Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies&

[Wilber]

eyeball just has problems when reality overruns his fantasy. Nothing short of Big Ike himself doing the 'dirty deed' is acceptable. Now if he can just photoshop him into the picture where Iranians are leading Mossadegh away he'd have some proof.

You are taking it well but I think altering another's post is a serious issue and I hope the moderators will deal with it.

[Michael Hardner]

You are taking it well but I think altering another's post is a serious issue and I hope the moderators will deal with it.

It's really just a variant of the "I fixed that for you" game isn't it ?

[BubberMiley]

Just as much as people who torture animals or children are correctly labeled as beasts.

I don't know if people who torture animals are beasts. Sarah Palin seems like a nice lady. But I agree about children---they're definitely beasts.

[BubberMiley]

I think altering another's post is an overblown issue and I hope Wilber will deal with it.

[Wilber]

So you would have no problem with me going back and altering any post of yours as I saw fit?

[Wilber]

It's really just a variant of the "I fixed that for you" game isn't it ?

Not really. I have no right to "fix" your posts. Do you think I should?

[Sir Bandelot]

Who said I was, Obama or Albright?

Yep, the U.S. was little more than Britain's biatch. Vital...but even more pathetically mundane. George Washington would puke.

Ain't that the truth?

The silence roared.

[jbg]

I don't know if people who torture animals are beasts. Sarah Palin seems like a nice lady. But I agree about children---they're definitely beasts.

The beasts are anyone who would blow themselves up to kill others.

[Sir Bandelot]

The beasts are anyone who would blow themselves up to kill others.

But not those who just kills others, without blowing themselves up.

To use humans as weapons seems to me like an act of absolute desperation. People might do that to attack a perceived enemy if they felt they have no other options. They probably wouldn't need to do that, if they could just sit in their offices and attack their enemies remotely using predator drones.

Thats not to say the act of terrorism is justified, but I think that understanding the reasons for terrorism might help toward eliminating it.

To simply write them off as beasts does nothing other than dehumanize them, and create the mindset that arises the same old methods of dealing with the problem, which only gives us short-term solutions that satisfy our need for revenge. We must look at the problem from every angle or point of view.

Every human is born with the same potential for good and evil, and what we experience in life is what ultimately shapes our choices. What is it that has made so many of these people our enemy. We certainly don't seem to attack them this way, we have much more advanced and (usually) discriminate solutions. But every time we attack, even if one innocent person is killed it is used against us as a recruiting device for more suicide bombers. Thats why the psychological war is much more important to win than the military one.

[Gabriel]

But not those who just kills others, without blowing themselves up.

To use humans as weapons seems to me like an act of absolute desperation. People might do that to attack a perceived enemy if they felt they have no other options. They probably wouldn't need to do that, if they could just sit in their offices and attack their enemies remotely using predator drones.

Thats not to say the act of terrorism is justified, but I think that understanding the reasons for terrorism might help toward eliminating it.

To simply write them off as beasts does nothing other than dehumanize them, and create the mindset that arises the same old methods of dealing with the problem, which only gives us short-term solutions that satisfy our need for revenge. We must look at the problem from every angle or point of view.

Every human is born with the same potential for good and evil, and what we experience in life is what ultimately shapes our choices. What is it that has made so many of these people our enemy. We certainly don't seem to attack them this way, we have much more advanced and (usually) discriminate solutions. But every time we attack, even if one innocent person is killed it is used against us as a recruiting device for more suicide bombers. Thats why the psychological war is much more important to win than the military one.

The comments you made about desperation being a big contributing factor to suicide bombers is a fallacy I've herd for many years. Ideological indoctrination is much more responsible for compelling young Muslims towards suicide bombing and Islamic terrorism in general. I hope I don't need to give you the long list of prominent terrorists who hardly fall under the category of being disadvantaged or desperate. Clearly perceptions need to be changed among these extremists, take for example the commonly held generalization among certain opponents of the War on Terror as being a euphemism for a conflict with Muslims. We all know the War on Terror is absolutely NOT a war against Islam, yet this perception persists among many in the Arab-Muslim world via various methods of indoctrination: whether it be from warped opinions of family and friends, occurring at the mosques, in schools being taught by leftist professors, the media, deceitful internet sources, etc. You seem to be suggesting that somehow Western foreign policy is to blame for creating some sort of desperation among these suicide bombers and terrorists that leaves them no other optional. That's straight up ridiculous, and I know it's not the last time I'll hear it.

Just for fun, feel free to investigate the backgrounds of the 9/11 hijackers. Why not start with some of the most infamous suicide bombers in history? How about Osama bin Laden and his close circle like Ayman al-Zawahiri. How about the London suicide bombers? Were they desperate and impoverished and oppressed? The Toronto 18, perhaps? Or the Madrid bombers? Let's be serious. It's ideology and the false sense of victimization, and not real desperation. This is only the top of the iceberg, as the factors contributing this indoctrination are complex and far-reaching. Spend some time and watch some translated Arab media where it's completely expected and politically correct to denigrate Israel and Jewish people. Go check out Al-Jazeera's website and look at the bias in their reporting, from describing the IDF as the IOF to having a completely warped perspective of the entire I/P conflict and the West's efforts to protect itself from the monster of Islamic terrorism. Let's be serious for once.

[eyeball]

So you think it is acceptable to alter other people's posts?

It's parody Wilber, a satirical mimicking of the disingenuously obtuse. Perhaps the mods should do something about that too. What do you think?

Edited February 2, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

It's parody Wilber, a satirical mimicking of the disingenuously obtuse. Perhaps the mods should do something about that too. What do you think?

Still, if he doesn't like it...

[DogOnPorch]

You are taking it well but I think altering another's post is a serious issue and I hope the moderators will deal with it.

Perhaps. It mainly shows that facts are getting in the way of eyeball's version of history. He very much wants it to be spooks in dark sunglasses...thus it is.

Like many of his ilk, eyeball is quick to assign 'blame' to the West re: oil, completely overlooking what Iranians wanted/did. While this coup may or may not have been able to happen without the Brits and Americans, it certainly wouldn't have happened without the Iranians.

What I do notice though is that there is none of that righteous indignation about 'diddling' re: the Ayatollah and his gang of mystic thugs stealing the Iranian Revolution away from the people.

But that's where the lines were drawn, I suppose: those that supported the likes of Khomeini...and those who didn't. Six million greeted the Ayatollah's return to Iran...arriving like some turbaned version of Lenin to a revolution in progress...he quickly put any idea of a free secular, nationalistic Iran to bed.

I shall kick their teeth in. I appoint the government. I appoint the government by support of this nation.

---Ayatollah Khomeini re: the Bakhtiar government.

[DogOnPorch]

Gabriel: You seem to be suggesting that somehow Western foreign policy is to blame for creating some sort of desperation among these suicide bombers and terrorists that leaves them no other optional. That's straight up ridiculous, and I know it's not the last time I'll hear it.

If desperation made suicide bombers, the Siege of Leningrad would have created thousands. As would have hundreds of other battles/conflicts. You need the carrot and stick to have suicide bombers. The reward of endless sex with dozens of willing women who don't mind that you smell like a goat.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps. It mainly shows that facts are getting in the way of eyeball's version of history. He very much wants it to be spooks in dark sunglasses...thus it is.

Like many of his ilk, eyeball is quick to assign 'blame' to the West re: oil, completely overlooking what Iranians wanted/did. While this coup may or may not have been able to happen without the Brits and Americans, it certainly wouldn't have happened without the Iranians.

What I do notice though is that there is none of that righteous indignation about 'diddling' re: the Ayatollah and his gang of mystic thugs stealing the Iranian Revolution away from the people.

But that's where the lines were drawn, I suppose: those that supported the likes of Khomeini...and those who didn't. Six million greeted the Ayatollah's return to Iran...arriving like some turbaned version of Lenin to a revolution in progress...he quickly put any idea of a free secular, nationalistic Iran to bed.

You really seem to be minimizing the role of The West in that debacle. The US approach to remote control of governments often misunderstood the cultures they were interfering with.

[Sir Bandelot]

What I do notice though is that there is none of that righteous indignation about 'diddling' re: the Ayatollah and his gang of mystic thugs stealing the Iranian Revolution away from the people.

But that's where the lines were drawn, I suppose: those that supported the likes of Khomeini...and those who didn't. Six million greeted the Ayatollah's return to Iran...arriving like some turbaned version of Lenin to a revolution in progress...he quickly put any idea of a free secular, nationalistic Iran to bed.

It happened as a reaction to outside interference. The right to self-determination was removed by external forces. The Ayatollah took advantage of the situation (ie backlash against the west) and in that climate of anger he succeeded in implementing his theocratic vision. The people were blinded by anger and bloodlust, so are easily convinced that he held the solution.

By the way, criticism of their harsh theocracy is all too easy, too obvious. The lack of vocal criticism in that regard does not mean supporting it.

[DogOnPorch]

You really seem to be minimizing the role of The West in that debacle. The US approach to remote control of governments often misunderstood the cultures they were interfering with.

Are you another that treat Iranians like children incapable of starting their own coup with outside support?

Keep in mind Mosaddeq was playing a dangerous game for 1953 called 'let's make friends with the Soviet Union and steal Britain's oil equipment'. A formula for trouble if there ever was one. Vast amounts of Allied money was dumped into Iran during WW2 after it nearly joined the Axis powers. The idea that this would suddenly be behind the Iron Curtain was no doubt a pebble in the shoe.

Edited February 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

It happened as a reaction to outside interference.

The Shah was outside interference, eh?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you another that treat Iranians like children incapable of starting their own coup with outside support?

Keep in mind Mosaddeq was playing a dangerous game for 1953 called 'let's make friends with the Soviet Union and steal Britain's oil equipment'. A formula for trouble if there ever was one. Vast amounts of Allied money was dumped into Iran during WW2 after it nearly joined the Axis powers. The idea that this would suddenly be behind the Iron Curtain was no doubt a pebble in the shoe.

Right, so what are you arguing ? That the US didn't interfere, or that it had to because of the cold war ?

[DogOnPorch]

Right, so what are you arguing ? That the US didn't interfere, or that it had to because of the cold war ?

"Had to" are the wrong words. "Did" is more correct. But, yes...perhaps you're too young to remember the full scope of the Cold War. Perhaps you're just being obtuse.

[Sir Bandelot]

The Shah was outside interference, eh?

Well, I don't claim to be expert on these things like you might do, but

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed by the allies as monarch. Prince Pahlavi (later crowned shah) reigned until the 1979 revolution with one brief interruption. In 1953 he fled the country after a power-struggle with his Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh is remembered in Iran for having been voted into power through a democratic election, nationalizing Iran's British-owned oil fields, and being deposed in a military coup d'état organized by an American CIA operative and aided by the British MI6. Thus foreign powers were involved in both the installation and restoration of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Shah_comes_to_power

[DogOnPorch]

Well, I don't claim to be expert on these things like you might do, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Shah_comes_to_power

That's the problem with wikipedia...the Shah 'came to power' in 1941 when his daddy threatened to join the Nazis in their war against the Allies (that's us).

Edited February 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[M.Dancer]

As uncool as changing history?

This quote changing, as well as making it very difficult to follow what is being said, is childish and shows you are on the losing side of the argument.

[DogOnPorch]

By the way, criticism of their harsh theocracy is all too easy, too obvious. The lack of vocal criticism in that regard does not mean supporting it.

Is that what y'all tell yourselves these days re: murderous religious governments. No cheering the day the Ayatollah came to power. No sir-ee.

We were against him...really we were.

[Sir Bandelot]

That's the problem with wikipedia...the Shah 'came to power' in 1941 when his daddy threatened to join the Nazis in their war against the Allies (that's us).

I heard about this long before Wikipedia even existed, story told to me by an Iranian friend. He lived there. Anecdotal, I know.

We can dispute the sources for our knowledge of history, all we want. And get nowhere. Peoples perception is all thats needed to make revolutions happen, not actual facts.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Sir Bandelot