Why do you hate al-Qaeda?

[Adron]

How has al-Qaeda personally, directly hurt you?

You can also tell me how others such as Hamas, Taliban, Saddam Hussein have hurt you personally and directly.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

- killing innocent people, one of whom i know
- ruining consumer confidence/economy

[hismajesty]

Harming US economy, causing my grandfather to lose thousands in the stock market after 9/11.

[quasi-modo]

Almost killing my uncle who was to be in a meeting on the 98th floor of the second tower. He was lucky that his meeting was postponed hours before the planes hit.

[Hazard]

al-Qaeda attacked the United States directly. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

[hismajesty]

Funny how the four people that respond are the four that generally agree during the debates. None of the liberals here dislike al-Qaeda? *pokes Arta*

[Adron]

Maybe al-Qaeda hasn't had any bad effect on him personally? Hazard's one doesn't sound like a case of personal effect on him.

I'm a bit doubtful about the whole economical effect idea too, because economy is such a sensitive thing. The IT death has had a very disruptive effect on economy as well. Global economy is a bit like global climate; a butterfly sneezing in China creates a storm in America. There are many things worrying people apart from al-Qaeda.

I respect the death or close deaths though, that's a heavy personal effect for al-Qaeda to have had.

[hismajesty]

MY best friends uncle lives in Queens. He was right outside of the World Trade Center when it happened, he actually ran in and helped a good amount of people get out apparently, and then when the towers came downt he smoke was so bad he layed down to die. Luckily, though, he did survive.

[Hazard]

It effected every American. Don't start disecting it Adron with the typical bullshit you give us Arta, but emotionally it effected all Americans.

[DOOM]

How has al-Qaeda personally, directly hurt you?

You can also tell me how others such as Hamas, Taliban, Saddam Hussein have hurt you personally and directly.

Better questions:  Why did al-Qaeda hate the thousands of people in the World Trade Center?  How did those people personally, directly hurt the members of al-Qaeda?

[quasi-modo]

I'm a bit doubtful about the whole economical effect idea too, because economy is such a sensitive thing. The IT death has had a very disruptive effect on economy as well. Global economy is a bit like global climate; a butterfly sneezing in China creates a storm in America. There are many things worrying people apart from al-Qaeda.

Can you name any of the companies in the wtc? There are several big names that had their head quarter's knocked out.

During the 1990s some 500 companies, especially financial firms, had offices in the complex, including Morgan Stanley, Aon Corporation, Salomon Brothers, and the Port Authority itself.

I believe the morgan stanley office in the wtc was its head quarters too, and I believe they were on some of the floors that took a direct hit from the planes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't merrill lynch have its hq or regional hq in the wtc as well?

The two companies I named are massive brokerage firms here in the states adron, incase you were not familiar with them. If they get hit hard it does have a noticeable affect on the rest of the market.

[Arta]

They haven't hurt me personally, but that isn't required in order for me to dislike them. I think hate is too strong a word: I do not 'hate' anybody. I think al-Qaeda, and terrorist groups in general, are misguided. Their actions, which are perhaps logical when viewed within the structure of the cultures that prompt them, are nonetheless evil and unjustifiable.

It is also my strong belief that the solution to this problem cannot, in general, be a military one: although small, specific, targeted, precise military actions may be useful as part of a larger strategy. It is pretty well understood by most, and fairly obvious, that killing terrorists and/or the civilians that inevitably get in the way, only creates more terrorists in the longrun. I think that by trying to solve the problem of international terrorism militarily, one will only worsen the problem.

Think of the situation in reverse for a moment, if you will: Imagine, setting aside morality, reason, or justification, that the US had, for some reason it considered sufficient, attacked a foreign power. Imagine that that power had responded in force, and was now occupying the USA. Would you not take up arms? As more and more people were, for whatever reason, killed by the occupiers, would you not become ever more angry and ever more likely to resort to force? This situation seems logical to me. If the occupied country were mine, I believe I would become involved in whatever kind of resistence was available.

Supporters of the War on Terrorism will no doubt say that this analagy is not representative of the current state of affairs in the world, and to an extent, I agree, however: In the minds of the many of the people that oppose the West, this is exactly the situation. Whether or not they are correct in their views is both irreconcilable and irrelevant. That is how they think. Thus, military action alone will never accomplish our goal. It will only increase anti-American, anti-West sentiment.

[hismajesty]

How has al-Qaeda personally, directly hurt you?

You can also tell me how others such as Hamas, Taliban, Saddam Hussein have hurt you personally and directly.

Better questions: Why did al-Qaeda hate the thousands of people in the World Trade Center? How did those people personally, directly hurt the members of al-Qaeda?

I've already explained that numerous times here.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

They haven't hurt me personally, but that isn't required in order for me to dislike them. I think hate is too strong a word: I do not 'hate' anybody. I think al-Qaeda, and terrorist groups in general, are misguided. Their actions, which are perhaps logical when viewed within the structure of the cultures that prompt them, are nonetheless evil and unjustifiable.

It is also my strong belief that the solution to this problem cannot, in general, be a military one: although small, specific, targeted, precise military actions may be useful as part of a larger strategy. It is pretty well understood by most, and fairly obvious, that killing terrorists and/or the civilians that inevitably get in the way, only creates more terrorists in the longrun. I think that by trying to solve the problem of international terrorism militarily, one will only worsen the problem.

Think of the situation in reverse for a moment, if you will: Imagine, setting aside morality, reason, or justification, that the US had, for some reason it considered sufficient, attacked a foreign power. Imagine that that power had responded in force, and was now occupying the USA. Would you not take up arms? As more and more people were, for whatever reason, killed by the occupiers, would you not become ever more angry and ever more likely to resort to force? This situation seems logical to me. If the occupied country were mine, I believe I would become involved in whatever kind of resistence was available.

Supporters of the War on Terrorism will no doubt say that this analagy is not representative of the current state of affairs in the world, and to an extent, I agree, however: In the minds of the many of the people that oppose the West, this is exactly the situation. Whether or not they are correct in their views is both irreconcilable and irrelevant. That is how they think. Thus, military action alone will never accomplish our goal. It will only increase anti-American, anti-West sentiment.

My God. Arta, you've posted something I agree with.

If we still had karma, I'd give you a +1.

[quasi-modo]

Think of the situation in reverse for a moment, if you will: Imagine, setting aside morality, reason, or justification, that the US had, for some reason it considered sufficient, attacked a foreign power. Imagine that that power had responded in force, and was now occupying the USA. Would you not take up arms? As more and more people were, for whatever reason, killed by the occupiers, would you not become ever more angry and ever more likely to resort to force? This situation seems logical to me. If the occupied country were mine, I believe I would become involved in whatever kind of resistence was available.

Except we are free and the people of Iraq and Afganistan were clearly being oppressed. That is a key difference.