So it >is< military action that creates terrorists.No, I've already corrected you on that account.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41151|Here]
Ah...so you think that its only military action that creates these terrorists. So..just stop the military action and they will mysteriously vanish?Again, your Alzheimer's is really in force today. How about these key words: "Saudi", "Millionaire", "holy land". Ringing any more bells?
How many times will I have to clarify that for you?
I'm betting an INFINITE number of times.
Why? Because that little fact (that not all terrorists are motivated by the same things) just does not fit your world view.
Therefore, you will reject it. Over and over again.
Therefore, you will continue to assign me a position I did not state.
Military action is NOT the ONLY thing that breeds terrorists.
There is also religious conviction (Osama's driving force).
There is also poverty.
There are many causes.
So, to deal with terrorism, we must deal with each of these root causes.
But the suggestion that treating terrorists like criminals breeds more terrorists is responded to with...Ah, you see, if it were ME making that statement, I'd have provide a DIRECT QUOTE to illustrate my point.
You do not.
That's because you don't have one. In other words, you're lieing, again. But what did I expect from Mr. Pathetic.
Or didn't you understand when you read the demands for release of prisoners made at the end of the video.Ah, so your point is that the people there would NOT be terrorists if their commrades were NOT in jail.
Sorry, Mr. Pathetic, You're wrong.
Maybe these folks don't recognize the difference between Justice and Military Justice...instead looking at both as unwelcome interference?Again, Mr. Pathetic. "Military Justice" is NOT what you were discussing. You were discussing military operations. Military Justice is codified by the UCMJ. Please attempt to learn the terminology.
No???? You make these assertions with no links to proof? And you would let anyone who dare disagree with you get away with this?Oh, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who cares what your opinion is. Sorry, it's my background. Once I've established a pattern, there's no need to re-establish it. I've previously shown that you will refuse to provide links to support your statements. Therefore, I am not under any requirement to provide links to support my statements to you. If someone else asks, I will provide such information to them. But I don't think that anyone else will ask as anyone else (aside from two people who immediately spring to mind) will already be informed on this subject and will not require that I list terrorists held in prisons.
Standard tactic by you. Make a statement and demand that someone >else< prove it with links. DIYActually, as I said above, that has been established as one of your's. That's why I don't bother anymore when I'm talking at you.
My link started this thread. That link show a reporter being beheaded...with a demand that prisoners be released attached to the end....I would venture a guess that treating terrorists as criminals only pisses the other terrorists off based upon that evidence.Ah, while factually true, your statement is designed to mislead.
You see, I have never made the statement that jailing terrorists would NOT piss off other terrorists.
Just that it would not create NEW terrorists.
And your only solution offered to date to stop the generation of more terrorists is to stop military action.Another lie? Why should I expect anything different from you? I could go back and find the posts of mine where I said we should work to improve their economies. Or where I said we needed to marginalize their fundamentalists. But why? To prove it to you? You've already made up your mind and that is why you keep "forgetting" what I've posted. Not to mention the outright lies you post that you claim are from me.
Ashton brought about the uneven distribution of wealth...I believe you responded favorably to that but have not offered that on your own...so I retract earlier statements made to you about sending them money.Okay, you're having trouble maintaining coherence from one paragraph to the next. First off, it is that all I've said is to stop military action. Then it is that I've favoured wealth re-distribution.
I can understand your problem. It's a complex solution I've offered and you're saddled with a simplistic outlook.
You suggested blockades as another deterrent...and then claim decided ignorance of the fact that Iraq has links to terrorist activity...and have been the focus of blockades for quite some time.No, I've suggested blockades IN CONJUNCTION with freezing assets as a means to get countries to turn over terrorists.
Not as a deterrent.
Or are you using words that are too big for you?
Again, complex solutions and you're saddled with a simplistic mind.
Blockades...by the way...that end up causing a more even distribution of "collateral damage" to the innocent population...which...I guess...according to your logic...would create more terrorists just like bombing them would.Really? Have you travelled to Cuba lately? Seems that they can do okay even when no one will trade with them (sort of). Hell, look at all those healthy Cuban ball players we import. Damn, those sanctions must REALLY be hurting those Cuban women and children.
Or are you suggesting that we now have technology that allows "pinpoint blockades"...that only hurt the people we want and leaves the innocent population free from their effects?No. What I'm SAYING is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You say that my suggestion would result in even MORE suffering than bombing them. Yet Iraq, after 10 years of such sanctions, STILL exists. Cuba still exists.
Now, from my experience, after 10 years of bombing, there wouldn't be a country left.
Therefore, I say that freezing their accounts and blockading them would do LESS damage than bombing them.
This does not meet your world view so you will ignore it.