Peace is not the answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
WILLIAM SHAWCROSS: Peace is not the answer:

IT SEEMS UNLIKELY that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened on Thursday — at least not with an open mind or sympathy — to George Bush’s cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.

You did not see in those demonstrations, after all, many banners reading, “Support Iraq’s New Constitution,” “No to Jihad” or “Stop Suicide Bombers.” The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and their followers. Rage against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and ordinary national fascists is not fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry. . . .

The sacrifice of U.S. soldiers, of their coalition allies and of Iraqis is horrifically painful. But if we can stay long enough to enable the Iraqis to lay the firm foundation of civil society, their deaths will not be in vain. We should leave when the elected Iraqi government asks us to do so. It is the promise of freedom that the fascists who murdered the Iraqi teachers last month want to destroy. It is astonishing and discouraging that those who think they were taking the high ground in marching though Washington do not understand this.

instapundit.com/archives/026090.php
original article:

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-shawcross9oct09,0,2522992.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
 
Oh dear, I always thought Jesus used the expression:

"Peace be with you"
Sorry to see how wrong I seem to have been. Must be another heavenly revelation to GB.
 
40.png
walstan:
Oh dear, I always thought Jesus used the expression:

"Peace be with you"
Sorry to see how wrong I seem to have been. Must be another heavenly revelation to GB.
Click to expand...
And let someone rape and murder your neighbors? Let us know how it works out for you.
 
Walston, your post indicates that you responded to the headline, not to the article. Did you read it? The opinion is that of the columnist, not Bush. The headline is also misleading. I know you’re against the anti-insurgency operations in Iraq, but, really, must you twist things around so?
 
As long as this self proclaimed “war president” is in office, Peace wont be the answer. 😦
 
40.png
geezerbob:
Walston, your post indicates that you responded to the headline, not to the article. Did you read it? The opinion is that of the columnist, not Bush. The headline is also misleading. I know you’re against the anti-insurgency operations in Iraq, but, really, must you twist things around so?
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Lets try and clear up a few misunderstandings:


  1. *]I am not against the anti insurgency activities in Iraq, I just point out that the NEED for such action is because we are THERE. If we wern’t THERE, there would be no insurgency.
    *]I am not against a “War on Terrorism”, I am against a MILITARY war on terrorism. The ONLY way to beat terrorism is to undermine their support in the community in which they operate, you cannot do that by appearing to wage war on the self same community and expect them to back you! Notice I said “APPEARING”, it is perceptions that count, not the reality or intent.
    *]I condemn terrorist actions as much as I condemn the ill thought out actions of the “Civilised” world. I always taught my children that two wrongs do not make a right, it is a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by many.

    America and the West had a perfect opportunity to display an adult and world power solution to 9/11, chase Bin Laden into the ground by all means but, at the same time look closely at the greivances of the Arab world (and others), clean up it’s own act in it’s dealings with others and demonstrate an IMPARTIAL, non partisan approach to others problems. What did we do? we lashed out, invaded Iraq, threatened Iran, called other countries “The Axis of Evil” and generally behaved like a progesterone driven teenager puting his emotion in front of his brain. And then we complain when others critizise! What a suprise!!!
    smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_2.gif
 
40.png
walstan:
I am not against the anti insurgency activities in Iraq, I just point out that the NEED for such action is because we are THERE. If we wern’t THERE, there would be no insurgency.
Click to expand...
There’re 2 interpretations of “we weren’t there”:
  1. We had pulled out now. Do you think terrorism/insurgency will stop if we pull out now? They will still terrorize Iraqi people.
  2. We hadn’t toppled saddam. in this sence you’re right. there’s no insurgency as there’s no need for insurgency. everythin they want to achieve through insurgency can be achieved openly. do you think it’s better? In other words you would rather live under Saddam’s rule?
40.png
walstan:
I am not against a “War on Terrorism”, I am against a MILITARY war on terrorism. The ONLY way to beat terrorism is to undermine their support in the community in which they operate, you cannot do that by appearing to wage war on the self same community and expect them to back you! Notice I said “APPEARING”, it is perceptions that count, not the reality or intent.
Click to expand...
  1. Do you think terrorism can be stopped through non-violent means?
  2. Iraqi and Afghanistan people don’t support terrorism.
  3. What do you think of Putin’s words “Russia doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, it destroys them”?
40.png
walstan:
I condemn terrorist actions as much as I condemn the ill thought out actions of the “Civilised” world. I always taught my children that two wrongs do not make a right, it is a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by many.
America and the West had a perfect opportunity to display an adult and world power solution to 9/11, chase Bin Laden into the ground by all means but, at the same time look closely at the greivances of the Arab world (and others), clean up it’s own act in it’s dealings with others and demonstrate an IMPARTIAL, non partisan approach to others problems. What did we do? we lashed out, invaded Iraq, threatened Iran, called other countries “The Axis of Evil” and generally behaved like a progesterone driven teenager puting his emotion in front of his brain. And then we complain when others critizise! What a suprise!!!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_2.gif
Click to expand...
Again Putin’s words “We’ll follow terrorists everywhere. Should we catch them in an outhouse, we’ll kill them in an outhouse”
 
40.png
abcdefg:
  1. What do you think of Putin’s words “Russia doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, it destroys them”?
Again Putin’s words “We’ll follow terrorists everywhere. Should we catch them in an outhouse, we’ll kill them in an outhouse”
Click to expand...
Interesting choice, Putin or Jesus? hmmm… let me think…smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_11.gif
 
I’m calling to mind a passage recently read: Leviticus, Chapter 19

“You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the LORD.
17
You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him.”

Regarding the first part; should we stand by idly while a dictator kills his people? While radicals do the same?

Regarding the second part; I can think of two possible applications right now. One; hatred for the terrorists and the dictator, and political opposition. Two; slightly overzealous exchanges in this thread.
 
40.png
soccerDad:
I’m calling to mind a passage recently read: Leviticus, Chapter 19

“You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the LORD.
17
You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him.”

Regarding the first part; should we stand by idly while a dictator kills his people? While radicals do the same?

Regarding the second part; I can think of two possible applications right now. One; hatred for the terrorists and the dictator, and political opposition. Two; slightly overzealous exchanges in this thread.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Answer the question. don’t moving around and I’m not saying Putin is infallible. You can be sure I’ll chase you down on above questions if you’re still in this thread and still refuse to answer
Click to expand...
I’ve answered the point and it’s very simple.

To defeat terrorism you remove the cause of terrorism!

Ask yourself some very basic questions:

Q. How do terrorist survive in ANY community?
A. Only with the support of the population in which they live.

Q. How do you remove the support terrorist have in their community?
A. By ensuring the community is treated fairly and is SEEN to be treated fairly.

Q. How do you beat terrorism?
A. Look at the first two answers above.

If you don’t believe this works try looking at Northern Ireland. It wasn’t military power that put the nail in the coffin of extremism of the North, it was the people of the North who said enough is enough.

As I have said on many occasions, HEARTS and MINDS, HEARTS and MINDS!
 
40.png
walstan:
Interesting choice, Putin or Jesus? hmmm… let me think…smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_11.gif
Click to expand...
Forum guideline:
Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
Click to expand...
You have been asking rhetorical questions of late but not for the purposes of introducing new aspects of inquiry.

Forum guideline:
On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn’t dump a shakerful on your food, don’t dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
Click to expand...
The emoticon which you have chosen does not mitigate your sarcasm. I fail to see the positive note – devoid of sarcasm – on which you have ended your post. I fail to see that you have been using sarcasm sparingly; in fact, it appears to be the main course on your menu of late.
 
Rhetorical question of sarcastic bent: Who appointed Ani Ibi forum guideline enforcer?

But, more to the point: How do we defeat terrorists? By arresting or killing them. Years of appeasement, understanding, and hand-wringing about root causes resulted in 9/11.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Rhetorical question of sarcastic bent: Who appointed Ani Ibi forum guideline enforcer?
Click to expand...
This particular rhetorical question is really aggressive and rude. We have guidelines. We can refer to those guidelines.
40.png
mlchance:
But, more to the point: How do we defeat terrorists? By arresting or killing them. Years of appeasement, understanding, and hand-wringing about root causes resulted in 9/11.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Ani Ibi:
This particular rhetorical question is really aggressive and rude. We have guidelines. We can refer to those guidelines.
Click to expand...
Yes, we can, which is precisely why your patronizing crusade as a pseudo-moderator has long since passed the threshold of unnecessary and downright silly.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
walstan:
Here we go again. Lets try and clear up a few misunderstandings:


  1. *]I am not against the anti insurgency activities in Iraq, I just point out that the NEED for such action is because we are THERE. If we wern’t THERE, there would be no insurgency.
Click to expand...

  1. So your theory is those nice guys wouldn’t be terrorists if we didn’t force them to be? That they’d all be reciting poetry in coffee shops if not for the evil United States?
    40.png
    walstan:
    I am not against a “War on Terrorism”, I am against a MILITARY war on terrorism. The ONLY way to beat terrorism is to undermine their support in the community in which they operate, you cannot do that by appearing to wage war on the self same community and expect them to back you! Notice I said “APPEARING”, it is perceptions that count, not the reality or intent.
    Click to expand...
    And how do you propose to undermine their support when they kill the people who do the undermining?
    40.png
    walstan:
    I condemn terrorist actions as much as I condemn the ill thought out actions of the “Civilised” world. I always taught my children that two wrongs do not make a right, it is a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by many.
    Click to expand...
    I haven’t seen you condemn them
    40.png
    walstan:
    America and the West had a perfect opportunity to display an adult and world power solution to 9/11, chase Bin Laden into the ground by all means
    Click to expand...
    Would we use our nasty old military to do that – or send the Ladies Aid Society?
 
40.png
walstan:
I’ve answered the point and it’s very simple.

To defeat terrorism you remove the cause of terrorism!

Ask yourself some very basic questions:

Q. How do terrorist survive in ANY community?
A. Only with the support of the population in which they live.
​
Click to expand...

:rotfl: Tell that to the folks who used to live under Saddam, the Taliban and those who’ve had their children killed by the Chechen terrorists. What a non-sequitur:)

The real answer to that question is by infiltrating the community and hiding the real agenda (death and destruction of the infidel) you hope to promote thru your cowardly actions.
Q. How do you remove the support terrorist have in their community?
A. By ensuring the community is treated fairly and is SEEN to be treated fairly.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…so Saddam’s fair treatment of everyone who disagreed with him politically prevented terrorism from flourishing there before we removed him from power. I must’ve missed that one–opps, forgot his 25k checks to the families of suicide bombers, my bad:)

The real answer is by killing the terrorists and exposing their actions and intentions to the population they are trying to subvert/infiltrate.
Q. How do you beat terrorism?
A. Look at the first two answers above.
Click to expand...
Not even close. You beat terrorism by killing all the terrorists and exposing their true plans and designs.

Anyone recall the Principle of Double Effect? Just curious:)​
 
You know, I worked with the American military in Vietnam, (Training them actually) and we (that’s the other Brits and I) used to watch the Gung Ho attitude of many of them (not all I hasten to add, some were bloody good) that said how they were “going to kick as". Guess whose "as” got kicked and, you still haven’t learnt.

Haven’t you figured out yet, For every Vietcong you killed you dragged in another ten, for every terrorist you kill you drag in another ten.

Oh and stickman, try looking up your definitions, Saddam was not a terrorist, he was the leader (Good or bad makes no difference) of his country, The Taliban were not the terrorists (Bin Laden was), they were also, as Saddam, the leaders of their country, and the Chechens? They are supported by the majority of the Chechen people, whether you agree with them or not is immaterial, their fight is against Russia. So my argument stands, remove the support of the community and you defeat terrorism.
 
40.png
walstan:
You know, I worked with the American military in Vietnam, (Training them actually) and we (that’s the other Brits and I) used to watch the Gung Ho attitude of many of them (not all I hasten to add, some were bloody good) that said how they were “going to kick as". Guess whose "as” got kicked and, you still haven’t learnt.
Click to expand...
When was this? For whom did you work? Where?
40.png
walstan:
Haven’t you figured out yet, For every Vietcong you killed you dragged in another ten, for every terrorist you kill you drag in another ten.
Click to expand...
In fact, the Viet Cong were virtually wiped out in Tet of '68. Afterwards every “Viet Cong” my company killed or captured was actually a North Viet Namese Regular – and carried a Geneva Convention Card to prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top