quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Thus far we two explanations for terrorism. These are:
1. it is an outcome of political failure to deal with underlying political and social problems; and
2. it is an outcome of certain religions/ideologies (if I understand WOTF's position correctly)
This brings us to the question of solutions or appropriate responses to terrorism. What do people see as a solution/appropriate response to this issue?
I can only offer measures that are consistent with the analysis that I have advanced consistently. The main measures I would like to see are:
1. withdrawal of all Western armies from the Middle East region; (IOW, it's not their fault, it's ours.)
2. force Israel to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians on the basis of Two States and UN resolution 242; and
3. cease all arms sales to the region. (IOW, it's not their fault, it's ours.)
All of these measures should be part of an integrated overall strategy to withdraw support. from unrepresentative Govts in the region, promotion of democracy and human rights and making the entire region a nuclear weapons free zone. All of these measures are do-able within a relatively short time span. They will have the effect of removing the West from the firing line and encouraging the people of the region to solve their own problems without outside interference. They will also separate the terrorists from their support base and effectively marginalise them. Where they agree to renounce violence they should be encouraged to enter into the political process of their country.

quote:

Until the threat of terrorism is finally removed by the effect of these measures, terrorism ought to be regarded as a policing/security matter, (NOT a military issue) with closer co-operation between countries' police forces, info sharing and punitive sentencing the main points of counter-terrorist strategy. It is imperative that no existing rights be diminished/abolished - our rights and values are what separate us from the terrorists and they ought to be strengthened and emphasised, not reduced.

quote:

quote:

It is up to the people of the region to decide what kind of Govts they have. The role of the West should be to foster good relations trade and matters of mutual benefit with those Govts that reflect the wishes of their populations and to deny active support to those than don't.

What happens when the Governments that are accurately representing the wishes of their populations are acting in a way that is counter to fundamental ideals of other Governments? Let's say that the majority of Iraqi's supported the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Do we oppose or support Iraq?

quote:

All the elements I have mentioned above ought to be Western policy in any event, that is they ought to be enacted whether anti-Western terrorism exists or not.

At what point is terrorism an unacceptable reaction, regardless of provocation? Are rockets being launched into Israel from Gaza really an acceptable way to protest Israel's West Bank settlements? If Israel and Palestinian leaders are in negotiations and talks and Israel doesn't increase it's settlements while the talks are going on, and Hamas fires rockets into Israel while those same talks are going on, is that an acceptable reaction by Hamas?

On a related sidebar: How is a two-state solution going to work when Gaza and the West Bank aren't connected? Wouldn't that require a 3-state solution?

_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to tweakabelle)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Thus far we two explanations for terrorism. These are:
1. it is an outcome of political failure to deal with underlying political and social problems; and
2. it is an outcome of certain religions/ideologies (if I understand WOTF's position correctly)

This brings us to the question of solutions or appropriate responses to terrorism. What do people see as a solution/appropriate response to this issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
When you make the case - which we agree you have done consistently - that the solutions to end terrorism lies in the hands of the ones who are the victims of the terrorism, you are absolving those who are committing the actions of terrorism. That is, you are saying that terrorism is a legitimate (aka acceptable) response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Because it's a lot easier to argue with what somebody didn't say than with what they did.
It's called "strawmanning", I'm told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
When you make the case - which we agree you have done consistently - that the solutions to end terrorism lies in the hands of the ones who are the victims of the terrorism, you are absolving those who are committing the actions of terrorism. That is, you are saying that terrorism is a legitimate (aka acceptable) response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

Dude, you shouldn't end up continually informing someone else what there position is while they keep tell you that you're wrong. That you don't get to decide what Tweak's position is should be really REALLY obvious, I don't get why you keep doing it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Dude, you are the one who is putting words into someone's mouth here. He's not claiming that she actually said that, he's only pointing out an unfortunate consequence of what she actually did say.
Consider groups of youths mugging joggers in the park at night. All youths don't do this. Why do these? An examination of the facts might discover that they are poor, while the majority of kids their age have game consoles and video games which they prefer over hanging out in the park at night getting into trouble.
If these youths also had game consoles and video games, very possibly they wouldn't be hanging out in the park at night either. But taking that approach marginalizes any direct personal responsibility for their behavior by portraying them as simply responding to circumstances that they have no ability to control.
Similarly, inventing these theories is what sociologists prefer to do instead of hanging out in the park at night getting into trouble.
K.[/font][/size]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

quote:



Until the threat of terrorism is finally removed by the effect of these measures, terrorism ought to be regarded as a policing/security matter, (NOT a military issue) with closer co-operation between countries' police forces, info sharing and punitive sentencing the main points of counter-terrorist strategy. It is imperative that no existing rights be diminished/abolished - our rights and values are what separate us from the terrorists and they ought to be strengthened and emphasised, not reduced.

So, the Palestinian leadership/governments in the West Bank and Gaza should police those that are sending RPG's into Israel? I'm sure they'll get right on that.



The Taliban certainly didn't help police al Qaeda, did they? What happens when terrorism isn't based from one country, but from groups that are in many different nations and who only have connections via extremist interpretations of a religion? What country is going to help police those instances? If the terror attacks are perpetrated by radical Islamists (which is only a small subset of all Muslims, imo) from multiple countries, who is going to help out? Saudi nationals working with al qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan were behind the 9/11/01 attacks. Who was to be policing that? Obviously, the US has a responsibility to participate in that policing, but Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Neither of those two countries can be blamed for the attacks, can they? Is Chechnya or Russia in some small way responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Because it's a lot easier to argue with what somebody didn't say than with what they did.
It's called "strawmanning", I'm told.

I see the cats have gotten to your dictionary as well ;p

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

quote:


Until the threat of terrorism is finally removed by the effect of these measures, terrorism ought to be regarded as a policing/security matter, (NOT a military issue) with closer co-operation between countries' police forces, info sharing and punitive sentencing the main points of counter-terrorist strategy. It is imperative that no existing rights be diminished/abolished - our rights and values are what separate us from the terrorists and they ought to be strengthened and emphasised, not reduced.

So, the Palestinian leadership/governments in the West Bank and Gaza should police those that are sending RPG's into Israel? I'm sure they'll get right on that.
The Taliban certainly didn't help police al Qaeda, did they? What happens when terrorism isn't based from one country, but from groups that are in many different nations and who only have connections via extremist interpretations of a religion? What country is going to help police those instances? If the terror attacks are perpetrated by radical Islamists (which is only a small subset of all Muslims, imo) from multiple countries, who is going to help out? Saudi nationals working with al qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan were behind the 9/11/01 attacks. Who was to be policing that? Obviously, the US has a responsibility to participate in that policing, but Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Neither of those two countries can be blamed for the attacks, can they? Is Chechnya or Russia in some small way responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing?

You can take it as a measure of just how cockeyed your responses to my posts have been that the above quote of mine was detailing the things I would like the West to do, not Middle Eastern govts as you have interpreted it. There was another piece in the post talking about what Middle Eastern governance being a matter for the people of the region. Your response is out by only one continent.
It is sad that something this inaccurate is actually an improvement on your previous posts and consistent attempts to put words in my mouth. But if the bar is placed at its lowest possible level anything, no matter how microscopic, is an improvement.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Dude, you are the one who is putting words into someone's mouth here. He's not claiming that she actually said that, he's only pointing out an unfortunate consequence of what she actually did say.

Consider groups of youths mugging joggers in the park at night. All youths don't do this. Why do these? An examination of the facts might discover that they are poor, while the majority of kids their age have game consoles and video games which they prefer over hanging out in the park at night getting into trouble.

If these youths also had game consoles and video games, very possibly they wouldn't be hanging out in the park at night either. But taking that approach marginalizes any direct personal responsibility for their behavior by portraying them as simply responding to circumstances that they have no ability to control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Dude?" Really? "Dude?!?"

So, show me where my assertion is wrong. Don't just tell me that Tweaks says I'm wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Show me how my analysis of her actual words... you know, the stuff I quote that she wrote... isn't correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Dude?" Really? "Dude?!?"
So, show me where my assertion is wrong. Don't just tell me that Tweaks says I'm wrong.

That's all I should need to tell you. Tweak is the final arbiter of what her position is. You don't get to assign her a position, you don't get to debate with her about what her position consists of. She comes up with her position and informs you what it is, that's how these things work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Show me how my analysis of her actual words... you know, the stuff I quote that she wrote... isn't correct.

It's not the quoting her that's the issue, it's what you put after phrases such as "IOW", "aka", "you are saying".
You see it's possible for people to notice patterns of action and reaction without making the dumbest possible value judgement. Saying that something is a reaction isn't the same as approving of that reaction, considering it legitimate or considering it acceptable.
To give an unrelated example of this difference. A couple walks into a dark alley and a mugger accosts them, the wife says give him your money so he won't kill you.
The wife could look back on their decisions and think it was stupid for them to go down the dark alley and stupid for the husband to try and fight off the mugger. However, that doesn't actually imply that she considers the actions of the mugger legitimate or acceptable.
Now what's happened in the Middle East is of course a complex cluster fuck and not analogous to that simple example, I just wanted to put up a simple example where the issue with A therefore B is straightforward.
Sure Tweak takes position A and position B is about the dumbest possible position she could take but it doesn't actually follow from there that she holds position B.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)