Why Terrorism Doesn't Work

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Correspondence inference theory? No, thanks. I’ll take the correspondence principle over it anytime. Seriously though Liftus, I pretty much agree with your point. The goals of Al-Qaeda are unachievable. They know that, and the only thing they’re after is martyrdom.

Yet, terrorism does work if you’ve got enough muscle. Case in point: The US military.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Who are you to say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? [/quote]

Darn! Are you seriously still buying Cheney’s old speeches?

I won’t address this point nor any other of your Bush cheerleading comments. They all crumble under their own weight. But allow me to add that if you believe Jesus and Mohammad were terrorists, then you might wanna add to them the Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophers. After all, karma is no different.

And while you’re at it, why not put your local policeman and judge on the list? Don’t they issue warning on a daily basis? Try reading the Quran sometime. The idea is that God is the only one who decides who goes where on judgment day. Not Mohammad nor any other prophet! Of course, if you believe in the Trinity, your point might hold water…

42

[quote]lixy wrote:
Yet, terrorism does work if you’ve got enough muscle. Case in point: The US military.
[/quote]
Correspondence theory would dictate that people’s reaction to US military force would keep them from attaining their goals because the correspondence pertaining to military violence is so high.

For example, throughout certain parts of the world the US military is viewed as the colonial arm of the mercantile empire and this is not trusted–if one accepts that the US views its role in the world as a peddler of trust and goodwill as our current administration insists.

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if one accepts that the US views its role in the world as a peddler of trust and goodwill as our current administration insists.
[/quote]

Too many highly ranked officials have refuted that stance for it to remain credible. You’d have to be a retard to accept such baloney. Therefore, Bush is either disingenuous or stupid. Take your pick.

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
Correspondence inference theory? No, thanks. I’ll take the correspondence principle over it anytime. Seriously though Liftus, I pretty much agree with your point. The goals of Al-Qaeda are unachievable. They know that, and the only thing they’re after is martyrdom.

Yet, terrorism does work if you’ve got enough muscle. Case in point: The US military.

texasguy1 wrote:
Who are you to say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Darn! Are you seriously still buying Cheney’s old speeches?

I won’t address this point nor any other of your Bush cheerleading comments. They all crumble under their own weight. But allow me to add that if you believe Jesus and Mohammad were terrorists, then you might wanna add to them the Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophers. After all, karma is no different.

And while you’re at it, why not put your local policeman and judge on the list? Don’t they issue warning on a daily basis? Try reading the Quran sometime. The idea is that God is the only one who decides who goes where on judgment day. Not Mohammad nor any other prophet! Of course, if you believe in the Trinity, your point might hold water…[/quote]
Terrorism does work if you have enough muscle. I stated that in my first post.

I have made statements supporting bush and I have expressed discontent depending on which topic and under what context you were reading.

Ridiculous “cheer leader” comments are a poor attempt to illicit emotion and turn the discussion to a flaming war. Fun, but not really necessary in an interesting topic.

Yes, I would rank any religious leader who manipulates the minds of their followers by using fear a terrorist, or at least a terror “enabler”.

The catholics with their inquistions, muhammed with his wars to spread his religion and others who threaten with eternal damnation, Allah and the Trinity included as the belief is intended to be literal. If one literally believes what they read in particular religious texts, the danger of hell is as real as the danger of an oven for a Jew in Auschwitz.

Policemen do act as terrorists when they unnecessarily get right up on your bumper and follow you for miles. You are making similar examples to back one point.

I don’t feel like addressing them all. The idea behind each is the same.

anyways:

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

I’m glad terrorism is effective and that the US is powerful enough to be the most successful terrorist. It certainly allows for an excellent quality of life here.

You are really just confirming my points and trying to make me argue with myself?