Terrorism is not a threat to our survival.

[xen]

I disagree, and I think we need to stay on the offensive to combat it.

Here's why:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62637&postcount=1

"Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."

--Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

thanks buddy.

 

[dmp]

If you want more i can supply it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

All that shows is a couple marines who are idiots.

(shrug).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, guess i AM saying they are dying for no good reason

Ok. That's not supportive.

Would you consider it support if your significant other said she liked you, but considered your career choice immoral and pointless?

Shehan is your secret lover. She burned her bra; you know what they say about those kinds of girls. And she considers your efforts pointless, harmful and bordering on immoral.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't believe Thomas Jefferson would have viewed the storming of the Iranian embassy and kidnapping of Americans, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole, the destruction of the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon, as "a speck of war...visible in our horizon".

I'd say nice try...but it wasn't. It was a pretty pathetic try actually.

 

[Zhukov]

In fact, here's what Jefferson said about the terrorists of his day.

"The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace."

That's a euphemism for "beat them into submission" in case he lost you with his eloquence.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war.

Jefferson is on my side.

 

[xen]

rtwngAvngr, good point, but i dont want to talk to you until we're even. Someone owes me a point or you a negetive point.

Zhukov,
These attacks have never been a threat to our survival, so it should be handled without war. And yes those attacks are considered a 'speck' of war. All of them together aint even a day in WWII.
-EDIT- Ill try to read it later I gotta go, but seems to me like apples and oranges...Nobody said they wanted to BRIBE the terrorists, only thing ive advocated is their capture or destruction.

"Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."

--Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwngAvngr, good point, but i dont want to talk to you until we're even. Someone owes me a point or you a negetive point.

Oh, good point about how not supporting the troop mission is not REALLY supporting the troops? No crud.

 

[Zhukov]

These attacks have never been a threat to our survival

No one said they were.

And until now, no one said they weren't.

Your thread title is "Terrorism is not a threat to our survival"

-not-

"The storming of the Iranian embassy and kidnapping of Americans, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole, the destruction of the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon is not a threat to our survival."


Again, you wrote: Terrorism is not a threat to our survival.

You are wrong. What I wrote explains why you are wrong. You responded to what I wrote with a random quote from Thomas Jefferson that doesn't apply.

Nobody said they wanted to BRIBE the terrorists

Lots of people say that. They just phrase it differently. When it comes out of their mouths it sounds like "poverty causes terrorism" and by implication we should alleviate that poverty, or give them money, to make it stop.

Call it what you will. Of course that wasn't the point at all.

The point is there isn't a speck of war on the horizon, we are at war.

I recognize it, most people here recognize it, and I believe Jefferson would recognize it, and if President at the time, act decisively to win it.

You respond with a random quote from Thomas Jefferson that doesn't really apply.

 

[no1tovote4]

Shame and humiliation cause terrorism. If they can find their pride they will not want to be terrorists. They feel the only way to gain the pride is by attacking that which they believe has taken that pride. We are doing the right thing by helping to create a country where self-determination will create a government that will allow freedom of speech. In Iraq they will see a return of pride, if we are successful and leave them to rule themselves.

The second step is to show that we will no longer support autocratic regimes that stifle the human spirit and dehumanize them. Gaining allies in the ME will be difficult, but we have taken the first step toward that goal by attempting to return the pride of self-rule to them.

 

[Bonnie]

Shame and humiliation cause terrorism. If they can find their pride they will not want to be terrorists. They feel the only way to gain the pride is by attacking that which they believe has taken that pride. We are doing the right thing by helping to create a country where self-determination will create a government that will allow freedom of speech. In Iraq they will see a return of pride, if we are successful and leave them to rule themselves.

The second step is to show that we will no longer support autocratic regimes that stifle the human spirit and dehumanize them. Gaining allies in the ME will be difficult, but we have taken the first step toward that goal by attempting to return the pride of self-rule to them.

Excellent post, your rep is all full up though lol

 

[archangel]

Shame and humiliation cause terrorism. If they can find their pride they will not want to be terrorists. They feel the only way to gain the pride is by attacking that which they believe has taken that pride. We are doing the right thing by helping to create a country where self-determination will create a government that will allow freedom of speech. In Iraq they will see a return of pride, if we are successful and leave them to rule themselves.

The second step is to show that we will no longer support autocratic regimes that stifle the human spirit and dehumanize them. Gaining allies in the ME will be difficult, but we have taken the first step toward that goal by attempting to return the pride of self-rule to them.

however there are other causes for terrorism...greed,lust,power, religious agendas,political agendas and for some because they love to kill and maim...not all are caused because of a dictator...sometimes groups band together to form their own government and lacking a military they resort to terror!

 

[xen]

Zhukov, those attacks were not a threat to our nation's survival either.

jefferson's quotes have everything to do with most discussions im involved in.

"I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 1801.

Now ya'll need to excuse me while i run around town looking for engine parts for my car. 100 bucks for sparkplug wires!! ahhh!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Xen, you're monumentally obtuse. Any idiot can look back and say," that terrorist event didn't kill us all, it must not be a threat to our survival." It's faulty reasoning, which, if adopted en masse, would result in a country of sitting idiotic ducks.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Xen, will only acknowledge a threat to our survival after we're all dead. He just wants to be fair. He's a lib; they care.

 

[trobinett]

xen posts:

those attacks were not a threat to our nation's survival either.

Sorry buddy, that`s just not true.

If all the events that happened prior to 911 had been handled in a more aggresive way, there wouldn`t have been a 911.

Fact, not fiction.

 

[no1tovote4]

however there are other causes for terrorism...greed,lust,power, religious agendas,political agendas and for some because they love to kill and maim...not all are caused because of a dictator...sometimes groups band together to form their own government and lacking a military they resort to terror!

Lacking a military they resort to Geurilla Warfare, there is a difference between Geurilla Warfare and terrorism.

Greed, Lust, Power, the leaders may display this, but to recruit they need those who feel humiliated by the more powerful, the downtrodden who see no other way to strike back. Without the humiliation, if we can help instil pride back into their society it is likely they can again be the cosmopolitan people they once were who held our scientific knowledge for us while we were in the dark ages.

 

[Zhukov]

Zhukov, those attacks were not a threat to our nation's survival either.

Damn, RWA already used the word obtuse (there you go reading my mind again). Who said they were? No one.

"Either"? What? What are you even talking about? Either of what?

Please, try harder to not only follow but keep up.

Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect.

We are not in a time of peace. Nor were we in a time of peace before Iraq, before Afghanistan, or even before 9/11.

 

[xen]

rtwngAvngr

"It's faulty reasoning, which, if adopted en masse, would result in a country of sitting idiotic ducks."

"Europe... have totally mistaken our character. Accustomed to rise at a feather themselves, and to be always fighting, they will see in our conduct, fairly stated, that acquiescence(passive agreement) under wrong, to a certain degree, is wisdom, and not pusillanimity(Cowardice); and that peace and happiness are preferable to that false honor which, by eternal wars, keeps their people in eternal labor, want, and wretchedness." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwngAvngr

"to a certain degree"


You're quote doesn't mean "we should pretend terrorism is fun"

 

[xen]

If all the events that happened prior to 911 had been handled in a more aggresive way, there wouldn`t have been a 911.

Lets see, if we went to iraq and afgahnistan in the 90s, how many troops would be dead by now? In my opinion, the body count would certainly be more than all the terrorists attacks put together.