HRC

[McPants]

Re: HRC

Maybe attacking a few more countries will scare the terrorists into submission?

If that's what would stop the terrorists from attacking us, sounds like a plan. I'd rather the terrorists submit to us that we submit to them. It's not like NOT attacking them and their allies will suddenly cause them to stop hating us and seeking to harm us. The Carter administration and Clinton years certainly showed us that terrorists are not intimidated by a failure of an effective show of force.

Yep!

Terrorists operate through fear and intimidation. They are not swayed by talk and negotiation and they will never "like" or have respect for the West (nor do I want them to).

I don't believe I've claimed at any time that terrorists can be converted. Once you've crossed that threshold, you're probably not going to change your mind. But what turns a person into a terrorist and how does this person choose his/her targets? Do they seek to attack peaceful nations or belligerent ones in general? I don't really think the U.S. can make already active terrorists "see the light" by becoming a less belligerent nation, however I firmly believe that the recruitment of terrorists in the Arab countries becomes infinitely easier given the way the U.S. treats those countries. If you see your family/countrymen/fellow muslims gunned down by soldiers from a foreign power, how would that affect you? Violence usually leads to more violence.

For that matter, you want to save American lives and property, right? That's the public rationale behind your current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, isn't it? It seems to me that even if you buy into the (to me) insane reasoning that these wars actually do keep terrorists from wanting to attack the U.S., you still sacrifice the lives of many thousands of soldiers not to mention the astronomical amounts of money used to fund these wars. Wouldn't that money come in handy at the moment?

I'm sorry but I also have to ask; why don't you want the terrorists to respect or like the U.S.? Would that not solve the entire problem?

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

I'm sorry but I also have to ask; why don't you want the terrorists to respect or like the U.S.? Would that not solve the entire problem?

Because if they are terrorists that threaten US lives, I want them dead or neutralized. Period. They are terrorists. I am not remotely interested in getting them to respect us. What about us would they respect, given their value paradigm? They believe in killing themselves and innocents in the name of God and demolishing the US. We...don't believe in that. There is no ground for mutual respect.

[ladymoreta]

Re: HRC

I'm sorry but I also have to ask; why don't you want the terrorists to respect or like the U.S.? Would that not solve the entire problem?

First, to make myself clear, I don't think that invading Iraq when and how we did was a good decision. I do think that we did the right thing in Afganistan, and I think that it would have turned out better with all of our focus.

So, to McPants's question - We don't want them to respect or like us because of the sacrifices we would have to make for that to happen. Pulling all our troops out of the Middle East wouldn't do it, even if we were willing. I don't pretend to know what all their end goals are, but from what I understand, the main thing is to scare us away from supporting Israel so they can attack them without repercussions. The United States has chosen to support Israel for many reasons, and we have chosen to not allow ourselves to be bullied into abandoning them. Just like children in a playground, the weaker kid can only do so much, but if his big brother steps in, the bully moves on. And when the bully is finally confronted with a fight, he generally runs and hides. That strategy seems to be keeping them off US and Israeli turf.

Back to the topic of Senator Clinton... I don't really have much to add. I wasn't really interested in politics during President Clinton's terms (I was in high school for most of it), and I don't know much about what she's done as a Senator. But, I don't see how there could be any complaints about her qualifications since President-Elect Obama has even less than she does. It seems to be what the American people want. :huh:

[McPants]

Re: HRC

I'm sorry but I also have to ask; why don't you want the terrorists to respect or like the U.S.? Would that not solve the entire problem?

Because if they are terrorists that threaten US lives, I want them dead or neutralized. Period. They are terrorists. I am not remotely interested in getting them to respect us. What about us would they respect, given their value paradigm? They believe in killing themselves and innocents in the name of God and demolishing the US. We...don't believe in that. There is no ground for mutual respect.

Excellent. This is presumably exactly how the terrorists justify their actions. "The United States threaten our people and thus our religion, so we want them dead." But hey, you're the good guys, right?

Me? I want neither dead.

For what it's worth, I agree that given how the U.S. behaves in the middle east, it appears very unlikely that Jihad warriors would suddenly start respecting or liking the country, however what I found it intriguing was that you guys state that you don't even want that to happen. That effectively means that you don't want anti-U.S. terrorism to end.

Given how fundamentally different our opinions are on this subject, I see no reason to continue debating with you.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

"The United States threaten our people and thus our religion, so we want them dead." But hey, you're the good guys, right?

We didn't start this. We didn't go to their country and start threatening people without provocation. They brought this to our doorstep. The terrorists and the countries that support them. We have no issue with Islam. We have issues with terrorists who happen to practice radicalized Islam that advocates killing innocents. We very much want the killing of everyone to end. And we want the hatred to end. But that doesn't mean not defending ourselves.

And, yes, we are the good guys. We're not perfect, but we are on the right side of the terrorism issue, both for ourselves and the world as a whole.

[DCJenn]

Re: HRC

Uh- let's see:

We've been involved in all kinds of nasty behind the scenes maneuvers since the Declaration of Independence was signed.

The first one that comes to mind in the Middle East is our involvement in ridding Iran of their democractically elected leader so we could reinstall our puppet to his throne.

Then let's look at our involvement in the governements of Lebanon, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Cuba, Guam, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, etc. (and let's not forget Georgia, this very same summer)

I think the argument that they brought it to us is completely wrong. The US has been foisting itself on other nations and other people(s) within those nations forever. Whether that's good or bad remains debatable but the fact is our fingers ARE in everyone else's pies.

Jenn

[McPants]

Re: HRC

We didn't start this. We didn't go to their country and start threatening people without provocation. They brought this to our doorstep. The terrorists and the countries that support them. We have no issue with Islam. We have issues with terrorists who happen to practice radicalized Islam that advocates killing innocents. We very much want the killing of everyone to end. And we want the hatred to end. But that doesn't mean not defending ourselves.

And, yes, we are the good guys. We're not perfect, but we are on the right side of the terrorism issue, both for ourselves and the world as a whole.

First of all, I don't think the terrorists would agree that they were the initial aggressors. If I remember correctly, Jihad is only supposed to be defensive warfare. Furthermore, attacking other countries is not defending yourself. I repeat, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the U.S. There have been Swedish citizens involved in the Jihad against the U.S. and it wouldn't surprise me if Al Quaeda have held training camps there, this doesn't mean that Sweden has attacked you. ..or does it? Should Sweden reinstitute the draft in preparation of an upcoming U.S. invasion? Thank god I don't live there anymore if that's the case.

For the record, I don't think that the terrorist struggle is justified, but I don't think the American warfare is either and I want to hold the U.S. to a higher standard than that of terrorists. In my eyes, there are no good guys in this conflict.

Okay, NOW I'm done with this debate. Ahem.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

We didn't start this. We didn't go to their country and start threatening people without provocation. They brought this to our doorstep. The terrorists and the countries that support them. We have no issue with Islam. We have issues with terrorists who happen to practice radicalized Islam that advocates killing innocents. We very much want the killing of everyone to end. And we want the hatred to end. But that doesn't mean not defending ourselves.

And, yes, we are the good guys. We're not perfect, but we are on the right side of the terrorism issue, both for ourselves and the world as a whole.

First of all, I don't think the terrorists would agree that they were the initial aggressors. If I remember correctly, Jihad is only supposed to be defensive warfare. Furthermore, attacking other countries is not defending yourself. I repeat, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the U.S. There have been Swedish citizens involved in the Jihad against the U.S. and it wouldn't surprise me if Al Quaeda have held training camps there, this doesn't mean that Sweden has attacked you. ..or does it? Should Sweden reinstitute the draft in preparation of an upcoming U.S. invasion? Thank god I don't live there anymore if that's the case.

For the record, I don't think that the terrorist struggle is justified, but I don't think the American warfare is either and I want to hold the U.S. to a higher standard than that of terrorists. In my eyes, there are no good guys in this conflict.

Okay, NOW I'm done with this debate. Ahem.

I am not sure what to say to your position that the terrorists were not the initial aggressors. Of course they were. That is an undisputable, quantifiable fact. We have 3000 dead on 9/11/2001 that says otherwise. The fact that they didn't like the US before that, or they didn't like US policy in Israel, or the US use of Saudi lands to keep troops, or whatever, is not a "attack" on anyone that gives rise to a just action of "defense" by the terrorists (if a terroristic act could ever be considered an act of self-defense, anyway). We had engaged in no precursor act of aggression or war, and we were attacked.

You're right. Jihad is supposed to be defensive--against challengers to Islam. Too bad it is being manipulated. The fact that terrorists consider their acts defensive doesn't make it so. What exactly were they defending against by killing Wall Street secretaries? The ones that were challenging Islam as they sent faxes?

You're right. Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the US. We didn't argue that we should invade those countries because they, as a sovereign body, had attacked us directly. It was appropriate because they were harboring and endorsing terrorism and giving seedbed to stateless warriors who who trying to kill us. It is even a red herring to claim that we had to find WMD to warrant the invasion. No, we didn't. Their other activities were sufficient. To say, "Oh, we can't defend ourselves against them because technically, we're after only Al-Quada" allows the terrorists to hide behind the distinction that they don't have a sovereign country. Foreign countries should be advised: if you help our enemies, you risk our armies.

Yes, if Sweden was hiding terrorists, allowing them to camp and train in their country, and endorsing their attacks, we should defend ourselves against such actions. Sweden, however, has a record of being reasonable in terms of speaking with (contrasted with the decentralized Afghanistan or the openly hostile Iraq). I doubt ground invasion would be necessary. But the scenery of that invasion would certainly be very postcard-making.

I want to hold America to the standard of self-defense.

We clearly aren't going to agree, but that's OK. That's why this is the Debates section.

[ladymoreta]

Re: HRC

First of all, I don't think the terrorists would agree that they were the initial aggressors. If I remember correctly, Jihad is only supposed to be defensive warfare. Furthermore, attacking other countries is not defending yourself. I repeat, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the U.S.

I am Christian, not Muslim, so I apologize if I offend, but I don't think you can use logic from true Islam to defend what the terrorists are doing. These men and women are not following any kind of Islam that I know of. From what my friends have told me, Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, and Jihad is the internal struggle between evil and good. It has been corrupted by people who do not believe the way most Muslims believe, and these people are more interested in power and control than in spreading peace and their Prophet's message. Do you really think bin Laden truly wanted to convert New York City by attacking it? That's just silly. He wanted enough American citizens to decide that supporting Israel wasn't worth the risk to ourselves so we would convince our government to look away while they destroyed the Jews and took their land.

As for the question of whether Afghanistan or Iraq attacked the U.S. - because their governments funded and permitted the Taliban to do so, Yes, they attacked us. It's like saying that Japan didn't attack us in Pearl Harbor - only their bombers did. Whatever military force a government supports is an extension of that government, and that country must be prepared to face the consequences of their military's actions.

[Sheherezade]

Re: HRC

The Taliban (although evil ) didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden heads Al Qaeda. The Taliban are a separate extreme Islamist faction. In fact, I've been disturbed to read that we are negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan -- not always fighting them. Of course, they didn't attack us - they aren't our target - but I was dismayed to think we'd work *with* these guys.

Also, I'm not sure about the evidence that Al Qaeda existed/trained/had contact with Saddam Hussein. Again, bad guy....but not the 9/11 perpetrator. :huh:

Most of the terrorists on the plane were Saudi Arabian - as is bin Laden. :huh: I'm not sure you can tie terrorism to official governments in countries easily and prove it. bin Laden is thought to be in Pakistan. Has been for years now -- can we attack there? That was a central question in the presidential debates. McCain and Hillary said no (or actually McCain said "You can't tell them you are going to do that!" Secret's out!). Obama said if the Pakistani's didn't take them out - and we reasonably could - we should. Is that a legit assault? They are harboring a terrorist....

I think this is a very sticky question.

I have no problem taking out a KNOWN terrorist. Assuming that an entire country is filled with them because some trained there or that everyone of a certain faith shares radical views....that's taking it beyond terrorists to ideology. When does a terrorist become a REAL terrorist? When they hate the U.S.? When they have contact with a militant group? When they plan an attack? When they train to attack? When they actually attack?

It's a continuum. I have no issues with going after the criminals that attacked the U.S. through planning or action. I'm not sure I can blame the country they planned in until I see the evidence. (After all, we don't blame the U.S. or Oklahoma or local militias for the attacks of Timothy McVeigh.)

[McPants]

Re: HRC

I am Christian, not Muslim, so I apologize if I offend, but I don't think you can use logic from true Islam to defend what the terrorists are doing. These men and women are not following any kind of Islam that I know of. From what my friends have told me, Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, and Jihad is the internal struggle between evil and good. It has been corrupted by people who do not believe the way most Muslims believe, and these people are more interested in power and control than in spreading peace and their Prophet's message. Do you really think bin Laden truly wanted to convert New York City by attacking it? That's just silly. He wanted enough American citizens to decide that supporting Israel wasn't worth the risk to ourselves so we would convince our government to look away while they destroyed the Jews and took their land.

I am confused as to what this has to do with anything I've posted. I'm not muslim and have expressed no opinion about whether Jihad, as interpreted by terrorists, is a legitimate part of the muslim faith. Few religions are pro-violence but a lot of them have been used to motivate violence throughout history. Christianity and Islam are prominent examples for this.

As for the question of whether Afghanistan or Iraq attacked the U.S. - because their governments funded and permitted the Taliban to do so, Yes, they attacked us. It's like saying that Japan didn't attack us in Pearl Harbor - only their bombers did. Whatever military force a government supports is an extension of that government, and that country must be prepared to face the consequences of their military's actions.

Were the 9/11 terrorists wearing Afghan/Iraqi military uniforms? Were they enrolled in any form of military force belonging to Afghanistan or Iraq? No? How many participants in the 9/11 attacks even held Afghan/Iraqi citizenships? Suggesting that this was a military attack by Afghanistan or Iraq on the United States is ridiculously inaccurate.

In contrast, the Japanese forces that bombed Pearl Harbor were military personnel participating in a military attack under Japanese flag on U.S. military targets. It was a military attack and it led to a justified declaration of war.

[ladymoreta]

Re: HRC

I am confused as to what this has to do with anything I've posted. I'm not muslim and have expressed no opinion about whether Jihad, as interpreted by terrorists, is a legitimate part of the muslim faith. Few religions are pro-violence but a lot of them have been used to motivate violence throughout history. Christianity and Islam are prominent examples for this.

Jihad is only supposed to be defensive warfare

My statement wasn't really an argument, I just don't like hearing people saying that what the terrorists are doing is Jihad. According to http://whyislam.org, Jihad is "The word Jihad comes from the root word jahada, which means to struggle. At the individual level, jihad primarily refers to the inner struggle of being a person of virtue and submission to God in all aspects of life." Just as bad things that evil people have done in the name of Christianity still hurt our credibility, non-Muslim's interpretation of Jihad is causing people to hate true Muslims, and I just don't like to hear that being done. Sorry, it was completely off topic.

Were the 9/11 terrorists wearing Afghan/Iraqi military uniforms? Were they enrolled in any form of military force belonging to Afghanistan or Iraq? No? How many participants in the 9/11 attacks even held Afghan/Iraqi citizenships? Suggesting that this was a military attack by Afghanistan or Iraq on the United States is ridiculously inaccurate.

In contrast, the Japanese forces that bombed Pearl Harbor were military personnel participating in a military attack under Japanese flag on U.S. military targets. It was a military attack and it led to a justified declaration of war.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban, After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court. The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan... On September 21, 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan... The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the United States and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others.

My point was that they were recognized and supported by the Taliban, not the governments of other countries they recruited from.

Edited to fix quotes

[McPants]

Re: HRC

My statement wasn't really an argument, I just don't like hearing people saying that what the terrorists are doing is Jihad. According to http://whyislam.org, Jihad is "The word Jihad comes from the root word jahada, which means to struggle. At the individual level, jihad primarily refers to the inner struggle of being a person of virtue and submission to God in all aspects of life." Just as bad things that evil people have done in the name of Christianity still hurt our credibility, non-Muslim's interpretation of Jihad is causing people to hate true Muslims, and I just don't like to hear that being done. Sorry, it was completely off topic.

I agree completely.

My point was that they were recognized and supported by the Taliban, not the governments of other countries they recruited from.

They were recognized and supported by the Taliban, yes, however that is not the same as 9/11 being an Afghan attack on the U.S. Al Quaeda is an entirely autonomous organization that is in no way part of or directed by Afghanistan's government or armed forces. Thus it is not a legitimate casus belli against Afghanistan.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

I think we may have run the course of this argument.

Reduced to simplicity: you either believe (1) the US has a sovereign right to self-defense against those it defines as its enemies and that the invasion of the two countries was a valid exercise of that right based on the invaded countries' actions related to Al-Quada, or (2) the US, even if it has a sovereign right to self-defense, misused such right by invading the countries because those countries are distinguishable from Al-Quada, which has no state and is not represented by those countries.

It's been an interesting debate, but I'm not sure there's much more to hash out.

[McPants]

Re: HRC

I think we may have run the course of this argument.

Reduced to simplicity: you either believe (1) the US has a sovereign right to self-defense against those it defines as its enemies and that the invasion of the two countries was a valid exercise of that right based on the invaded countries' actions related to Al-Quada, or (2) the US, even if it has a sovereign right to self-defense, misused such right by invading the countries because those countries are distinguishable from Al-Quada, which has no state and is not represented by those countries.

I'm sure there are other ways of seeing things, but yes, those seem to be the two main views as expressed on this forum.

It's been an interesting debate, but I'm not sure there's much more to hash out.

Agreed.