The Lockerbie Bomber

  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was the Lbyan convicted of the Pan Am aircraft bombing and crashed onto a Scottish town bac in 1988. The terrorist attack claimed the lives of 270 people many of whom were Americans heading back to the USA. In 2001 he was convicted in the Netherlands under Scottish Law to Life Imprisonment.

Several months ago he deverloped Porstate Cancer and recently has appealed for release on Compassionate Grounds. The decision on his release will be made tomorrow afternoon by Scotland's Justice secretary.

The idea of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi being released on compassionate grounds has not been welcomed by many in the USA, the families and many senators as well as your secretary of state Hilary Clinton has urged the Scottish Government to keep him behind bars. In the UK howeverm the families of loved ones who died in the bombing are calling for him to be released.

BBC News

I find it particularly interesting that this is the second news article recently that states a difference of opinion on both sides of the Atlantic regarding two issues. There is the McKinnon case which i left a topic about the other week and now this one.

Do you think the man guilty of killing 270 should be released early on compassionate grounds because of his health?
  • jflynn
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2305
  • Loc: Baker City, Oregon

Post 3+ Months Ago

I don't think that he should be released.

Of course I think he should have been exacuted after his conviction.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I doubt we can quantify any nation as feeling one way or the other, on the whole. I'm sure opinion is equally diverse on both sides of the pond.

Forgiveness. That is a tough one. Especially for acts as heinous as the one we're discussing. Can we, should we, forgive him? Even if we do, does that mean he should be released? Does compassion automatically follow forgiveness? Seems like a bit of a non sequitur, to me.

Part of me says, "Hang the bastard son of a bitch and be done with it!" As in, he should be exterminated like a cockroach.

On the other hand, if you follow the teachings in the New Testament, you would know that forgiveness is a pretty big deal. When Jesus taught people to pray, in the sermon on the mount, he taught that we should ask to be forgiven in the same manner that we forgive others. Almost like karma, in a way. The Gospels and the Epistles are pretty clear on the value of forgiveness, I think.

I'm glad it's not my decision. I could probably come up with several points of rhetorical debate, to support or attack both sides. I just don't think it's clear cut or easy.

Therefore, $myopinion = NULL;
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I was mixed on it too. Alot of people i know don't believe he is the only one involved and infact played a very small part in the bombings. Conspiracy Theory i know, but some of the things are very plausable.

It was confirmed by the Scottish Justice Secretary that he will be released on compassionate grounds. I wonder what kind of reaction this will have in America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 197370.stm
  • devilwood
  • Silver Member
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 437

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ridiculous. The man committed a crime that claimed the life of 200+ people. Think of how many people were burned to death, suffocated, or decapitated in a fiery blaze.

Fogiveness is between him and God and someone here should arrange his meeting. It's not our place to pass on forgiveness or not cause mankind across the globe does not singularly. And.. no terrorist never acts alone and he probably did play a small role. Well, too bad for him he was a pawn. That was bad decision number 1 and bad decision #2 was following through. We all make bad decisions and have to live with it. The scottish justice made one today by releasing him which I guess we all have to live with.

This is all stuff he should have thought about before killing innocent people and changing the lives of hundreds of families. Not being able to be free when you get sick, see loved ones, sit behind bars, poor healthcare, tossing salads... these are all reasons plus many more why I don't rob a bank when I get low on cash if my moral center fails.

Furthermore, is his condition fatal? Some people beat cancer though his odds may not be good atleast he has odds to live or die unlike the people he helped kill. Plus, when people get a short time to live, what makes people think this nut (cause he's got to have some bad wiring to kill that many people) isn't going to use his remaining days to kill even more in a bigger attack. Doesn't seem he's got a lot to live for.

Sad day for mankind today. If I had a loved one on that plane this wouldn't even be an issue cause people would be like...
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi who? Cause I would spend my remaining days/money tracking him down so I can watch him eat his own....
And if I got convicted then I would accept my punishment even if I developed some sickness in prison.
  • dyfrin
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 503
  • Loc: WI

Post 3+ Months Ago

Scripture Based:

Predating the commandments, was capital punishment. Noah was told "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed." This predates the old covenant/testament and does not go away when the law was fulfilled and the new covenant/testament was created.

Forgiveness is not something you can give to someone who has not asked for it. Some circles believe if you forgive someone, you did your part. On the contrary, repentance of the act that wronged you is needed before you can forgive, otherwise it should be a subject never swept under the rug unless it was minute. Otherwise you are condoning them in the first place by just saying you forgive them.

If he has repented, then he should be apologizing to the families publicly through letters. Then the family can forgive (and should if they have any value in their own forgiveness if they have been forgiven). Then he should still be executed.
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I doubt he will apologise as he maintains his innocence to this day.

The families will probably never forgive him, but i can see this quickly being swept under the carpet in regards to both of our governments.
  • devilwood
  • Silver Member
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 437

Post 3+ Months Ago

I totally agree with dyfrin. Very well put. This topic should be closed now. :-)
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

devilwood wrote:
Sad day for mankind today.


If mass hypocrisy and stupidity is the criteria, it's a sad day for mankind everyday.

I probably wouldn't let him out, but one thing I thought listening to the family members interviewed, one of whom agreed he should be released because it would be cruel to do otherwise, and one of whom was vehemently and actively opposed to it, was that altho sort of baffled by his attitude, I would much rather end up as the former person -- the second was way over-obsessed and had clearly allowed herself to be consumed by hatred and anger.

If people continuously hold these kind of grudges for decades and even generations, the circumstances will just replicate themselves endlessly. It's totally conceivable that many violent terrorist have themselves lost family members and in some sense understand themselves to be taking an appropriate form of vengeance.

Of course, the bible and many other similar texts more or less encourage such an endless cycle of stupidity and violence, hopefully ending in an apocalypse for everyone :twisted:
  • devilwood
  • Silver Member
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 437

Post 3+ Months Ago

But these people are allowing a judicial system inacted by a state of laws governing a peaceful society fulfill the 'act' of vengeance for them whom decided putting the man in prison was appropriate for his actions. And we all know the channels that must be taken to get a conviction or release. You've got burden of evidence, appeals, etc. Instead terrorist just gather with buddies that have some mis-guided belief that generalizes people who they think have wronged them in someway and in actuality don't have anything to do with the terrorists agenda. They plan and set into action their appropriate punishment which is always a re-course of death. Death is not the penalty for all crimes.

Ultimately, people just want justice. They don't carry the grudge for decades as long as the person who wrongs them is sentenced accordingly to the crime. They remorse and continue with life and try to think about their missed loved ones life rather than their death that is to say if they remember them that much at all on a day to day basis. So, just cause someone wants the man to finish out his appropriate punishment as already decided by a governing body does not mean they are consumed with hatred and anger all of their days. Don't be ridiculous, mk27. I do see what you mean though, but she's completely justified in being that mad. I'm sure alot of hatred and anger arose when they reopened this terrorist's case. This is something the families are trying to put behind them but this guy won't just quietly waste away in prison like he should because he MADE THE WRONG DECISIONS IN LIFE. So, because we wants some type of appeal and be in the news he's bringing back all these bad memories to these families that have been trying to continue with life.

The cycle you talk about is always going to be there as long as the terrorist blame innocent people for something the people don't even know anything about. So, there is no fix for a terrorist. If an american took down a plane full of terrorist families...well, we know what the punishment is for that.

I do agree, 'if mass hypocrisy and stupidiy is the criteria, it's a sad day for mankind everyday'.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

dyfrin wrote:
Scripture Based:

Predating the commandments, was capital punishment. Noah was told "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed." This predates the old covenant/testament and does not go away when the law was fulfilled and the new covenant/testament was created.

Forgiveness is not something you can give to someone who has not asked for it. Some circles believe if you forgive someone, you did your part. On the contrary, repentance of the act that wronged you is needed before you can forgive, otherwise it should be a subject never swept under the rug unless it was minute. Otherwise you are condoning them in the first place by just saying you forgive them.

If he has repented, then he should be apologizing to the families publicly through letters. Then the family can forgive (and should if they have any value in their own forgiveness if they have been forgiven). Then he should still be executed.


Sorry, brother, but I think your view of Scripture is very narrow. I could cite a multitude of passages that encourage forgiveness and are not in any way predicated on repentance. I think you're confusing human forgiveness and divine forgiveness - which does require repentance.

Also, you started your post with "Scripture Based:", but only offered one unreferenced sentence in support of your argument. I wonder if you could elaborate. Currently your argument is conjectural not evidential.

BTW: God becoming incarnate as man and suffering death did, in fact, change everything. That was the point.

devilwood wrote:
But these people are allowing a judicial system inacted by a state of laws governing a peaceful society fulfill the 'act' of vengeance for them whom decided putting the man in prison was appropriate for his actions.


For better or worse, that system was inacted so we wouldn't become him.

Quote:
If an american took down a plane full of terrorist families...well, we know what the punishment is for that.


Yep. Timothy McVeigh and us do know the punishment for that. I guess we're making up for all those years of not putting people's decapitated heads on pikes. :)

*shakes head* ...and some call us arrogant.
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

devilwood wrote:
just cause someone wants the man to finish out his appropriate punishment as already decided by a governing body does not mean they are consumed with hatred and anger all of their days. Don't be ridiculous, mk27. I do see what you mean though, but she's completely justified in being that mad. I'm sure alot of hatred and anger arose when they reopened this terrorist's case. This is something the families are trying to put behind them


Very good point. I imagine the families were subject to no end of inquiry from the media, and am I sure if it were me it would, at least, open an old wound and of course I would say "I hope he rots in hell, please don't let him out".

But the woman I heard went on for some minutes about Libya and Qaddafi. Without any intention of defending "them", it does seem slightly unhealthy to me that this woman, whom I suspect would otherwise be unpoliticized, has developed this hatred well beyond the figure of al-Megrahi and still quickly and eagerly descends into a global political diatribe about it. Imagine if everyone who lost a loved one to violence -- whether it's war, crime, or terrorism -- permanently dedicated themselves to that hard a line. The violence would only snowball!

I wonder a little if the difference between America and the UK here is somewhat related to WWII (my mom is an English immigrant who was born on Sept 3, 1939, aka the day Churchill declared war, and my dad grew up in occupied Denmark). If your brother or father or sister or mother were killed by the Germans, how long would you hate Germans? It doesn't matter that the government changed -- you know that most of the people who were the Nazis responsible probably went unpunished. But at a certain point you must also realize there is a better way to deal with grief, resentment, conflict, etc. America was not overrun or subject to civilian casualties, and is still a spoiled bunch of brats in that sense -- easy to provoke, and immature in temperament.

Again, I wouldn't have freed the guy and that's easy to understand IMO. I'm just trying to get my head around all this Scottish "compassion".

Quote:
The cycle you talk about is always going to be there as long as the terrorist blame innocent people for something the people don't even know anything about. So, there is no fix for a terrorist. If an american took down a plane full of terrorist families...well, we know what the punishment is for that.

Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by Us in Vietnam and the Middle East. America has invested heavily in the cycle of violence, probably because, as I just said and despite events like 911 (which really is a drop in a bucket, death wise), it has never had to pay much of a real price for it. That's not a justification for terrorism*, it's just an observation about the consequences of wearing rose colored glasses when you look one way, and a laser scope when you look the other.

* I would bet money that the hard-core violent types at the heart of terrorism, people who have committed themselves to military training and would go for almost any excuse to use it -- which there appear to be some number of people like that in America, ala McVeigh -- exploit other people who would otherwise never have picked up a weapon on the basis of the fact that those people have been unfairly wronged somehow, possibly quite severely, and can be persuaded that there is a course of action to take. I doubt that they actually "blame innocent people", but, like an Apache or drone pilot, they sometimes perhaps have 'higher' priorities. Not to equate the two completely, just to indicate that they must bleed into each other at some point. Altho they do come close, not even terrorists are out there screaming "WE ARE EVIL AND PROUD OF IT! LONG LIVE EVIL!! EVIL WILL TRIUMPH!". Why is that?
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I feel in a way i have to defend my country here.

I was having a look at the map linking everything regarding al-Megrahi and found it quite interesting how big a role Scotland had in this. The town of Lockerbie is located on the south west of Scotland just next to Scotland's border to England.

The flight departed London and was flying to New York, the way the flights go from London is they swing north up across the south of Scotland before crossing the pond. I don't for a second believe the bomb went off in Scotland, i believe it went off in England and as the plane descended it eventually crashed in Scotland. So, the only real crime committed in Scotland was that of the bombed aircraft landing on one of our towns.

Skip forward several years now, al-Megrahi is one of the main suspects accused of the bombing and is brought to court. He is sentanced under Scottish law to impisonment in a Scottish prison. He maintains his innocent and appeals, in the meantime he develops Prostate cancer. There are calls for him to be released on compassionate grounds. The Justice secretary of Scotland grants him permission to leave and then there is this massive outcry.

There were a number of options proposed to the Justice Secretary, one of which i found comical coming from Hilary Clinton. She requested that if al-Megrahi was given permission to leave prison on compassionate grounds he would remain in Scotland and not be allowed to return to Libya. Why?

The more i read about this on various sites i frequent i am being led to believe there is more to it than we are reading in the media. Infact, the media here is even coming up with one of the main conspiracy theories. What if he was wrongfully accused and was a scapegoat? what if both the UK government and American government are hiding the real story?

To be honest, i hate to think people think lowly of Scotland and it's Justice system (a system in which a large number of countries base their laws on). Perhaps Kenny MacAskill was righting some wrongs by releasing him on compassionate grounds based on the weak evidence he was given.

Interesting to see the UK Government kept quiet regarding the issue when MacAskill wanted their input...

BBC
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

SB wrote:
I feel in a way i have to defend my country here.


I don't think you need to defend your country. Your judicial system, like most in the western world, are designed to protect the wrongly accused and not be overreaching or overly emotional in their punishments.

I'm not sure why you would find Hilary Clinton's suggestion comical. It makes perfect sense to me that you wouldn't want to send a terrorist home to become a rallying point for like minded people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8213077.stm
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I can appreciate this, but why would she expect the Scottish taxpayer to fund our police force to look after him until he passed?

If she was willing to pay for his protection then yes i wouldn't have had a big problem with him staying.
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

SB wrote:
To be honest, i hate to think people think lowly of Scotland and it's Justice system (a system in which a large number of countries base their laws on). Perhaps Kenny MacAskill was righting some wrongs by releasing him on compassionate grounds based on the weak evidence he was given.


I've said enough but if any good can be "envisioned" developing from this, it might be that it is in some sense a noble gesture* -- not toward a terrorist scumbag who will probably never repent (but will die soon anyway) -- but toward ideals like compassion that do not have to be given up for any price. That is to say, you do not have become like a rattlesnake or a shark, in order to hunt rattlesnakes or sharks, and while sometimes it may be regrettably necessary to deal with them in severe ways, you should also recognize the choices you make. I would even go so far as to say that human beings are not squirrels -- they are potentially very nasty beasts, like sharks and rattlesnakes, who are just existing according to their nature.

The man has already been defanged and his health is too poor to allow him to be a threat to others. It does not matter what happens to him. There is no point in hating him or wanting to exact some vengeance upon him further (as digitalMedia says "overly emotional"). That he might be a rallying point at home, well, how about the idea that those borderline terrorists, who may or may not get serious, might hear about this and think: "Maybe the West is not the mindless evil I thought it to be? Maybe I don't have to be a rabid dog either?" Or if not them, then their families and friends, who would encourage and support them? What if we had hung him on television? What do you think the trickle down of that would be? Better, or worse?

* so congratulations Scotland.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

SB wrote:
I can appreciate this, but why would she expect the Scottish taxpayer to fund our police force to look after him until he passed?

If she was willing to pay for his protection then yes i wouldn't have had a big problem with him staying.


Cheers, mate! To use a vernacular not my own. ;)

Pints are on me. :beerchug:
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

The guy's going to die a horrible painful death of prostate cancer. He probably can't even take a crap without grinding his teeth anymore.

Let him out, keep an eye on him. I knew a guy with prostate cancer who had to wear a colostomy bag, trust me, that's punishment enough.

In fact, we should find a way to induce prostate cancer, give it to all of the violent criminals, let them out on house arrest, and save a fortune on prison costs.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
In fact, we should find a way to induce prostate cancer, give it to all of the violent criminals, let them out on house arrest, and save a fortune on prison costs.


Now that piques my interest. Could we also test experimental cancer drugs on them? :twisted:
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Could we also test experimental cancer drugs on them?


What happens if they start feeling better and don't tell anybody ?
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
What happens if they start feeling better and don't tell anybody ?


Ooo, good point.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

We could always keep a few of the more violent ones in jail and test it out on them.

I couldn't help just now but to think about parole hearings being changed so that they're held at the beginning of a prison term.

Quote:
Alright inmate #1283743543 take your pick,

1) Spend the rest of your life in prison
2) Get released right now after being given prostate cancer and a life expectancy of 3 years


It's not like they're going to be able to do much harm with a bag of crap strapped to their side and being in almost constant pain. People tend to stay away from people who have skid marks in their pants anyway so it's not like it would be a problem if they started popping pain killers and ditching their colostomy bag.
  • devilwood
  • Silver Member
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 437

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:

just to indicate that they must bleed into each other at some point.



I wish they would pick targets that would just bleed into each other,
But the main difference for an Apache pilot is that he bases his attack on the best intel at the time to reduce collateral damage or loss of innocent life. He does have a viable target. Terrorist pick the target with the greatest 'collateral damage'. It's completed misguided and it's not how you win a war or make a point for that matter. Speaking of WWII, Hitler did the same thing after his Air Force took out the Royal British planes and the door was open for attack. Hitler, instead of attacking viable military targets decided to discourage/de-moralize the English people and changed all the targets to civilian targets. This had an adverse reaction by the English instead of de-moralizing and it gave the English time to rebuild their own Air Force.


Foreign Policy:
The terrorist or even civilians of other countries blame US for these foreign policies that the citizens don't know anything about or allowed to know anything about. Face it, we have a presidential vote but WE're not really electing him. Basically, Obama winning results were already in only after a few states were complete. So, many states were still counting and the US had already decided who the next president would be based on electoral votes cause NY holds more weight than AL because more people live in NY or there's more representatives. Then the media gives you the popular vote for $h1ts and giggles I guess. However, once these 'strangers' take office, we don't know what they do in other countries because we don't even know where they come from or who they are when they're running for office. Ask any civilian walking the streets during the next election anything about one of the candidates platform. I bet they'll be oblivious.

I guess I think terrorist should just pick better targets cause the ones they're hitting aren't changing government policies or defining to the populace the terrorist cause. Plus, why do terrorist think that killing a bunch of innocent people will suede a government to do something? Trust me, politicians really don't care about the people.

If other countries are unhappy with US policy in their country then they should get the word out to the US people instead of letting the US media tell it. They should hire a web developer and make a nice site, work on SEO, maybe put some news clips on youtube. Do they not have reporters/journalist in these countries that are so mad at us? Let the US people know and then they MIGHT be able to do something about it. We have activist groups for everything, but if don't know the problem exists and it's just a conspiracy theory then no one is going to do anything or organize anything. Also, I guess terrorist don't know who Martin Luther King Jr. was. They can accomplish more by picketing, marching, or sitting-in then they could running planes into buildings. They would atleast win the hearts of the PEOPLE and then things can change from there.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5148
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

devilwood wrote:
I wish they would pick targets that would just bleed into each other,
But the main difference for an Apache pilot is that he bases his attack on the best intel at the time to reduce collateral damage or loss of innocent life. He does have a viable target. Terrorist pick the target with the greatest 'collateral damage'. It's completed misguided and it's not how you win a war or make a point for that matter. Speaking of WWII, Hitler did the same thing after his Air Force took out the Royal British planes and the door was open for attack. Hitler, instead of attacking viable military targets decided to discourage/de-moralize the English people and changed all the targets to civilian targets. This had an adverse reaction by the English instead of de-moralizing and it gave the English time to rebuild their own Air Force.


Foreign Policy:
The terrorist or even civilians of other countries blame US for these foreign policies that the citizens don't know anything about or allowed to know anything about. Face it, we have a presidential vote but WE're not really electing him. Basically, Obama winning results were already in only after a few states were complete. So, many states were still counting and the US had already decided who the next president would be based on electoral votes cause NY holds more weight than AL because more people live in NY or there's more representatives. Then the media gives you the popular vote for $h1ts and giggles I guess. However, once these 'strangers' take office, we don't know what they do in other countries because we don't even know where they come from or who they are when they're running for office. Ask any civilian walking the streets during the next election anything about one of the candidates platform. I bet they'll be oblivious.

I guess I think terrorist should just pick better targets cause the ones they're hitting aren't changing government policies or defining to the populace the terrorist cause. Plus, why do terrorist think that killing a bunch of innocent people will suede a government to do something? Trust me, politicians really don't care about the people.

If other countries are unhappy with US policy in their country then they should get the word out to the US people instead of letting the US media tell it. They should hire a web developer and make a nice site, work on SEO, maybe put some news clips on youtube. Do they not have reporters/journalist in these countries that are so mad at us? Let the US people know and then they MIGHT be able to do something about it. We have activist groups for everything, but if don't know the problem exists and it's just a conspiracy theory then no one is going to do anything or organize anything. Also, I guess terrorist don't know who Martin Luther King Jr. was. They can accomplish more by picketing, marching, or sitting-in then they could running planes into buildings. They would atleast win the hearts of the PEOPLE and then things can change from there.


:scratchhead:

Wow! I'm really baffled with some of these posts. I just can't follow a logical flow. Maybe I'm just too stupid and you guys are talking way over my head. I have lots of questions.

So, devilwood, your saying (in regard to US foreign policy?) that our electoral college is controlled by the media? That's how President Obama got elected? Is that how George W. Bush got elected, twice? Is that true of my own state, South Carolina, which is dogmatically arch-conservative?

You're saying that the use of an electoral college prevents us from actually electing a president but only serves as an illusion of electing him or her? Because the media, in fact, makes that decision?

Could you define "The Media"?

Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'strangers'?

You really believe that every US citizen is so stupid that they are completely oblivious - everyone one of them, except for you?

Your also contending that interests opposed to the US (nations, terrorists organizations, etc.) aren't using the internet or their own media outlets to spread their propaganda and/or philosophies?

Of course you don't have to answer any of my questions. However, if you could just state a premise, clearly, at least, that might help me, and others, to understand what it is your saying.
  • mk27
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 334

Post 3+ Months Ago

devilwood wrote:
But the main difference for an Apache pilot is that he bases his attack on the best intel at the time to reduce collateral damage or loss of innocent life. He does have a viable target. Terrorist pick the target with the greatest 'collateral damage'. It's completed misguided and it's not how you win a war or make a point for that matter.


This is what I meant by wearing rose colored glasses when you look one way and a laser scope when you look the other.

devilwood wrote:
If other countries are unhappy with US policy in their country then they should get the word out to the US people instead of letting the US media tell it. They should hire a web developer and make a nice site, work on SEO, maybe put some news clips on youtube. Do they not have reporters/journalist in these countries that are so mad at us? Let the US people know and then they MIGHT be able to do something about it.


And there is plenty of that out there, just look around (google "Shell Oil in Nigeria" for example). But these are two completely different sets of tactics carried out by two completely different sets of people -- altho, no doubt, Shell Oil would like the opposition in Nigeria considered terrorists. While other people might consider some of Shell's operations in Nigeria "terrorist", eg. the hiring of armed forces to execute people. Perhaps everyone is really a terrorist...

In all seriousness, the kind of terrorist we are talking about is not striving for legitimacy in your eyes. As I said, the real core are born violent types who intend to be involved in as much violence as they can for the duration of their (probably not very long) lives. The problem is that (again, for example) it is easy to see how a Palestinian who just had two of his young children shot to death by Israeli soldiers who know they can get away with anything might suddenly want to get violent and begin sympathizing with terrorists for that reason. That would not happen if the Israelis were not brutal and vindictive. That's the cycle. The hard core violent types on both sides -- Israeli and Palestinian -- of course understand this and actively seek to perpetuate it, because they want to be killers until they die. Ultra-violent Palestinians and ultra-violent Israelis are the same in the sense that they are obviously not truly interested in an end to conflict, they are interested in seeing it escalate and continue. So saying "this is the wrong way to fight a war or make a point" misses the point. The Palestinian's children are already dead. He is not getting a gun to "make a point"; he is getting a gun to kill some Israeli soldiers. Wouldn't you? :|
  • devilwood
  • Silver Member
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 437

Post 3+ Months Ago

DM, I'm saying that there is an illusion to some extent of being elected by the people in US and that the 'strangers' are our politicians. I didn't mean to exclude myself as being oblivious to political agendas, but the majority of the US populace has no clue of what is really going on politically and neither do I. So, I venture to say that the majority of people who are victims in a terrorist attack, including their families, never know why or the terrorist's true cause. The media I'm referring to is FOX, C-Span, etc where people tune it to try get an idea of what's going on. However, there's government spokesmen for all of them. So, the 'media' is unwillingly or unknowingly reporting on whatever story is handed to them (creates conspiracy theories) and it never covers the real US presence in other countries that's making them mad at us or the terrorist's true agenda. I did say they should use youtube, but while it's all propaganda there is a difference between a terrorist recruiting advertisement and actual journialistic reporting. I'm talking about the later. And I'm not saying the media controls the electoral college, but the media is the main source for the people to find out about the candidates and the candidates views. My point is that terrorist shouldn't take out on the people what the elected officials do. While there seems to be a small degree of separation it is indeed quite large between commoners and politicians.

MK, I understand what you're saying between the Israelis and Palestinians but they've been in a feud for many, many , many generations and also land plays a role in their conflict. US has closed borders and I'm certain that out of all the terrorist attacks that the terrorist have never actually exacted revenged on any one responsible. I do agree that who is called a terrorist can be a relative term. I mainly use it for someone killing with the greatest amount of collateral damage and the wrong way to fight a war is attacking civilian targets.

To both, thanks for reading and replying. I'm enjoying discussing this topic with everyone. DM, at no time will I ever call you or a question stupid and no one else should on forums but they do. Now, I did tell MK not to be ridiculous about reasons behind hate-mongering but that was not directed towards his character. I don't think he took it that way so I lucked up on that one, but I rarely make remarks like that. My apologies to him nonetheless.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 26 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.