|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Violent propaganda | |||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
"One thing that might break them? Drop money on them. Money and the tools of the Great Satan system of the west. They would in theory implode."
I know you make this as a joke, but what would the real effects of this be??Not to say we should just drop money on them, but what if the US expanded aid and public relation efforts to Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at it from a not militant citizen’s viewpoint. What if the troops that your leaders have demonized suddenly are giving your food, rebuilding your child's school, giving you materials to make a new Masque, providing your religious leaders (non-militant ones) with Qur'ans to pass out to his followers , giving toys to your children, and giving you medicine to cure your family's sicknesses. It still wouldn't convince the hardcore fundis, but would providing more for the average Iraqi (I’m sure the majority of them are not actively trying to kill us) help to sway them into supporting us more than supporting the Iraqi resistance? Once public favor turned to our favor, most of our military’s problems would be solved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
I think the REAL reason we went to war was because, like you said the US feels threatened, but I would say its not entirely economicly based.
heres something to think about first understand that power is interconnected and one type of power can and often does lead to other types of power. 1. the US is losing or has lost its vast economic advantage on the post WW2 world, both because other countries have rebuilt the infrostucture and the US is turning into a white-collar society.2. the US lost its huge worldwide political advantage with the collaspe of the USSR. 3. the US still has a huge Military advantage over the rest of the world, but American society with no apparent enimies (communists, nazis etc.) cannot see why we should continue to spend vast ammounts to maintain said military. 4. Our strong military is really the only thing that keeps American society, and to a lesser extent western culture, on top, so American leaders saw it fit to create a war in order to maintin our military stregth. its late and Im tired, so im cannot finish all my thoughts, but just a fyi I plan on editing this later, plz keep that in mind if you respond to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
/clap
if you put that big ape in a suit I doubt the media would even be able to detect he wasn't a politician
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
I think was tal was saying is more that rewarding individual acts of terror has an overall negative net effect in the long run.
simple example: giving in to all of a bankrobber's demands and letting them get away simply because they have a hostage may be good for that hostage, but probably would lead to copycat crimes and endanger more people. similarly should we close all abortion clinics because some zealot plants a pipe bomb? No.
So, over a decade of negotiations, we got a 93% reduction in the number of deaths. living in america we don't hear very much about the IRA so im not totally informed, but through even some cursory reading of Wikipedia it seems to me that during and before that period there was a decrease in the "terrorist" power and activities of the IRA from the combined decrease in public support for the IRA due to collatoral damage incidents, a crackdown from the british gov arresting IRA members, large numbers of informents, and a mainstream outlet for their ideals (socialism has been increasingly more accepted worldwide after the collapse of the Soveit Union). Also
Secret negotiations between the British government and the IRA began in 1993/1994 why did you pick those years as the "start of negotiations" from wikipedia
Gerry Adams was involved in secret talks with SDLP leader John Hume, MP from 1988. The series of contacts, between Adams and Hume, and both with the British and Irish governments provided the groundwork for what was later to be the Belfast Agreement, as well as to the milestone Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document." it looks as if there were lots of peace talks in the 70's and 80's if talks are "One practical response to terrorism that has often been successful" why didn't it work earlier? Isn't it more plaussible that other, actually new factors played a larger roll in the change in # of deaths. heres one (from wikipedia again)
In 1993: Two PIRA bombs at opposite ends of a shopping street in Warrington, timed to go off within minutes of each other, killing two children.....which led to tens of thousands of people descending on O'Connell Street in Dublin to call for an end to the IRA's campaign of violence. deaths per year according to your source
2004 2 (2) 2003 10 (2) 2002 11 (4) 2001 15 2000 19 1999 8 1998 53 1997 21 1996 17 1995 9 1994 60 1993 84 1992 85 1991 94 1990 76 so deaths in 3 years prior = 255and deaths in 3 years after = 86 so about a 2/3rds reduction in death, what makes your secret talks more of a factor than massive public outcry? lastly where did you get your numbers because it doesn't look like it was from the source you quoted in no 3 year period on your source do the deaths equal 339and in the last 3 years the deaths are between 23 and 15 ( numbers in () meaning uncertain if conflict-related).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
Wow this thread seems to have really fell apart fast. Im gonnna have to get quicker :/
quote: Thats reasonable enough, but is that a valid scenario? If people are fighting for their freedom, acceeding to some of their demands shows you are not a tyrant. The dogmatic refusal to even discuss the demands and aims of the violent movement confronting you can only escalate the conflict. its valid in the original context. The point I was trying to make being that response to individual terrorists acts, hostages and threats in particular, by giving into demands (especially ones that would lead directly to more violence) overall has a negative net effect, even if it helps in a particular situation. (what I belive the people Tal was quoting were saying) Addressing polictical concerns that are shared by a large populations like in the case of the IRA is very different.
Secondly, the reason for the decline in violence was becuase the IRA's political strategy was working. It's political wing, Sinn Fein, stood for and won elections (thus demonstrating the IRA had a genuine constituency) and moves by the British government toward a power-charing agreement. In other words, precisely the mature, negotated strategy that Mick was pointing to. To me it seems like the IRA and the Sinn Fein were the ones that took the largest steps to achiveing peace, and they did so before the negotiations, I intrepret Mick as saying the British govenment succesfully responded to terrorism simply by entering into talks, however, from a 3rd party perspective it seems like the talks were succesful only becuase alot of non British government controled factors entered the picture. from Wikipedea
The split was over the decision of a majority of Sinn Fin members to abandon abstentionism (i.e., the refusal to accept the legitimacy of, and to participate in, the parliament of the Republic of Ireland). While the policy of abstentionism towards the Westminster British Parliament was continued, it was dropped in relation to Dil ireann. Under the presidency (from November 1983) of Gerry Adams, Sinn Fin leaders sought to explore wider political engagement, following what was called the Armalite and the ballot box strategy of political agitation and the use or threat of violence. Surely the decision to become involved in the parliament of the Republic of Ireland came more from a decision made by the Sinn Fein.
Quite clearly, negotiation does work. It does work because the combatants do have grievances that can be met. Negotiation is more of an effect than a cause. And it only works when both sides can reach an aggrement due to giving up some of the original ideals they held before the arguement. I quoted the peace talks in the 70s and 80s because its supports my claim. The peace talks did not work not simply because the British government was to stubborn to give into demands, but becuase both parties were unwilling to give up enough to satisfy the other. what changed was not that they tried to negotiate, but other factors like the ones I previously listed most namely the Sinn Fein's move torward political legitimacy. Im not going to deny that the negotiations were a factor, in fact they were an important part of the chain of events that, just not the first step. it went (very simplified) actions -> talk -> solution what mick suggested was talk -> solution but talk won't lead to solutions without the nessicasry actions taking place first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
I think mick and contra just gave up on this thread because its wasn't going anywhere
does anyone else have some input on the discussion we were having, (negotiating with terrorists, & how negotiating worked in relation to the IRA) tal: since this sprung off a reply of your earlier do you have anything else to add admins: is there any way to take the several posts we've had on this topic and put them into a new thread. (and would this make a good new thread?)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024