Why Our Soldiers Fight!

[eyeball]

Uh no. Read their manifestoes and articles and speeches. The doctrines they preach

have nothing to do with being understand, or seeking mutual recognition. Try read some

of them. Sounds like you are trying to re-write what terrorists are and turn them into

logical, rational people.

Its pretty clear the cultures in this region of the world been driven to near insanity all right but why they fight is easy enough to understand.

You want to suggest Taliban or Al Quaeda or Fatah Hawks are simply a conventional army engaging in the same tactics as Canada or the U.S. please sell that to someone else.

Are you suggesting there exists a conventional reaction to decades and decades of violent military and political interference from outsiders?

What exactly were you expecting to see, something rational? That's really nuts.

[wulf42]

Well this is encouraging!!! Pakistan has stepped up their game against the Taliban, once the Pakistani's turn on them it a done deal for the Taliban.....good job Pakistan!!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/13/p...#socialcomments

[Rue]

Its pretty clear the cultures in this region of the world been driven to near insanity all right but why they fight is easy enough to understand.

Are you suggesting there exists a conventional reaction to decades and decades of violent military and political interference from outsiders?

No not at all. I am challenging your subjective assumptions that;

1-terrorism is caused by Western colonialism;

2-terrorists are insane.

To start with I would contend that many cultures, nations and civilizations including the vast majority of today's humans when faced with what they consider unfair or unjust do not resort to terror and violence and that in fact terrorists are a small minority of humans.

I would then contend that trying to paint terrorists as simply being caused fom a reaction to Western colonialism with due respect is defective and you transpose the excuse or rationalization terrorists use for their behaviour with why they engage in their behaviour/

I would contend that simply that in the specific case of terrorists in the Middle East and Muslim world including Thailand, the Philippines Bosnia, Albania, the Punjab, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Sudan, the terror cells and their actions are deeply connected to their religion and cultural values that existed long before the West came into contact with Muslims and is not caused by Westerners although is often used as a pretext for their actions.

The inter-secular wars between Muslim sects is everything to do with their culture of dhimmitude and nothing to do with the West. Sunnis and Shiites do not attack each other because of the West. Sunnis did not attack Amidyah Muslims in Pakistan because of the West. The Muslim insurgence in China is not caused by the West. The Sudanese slaughter of black Christians in its South is not caused by the West.

The same can also be said as to much of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that has been inflicted

on Hindus, Siekhs, Bahaiis, Christians, Jews, gays, women who have demanded sufferage, communists or trade unionists-the culture of dhimmitude did not come about because of the West but because of deeply held

religious views as to who is superior and who is not.

Your trying to lump all terrorism as simply being the result of the West is absurd. Nigerian Muslims fighting Nigerian Christians is not caused by the West.

I would contend that in fact it is not easy to understand why you can have two humans come out of the exact same environment and yet one becomes a criminal or terrorist and another remains peaceful and moderate.

I could contend that when you state terrorism is easy to understand you in fact are stating it is easy to accept and is the inevitable consequence of Western colonialism.

That assumotion I challenge as illogical because we know that countless humans struggle to overcome impoverished and violent environments and no they do not engage in crime and terror and they are the majority.

I would contend you find it easy to understand why terrorists are terrorists because you may be engaging in the fallacy that when a human is faced with obstacles, its natural for us to simply become angry and kill.

I would argue the exact opposite and that a human is not designed to kill and in fact has to learn to killl. It is unusual a human can kill without learning to repress natural primal instincts.

Any soldier can tell you that. They train over and over to be able to resist that primal hesitation that prevents them from killing. A soldier will tell you it is hard if not impossible to shoot a man whose eyes you can see. It is far easier to kill something you can not see.

I would contend that:

1-Terrorists do not start off as terrorists and that it in fact takes years of indoctrination and learning to repress natural feelings that must first take place over an extended period of time, before someone can become a terrorist;

2-that many terrorists do not come from conflict zones or harships but in fact privileged environments like Osama Ben Laden;

3-that pursuant to 2, terrorism is often about an individual who wishes to have, enforce and safeguard their privileged status and so feels this privileged status should not be questioned.

I would contend the psyche of a terrorist is volatile and not easy to understand because the psyche of a violent person is illogical and therefore not necessarily predictable and no terrorists are not insane they are quite sane.

I would strongly suggest that insanity refers to the state of a human when they have a psychotic break with reality. Terrorists I would then suggest are in fact well grounded in reality-in fact too grounded and this then causes them to fixate on their present set of circumstances-so much so they they become myopic and can see no past or future-they have but one vision but immediate here and now.

An insane person could not engage in protracted strategies and organization.

Its tempting to state Stalin was insane or Hitler was insane or Sadam Hussein was insane. No in fact they were quite sane although clearly they were socio-pathic and psycho-pathic due to personality disorders. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions would be.

The closest political figure today I would describe as insane is Mummar Ghaddafi. He goes in and out of catatonic trances or prolonged states where he loses contact with the people around him and just sits and mumbles. During those episodes where he has a psychotic break, perhaps it could be argued that at those times he is insane.

The leaders of Hamas, fatah Hawks, Hezbollah, are not insane nor are they or the members of their terror cells insane or victims of Western imperialism. They are in fact sane, violent men who carefully think out what they do and are born into privileged class systems based on their religious beliefs which they then seek to enforce. The Western rhetoric is simply a pretext to engage in class warfare against their own people and maintain their priority in the pecking order of Muslim society.

I would contend the corupt political regimes of the Arab League nations have no one but themselves and their dhimmitude and sharia legal system to blame.

I would argue it is the embrace of fundamentalism that creates terror behaviour and that terror is the necessary offspring of fundamentalist thought.

I would argue that unless you can find a way to develop moderate cognitive processes, flexability in thought patterns and challenge people to be able to be critical and see more than one perspective and form collective shared cultural values of inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness which is what Muslim fundamentalists-then terrorism will arise because the lack of creativity and tolerance promotes rigid, inflexible and entrenched positions which when challenged therefore necessarily responds with violence since it has not learned to debate or reason.

I would contend you confuse the primal pack behaviour of humans that results in violence including terrorism as something thatis purely the result of colonialism but has tramspired even before we learned to walk on two legs and put on clothes.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Rue

[eyeball]

No not at all. I am challenging your subjective assumptions that;

1-terrorism is caused by Western colonialism;

Don't forget the USSR was recently interfering in the region's affairs too.

2-terrorists are insane.

What I said was that the cultures in this region of the world (have) been driven to near insanity. I suppose it would have been more correct to say they have become very to extremely dysfunctional, largely, I think, because of colonialism, in the general sense, not specifically western.

To start with I would contend that many cultures, nations and civilizations including the vast majority of today's humans when faced with what they consider unfair or unjust do not resort to terror and violence and that in fact terrorists are a small minority of humans.

I agree. It does seem clear however that most people can only be pushed so far before something breaks.

I would then contend that trying to paint terrorists as simply being caused fom a reaction to Western colonialism with due respect is defective and you transpose the excuse or rationalization terrorists use for their behaviour with why they engage in their behaviour/

It would be wrong to say all terrorism stems from this but in the context of 9/11 and official accounts of what constitutes blowback...as they say, connect the dots. I'm not the only one who's "painting" things.

I would contend that simply that in the specific case of terrorists in the Middle East and Muslim world including Thailand, the Philippines Bosnia, Albania, the Punjab, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Sudan, the terror cells and their actions are deeply connected to their religion and cultural values that existed long before the West came into contact with Muslims and is not caused by Westerners although is often used as a pretext for their actions.

Westerners should know better by now than to interfere in volatile regions.

The inter-secular wars between Muslim sects is everything to do with their culture of dhimmitude and nothing to do with the West. Sunnis and Shiites do not attack each other because of the West. Sunnis did not attack Amidyah Muslims in Pakistan because of the West. The Muslim insurgence in China is not caused by the West. The Sudanese slaughter of black Christians in its South is not caused by the West.

The same can also be said as to much of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that has been inflicted

on Hindus, Siekhs, Bahaiis, Christians, Jews, gays, women who have demanded sufferage, communists or trade unionists-the culture of dhimmitude did not come about because of the West but because of deeply held

religious views as to who is superior and who is not..

This may well be true but its pretty clear that interfering powers often do pick sides which of course only exacerbates the situation, especially in cases where an interfering power that holds up its ideals of liberty on the one hand props up a dictator with the other. The Muslim insurgence in China by the way really underscores the fact that colonialism and the reaction to it is a universal expectation. Many people and cultures will only put up with so much before they snap.

Your trying to lump all terrorism as simply being the result of the West is absurd.

As I've pointed out interference is interference - In case you haven't noticed I'm lumping the West in with the likes of China and the old USSR. I suspect many of the people that serial-rogues abuse feel the same way.

I would contend that in fact it is not easy to understand why you can have two humans come out of the exact same environment and yet one becomes a criminal or terrorist and another remains peaceful and moderate.

I suppose if you're limiting your attempt to understand by using a sample of two, but it seems inevitable to me that in a sample of millions that you're bound to find more than a few that are unwilling to remain peaceful and moderate.

I could contend that when you state terrorism is easy to understand you in fact are stating it is easy to accept and is the inevitable consequence of Western colonialism.

Its not acceptable to me, but neither is the practice of interfering in other's affairs. I'm beginning to suspect you do approve of interferance especially of the western variety.

That assumotion I challenge as illogical because we know that countless humans struggle to overcome impoverished and violent environments and no they do not engage in crime and terror and they are the majority.

I would contend you find it easy to understand why terrorists are terrorists because you may be engaging in the fallacy that when a human is faced with obstacles, its natural for us to simply become angry and kill.

I would argue the exact opposite and that a human is not designed to kill and in fact has to learn to killl. It is unusual a human can kill without learning to repress natural primal instincts.

You seem to be saying that living under a state of interference or colonialism/imperialism is a normal state for which no reaction is just or due - perhaps you believe these people are better off. I think you are living in a dream world if you do. I think it takes a lot less to unlock the urge to strike back against something you've learned to fear or despise than you're allowing for.

Any soldier can tell you that. They train over and over to be able to resist that primal hesitation that prevents them from killing. A soldier will tell you it is hard if not impossible to shoot a man whose eyes you can see. It is far easier to kill something you can not see.

Perhaps, but how do we account for stories from the front lines about soldiers referring to the enemy as scumbags and such? It seems to me that makes it easier to kill them. But given the high incidence of stress disorders and mental disease that soldiers bring home from the battlefield I'd have to agree that killing another human is not something that most people do lightly.

I would contend that:

1-Terrorists do not start off as terrorists and that it in fact takes years of indoctrination and learning to repress natural feelings that must first take place over an extended period of time, before someone can become a terrorist;.

I would contend the same for someone in a normal country and situation. What about people that exist for years in countries or regions that are rendered dysfunctional to the point of near insanity though? What better environment is there for learning how to hate someone?

2-that many terrorists do not come from conflict zones or harships but in fact privileged environments like Osama Ben Laden;

I would argue that people like Bin Laden may be simply exploiting the situation like it was a galvanizing event or something.

3-that pursuant to 2, terrorism is often about an individual who wishes to have, enforce and safeguard their privileged status and so feels this privileged status should not be questioned

I'd say this is far more true about colonialism.

I would contend the psyche of a terrorist is volatile and not easy to understand because the psyche of a violent person is illogical and therefore not necessarily predictable and no terrorists are not insane they are quite sane.

I would strongly suggest that insanity refers to the state of a human when they have a psychotic break with reality. Terrorists I would then suggest are in fact well grounded in reality-in fact too grounded and this then causes them to fixate on their present set of circumstances-so much so they they become myopic and can see no past or future-they have but one vision but immediate here and now.

Likewise for any colonizing power that feels it is justified in interfering in the affairs of others.

An insane person could not engage in protracted strategies and organization.

A state government could do this with ease. It happens all the time.

Its tempting to state Stalin was insane or Hitler was insane or Sadam Hussein was insane. No in fact they were quite sane although clearly they were socio-pathic and psycho-pathic due to personality disorders. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions would be.

You can say this about nations, especially the one's who should know better, who spent trillions and lost millions of lives fighting these things.

The closest political figure today I would describe as insane is Mummar Ghaddafi. He goes in and out of catatonic trances or prolonged states where he loses contact with the people around him and just sits and mumbles. During those episodes where he has a psychotic break, perhaps it could be argued that at those times he is insane.

The leaders of Hamas, fatah Hawks, Hezbollah, are not insane nor are they or the members of their terror cells insane or victims of Western imperialism. They are in fact sane, violent men who carefully think out what they do and are born into privileged class systems based on their religious beliefs which they then seek to enforce. The Western rhetoric is simply a pretext to engage in class warfare against their own people and maintain their priority in the pecking order of Muslim society.

I would contend the corupt political regimes of the Arab League nations have no one but themselves and their dhimmitude and sharia legal system to blame.

I would argue it is the embrace of fundamentalism that creates terror behaviour and that terror is the necessary offspring of fundamentalist thought.

I'ld say the same is also true of corrupt leaders and governments everywhere.

I would argue that unless you can find a way to develop moderate cognitive processes, flexability in thought patterns and challenge people to be able to be critical and see more than one perspective and form collective shared cultural values of inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness which is what Muslim fundamentalists-then terrorism will arise because the lack of creativity and tolerance promotes rigid, inflexible and entrenched positions which when challenged therefore necessarily responds with violence since it has not learned to debate or reason.

I would contend you confuse the primal pack behaviour of humans that results in violence including terrorism as something thatis purely the result of colonialism but has tramspired even before we learned to walk on two legs and put on clothes.

I'd say its a result of the abuse of power by greedy self-interested leaders. I'm quite certain our distant knuckle-dragging ancestors would have been put off by that as much as anyone who is subjected to it.

The best way to develop moderate cognitive processes, flexability in thought patterns and challenge people to be able to be critical and see more than one perspective and form collective shared cultural values of inclusiveness is to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Its really simple.

[Oleg Bach]

Our soldiers fight because they are stupid. Why in the name of hell would a man lay down his life for some power crazed pig that instructs prime ministers..to wage war so some creepy old lawyer banker type can watch remotely as he exterminates "toxic waste" ....our soldiers die needlessly. If the powers that be could carry out mass thrill murders any place they could - They would be hunting blacks for sport at Jane and Finch - or gasing wefare offices ....To the super rich and powerful - to wage ware makes their blood flow hot..."it does not matter who dies as long as someone dies' _ that's about it - that's what I see - It's not about fighting for a cause or purpose - It's about murder for sport..and the bastards that control this mayhem...are sportsmen of the highest degree - Afghanistan is the biggest game in town - There is no valid reason that our young men die on that rock pile - If we never went or did go - IT DOES NOT MAKE A DAMNED BIT OF DIFFERENCE.

[wulf42]

Its pretty clear the cultures in this region of the world been driven to near insanity all right but why they fight is easy enough to understand.

And it s even easier to understand why we must kill them!!

[tango]

And it s even easier to understand why we must kill them!!

[wulf42]

Our soldiers fight because they are stupid. Why in the name of hell would a man lay down his life for some power crazed pig that instructs prime ministers..to wage war so some creepy old lawyer banker type can watch remotely as he exterminates "toxic waste" ....our soldiers die needlessly. If the powers that be could carry out mass thrill murders any place they could - They would be hunting blacks for sport at Jane and Finch - or gasing wefare offices ....To the super rich and powerful - to wage ware makes their blood flow hot..."it does not matter who dies as long as someone dies' _ that's about it - that's what I see - It's not about fighting for a cause or purpose - It's about murder for sport..and the bastards that control this mayhem...are sportsmen of the highest degree - Afghanistan is the biggest game in town - There is no valid reason that our young men die on that rock pile - If we never went or did go - IT DOES NOT MAKE A DAMNED BIT OF DIFFERENCE.

I would love for you to come down to the Navy Dockyard here and tell some Sailor's or Soldiers they are stupid!!

what the hell is wrong with you and the rest of this Idiotic country??........they fight to protect us from this scummy vermin trying to force their useless and oppressive religion on the world.........! You are more safe from terrorist attack because of these Guys/Gals over there killing those Koran reading monkeys so you can go on being safe and continue living free............and you have the gull to call our men and women in uniform stupid after the hell they are going through and losses they have taken??????.......it's a god damn war!! of course soldiers are going to die... it's generally goes along with combat....but needlessly???? Hardly

you have insulted every man and woman in our Military and you are not part of what my Canada is about!!.. :angry:

[tango]

.......they fight to protect us from this scummy vermin ...

Really? When is the last time a soldier fought to protect us from Harper?

psssst ... the "scummy vermin"? That's something they made up to reel in suckers like you.

[wulf42]

Really? When is the last time a soldier fought to protect us from Harper?

psssst ... the "scummy vermin"? That's something they made up to reel in suckers like you.

Supporting our soldiers and the mission hardly makes me a sucker instead more of a patriot.............it s better than being a terrorist's supporter!....you idiot's have no idea why we are at war with the Taliban or Al Qaeda...........silly passive Canadian...!..fortunately there are those (CAF) who see the danger and are rising up to meet it...........our real hero's the men and women in uniform (even though they have to endure cowardly passive Canadians back at home) do their jobs proudly and confidently and have the full support of many PATRIOTIC Canadians!

Edited August 15, 2009 by wulf42

[GostHacked]

Supporting our soldiers and the mission hardly makes me a sucker instead more of a patriot.............it s better than being a terrorist's supporter!....you idiot's have no idea why we are at war with the Taliban or Al Qaeda...........silly passive Canadian...!..fortunately there are those (CAF) who see the danger and are rising up to meet it...........our real hero's the men and women in uniform (even though they have to endure cowardly passive Canadians back at home) do their jobs proudly and confidently and have the full support of many PATRIOTIC Canadians!

Were you a speach writer for Bush by chance?

[wulf42]

Were you a speach writer for Bush by chance?

Obviously you weren't...."Speach"???.............

[eyeball]

And it s even easier to understand why we must kill them!!

I guess its easier to attack these cultures and regions for reacting to outside interference than trying to explain why they were interfered with in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess its easier to attack these cultures and regions for reacting to outside interference than trying to explain why they were interfered with in the first place.

Correct, because then you would have to explain why/how Canada came to exist.

[DogOnPorch]

Correct, because then you would have to explain why/how Canada came to exist.

Can't overlook the effect the Jamestown massacre had on the Colonists' collective mindset re: the Native Indians. Many an attitude changed...

On the day prior to the attack, the Indians came bringing gifts of meats and fruits and shared them with the settlers, thereby disguising their intentions. The following morning they circulated freely and socialized with the settlers before suddenly seizing their own work tools to attack them (See Robert Beverley's Description of the 1622 Attack). The Indians killed families in the plantation houses and them moved on to kill servants and workers in the fields. The Powhatans killed 347 settlers in all - men, women, and children. Not even George Thorpe, a prominent colonist well known for his friendly stance towards the Indians, was spared. The Powhatans harsh treatment of the bodies of their victims was symbolic of their contempt for their opponents. The Indians also burned most of the outlying plantations, destroying the livestock and crops.

Virtual Jamestown: The Powhatan Indian Attack of March 22, 1622

[bush_cheney2004]

Can't overlook the effect the Jamestown massacre had on the Colonists' collective mindset re: the Native Indians. Many an attitude changed...

Inevitable at any rate, regardless of Jamestown. Natives had warriors long before the gringos showed up.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes they did. But it was much publicized back in 'Jolly Olde...' The Noble Savage became less so to many who might have been indifferent. Now they were mere savages to be dealt with soundly.

[eyeball]

Can't overlook the effect the Jamestown massacre had on the Colonists' collective mindset re: the Native Indians. Many an attitude changed...

You didn't overlook this did you?

Not only had the Indians not agreed to cultural suicide, but as George Thorpe, a supporter of the new policy of integration, observed, most of the English settlers still harbored their contempt for Indians. "There is scarce any man among us," he reported," that doth soe much as afforde them a good thought in his hart and most men with their mouthes give them nothinge but maledictions and bitter execrations."

I suppose BC is implying that a near infinte regression of similar events would make a review of history and reconciliation of consequrences too difficult to undertake. If this is the case how do we reconcile this pessimistic attitude with the settlement of a very ancient land claim that resulted with the creation of Israel?

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose BC is implying that a near infinte regression of similar events would make a review of history and reconciliation of consequrences too difficult to undertake. If this is the case how do we reconcile this pessimistic attitude with the settlement of a very ancient land claim that resulted with the creation of Israel?

Just as we always have....with deadly force.

[wulf42]

I guess its easier to attack these cultures and regions for reacting to outside interference than trying to explain why they were interfered with in the first place.

Does it really matter at this point? ....................that is the same arguement that some have made for Hitler's rise to power, the "treaty of versailles" humilated and starved out the Germans after WW1 and left Germans out of work and so when Hitler came along the Germans were angry about what they saw as an injustice done to them by Western power's.........does that change the fact they slaughtered millions and started a world war or change the fact the Allies had to go to war with them to stop a crazed Mad man??? or make it a rightful cause ???...........so why should the world care about thugs who kill their own people and anyone who is so called a non believer or Infidel or because they think there were injustice's done against them by the west??...these animals want to destroy western culture and our way of life!! they don't give a crap about the past they simply want to force their filthy religion on the rest of us..which means we will have to kill them to stop them! simple as that, there is more to this than just the Middle East...were you not paying attention on 9/11?? the enemy wants to bring their dirty little religion here and try to impose it on us in our own country! It is the duty of our Armed Forces to protect us from attack and that is exactly what they are doing!! Killing the enemy there so they can t attack us here!!

Edited August 15, 2009 by wulf42

[DogOnPorch]

You didn't overlook this did you?

Jamestown wasn't the first encounter between Native Indians and English colonists. Nor would it be the last. As well, the same fellows who attacked at Jamestown had been busy killing-off the last of the Chesapeakes in the Maryland/Delaware region. So spare me your bleeding heart/natives dancing in a big happy circle B.S. The Powhatan did however set the stage for Manifest Destiny as it was quite clear to the colonists that one of them had to go...and it t'wasn't a-gonna be the Brits/Proto-Yanks.

[eyeball]

Does it really matter at this point?

It'll always matter enough to someone, sooner or later. This business of geo-political/military interferance in weaker nations and people by more powerful countries or cultures is really little different than sexual abuse. Its just as immoral and the effects rarely ever just fade away to the point where they don't matter. That's not to say these can't be reconciled with, it just has to matter first is all.

[DogOnPorch]

It'll always matter enough to someone, sooner or later. This business of geo-political/military interferance in weaker nations and people by more powerful countries or cultures is really little different than sexual abuse. Its just as immoral and the effects rarely ever just fade away to the point where they don't matter. That's not to say these can't be reconciled with, it just has to matter first is all.

It's human nature...war. Without the thin coating we call civilization, society breaks down...the worst take to violence while the weak die or become subjugated.