your POV isnt in the view that there will always be a certain percentage of malcontents and fanatics, that much is clear.
What i do contend with is your conclusion that this means we should continue invading other sovereign states and using warfare and military might to respond to these problems. I would argue that if we were to adopt a more constructive and contributory approach to the devastating inbalances of our current global economic system (heavily weighted against the poorer and developing nations) then we would, in the first instance, increase the opportunity levels for a growing precentage of the population in these societies to the point where precious few would be inclined to consider subscribing to fanatical terroristic causes as a worthy outlet for their efforts.
Having thus all but removed the fertile soil from which fanatics are able to cultivate new converts, these groups would be relegated to the category of mere international criminals (as opposed to any number of convenient militaristic categorisations they are now ascribed). Then they could be dealt with through national and/or international law enforcement agencies and an ICC.
You see, this would avoid the imperialistic demeanor we in the West have been incrementally allowing our goverments to herd us into out of fear and paranoia, and would allow for better domestic use of the billions of dollars which are being pumped into the MIC (and thereby back into certain government administration's pockets). Marginalisation of fanaticism by shouldering our national responsibilities to restoring greater balance in the distribution of wealth and opportunity is the only way that any WoT can truly be won.
The hawks, sadly enough, are too trigger happy and self-interested to even comprehend this fact.
Like Clandestine said though although it may be impossible to please every one, I think the majority of those who are currently willing to follow extremists would not do so if there life chances were improved i.e. if global economic inbalances were reduced........
But how do we generate freedom from oppression without using force? Do you think someone like Mugabe or Saddam is going to give up thier power freely?
You talk about removing the fertile soil...so I take you back to Israel again, which is possibly the most fertile soil. And I ask the same question, if you have two directly opposing views, how do you solve it without using force?
With regards economy, we do have huge issues about debt and arms sales, I don't dispute that at all.
This will probably take a long time but can be successful.
Rascism, sexism etc are now seen as 'bad' by mainstream society.....
Violence in N.Ireland has decreased because people see that the people that want to continue the violence are fools..........
This is the more difficult path but it is the best one, violence is the easy way........
If our Western governments subscribe as they claim to the rule of law and to international law (more specifically) then this should be a clear and preferable solution to the situation rather than the more questionable choice of using military intervention in sovereign states.
The way things are now, the application of this military intervention in itself is highly selective despite the calls for war on the basis of "spreading democracy and freedom". Better we have an international law enforcement mechanism endorsed by all UN nations which could track down, arrest and extradite said criminals than see the hypocritical application of military power against a few dictatorial regimes whilst others that are just as bad are left alone becuase they serve some western power's interests.
It's all or nothing if we are to maintain any credibility or moral superiority, and total global conflict isnt what you are after I should hope. That leaves us with the option outlined above.
Depends on what you mean by "self-determination". If you mean "power" in how they are governed, I'd say you are wrong. Many people could care less as long as they are more or less left alone to raise their children and their crops or flocks.
But the terrorist group ETA continues its slaughter because a number of people there are taught since birth to hate the Spanish and to fight for an independent Basque nation, including the region of Navarra in Spain and one other region in France, regardless of what the local population might want. As it happens the sentiment about segregating versus remaining part of Spain is about 50/50. But there are a group of fanatical twats who are brainwashed into hating anything Spanish and to murder civilians for the right of segregation- even though the Basque Country is about as independent from Madrid as it can be.
So, with this group at least, regardless of how alone they have been left by the central government they still are willing to kill to obtain independence.
We're the good guys?
I thought we were the ones who wanted to wage a war of conquest?
So glad I edited this and reread what I wrote later...never do that.
And Greenhat, you make this claim about what other people in developing countries want clearly on the basis of a comfortable Western view (which is itself derived from our long running freedoms and rights which have long been taken for granted). My own experiences is that people living under repressive dictatorships or other such regimes (largely put into place by the Western powers) would indeed welcome constructive empowerment and self determination so that they might "be left alone" to provide a brighter future for themselves and their children. People don't have to take an active interest in politics or even political activism in order to desire the benefits of self-determination for their nation(s).
As things stand in many parts of the world, the corruption at the top, which lines our nations' pockets, subsequently impoverishes the ingdigenous peoples of these developing countries and denies them most of the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy everyday.
So carry on with your blindness to the "real" geo-political, economic and social requirements of global security. You prefer guns and bombs and carnage anyways from the sounds of things.
That miscalculation is why he's losing. He also miscalculated the impact Bali would have. More people would have taken Clandestine's it's all America's fault perspective a few months ago. After Bali it just became so obvious that Al Qaeda wants to destroy economies as well as people.
Frankly, OBL is still at large so id suggest you learn about the tenacity and patience of fanatical antagonists. A lull in activity does not signal a victory for anyone. Those that adopt that smug belief are only contributing to the problem by thinking we can merely keep on with the global status quo with impunity.
Dont fall into that trap before youve even had a chance to learn about how the world outside the US really works.
But this is about America not being in touch with the fact that the Saudi's encouraged Muslim extremism so that these groups would focus on the West and America....and not them.
But you wont hear that on the evening news im sad to say.
Bullshit, Clandestine. "Self-determination" as you seem to be pushing it requires active interest, or the "benefits" become ones that don't actually benefit. Instead they become the marks of those who "know what is good for you". "Freedoms" require responsibilities and not everyone is interested in taking on those responsibilities, or is ready to contemplate taking on those responsibilities. A little review of how well democracy has worked around the world will illustrate the point very well. Or maybe you think Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Columbia and Indonesia are shining examples of how "self-determination" benefits all?
If anything would be classed as "knowing whats best for you" it would be those who, like you, think invasion and setting up sycophant regimes in the names of democracy will solve either the global security issue or the needs of the indigenous peoples.
People hold aspirations of freedom and opportunity without being frontline activists themselves. Many choose to support others within their societies who oppose current repressive regimes. Our task would be far more constructive (if somewhat less self-interested) if we enabled grassroots oppositions to gather ground from amongst their own populations naturally rather than by imposition. Our task should be more the role of ensuring that our actions in a given country do not simply continue propping up the benefits and status quo for an elite minority over the vast majority of the population.
As far as "how well democracy works" we need not go so far as Zimbabwe to see the problems, our own US democratic framework was already shown to be questionable in the 2000 Presidential election (Supreme Court coup d'etat). But then this is a matter that is a separate discussion unto itself.
It doesnt take the abrogation of international law and decency (aka third party military invasion) to achieve lasting social justice, however much you might enjoy your role as the strong arm of our corrupt administration.
Bothered to check the results of Florida recounts lately?
Mind pointing to anywhere that has achieved "lasting social justice" (within a historical context, thank you).
Indeed, thats the very reason these discussions have come up in the first place! lol. There isnt, since within the modern era (to keep things within a limited and relevant time frame) we have been too busy using militaristic intervention and illicit regime manipulation to maintain a status quo that is reaping the fruit of discontent, disenfranchisement, hatred and terrorism. The very things we are addressing in terms of finding a more constructive and effective solution for. Violence has clearly not proved successful.
Funny that you tell others to go enroll in logic courses and you yourself are repeatedly unable to even follow the purpose of the duscussion. :rolleyes:
Your credibility gap is growing ol boy!
The reasoning behind the actions of Robespiere, Rosa Luxembourg and "Imman" Khomeni....among others...
Perhaps you despise agents of change that arisa from amongst an indeigenous population but at least they are examples of self-determinate action and not reliant on external military might to achieve social change (for better or for ill).
Can you imagine if they were trying that today? hmmm methinks theyd be labelled terrorists and summarily hunted down and shot by CIA drones. :rolleyes:
I'm not a contradiction at all. I don't pretend to know what is morally good for the whole world, unlike yourself. Nor do I claim to know what every person in the world wants, just those I have come into contact with and dealt with in regards to those wants. Of course, I'm pretty sure that is more people than you have, of more diverse backgrounds and cultures. I'm just aware of what it takes to maintain a moderate amount of security and opportunity for the people of the world to better themselves. But I'm really not surprised that you would choose to defend the terrors of "revolutions" that killed and oppressed more than the governments they replaced all in the name of "social justice". Makes you sound morally superior, doesn't it? Of course, also means you are defending mass murderers.
Quite to the contrary of your exaggerated claims, I do not suppose to know what every person in the world wants, but i have travelled extensively enough and dealt with a wide enough diversity of cultures and public opinion to know that it is a fairly general human aspiration to enjoy the benefits of opportunity and personal liberty rather than toil under corrupt puppet regimes installed by foreign governments.
Go back to your paper pushing ol pitbull and stop digging yourself deeper into the hole you started a long while back.
In exactly how many continents? Oh, we've had that answer before. Two. One of which is Europe. Thank you for playing.