1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Is Violence Neccesary? / Latest Posts

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:46:13 GMT

I give up. I knew it was a stretch but I had to give it a shot.;)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:34:01 GMT

Free Market w/out national protectionist bounderies is wut I am talking about. If a guy is dumb to the point of letting himself be exploited when all opportunities are open to him, let that be. But dont create national bounderies so femines like in africa have a place in the world.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:02:00 GMT

[quote][b]-M- (5/21/2008)[/b][hr]Terrorizm in its wider sense cannot be avoided untill the earth is unified under 1 governenmt. So I propose unification of the world. Treat terrorism not as a problem but as a symptom of an even greater problem - existance of gated communities which serve as trade barriers keeping wealth to select few while the majority of humanity suffers from chronic poverty & malnutrition (this sounds like a blond beuaty peagent statement, but give it time to sink in :)).[/quote]

I thought you were a capitalist? In a Free Market, doesn't anyone have the right to build a wall around their community if they have the money to do so? What are you talkin' bout some kinda pinko commie government based redistribution system like what you used to have back in the "good ole" days of the USSR?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:34:01 GMT

I can do that trick, the floating I mean. Now I just need a long grey beard.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:27:13 GMT

You must 1st stop the turmoil in yourself before you can stop the turmoil in the world, young grasshopper.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:10:13 GMT

Terrorizm in its wider sense cannot be avoided untill the earth is unified under 1 governenmt. So I propose unification of the world. Treat terrorism not as a problem but as a symptom of an even greater problem - existance of gated communities which serve as trade barriers keeping wealth to select few while the majority of humanity suffers from chronic poverty & malnutrition (this sounds like a blond beuaty peagent statement, but give it time to sink in :)).

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:55:25 GMT

So, I think we have defined Terrorism and the shock waves felt around the world. So what about solutions? I offer this first and leave it for discussion.

Start calling "Suicide" attacks by their real name. Homocide. And begin to have any sympathy for the attackers removed from discussion. No matter what the cause, from the IRA to Jihad, the intentional targeting and killing of innocents as a "Tactic" should be viewed as cold blooded murder. And treated as a high crime against Humanity and the WORLD. Change world thinking. So that it can never be sanely said that it was justified.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:33:58 GMT

Yeah, Scip, that is what I am saying. Some of these folks that have blown themselves up in these different countries, they aren't even affiliated with AlQ, apparently. It doesn't matter what their group name is, their inspiriation is the same, no?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:10:24 GMT

Spain, Turkey, Bali, England, etc. have all suffered from Islamofascist terrorism. It is not just a U.S. problem.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:30:37 GMT

[quote]For all of u "global war on terror" supporters & "Bush is a lame duck" thinkers... how come is it u think that his creation is any more worthy & relevant than the man himself?[/quote]How possible is it, that Bush will be viewed as a lame duck AND the "war on terror" continues for years to come? Regardless of who is president? Maybe? :P

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:48:14 GMT

-M- I understand what you are saying. And your right. A lot of things were bungled as far as Bin Laden is concerned. But remember he had developed a network he could hide in. I'm sure more than one person got rich overnight. Or, richer than he was. But if you don't think Bin Laden wasn't just another pawn in a much larger game, your thinking maybe just a little too narrow.

And I'd like to see the discussion not narrowed down to just Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden. Big players too be sure. But not the only ones. Lets look at Terrorism from a world perspective. I think the best definition of Terrorism I've heard so far, is Locus description. That Terrorism is a tactic. A violent means that holds no value what so ever on Human life. It is directed at any target of oppurtunity. That which gives the greatest returns for little investment. So I offer that as a definition.

America is such a target of oppurtunity. She returns that investment of a few misguided souls for major Media air time around the world. So wether the US makes a big deal out of it or not, the media will. Another reason to make the US a target. David struck Goliath. Lets get it on the air! So it is already out there -M-. Al Qaeda and other groups understand this notion better than any. And it is a great cause of their success. You'd have to be living on the moon to not be effected. So even in that sense it is a WORLD PROBLEM. All you have to do is watch the worlds stock markets at such times as attacks are made. The greater the attack, the more intense the response of the markets. These are hinged on fear. Stock markets around the world reacted negatively to 9/11. I call that a world reaction. Markets are, IMO, the most fragile institutions on this planet. And as the world becomes more unified in currency and trade goods, it becomes more specialized. More vulnerable, to say a bomb going off in some city thousands of miles away from your location. Thus having an impact, if not on your concience and values, then eventually your wallet.

It is becoming more difficult as a dweller on this rock, to say, "Man, too bad about the US getting hit like that. Well, it wasn't us, so we'll be alright." You can substitute the US in that statement with any tribe. The US just stands as the most glarring and cost effective target. The biggest bang in world stability for the "buck". That does not mean that the US is the only target. I don't believe Al Qaeda has ever made a statement saying they will stop at the US. But as jerm states, then what? It's a much, much bigger game they are playing at. It would be prudent for the whole world to take notice and and seek solutions. If not just for the Humanity of it.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:25:50 GMT

To continue...

He attacked US targets abroad. US responce was to put him "FBI most wanted" & limited attempts to detain or kill. This is a very tardy response at best, bcz there have been opportunities to kill him, but US didnt. And US didnt do it for all sorts of excuses (read that as exactly wut it says "excuses") Why? Targets were abroad, majority of the victims were foreigners, so why bother.

So wut did all of those limited responses accomplish? They made him into a legend w/an aura of invincibility. Everybody knew where he was. He kept killing ppl w/the moto "America is Devil" & pay for nothing. So he used his legend as a currency of sorts to attract more ppl to his cause

It took a 9/11 for US to realize that he was not just a villian, but a capable one too. So wut did the US do? They declared a global war on terror, which is basicly the equivalent of taking up an amplifier & screaming: "Now I am gonna come & really kill u". And in this effort to creat a "global war on terror" a lot of goodwill was borrowed. Goodwill from countries like Spain & England. And wut did this countries get in return for their goodwill? They get homegrown terrorists inspired by someone, who basicly was popularized by US. Who doesnt like a brazen do-getter of their own?

For all of u "global war on terror" supporters & "Bush is a lame duck" thinkers... how come is it u think that his creation is any more worthy & relevant than the man himself? Lets make up our mind. Either he is a brilliant individual & his cause is as worthy as any other global issue or he is a lame duck & all he stands for is as lame as him (by the way I like Bush. Not for his brilliance, but more like for his personality).

So wut I am getting at is that the crimes commited in Africa were just as horrible as 9/11. 500 innocent victims is just as painful as 3000. He could have been dealt with before that fateful September. And wutever deal he would have gotten would have been just as just as any deal he got after 9/11. He could have been dealt with quietly & very inexpensively, but alsa thats not wut happened.

Now we got this "Global War" thing going. He is still a very localized problem, but America is shoving "U are either w/us or against us" rhetoric down everybodies throat, which action is only serving to highten sensitivities, deepen the problem, & spread its reach.

Thats all I am sayin'

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:00:40 GMT

America is the Great Satan but so is anyone who allies with us, so yeah, it's a world wide problem. Spain was bombed, UK was bombed, Russia has had problems with terrorism. When we say "worldwide" we do not mean every single country would be affected equally, it just means the whole world is affected. If the Jihadists get their way, the whole world will be affected. If the U.S. falls, the world falls. World War 2 shouldn't be called a World War because the whole world wasn't involved right?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:55:29 GMT

Sorry, can't admit that. For this reason. You speak of currency often. Now put that thinking to attacks on the US and the effects on the dollar. Now, tie that in to world economics. Not so much just an American problem now is it. I have to say here that it is sad that, that connection must be made. Life should be of greater value, but I'll take my "rose colored glasses" off for this discussion. Since it is part of the reality.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:45:19 GMT

dont know

But for starts

Lets admit that AlQaeda brand terror is an American problem & not the World's. I mena the figurehead for AlQaeda (binLaden) stated as such. He attacked ameracan interests abroad. US response was wut?

Be back to finish

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:26:24 GMT

The US has stated that it WILL retaliate against any country guilty of State Sponsored Terrorism, in any way it feels appropriate, including Nuclear Retaliation. The same thinking we used on the Soviet Union. But we are dealing with a different sort of adversary now. One that has shown little sanity when it comes to Human life. So I doubt MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction will have much effect. Our reaction after 9/11 should remove any question as to wether or not we will act in retaliation. (Even if we are not sure of the target!) Indeed, the American public will demand a response. At that point it will be too late for the sluggish UN to matter.

BlackO, I am not sayin' "ignore". I am sayin' "define it properly & deal w/it properly"] -M-

Okay, we are fairly intelligent. Let's try doing that very thing right here. Kind of a mini globe. What is a proper definition? How do we deal with it properly?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:25:03 GMT

BlackO, I am not sayin' "ignore". I am sayin' "define it properly & deal w/it properly"

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Nuclearcow — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:13:31 GMT

Any even bigger question perhaps, is if a nuke is set off in say... New York City, what response will we have? Surely we won't nuke a city in return, will we? What if we don't know exactly who did it? Will we make ALL of our "enemies" pay? Will this be a license to nuke Iran, North Korea, etc, etc? What is an appropriate response to this if it happens?

Scary thoughts.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:06:50 GMT

Then the world in general should ignore Terrorism because to address the problem makes the problem larger? The US did in large part ignore Terrorism until 9/11. Just as we ignored Japan and Germany. Just as the whole world ignored both. Till it was almost too late to act.

Unfortunately, I feel it is only a matter of time before state sponsored Terrorism is able to place a nuke(s) into the hands of those who would use them to kill not thousands, but millions. What shall we say then?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:37:49 GMT

top ten=currency

localized, quiet

blow up into world issue, give importance, creat currency, attract to cause

nairobbi, human suffering, Ireland

borrowing goodwill, Spain

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:23:35 GMT

But how does that change the "essence" of terrorism as to the context here? I don't think it matters who you are. How can you sit and watch the images and not be outraged? How can you be outraged and not consider it a problem? No matter what the Terroists cause is or where it happens. Locus defined it properly. As a tactic, does terroism have a place in the Modern World? If the answer (and it should be) is no. (since it is murder in cold blood) And by it's nature, come from anywhere, at anytime, too anyone, why shouldn't it be a world problem? AIDs is, tho not all nations suffer equally. Hunger is, tho not all nations suffer equally. These are just two wordly problems and concerns. If these plagues qualify, why not the growing plague of terrorism? I don't see the reasoning in putting ones head in the sand because terrorism hasn't struck them personally YET, when you consider what the world feels is important enough to address.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:02:02 GMT

Well... names have no much effect on the essense. Except for in some cases it serves to detract from it. Calling Terrorizm a global problem is, I think, detracting from the essense. U cant expect the Sudanese to have the same stakes in terrorizm as say the finnish.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:19:55 GMT

Amen, brother owl, amen!

Terrorism is a tactic aimed to strike fear into the hearts of ones opponents. It is a tactic, not an ideology. All of humanity suffers and is at risk when any segment of humanity is offended.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:07:55 GMT

EXCUSE ME! Terrorism is not a world problem? You go too far my friend. It better **** well be a world problem, and a world concern. Because we can only guess who is next. Might it be your family? Should it then be a world problem?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:21:57 GMT

For it to be a worldwide problem it has to effect everybody. For example, every society on earth relies on use of fossil fuels, & its finite nature is a worldwide issue. Terrosm only effects select pplz directly involved in the conflict & therefoer is not of golbal nature. It may be a big case of terrorizm (aka AlQaeda brand) or small case (aka PKK), but in both cases it is of limited nature w/out direct influance on the whole of humanity. Therefore AlQaeda type terror (this is wut I was primarily refering to, when formulating me previuos posts) is definately not a world problem.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Black Owl — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:55:42 GMT

"Soft Targets" abound in countries whose intelligence services and security forces have been lulled to sleep. Wasn't it India that just took a pretty good hit by terrorism. Me thinks they thought themselves safe to a large degree, No?

When I think on the term "soft Targets" and how it relates to terrorism, I see it myself as a "World Problem". No one is immune to indiscriminante acts of violence. And that, I feel is the difference between War and Terrorism.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:51:34 GMT

You could have just resisted posting and then responded when you wanted....:Whistling:

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:38:16 GMT

Hmm... dont feel like politiking today... it a thursdee... sky is blue... life is good:)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:35:21 GMT

We may be the biggest force but the problem is a worldwide problem. The U.S. may be the biggest enemy of the terrorists but their enemy is the "West" in general in which we are a big influence, but we are not the only influence.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:42:56 GMT

By alligiance to the cause of US (allies)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:11:10 GMT

What do you mean, they are there by default?

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:04:28 GMT

Yep, new technology has always been the right answer.

LC, those are isolated examples w/local effects. Only America is fighting a "Global" war on terror. England is just there by default, so are some other countries, but it is primarily an American problem in me view.

PKK dont even count, their igenda is completely something else.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:45:23 GMT

Okay, back on track :P. So, the point is that by upping the supply, it gives the Arab states less money to spend on terrorism. I am slightly dubious as to how much they actually spend on terrorism as I think they spend it all on luxuries and investment. I suppose some will spend on terror (like Iran I guess?) so we'll go with that. Dependence on others for energy will always be a given I think, at least until oil is out of the picture. Let's be honest and say we want to become dependent from states who want to harm us or our friends. I have zero problems with giving Canada money for oil, it's those nasty, despotic states that we want to be dependent from. In reality I believe that new technologies which get us off of oil will have an effect in that we will have no reason to care about what happens over there. Apparently the terrorists attack us because we meddle in their affairs and we meddle in their affairs because we need their oil. Take oil out of the equation and things may get better. I think that is a far better solution than increasing the supply. Once again, I'm all for increasing the supply as it will have an effect on price, just not world conditions.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:07:38 GMT

Isn't terrorism also a problem for England, Spain, Morrocco (Casablanca), Indonesia (Bali), India, Germany (thwarted attacks), Saudi Arabia (thwarted attacks), Turkey (PKK), Algeria (Salafists), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?

And of course UAE are ripest for a fall, they have climbed the highest, have they not? Sure a lot of the banking goes through them, so if/when the oil boom collapses they will suffer in that regard, but if a lot of their economy now is not directly petro-based income, shouldn't they also be buffered?

Boy, this thread sure is off-topic! :)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:38:29 GMT

Hmm... no terorizm is an American problem, since the other half of the world (arabs, russians, etc) seem to not mind it that much.

By the way I see ur point now :)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:29:52 GMT

Well, terrorism is a world problem is it not? That is what I meant BTW.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:13:48 GMT

Jerm

I thought we were not talking about world problems (aka independence form fossil fuels), but rather of terrorizm & what is feeding it.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

jerm — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:57:52 GMT

It's important to keep in mind that OPEC only controls a third of the world market and the Arabs are not the only members. They have some degree of control on price but not as much as in years past. So, this is why a 5% increase won't have a huge effect. There is already competition that OPEC has to compete with. The ANWR oil reserves will help, but I don't think it will put them in a recession. That won't happen until the oil runs out and in this, they do have the most of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for drilling in ANWR. I just don't think it will solve the world's problems.

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

-M- — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:32:09 GMT

Economies never exist alone (even US not exempt from this rule)

I used Emirates bcz I think they are the ripest for a fall. So in this way if I am wrong on how profound will be the effect of retreat of oil prices (immidiet peace in Iraq), then I will be at least right about them ;)

RE: Is Violence Neccesary?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:12:14 GMT

aren't the Emirates a bad example, M? IIRC, hardly any of their budget actually comes from the oil these days, what with all the fun and games revenues they have coming in!