• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Woman Profiled on 9/11

#121
MatticusMania said:
Vietnam comes to mind
Click to expand...

The one in Viet ******* naaaam! :D

Having never been a patriotic person, it has always been weird to me that people can rationalize actions taken by their country's military for no other reason than the fact that it's "our" military. Guess I just can't relate.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other actions taken by the US, were terrorist acts by definition. Isn't any more right or wrong than terrorist actions taken by other countries (or other individuals), it just is what it is.

As far as the OP, I have been in her situation on a much, much smaller scale and I was extremely PO'd. So I can't imagine what I would be going through if I were in her situation. With the political climate that we live in, though, I have to say that profiling of Arab-looking people is pretty much unavoidable.
 
#123
Lonesomedave said:
... from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and "we" are going to do something about it. have we tried to limit civilian casualties?... well a hell of a lot more than our opponents at any rate.

who those collateral damage people should be mad at is the extremists in their own societies that started this. if not, tough...you attack us, we are going to respond...and that is exactly the same rights claimed by every society on earth.
Click to expand...

Well that's fine if you ignore the large Saudi Arabian-shaped elephant in the room, which hasn't received so much as a harsh word. And, let's not forget, these "collateral damage people" had no involvement in 9/11, nor do they have the option to get out of the way of any incoming retribution. The "extremists" are largely imported (again: guess from where), and are not from the societies under attack. These "collateral damage people" did not attack anybody, nor has it been shown that they in any way supported those who did.

Yes, every country has the right to respond, but what if you are not attacked by another country, who can you respond against? In addition, wars tend to end in a very formalized way: one side surrenders. How can a "war on terror" then ever finish? How can we ever say we won? How can we ever be sure that there won't be another cell just ready to pop up?

An ongoing, costly (in all senses) military operation may keep the lid on things, but it can't go on forever and there had better be something to replace it or it's back to square one, or ground zero, if you prefer.
 
#125
Tegzsa said:
Well that's fine if you ignore the large Saudi Arabian-shaped elephant in the room, which hasn't received so much as a harsh word....
Click to expand...

hey, totally agree with that.

and while we're at it... let's not ignore the large Israeli-shaped elephant in the room.... because, frankly, it is our friendship with them that caused all these bees to get up so many islamic bonnets.

well, folks... Israel is here to stay and we are going to be friends with them, and if that makes you feel the need to attack us, watch out.

Tegzsa said:
Yes, every country has the right to respond, but what if you are not attacked by another country, who can you respond against? In addition, wars tend to end in a very formalized way: one side surrenders. How can a "war on terror" then ever finish? How can we ever say we won? How can we ever be sure that there won't be another cell just ready to pop up?
Click to expand...

good point and i do not have an answer. but i do know that we are not going to do nothing. as far as "winning" the war on terror goes, well, all the average american wants and i suspect, (though without proof) what almost every reasonable person wants is to live their lives without fear and let the politicians resolve disputes without resorting to acts of war.

the Islamics are not reasonable, and they want to do us serious harm. i guess the "war on terror" will be over when we have effectively prevented them from doing so in future.

,

davesignatureII.gif
 
#127
Munjibunga said:
No they weren't. They were retaliatory acts of war.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were retaliatory acts of war that used terrorism as a method.

Terrorism is nothing but tactic.

It can be used by the "good guys" or the "bad guys".

It can be used in declared wars by uniformed military personnel and it can be used in undeclared conflicts by unidentified combatants.

It can be used to achieve good goals and it can be used to achieve horrible goals.

If you're attempting to achieve political or ideological goals through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

If you're a rogue individual trying to institute a state religion through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

If you're the US military carrying out orders to end a war through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.
 
#128
Lonesomedave said:
the Islamics are not reasonable, and they want to do us serious harm. i guess the "war on terror" will be over when we have effectively prevented them from doing so in future.
Click to expand...

You could start by not calling them "Islamics". It's about as helpful as when Western troops are referred to as "Christian Crusaders" and only serves to alienate peoples who may otherwise be more sympathetic.

The IRA were rarely (if ever) called catholic terrorists, after all.
 
#129
aborgman said:
Yes, they were retaliatory acts of war that used terrorism as a method.

Terrorism is nothing but tactic.

It can be used by the "good guys" or the "bad guys".

It can be used in declared wars by uniformed military personnel and it can be used in undeclared conflicts by unidentified combatants.

It can be used to achieve good goals and it can be used to achieve horrible goals.

If you're attempting to achieve political or ideological goals through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

If you're a rogue individual trying to institute a state religion through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

If you're the US military carrying out orders to end a war through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.
Click to expand...

It may be considered terrorism now but, as I said earlier, the "ethics" of war in WWII we not the same as they are now. Bombing civilian targets was not considered terrorism in that time frame. It was considered war.
 
#131
Munjibunga said:
It may be considered terrorism now but, as I said earlier, the "ethics" of war in WWII we not the same as they are now. Bombing civilian targets was not considered terrorism in that time frame. It was considered war.
Click to expand...

It IS terrorism now, and it was terrorism then.

The fact that the tactic of terrorism was used during war may make it morally acceptable to some folks, but it doesn't at all change the fact that it was terrorism.
 
#134
aborgman said:
It IS terrorism now, and it was terrorism then.

The fact that the tactic of terrorism was used during war may make it morally acceptable to some folks, but it doesn't at all change the fact that it was terrorism.
Click to expand...

I don't know a time when it hasn't been used and viewed as a veritable means by those using it, tbh. It has only become viewed as an atrocity to folks here after it happened here.
 
#137
macaroni tony said:
I don't know a time when it hasn't been used and viewed as a veritable means by those using it, tbh. It has only become viewed as an atrocity to folks here after it happened here.
Click to expand...

well.... slight difference.... when it was used on us here we weren't at war.

the terrorists wanted something... they were not getting it, so they resorted to terror tactics to try and get it.

well, i'm a big boy, no problem. but if you're going to start something, don't come crying about how your opponent finishes it.

if you have a beef with another country, take it to the negotiating table.

davesignatureII.gif
 
#138
macaroni tony said:
Nah, it's my hood as in I've marked my territory. Played there thrice within the last few months...

BTW..don't remind me. Irvine :rollno:
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I generally play there about once a month these days. Ive played there with 4 different bands that Ive been in. I think the first time was probably 4 or 5 years ago. Ive been on that stage at least 50 times. Ive seen it go from a crap hole where you could practically put your foot through the loose stage boards, to being a craphole with a really nice stage (as it is now). Fond memories...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back