4 ms·

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know

by Retra 11y ago

>Yet, most democracies aren't being massively targeted by terrorists. Largely just those involved in imperialism or regions contested by imperialists. You know who is involved in these regions? Countries with money. Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. You might reduce anti-US terrorism by ignoring the rest of the world, but a lot of people will die, and you're still going to have enemies. It's a factor, not a solution. Though I suppose if the US were poor as dirt, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. Just civil war and invasion.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so on and so forth. Vast majority of terrorism against the U.S. is by actors whose activities or capabilities are directly tied to U.S.'s own imperialism abroad. Not our money, democracy, religion, anything. Just doing evil dangerous stuff over there and funding/equipping those that do the same often to rip off resources. Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. That means... that eliminating that while working to improve the situation over time might eliminate most terrorism against us? Well, let's do that then!
- Retra 11y ago
  Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business? That's a stupid and suicidal policy. >Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. So you say. But I can't distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don't believe you, and I shouldn't until you've got some convincing evidence that it's true. You can tell me a story. I don't want a story. And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so. Seems like a bunch of grudge-holders that need to grow up before negotiations become an option.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    "Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it." So you're saying we should have committed mass murder and armed terror groups throughout the Middle East in the name of stealing resources or manipulating politics? Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? "And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so." Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. The regions where we have the most meddling are among the least stable. Doing good over there instead of evil might actually accomplish something. Further, areas with groups like ISIS aren't terrorism vs Some Good Government rather than a group of competing evil groups all set on controlling and oppressing the area. So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there because it's not in power-players financial and political interests. There's benefits to be had from continued partnerships with dictators and theocracies. Just ask Saudi Arabia.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I'm saying you're vastly underestimating how easy it is to maintain peace with other cultures. I'm saying what I said, not what you wish I'd said so you can believe I'm an evil fool. >Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? No, I didn't do any research. I took a class on West Asia and North Africa in school. I lived in Iraq for a year. But I don't think you've done any research, either. You're just saying talking points. >Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. You checked? Let me know what you checked. Where you checked. Who you checked with. >You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there Truly? Isn't there a term for this kind of waffling? "No true scotsman" or something? > So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. That's what fighting is. Any fight you do is going to put someone in power. It doesn't matter if you're fighting terrorism or not; that's the whole point of fighting.
iamsohungry 11y ago
> Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. But with money, you can arm those dictators and mass-murders so that they can become actual vicious kings. > Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. That's true, which is why it's so puzzling that we so frequently turn a blind eye to our abused neighbors and fund the abusers. I'm definitely not proposing isolationism. I'm proposing we spend aid money actually helping the populations of nations instead of funding whatever militant promises to protect US interests.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "I'm definitely not proposing isolationism. I'm proposing we spend aid money actually helping the populations of nations instead of funding whatever militant promises to protect US interests." Bingo!

by Retra 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago

The organization currently targeting the U.S. is largely the result of their unnecessary invasion of Iraq that smashed the country and left plenty of weapons over there. The organization that did it before was funded and trained by the U.S. for proxy war with the Soviets with a lot more alleged in between. Same for Saddam for use against Iran. Iran hit in Mossadegh days to steal their oil and control the area. And so on and so forth. Vast majority of terrorism against the U.S. is by actors whose activities or capabilities are directly tied to U.S.'s own imperialism abroad. Not our money, democracy, religion, anything. Just doing evil dangerous stuff over there and funding/equipping those that do the same often to rip off resources. Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. That means... that eliminating that while working to improve the situation over time might eliminate most terrorism against us? Well, let's do that then!

Retra 11y ago
Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business? That's a stupid and suicidal policy. >Far from a mere "factor," it's been the single most consistent and driving force behind all terrorism against us. So you say. But I can't distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don't believe you, and I shouldn't until you've got some convincing evidence that it's true. You can tell me a story. I don't want a story. And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so. Seems like a bunch of grudge-holders that need to grow up before negotiations become an option.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it." So you're saying we should have committed mass murder and armed terror groups throughout the Middle East in the name of stealing resources or manipulating politics? Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? "And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so." Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. The regions where we have the most meddling are among the least stable. Doing good over there instead of evil might actually accomplish something. Further, areas with groups like ISIS aren't terrorism vs Some Good Government rather than a group of competing evil groups all set on controlling and oppressing the area. So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there because it's not in power-players financial and political interests. There's benefits to be had from continued partnerships with dictators and theocracies. Just ask Saudi Arabia.
  - Retra 11y ago
    I'm saying you're vastly underestimating how easy it is to maintain peace with other cultures. I'm saying what I said, not what you wish I'd said so you can believe I'm an evil fool. >Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? No, I didn't do any research. I took a class on West Asia and North Africa in school. I lived in Iraq for a year. But I don't think you've done any research, either. You're just saying talking points. >Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. You checked? Let me know what you checked. Where you checked. Who you checked with. >You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there Truly? Isn't there a term for this kind of waffling? "No true scotsman" or something? > So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. That's what fighting is. Any fight you do is going to put someone in power. It doesn't matter if you're fighting terrorism or not; that's the whole point of fighting.

iamsohungry 11y ago

> Because without money, you can't do anything but let dictators and mass-murderers trample around like vicious kings. But with money, you can arm those dictators and mass-murders so that they can become actual vicious kings. > Turning a blind eye to your abused neighbors isn't a way to prevent terrorism, either. That's true, which is why it's so puzzling that we so frequently turn a blind eye to our abused neighbors and fund the abusers. I'm definitely not proposing isolationism. I'm proposing we spend aid money actually helping the populations of nations instead of funding whatever militant promises to protect US interests.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
"I'm definitely not proposing isolationism. I'm proposing we spend aid money actually helping the populations of nations instead of funding whatever militant promises to protect US interests." Bingo!