How do you win a "War On Terror"?

How does PD's link not provide evidence for this. Did you actually read the article?

Quote:

I concede that this war is certainly creating some enemies, but I do not believe we are upside-down in that category.

OF course this "war" is creating enemies. Very few people are thankful for having their homes destroyed, their children killed, etc.....

I think it was a resounding success for al-Queda, because it prompted the US to do exactly what bin-Laden wished for: create and maintain an air of fear and distrust.

Quote:

The World Trade Center was not a legitimate military target.

Sure it was. It was a centre of international finance.

Quote:

The victims of that attack were made up many races, many cultures and were certainly not organized there to plan attacks on anyone.

So?

Or, they were legitimate targets engaged in economic warfare against those whom bin-Laden claims to represent.

Quote:

This, my friends, is a terrorist act.

Or a legitimate military strike.

Quote:

Since the target itself is of strategic military importance, I would not consider this to be a terrorist act, but rather a brilliantly executed military strategy. Do you see the difference?

And I have pointed out how both can be considered legitimate targets.

Quote:

Now if the United States is your sworn enemy for legitimate reasons, you are well within your rights to defend yourself and attack legitimate targets.

Which is why the insurgencies in Iraq and afghanistan are legitimate wars against a hostile oppressor.

Quote:

However; if you believe every member of the United State's civilian population is a legitimate target, than you are a terrorist, who needs to be destroyed.

Poorly developed arguement. See above.

As many others have found out before you, one cannot control the form of debate. One either plays, or leaves. As for argueing for the sake of arguing, there are those here who relish this activity. Interestingly enough, they all seem to be on your political side. Please remember that disagreement is not an insult. If you wish to avoid disagreement, I'm sure that there are far right, "war is fun" forums out there.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:

I'll happily debate the merit of my arguments, but only with those who recognize my right to believe the way I do.

I don't know that anyone here has denied you this right. I disagree with you, but you are welcome to hold any opinions you feel like having.

Quote:

If you choose to quote me, please address the paragraphs, not the sentences. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of argument.

As many others have found out before you, one cannot control the form of debate. One either plays, or leaves. As for argueing for the sake of arguing, there are those here who relish this activity. Interestingly enough, they all seem to be on your political side. Please remember that disagreement is not an insult. If you wish to avoid disagreement, I'm sure that there are far right, "war is fun" forums out there.

Hobitbob, it takes a special type of person who can get people of the same political pursuasion to argue with them.

Despite not agreeing with the war I find myself disagreeing with your arguments even more.

How does PD's link not provide evidence for this. Did you actually read the article?

Because the notion that we have made more enemies (which I agree with) is subjective and not verifiable without impractical polling.

Your question is akin to saying that after someone reads an article they should agree with you about what the best movie of all time is.

I concede that this war is certainly creating some enemies, but I do not believe we are upside-down in that category.OF course this "war" is creating enemies. Very few people are thankful for having their homes destroyed, their children killed, etc.....

Without a doubt. But the flip side is that it's also creating friends. I think the enemies far outweigh the friends but this is not quantifiable.

I think it was a resounding success for al-Queda, because it prompted the US to do exactly what bin-Laden wished for: create and maintain an air of fear and distrust. ase cite a source for how you know "exactly what bin-Laden wished for".

The World Trade Center was not a legitimate military target.
Sure it was. It was a centre of international finance.

That's a very odd and sad opinion you have. To justify a civilian building as a legitimate military target is stretching the boundaries of decency.

Don't get too carried away, when you find your zeal is causing you to justify the murder of civilians you should take a moment to reflect on the similarities you have with said murderers.

Quote:

The victims of that attack were made up many races, many cultures and were certainly not organized there to plan attacks on anyone.

So?

So your characterization of the WTC as a legitimate military target is morally bankrupt. It was filled with people from all walks of life and from many nations just doing their jobs.

To justify their murder as a legitimate "military" strike is absurd.

Or, they were legitimate targets engaged in economic warfare against those whom bin-Laden claims to represent.

This is just word play. Sure you can characterize economy as "warfare" but that does not make it so. It was people doing their jobs, and people who did not deserve to be murdered.

This, my friends, is a terrorist act.
Or a legitimate military strike.

Hobitbob this is getting more and more absurd. I have yet to see a liberal justify the murders of all those civilians.

There are members here who lost loved ones in those attacks. To characterize it as a legitimate military operation is to let your political zeal bring your position closer to that of the murderers themselves.

There is nothing legitimate about mudering civilians.

Since the target itself is of strategic military importance, I would not consider this to be a terrorist act, but rather a brilliantly executed military strategy. Do you see the difference?
And I have pointed out how both can be considered legitimate targets.

No you haven't. You have only used wordplay ("economic warfare") to justify your rationalization of an attack on civilians.

It's muder, not a "legitimate military target".

Now if the United States is your sworn enemy for legitimate reasons, you are well within your rights to defend yourself and attack legitimate targets.
Which is why the insurgencies in Iraq and afghanistan are legitimate wars against a hostile oppressor.
That makes a lot more sense than rationalizing muder of thousands of civilians as a "legitimate" attack.

However; if you believe every member of the United State's civilian population is a legitimate target, than you are a terrorist, who needs to be destroyed.
Poorly developed arguement. See above.

Not at all. The "needs to be destroyed" part is silly, but you are indeed showing a lot in common with said terrorists by obfuscating the moral issues and trying to portray targeting civilians as "legitimate".

As many others have found out before you, one cannot control the form of debate. One either plays, or leaves. As for argueing for the sake of arguing, there are those here who relish this activity. Interestingly enough, they all seem to be on your political side. Please remember that disagreement is not an insult. If you wish to avoid disagreement, I'm sure that there are far right, "war is fun" forums out there.

Hobit, that WAS an insult. You insult people then retreat to the mantra of "disagreement is not an insult".

That's true, but your insults have nothign to do with disagreement. And it's incredible that right after you try to portray your arguments as mere disagreement you toss in a meaningless insult.

You repeatedly characterize people as liking war. It's a meaningless ad hominem.

This type of argument undermines rational arguments for the liberal position.

Good arguments, Bill -- and I am in complete agreement lots of what you said, but I personally think that on balance, we've made more enemies than we can ever "destroy."

And, especially unfortunately, we have alienated people who normally are very good friends -- AND we have completely squandered an incredible amount of good will and empathy that accrued to us from people normally not especially in our camp.

Quote:

You repeatedly characterize people as liking war. It's a meaningless ad hominem.

Unless they are people who have shown a preference for war in their statements.

Quote:

Despite not agreeing with the war I find myself disagreeing with your arguments even more.

Then I accomplished what I set out to do....inspire thought.

I know you read the foreign press, occaisionally subjective arguements are appropriate.

Quote:

Your question is akin to saying that after someone reads an article they should agree with you about what the best movie of all time is.

Faulty reasoning.

Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God, Harvard, 2002.

Personally I fond the acts of 11th September to be horrible, but I am trying to view this fromt the standpoint of one who sees such actions as justifiable.

You know better than this. Think about the strategic bombing campaign in WWII.

But to al-Quaeda and similar groups, they are legitimate targets. Seeing the opposing view does not imply agreeing with it.

We may not approve, but we must understand in order to prevent similar occurrances.

Quote:

As many others have found out before you, one cannot control the form of debate. One either plays, or leaves. As for argueing for the sake of arguing, there are those here who relish this activity. Interestingly enough, they all seem to be on your political side. Please remember that disagreement is not an insult. If you wish to avoid disagreement, I'm sure that there are far right, "war is fun" forums out there.

Hobit, that WAS an insult. You insult people then retreat to the mantra of "disagreement is not an insult".

No, it was a statement of fact.

Quote:

That's true, but your insults have nothign to do with disagreement. And it's incredible that right after you try to portray your arguments as mere disagreement you toss in a meaningless insult.

That's nice.

Quote:

You repeatedly characterize people as liking war. It's a meaningless ad hominem.

Unless they are people who have shown a preference for war in their statements.

Quote:

This type of argument undermines rational arguments for the liberal position.

So don't read them, or kick me out of your sandbox. I don't particularly care which one.

Despite not agreeing with the war I find myself disagreeing with your arguments even more.

I know you read the foreign press, occaisionally subjective arguements are appropriate.

I agree. But don't expect someone to agree based on an article. It's subjective.

Your question is akin to saying that after someone reads an article they should agree with you about what the best movie of all time is.
Faulty reasoning.

Then demonstrate it. ;-)

Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God, Harvard, 2002.

Again, please cite it. Naming a book does nothing to support your contention of exactly what Bin Laden wished to do in 9/11.

You frequently drop book names as if that validated your position. I again challenge this and ask you to cite. That book does not provide the support.

Personally I fond the acts of 11th September to be horrible, but I am trying to view this fromt the standpoint of one who sees such actions as justifiable.

Thanks for clairifying.

So to make sure it's clear, do you consider the WTC a "legitimate military target"?

You know better than this. Think about the strategic bombing campaign in WWII.

Think what? That does not in any way change your position. Earlier you argued against finding other sins to justify a sin. Please follow your advice here.

But to al-Quaeda and similar groups, they are legitimate targets. Seeing the opposing view does not imply agreeing with it.
Thanks for differentiating it. Your arguments that stridently argued that they were legitimate seemed very much to be your justifications.

We may not approve, but we must understand in order to prevent similar occurrances.
I agree, and argue only against approval, not "understanding".

As many others have found out before you, one cannot control the form of debate. One either plays, or leaves. As for argueing for the sake of arguing, there are those here who relish this activity. Interestingly enough, they all seem to be on your political side. Please remember that disagreement is not an insult. If you wish to avoid disagreement, I'm sure that there are far right, "war is fun" forums out there.

Hobit, that WAS an insult. You insult people then retreat to the mantra of "disagreement is not an insult".
No, it was a statement of fact.

No it was not. It was your opinion and only that.

In any case, fact and insult are not mutually exclusive and insult it was.

That's true, but your insults have nothign to do with disagreement. And it's incredible that right after you try to portray your arguments as mere disagreement you toss in a meaningless insult.

You repeatedly characterize people as liking war. It's a meaningless ad hominem.
Unless they are people who have shown a preference for war in their statements.
They do not show a "preference" for war. All the supporters of the war here have said it was not their preferred solution.

I happen to agree that they opt for that solution at a greater frequency but that does not make your false claim that they "like" war any less false and any less of a meaningless insult.

This type of argument undermines rational arguments for the liberal position.
So don't read them, or kick me out of your sandbox. I don't particularly care which one.
No. What I will do is call them out.

For example, you ahve done it again with the "sandbox" comment.

I seem to recall a statement from you saying you would happily kill anyone who disagreed with you. At the time I defended you, thinking you were just annoyed when you wrote this. After some of your posts I'm not so sure.....

Women are not dogs, and I'll happily put to death everyone who disagrees with me until everyone that's left does. That, is the humane solution. If you believe with all of your heart that you should stone your women to death if she insults you and you can not be persuaded to change your way of thinking, than good riddance to you.

I also recall a statment from you that you were interested in joining the military to "See action, " and upon discovering this was unlikely you demurred. Again, I don't know you, so I must rely on what you write.

Quote:

That does not make your position any less wrong.

Oooohhh..aand can your dad beat up my dad, etc..?

Quote:

Your question is akin to saying that after someone reads an article they should agree with you about what the best movie of all time is.
Faulty reasoning.

Then demonstrate it. ;-)

Its a facetious comparison.

Perhaps I was guilty of assumimg others on this forum still read books? See chapters 6 and 9.

Attacks aginst civillian targets have long been a staple of warfare. It is really only since 1950 that the pendulum has swung the other way. Terrorism depends on the concept of the civillian as a legitimate target when engaged in activities that contribute to the war effort.

I'm sorry you read them that way. You were wrong.

Nyah nyah nyah...etc....

Quote:

In any case, fact and insult are not mutually exclusive and insult it was.

How nice, want a cookie?

Well, 'tis your forum, you are free to do as you like. I lost a lot of respect for you when you were busily bashing Tart and Blatham. I'm not going to lose a great deal of sleep over the fact you disagree with me. The less interaction we have, the happier I will be.

f by defending me, you mean sending me a private message urging me not to stoop to pistoff's level, yes you did. I don't see how it's relevant, but I'll provide you a CC if you'd like.

I have never, and hope I will never have to kill anyone, but remain prepared to do so if my personal morality requires it. Judge me how you will.

I am challenging that argument and I assert that the book you are name dropping does not support your assertion.

Didn't read the references, did you?

My academic life is based around the proper use of references, so I found your asserions that I would play fast and loose with references extremely insulting, but pretty much typical of how you have treated others here, like Tart, Blatham, CI ,etc...

I understand you are quite young, and for one so young you display extrodinary insight most of the time, but on other times you descend to the level of belligerent street punk. I personally thnk this was one of those times. Now, have we wasted enough bandwidth away from the actual topic, or will you continue?