"Terrorism"

[CK the Fat]

"Honestly, I just hope that all of this "War on Terrorism" crap comes to an end, soon..."

And let terrorists be the victor?

"We said the same thing about Communism. We even went to Vietnam to stop it from spreading. We failed at that. What makes you think we won't fail at trying to stop Terrorism by attacking Iraq?"

We failed once we left. Not while we were there. What does this tell me? Once we leave Iraq, once America stops putting force on terrorist organizations they spring right up and continue their lethal rampages unrestricted.

"the war on terror will never end as long as we keep getting presidents like George W"

The war existed before and it will exist forever.

"That is so true for you americans..."

If Australia had the strongest national economy, greatest standing military, and had three planes run into important buildings, don't you think someone would do the same?

"Ah, you'd make a wonderful despot."

There are two things you can do. You can make everything flowery and nice, or you can make everything work Though know that not everything I debate here is what I personally believe, I am simply offering the reasoning for the path less taken.

"Terrorism is to me when someone acts cruely to harm ppl..and it is also a threat"

I heard a quote once, saying that the most dangerous people in the world are teenage female adolescents... in that case my school is full of terrorists.

"That's true, but people who commit he act of terrorism are called (all together now) Terrorist. Bush is fighting Terrorist who commit Terrorism."

Not only is he fighting Terrorists, he is also fighting religious radicals who believe in the complete extermination of the American populace

 

[Ysu]

And let terrorists be the victor?

Perhaps we should find alternate ways to combat terrorism. A path that doesn't involve extremely high civilian casualties.

We failed once we left. Not while we were there. What does this tell me? Once we leave Iraq, once America stops putting force on terrorist organizations they spring right up and continue their lethal rampages unrestricted.

To my knowledge we failed while we were in Vietnam. When we were there, we weren't exactly winning and we left as losers, not "Defenders of Freedom."

btw, its been killing me and I feel someone needs to say something. When your quoting someone's post, use this format (replace the parentheses with brackets).

(quote=Poster's Name)paste quote here(/quote)

 

[Square Ninja]

"Ah, you'd make a wonderful despot."

There are two things you can do. You can make everything flowery and nice, or you can make everything work Though know that not everything I debate here is what I personally believe, I am simply offering the reasoning for the path less taken.

...and to "make everything work" one must exercise an iron-fisted rule?

"That's true, but people who commit he act of terrorism are called (all together now) Terrorist. Bush is fighting Terrorist who commit Terrorism."

Not only is he fighting Terrorists, he is also fighting religious radicals who believe in the complete extermination of the American populace

It is true that Al Qaeda is a body of religious radicals, but the same could be said for the KKK. Why aren't we fighting them instead? They're right here. Hell, we have much closer targets than terrorists in the Middle-East. How about the IRA?

You people act as though this matter is a complete dichotomy: we're good, they're bad. It's not. Before you rally a Jihad of your own, try to think of why the people would act like this. After all "freedom fighters" often use terrorist tactics to fight their oppressors. What is it that makes this group so "bad?" There's probably a good reason why they hate the US. People don't just call for the eradication of another people for the hell of it. Often the reasons are much more pragmatic than radical religious views.

 

[Inner-Demon]

No one is innocent. No country is innocent. Our President shouldn't be applied to this case, he's one man doing what he feels is the right course of action, when everyone else is against him, I respect that.

An act of terrorism is the case of fighting against freedom to deal oppression. If people die because of that, then it is of their own charge to attempt an act of terrorism, therefore they are not innocent, but guilty of the crime.

Did we deserve two huge planes crashing into the World Trade Center for how our country lives? Certainly not, our president chose to return fire in defense of our freedom and that we're not cowards. Was it the best course? At the time it seemed so, but that isn't the question here.

Does that make America a country of terrorism? No, we aren't attempting to oppress a country, but stop a villain. But then, that brings to question; What is a villain? Would you say Osama and Saddam would not deserve to die for their actions? That is to each their own.

I say, take up a gun, do what you feel is right, fight for America, stand behind our President. But when someone kills for no point, just to murder, just to attack, there is a difference between what America does, and what other dictators have done in our history.

Terrorism is certainly an idea, and freedom is an idea. Both are so closely similar, but they are different.

 

[CK the Fat]

Perhaps we should find alternate ways to combat terrorism. A path that doesn't involve extremely high civilian casualties.

Right, let's offer them a cup of tea and negotiate a peace treaty with them then? Brilliant!

To my knowledge we failed while we were in Vietnam. When we were there, we weren't exactly winning and we left as losers, not "Defenders of Freedom."

But during the objective of halting the spread of communism was succesful.

...and to "make everything work" one must exercise an iron-fisted rule?

History has shown us time and time again fortune favors the bold. It's amazing how much we today have to credit Alexander's World-Domination campaign, Roman Conquerors, the Spanish Conquistadors, etc etc to our lives today. Peace shed from war.

The modern KKK is far different from the Iraqi insurgents. For one thing, they are not all bent on terrorism and complete obliteration of the "enemy," but rather excert their force via legal means. And when KKK members are found guilty of criminal offense... they are found guilty, and sentanced.

You people act as though this matter is a complete dichotomy: we're good, they're bad. It's not. Before you rally a Jihad of your own, try to think of why the people would act like this. After all "freedom fighters" often use terrorist tactics to fight their oppressors. What is it that makes this group so "bad?" There's probably a good reason why they hate the US. People don't just call for the eradication of another people for the hell of it. Often the reasons are much more pragmatic than radical religious views.

And yet the Iraqi populace seems unable to stitch together an agreement on their own, letting religious factions shed blood for political power. You have to consider what is exactly "the lesser of two evils."

No one is innocent. No country is innocent. Our President shouldn't be applied to this case, he's one man doing what he feels is the right course of action, when everyone else is against him, I respect that.

So was Hitler

Does that make America a country of terrorism? No, we aren't attempting to oppress a country.

We're basically saying "be a democracy, take it because you have no other option." In a sense that is a form of oppression, isn't it?

I say, take up a gun, do what you feel is right, fight for America, stand behind our President.

Even if your cause is unjust, if America's cause is unjust, and the President is unjust? Don't you think this is exactly what the terrorists are thinking themselves?

 

[Square Ninja]

History has shown us time and time again fortune favors the bold. It's amazing how much we today have to credit Alexander's World-Domination campaign, Roman Conquerors, the Spanish Conquistadors, etc etc to our lives today. Peace shed from war.

Peace shed through war? Hardly. They ****ing crushed all the forces that would oppose them. How could the people fight back? Sure, there was no conflict afterwards, because they killed those with the will to oppose, and everyone else was scared shitless. That's not peace, that's fear, a form of terrorism in and of itself.

The modern KKK is far different from the Iraqi insurgents. For one thing, they are not all bent on terrorism and complete obliteration of the "enemy," but rather excert their force via legal means. And when KKK members are found guilty of criminal offense... they are found guilty, and sentanced.

Ah, so terrorism is okay as long as it's "legal?"

And yet the Iraqi populace seems unable to stitch together an agreement on their own, letting religious factions shed blood for political power. You have to consider what is exactly "the lesser of two evils."

Our own GOP can't even agree on why it's doing half of what it is doing.

 

[Tobuoi]

"Honestly, I just hope that all of this "War on Terrorism" crap comes to an end, soon..."

And let terrorists be the victor?

With our current course of action, they will be the victor, regardless. If their prejudice is against Americans, they're already succeeded. Over three THOUSAND of our troops have died for the War on Terrorism, already. And what has been accomplished? Now, if their prejudice is against their own country's people, they've succeeded in that, as well. Statistics show that the rate of violence has increased significantly since the U.S. invasion in 2003, not to mention all of the inocent civilians that we've killed.

My opinion still stands: killing is killing. It's even worse if it's for a vain cause, which our current situation seems to be...

 

[Ysu]

Right, let's offer them a cup of tea and negotiate a peace treaty with them then? Brilliant!

I'm asking for an alternate course of action not a smart ass remark!

But during the objective of halting the spread of communism was succesful.

The Vietcong made strides into southern Vietnam and were beating our butts back to our helicopters before we could know what the hell went down. Don't try gloryfying Vietnam.

And yet the Iraqi populace seems unable to stitch together an agreement on their own, letting religious factions shed blood for political power. You have to consider what is exactly "the lesser of two evils."

The Iraqi rise in violence against their countrymen is only proof of a Democracy not always working.

 

[CK the Fat]

Peace shed through war? Hardly. They ****ing crushed all the forces that would oppose them. How could the people fight back? Sure, there was no conflict afterwards, because they killed those with the will to oppose, and everyone else was scared shitless. That's not peace, that's fear, a form of terrorism in and of itself.

Let's consider the alternative, getting mauraded by other tribes and being stuck in the dark ages for centuries and centuries.

Ah, so terrorism is okay as long as it's "legal?"

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, as I mentioned the supposed KKK "terrorism" is infact dealt with by civil law.

My opinion still stands: killing is killing. It's even worse if it's for a vain cause, which our current situation seems to be...

So if you might fail, don't even bother trying? Everything is a chance, and you don't know the outcome until the end. Is it time for America to return to isolation and go hide in the shadows of the world, hoping nothing happens to us because we do nothing to anyone else? Perhaps.

I'm asking for an alternate course of action not a smart ass remark!

By all means, explain what a "civilized" course of action is supposed to be. Until then I'm a bit skeptical. Who exactly are you going to talk with? The radical bombers who believe you should be dead at any cost, and anything less a sin against God?

The Vietcong made strides into southern Vietnam and were beating our butts back to our helicopters before we could know what the hell went down. Don't try gloryfying Vietnam.

I'm not glorifying it. I'm saying that it is not such a "meaningless" war as people seem to think, that because we didn't march into a capital and sieze a dictator and try to hang him doesn't necessarily mean the war was a total failure and a giant mistake on America's part.

The Iraqi rise in violence against their countrymen is only proof of a Democracy not always working.

If you look at history, anarchy and bloodshed before a democracy is not at all uncommon.

 

[Ysu]

Let's consider the alternative, getting mauraded by other tribes and being stuck in the dark ages for centuries and centuries.

We were stuck in the Dark Ages for centuries, regardless of whether Alexander conquered Asia or not. Don't go crediting the Europeans either, it was the Muslims who preserved Greek and Roman Ideas and it was the Muslims who made leaps in the sciences of Astronomy and Medicine, all while Europe was stuck in a state of ignorant warfare.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, as I mentioned the supposed KKK "terrorism" is infact dealt with by civil law.

Terrorism is the use of fear as a weapon. Whether they break the law or not, they are still terrorizing someone.

By all means, explain what a "civilized" course of action is supposed to be. Until then I'm a bit skeptical. Who exactly are you going to talk with? The radical bombers who believe you should be dead at any cost, and anything less a sin against God?

More people took to arms and became Terrorists after the coalition invaded and occupied Iraq. Also, Iraq was not the original source of the terrorists who attacked the world trade center and was only loosely connected with Al Qaeda. Our real target should have been thousands of miles to the east, in Afgahnistan and Pakistan, where those current terrorists are residing. Why did we stray from that objective in order to secure a country that had nothing to do with the original "War on Terror."

If you look at history, anarchy and bloodshed before a democracy is not at all uncommon.

That doesn't make it seem any better.

 

[Phoenix]

And it's not like democracy is the perfect system, either. There is suffering in democracy, as well.

 

[CK the Fat]

We were stuck in the Dark Ages for centuries, regardless of whether Alexander conquered Asia or not. Don't go crediting the Europeans either, it was the Muslims who preserved Greek and Roman Ideas and it was the Muslims who made leaps in the sciences of Astronomy and Medicine, all while Europe was stuck in a state of ignorant warfare.

And take a look at the islamic empires that flourished while Europe was stuck in the dark ages, exactly. Those who flourish are those who have strong leaders, strong militaries, etc.

Terrorism is the use of fear as a weapon. Whether they break the law or not, they are still terrorizing someone.

And thus many adolescent girls are terrorists.

More people took to arms and became Terrorists after the coalition invaded and occupied Iraq. Also, Iraq was not the original source of the terrorists who attacked the world trade center and was only loosely connected with Al Qaeda. Our real target should have been thousands of miles to the east, in Afgahnistan and Pakistan, where those current terrorists are residing. Why did we stray from that objective in order to secure a country that had nothing to do with the original "War on Terror."

The insurgents, however, are not officially recognized by the Iraqi government either. It is not really the terrorists we can negotiate with.

That doesn't make it seem any better.

Blood will be split nonetheless, one way or another. A dictator comes and kills all his opponents, or a democracy leaves too many openings for terrorists and insurgents to destroy the government.

 

[Square Ninja]

Let's consider the alternative, getting mauraded by other tribes and being stuck in the dark ages for centuries and centuries.

...because there's no such thing as diplomacy?

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, as I mentioned the supposed KKK "terrorism" is infact dealt with by civil law.

Fear.

So if you might fail, don't even bother trying? Everything is a chance, and you don't know the outcome until the end. Is it time for America to return to isolation and go hide in the shadows of the world, hoping nothing happens to us because we do nothing to anyone else? Perhaps.

...and the course of action must always be outright violence, right?

If you look at history, anarchy and bloodshed before a democracy is not at all uncommon.

...and we learn history so that we are not doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Ysu]

The insurgents, however, are not officially recognized by the Iraqi government either. It is not really the terrorists we can negotiate with.

I never used the word negotiate in my post, nor did I imply negotiations with Iraqi insurgents.

 

[CK the Fat]

...because there's no such thing as diplomacy?

It all comes down to the sword. People are like nations. If there's no one to stop you doing something wrong, you take your chances. Especially if you are stronger than your opponent. You can talk, you can form alliances, bully against the weak, but sooner or later it all breaks down into war.

Fear.

There is nothing illegal with intimidation. If terrorism is only about fear, I've been a terrorist, you've been a terrorist, everyone's been a terrorist.

...and the course of action must always be outright violence, right?

That's what the terrorists seem to think, isn't it? How do you stop someone who wants to kill you by any means necessary?

...and we learn history so that we are not doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

And yet we make the same mistakes anyway. Indeed, you could say we are doomed.

I never used the word negotiate in my post, nor did I imply negotiations with Iraqi insurgents.

Well then, America is already working with the Iraqi government in a peaceful manner. But the Iraqi government aren't the ones who are causing the bloodshed, and thus not the terrorists, and talking with them solves nothing in regards to terrorism.

 

[Square Ninja]

It all comes down to the sword. People are like nations. If there's no one to stop you doing something wrong, you take your chances. Especially if you are stronger than your opponent. You can talk, you can form alliances, bully against the weak, but sooner or later it all breaks down into war.

Of course nations are going to be like people. What do you think a nation comprises of? Nations may come into open conflict, but that hardly means we should forfeit our efforts to prevent it. Using "it happens eventually" is hardly justification.

I love how you say "against the weak." Why would anyone use terrorism to when you can accomplish the same goal with sheer force?

That's what the terrorists seem to think, isn't it? How do you stop someone who wants to kill you by any means necessary?

First of all, find out why they want to kill you. If someone were to try and kill me, I'd certainly want to find out why.

And yet we make the same mistakes anyway. Indeed, you could say we are doomed.

Despite my usual pessimism, I would say otherwise. How many conquests do you see today? How many inquisitions happen today? Mankind is on the right track.

Well then, America is already working with the Iraqi government in a peaceful manner. But the Iraqi government aren't the ones who are causing the bloodshed, and thus not the terrorists, and talking with them solves nothing in regards to terrorism.

The US obviously isn't talking to the right people.

 

[CK the Fat]

I love how you say "against the weak." Why would anyone use terrorism to when you can accomplish the same goal with sheer force?

Money, reduction of casualties, politics...

First of all, find out why they want to kill you. If someone were to try and kill me, I'd certainly want to find out why.

They want to kill you because you aren't their religion, and in their eyes you and your entire nation is worthy of extermination. The men and women who died in 9/11, civilians. Killed for no other reason than to make a statement and to cause panic.

Despite my usual pessimism, I would say otherwise. How many conquests do you see today? How many inquisitions happen today? Mankind is on the right track.

Now let's put it this way, how many atomic bombs did you see in the medieval ages, how many acts of terrorism that kills 2000 civilians that only uses about a dozen martyrs were in the renaissance, how many nations had nukes ready to launch in an instance's notice in the dark ages?

The US obviously isn't talking to the right people.

So who exactly is the "right" people to talk to? You said not the insurgents, and that the Iraqi government were also the wrong people...

 

[Square Ninja]

Money, reduction of casualties, politics...

That's nice, but who's weaker?

They want to kill you because you aren't their religion, and in their eyes you and your entire nation is worthy of extermination.

Is that what you think, or is that what people want you to think?

There's much more to it than simply that.

Now let's put it this way, how many atomic bombs did you see in the medieval ages, how many acts of terrorism that kills 2000 civilians that only uses about a dozen martyrs were in the renaissance, how many nations had nukes ready to launch in an instance's notice in the dark ages?

So what? The ante has been upped. Ever notice that the United States is the only state to ever use a nuclear weapon? The world is getting smart enough to realize that their aggressions will have swift and harmful repercussions. That's why no one launches nukes.

So who exactly is the "right" people to talk to? You said not the insurgents, and that the Iraqi government were also the wrong people...

That's a good question, actually. Who or what are the insurgents tied to? Are they dependent upon anyone or anything? We aren't sure ourselves, but I believe having a little chat with the states in the area that harbor such cells is a good place to start.

 

[CK the Fat]

That's nice, but who's weaker?

Those who can't as easily defend themselves? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Is that what you think, or is that what people want you to think?

There's much more to it than simply that.

Of course that's not it. But I am saying that what the terrorists might want America to do goes far beyond what the typical American is willing to surrender, and the radical terrorists who bear a personal, rooted hatred are only likely to make their peers similar.

So what? The ante has been upped. Ever notice that the United States is the only state to ever use a nuclear weapon? The world is getting smart enough to realize that their aggressions will have swift and harmful repercussions. That's why no one launches nukes.

Still, little changes. When one feels threatened, they take action. That's how it's always been. No U.N. or Grand Alliance or Legion will change that. And the fact that we're not launching nukes now is not completely that we are "wiser" than before, but because we are scared that we might not be able to shoot it down.

Now let's consider humanity establishing civilizations in space. Threat of being completely nuked is now gone, and people won't be nearly as afraid to launch them.

That's a good question, actually. Who or what are the insurgents tied to? Are they dependent upon anyone or anything? We aren't sure ourselves, but I believe having a little chat with the states in the area that harbor such cells is a good place to start.

Good idea. Why don't you go figure it out? Walk alone in dangerous neighborhoods full of assassins and insurgents? Get kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded when you enter a presumably innocent house to ask a question? Or just run over a roadside bomb? Maybe you'll get lucky and find a civilian or two who isn't brainwashed by either American media or insurgent terror who will tell you exactly how to create a perfect peace. But chances are...

 

[Square Ninja]

Those who can't as easily defend themselves? I'm not sure what you're asking.

They're mostly attacking US troops, no? How are troops weaker than insurgents?

Of course that's not it. But I am saying that what the terrorists might want America to do goes far beyond what the typical American is willing to surrender, and the radical terrorists who bear a personal, rooted hatred are only likely to make their peers similar.

Perhaps it's something we've done to them in the past.

Still, little changes. When one feels threatened, they take action. That's how it's always been. No U.N. or Grand Alliance or Legion will change that. And the fact that we're not launching nukes now is not completely that we are "wiser" than before, but because we are scared that we might not be able to shoot it down.

Action=\=violence

Now let's consider humanity establishing civilizations in space. Threat of being completely nuked is now gone, and people won't be nearly as afraid to launch them.

TIME PARADOX

If the nukes are gone, how can anyone use them?

Good idea. Why don't you go figure it out? Walk alone in dangerous neighborhoods full of assassins and insurgents? Get kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded when you enter a presumably innocent house to ask a question? Or just run over a roadside bomb?

Call a meeting on neutral territory or something. There are a myriad of options.

Maybe you'll get lucky and find a civilian or two who isn't brainwashed by either American media or insurgent terror who will tell you exactly how to create a perfect peace. But chances are...

We're not trying to create perfect peace. We're trying to keep people from blowing the shit out of each other.