SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (78115)7/16/2006 1:49:44 AM
From: CogitoRead Replies (2) of 81568
 
>>Kamikazes were fanatics too, following a divinely inspired ideology (so they thought) to call up miracles to destroy the stronger enemy. No so different from the current crop blowing themselves up for Allah in a way.

...

So what is left but to fight? This idea that the only dynamic that happens in war is that everybody rushes to become a terrorist is silly.

Sure, it is one dynamic of a conflict; things become polarized, people get off the fence, or join to see revenge for lost family members; but it is hardly the ONLY dynamic. <<

Nadine -

Yes, Kamikazes were fanatical and willing to die for a cause. That is where the similarity between them and current Islamic terrorist both begins and ends.

The Kamikazes were a small part of a large, conventional military force. There was a declared war between nations. Because it was a war between nations, we knew exactly where our enemy was.

None of those things are true of the current Arab/Islamic terrorists, and obviously they make a huge difference.

And did anybody SAY it was the ONLY dynamic? No. Did anybody say that everybody rushes to become a terrorist in war? No. Did anybody say that it's never a good idea to fight a war under any circumstances? No. Your position seems to be that it's all or nothing, or that military force is the only option. Just like George Bush when arguing for the Iraq invasion. He kept framing the argument as if the only two choices were complete inaction or all-out war.

What I actually said was that trying to defeat terrorism by means of conventional military force is counterproductive, because more terrorists are created than are destroyed. This is due, in part, to the inevitable deaths of innocents (collateral damage), which helps terrorists convince potential recruits that their enemy is evil, and also in part to the fact that each military attack becomes another excuse for retaliation.

I also didn't say don't fight terrorism in any way. I didn't say "turn the other cheek".

You consider my argument well-worn and cliched. I think that it's an opinion that is widely held, because it's so demonstrably true, and thus it gets repeated a lot. It's a cliche in the same way that "what goes up must come down" is a cliche. (Gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.)

Not that it helps, any, since people like you never believe it, no matter how much evidence accumulates in the form of continued carnage.

When the Israelis "win", I'll give up the argument. With no end to this conflict in sight, you'll have a tough time convincing me I'm wrong.

- Allen
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext