Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?  (Read 1628 times)

Ann Coulter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • Buy my book!
    • View Profile
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2005, 11:09:12 AM »

social drinker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2705
    • View Profile
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2005, 12:03:39 PM »
You (and the author of that article) have no idea what you're talking about. Europe has never been nearly as 'politically correct' as the US. Overall it is and always has been far less tolerant of other races and religions than the US. This isn't a change at all.

Not to mention the fact that Europe has been dealing with terrorism for far longer than the US. Learn some history.

This coming from the same person that said that the way that I debate was insulting?  How novel.

At any rate, you are the one that is wrong.  Europe is known as being far more tolerant and "PC" than the states because of many reasons, the main one being that most of them don't have the social stigmas attached by a history of racism that the states have.


amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2005, 12:33:12 PM »

At any rate, you are the one that is wrong.  Europe is known as being far more tolerant and "PC" than the states because of many reasons, the main one being that most of them don't have the social stigmas attached by a history of racism that the states have.


Known by who as being tolerant?? Political correctness is a purely American invention. Not to mention that many European constitutions do not guarantee the same rights as the US does (for example, freedom of speech, which is much more restricted in Europe than it is here). I am very interested in why you believe Europe is more tolerant and PC than the US. Are you aware of any of the problems with Jews and Muslims in France, for example, or with African immigrants in Italy? Are you aware that it is far more acceptable to say things that would be considered racist in polite company there?

No history of racism? What, exactly, was the Holocaust again?

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2005, 12:37:58 PM »
Also, what about the fact that Europe has been dealing with terrorism for far longer than the US? Or are you just going to ignore that completely?

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2005, 01:35:51 PM »
jager, how do you define "domestic terrorism"?

And how do you explain the fact that in some European countries, they did basically stop it (for example, Italy and the Red Brigades)?

So jager, are you making the argument that Europe is going about it the wrong way, that they are wrong to be using racial profiling and cracking down on certain religions? Is there an argument somewhere in that huge mess of unrelated anti-European sentiment or are you just complaining?

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2005, 02:30:11 PM »
And the United States hasn't exactly been a sterling exemplar on these fronts, either.  My sense is that few other nations have ever held themselves in as high regard as that of the US; this long-standing notion of "American exceptionalism" is not only mostly fiction, but also as big of an hypocrisy as that which you accuse Europeans of.

The US also subscribed to the racist social theory which gave rise to and supported ideologies like the White Man's Burden.  While Europe was scrambling for Africa, we had our eyes on other targets in the 19th century, in the name of the "Manifest Destiny" (which was an implicitly racist ideology; by claiming hat it was the divine mission of the US and its people to expand over the whole of the North American continent, it either failed to acknowledge that there were already millions of human beings living in those "empty" spaces on the map, or else completely disregarded them as having no value whatever.  In either case, it treated non-whites as non-concerns, as inferior beings).  While the Belgians, Germans, French, and British were raping Africa, we were engaged in such wonderful pursuits as the ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes (resulting in millions of deaths over the course of the century), the theft of half of Mexico based on a phony, contrived, and provoked war, the de facto annexation of Cuba at the century's turn, and the de jure annexation of the Philipines, in which over 200,000 Filipinos were slaughtered by the US military.  We also insisted that Britain not be the only ones to profit from their "opening" of China, arguing that an open door policy be adopted, so that we too could enjoy the spoils.  And then there was the "opening" of Japan, which was indirectly responsible for so much human suffering in East Asia.  All the while, many in the US proclaimed the need to educate and civilize all these backward folks, especially people like the Native Americans, the Filipinos, etc.  It was the pervasive Western discourse of the time: everything came down to "civilization" (i.e. the West) versus "barbarism" (i.e. everybody else).  One might also note that we profited from the slave trade and from slavery just as much, if not more, as our European counterparts.  I believe only Brazil and Cuba carried on the official, legal practice of Black slavery longer than the US.  We are hardly in a position to criticize the Europeans for their sins.  They are our sins, too.  We are probably seen (and rightly so) as being just as hypocritical as we accuse other states (like France and Germany) of being.  We get nowhere by disregarding the human rights arguments of others merely because they have a checkered history on the matter; we also have a checkered history on the matter, so by that logic, everything we say on the matter of human rights should be disregarded as well.

As for the economic model of Europe, it appears to have hit some trouble spots, but we'll see how it turns out.  The model has generated some wonderful growth in the past, as in the economic miracles of the 1950s.  I would also note that not all EU members are having a rough time economically, even though all have far more of a social element to their economic model than we do.  Ireland, for example is doing rather well, in terms of growth.  Other countries have managed to institute some form of social democracy that has worked very well (like Japan).  The model probably needs to be tweaked a bit, but I wouldn't call it "failing"; time will tell.  The point is that one has to find the right balance between having a social safety net and letting the free market work its magic.  In the meantime, one thing I think would help to alleviate the economic trouble vis--vis the social safety net in many European countries would be the encouragement of legal immigration (with appropriate security and background checks, of course), so that they could get more workers paying in to the system.  The biggest difficulty they have right now is that their populations are aging and shrinking in many countries; legal immigration could serve as a palliative to this problem.  But fundamentally, these are strong economies, with a well-educated, highly-trained population that enjos a high standard of living.  I don't consider that a sign of "failure" at all.

EDIT:  Okay, maybe laying the suffering of East Asia at the feet of the US from the "opening" of Japan is too much.  But it was the match that hit off the Meiji Restoration (or as I call it, the Revolution) which gave rise to the ultra-right wing ideology that supported Japanese expansionism and exceptionalism.  But I think it's also fair to say that Japan merely learned the imperialist lessons that Western countries (including but not limited to the US) taught them, leading them to become a perpetrator, rather than a victim, of imperialism.  I'm a little undecided on this, though.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

hammer101

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
    • View Profile
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2005, 02:35:42 PM »
easy there vinny.  almost every article you post comes from some obviously right-wing rag.  that's why this article is typical.

and if you understood the idea of constructive debate and disagreement, you'd know i have no problem accepting other people's opinions.  ask phan, pres or dodger.

you really remind me of this poster (hilljack) who used to raise similarly inane points with the gusto of OJ proclaiming his innocence.  now, that's sad.

At least hilljack was reasonably coherent....
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
--Margaret Thatcher

jagertrinken

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2005, 03:12:42 PM »
I just realized how far off base this thread has gotten. I'm deleting all my posts since I'm guilty of going off on so many different tangents.

Flame away.

ImVinny!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2242
  • What am I?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2005, 03:18:55 PM »
How long are you saying that this domestic terrorism has gone back in Europe, that it has been longer than the US?

hammer101

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
    • View Profile
Re: Is Terrorism Politically Sanctioned?
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2005, 03:23:48 PM »
How long are you saying that this domestic terrorism has gone back in Europe, that it has been longer than the US?

Well, the British had to contend w/ the IRA for well over a quarter century, and at one point they even tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher (can you IMAGINE someone trying to kill our president and the level of fear that would create?), and the French endured many terrorist attacks throughout the long war for Algerian independence. Also, the Spanish have had ETA and the Basque seperatists on their hands for the better part of 40 years.

So yes, Europeans have dealt with terrorism for much longer than Americans.
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
--Margaret Thatcher