NationStates Jolt Archive

i think a good method would be to kill off the families of the terrorists. That method was used when Jordan started getting attacks and it stopped very quickly.

the media would have a frenzy with that. The world looks at America with higher standards than Jordan. Besides, we've already pissed off the world enough.

It would be easier to stop anti-American propaganda in Middle Eastern nations....but that is almost as bad.

The only way to truly stop terrorism is to work toward eradicating poverty and ignorance. All other solutions are temporary and do not attack the problem at its roots.

The only way to truly stop terrorism is to work toward eradicating poverty and ignorance. All other solutions are temporary and do not attack the problem at its roots.

Nah. Kill'em all.


Hermie the Dentist Elf

Talk to them.

you can't change something that doesn't want to change. i agree f*ck 'um.


:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge:

you can't change something that doesn't want to change. i agree f*ck 'um.


Let me see: you are prepared to advocate the cold-blooded murder of innocent men, women and children, but you are too frightened to write 'fuck' on a public forum?

If you kill their families are this terrorism shit will stop a lot quicker.

"The tree of liberty from time to time neds to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson

btw, I used f*ck so not to incur the wrath of stephanistan

Kill every last man, woman, and child associated with them, then salt the earth.

Historically, that is the only way to stop a terrorist. It the method used by Hulagu Khan when he wiped out the Hashshashin. The "hashish-eaters", from whom the modern English word assassins derives, were the first Islamic terrorists, and the only one's to have been stopped.
However, we can't apply the Mongol method of building mountains of skulls, until either the people of the west wake up to the threat and realize the extreme measures needed, or the terrorists do it for us.
The eventual use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists may do the trick, but I am not sure.

If you kill their families are this terrorism shit will stop a lot quicker.


No, you will create more relatives with grudges, and just increase the turmoil.


You are advocating a position whereby in order to protect the innocent you are killing the innocent....


Edit: "The Four Letter F Word Thread" -
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=340512

Kill every last man, woman, and child associated with them, then salt the earth.

And do you advocate this position for my homeland, Northern Ireland, as well?

The only way to truly stop terrorism is to work toward eradicating poverty and ignorance. All other solutions are temporary and do not attack the problem at its roots.

And that will exactly do nothing. Squat. Root cause discussion don't look at the fact there is a culture of death in the Middle East. Its the cool thing to join Al-Qaeda, its cool to oppose America at every turn and its great when Westerners are killed. Their not interested in chatting with anyone, their interested in killing as many westerners as possible to advocate their fringe beliefs about Islam. I remember a CBC sitdown with Canadians and Egyptians; while the Canadians were trying to talk things out, several outbursts from the Egyptians (I consider the group they showed extremely biased making Egyptians overall look terrible) stated that they would "kill" westerners in the name of Allah. They don't care what we have to say.

The only thing they seem to understand is violence of the most excessive and cruel kind. Communal punishment works and I hate to say it but pacifying them through excessive and brutal violence will stop the problem dead. The problem is the Wahabism being advocated in Saudi Arabia and the money that they have. Poor people don't seek training as pilots costing over 100,000$ a piece, they don't buy plane tickets and they don't get to study abroad. The problem is a small fringe group has scapegoated Islam and made the entire region look bad. The solution is to convince individuals living in the region that their current course of action is unacceptable and that Western powers will return to pre-WW1 tactics and advocate wholesale punishment of entire communities.

It'll work. It won't be fair or nice. But it will work.

your way of stopping terrorist is the worst way there is. That is pretty much terrorism right there. Killing innocent people to scare someone into doing what you want them to do?
America should just leave the Middle East alone, and the rest of the world, and stop acting all high and mighty, then everyone would stop getting pissed at them.

No, you will create more relatives with grudges, and just increase the turmoil.


You are advocating a position whereby in order to protect the innocent you are killing the innocent....

No. The next family will not allow a member to go on such a course for fear of themselves being killed. It ensures that their own people watch over themselves and don't allow their brand of extremism to overflow into other states. If they want to be extremists and treat their own poorly, fine, don't export it abroad or else.

Dam do you guys actually believe this stuff about killing all the terrorists? How barbaric? how are you any better than them?

Also any attempt to do that would result in a massive wave of terrorist attacks on Americans, come, think about it, wouldn't you be willing to die just to do some damage to the people that slaughtered your family? I really hop your are just being assholes for the sake of it and dont actually think that would be a good idea...

your way of stopping terrorist is the worst way there is. That is pretty much terrorism right there. Killing innocent people to scare someone into doing what you want them to do?
America should just leave the Middle East alone, and the rest of the world, and stop acting all high and mighty, then everyone would stop getting pissed at them.

So your solution is that America should bow out of the world and isolate itself? Or maybe allow anyone and everyone to walk all over it? We're talking about the West here, the entire West is in the same boat, but for now it seems only America is willing to steer the boat.

No. The next family will not allow a member to go on such a course for fear of themselves being killed.

Exactly how much control do you believe family members have over each other in today's world?

Dam do you guys actually believe this stuff about killing all the terrorists? How barbaric? how are you any better than them?

Also any attempt to do that would result in a massive wave of terrorist attacks on Americans, come, think about it, wouldn't you be willing to die just to do some damage to the people that slaughtered your family? I really hop your are just being assholes for the sake of it and dont actually think that would be a good idea...

Your own family would stop you. Your neighbors would stop you. If I were you neighbor I would stop you for fear of losing my life for something YOU did.

Communal punishment works.

what planet are you living on? Through history muslims have always tried to destroy the infidels. they started this holy war, not us. if we leave them alone they will just keep coming at us.

if my method is soo radical then why did it stop in Jordan. A terrorist won't sacrifice himself if he knows his 15 sons will die like him.

what planet are you living on? Through history muslims have always tried to destroy the infidels. they started this holy war, not us. if we leave them alone they will just keep coming at us.

Ah, that was why the Muslim state under the Moors in Spain was a meeting place of Christians, Jews & Muslims then - it was all a cunning ploy to destroy the other chidlren of Abraham...

Care to give some examples of Muslims trying to destroy the infidels because they are infidels?

What Holy War?

The only thing they seem to understand is violence of the most excessive and cruel kind. Communal punishment works and I hate to say it but pacifying them through excessive and brutal violence will stop the problem dead. The problem is the Wahabism being advocated in Saudi Arabia and the money that they have. Poor people don't seek training as pilots costing over 100,000$ a piece, they don't buy plane tickets and they don't get to study abroad. The problem is a small fringe group has scapegoated Islam and made the entire region look bad. The solution is to convince individuals living in the region that their current course of action is unacceptable and that Western powers will return to pre-WW1 tactics and advocate wholesale punishment of entire communities.

It'll work. It won't be fair or nice. But it will work.

Oh, this is kinda funny, actuall. Have you hear of a nation called Israel? Thier military are retaliating actions by terroristskind of like you suggest. Has the terrorism ended there? No, rather gone from bad to worse. So I highly doubt it would work.

I suggest that religion should be seperated from the power in all nations, then we would prolly have taken the 1st step towards less terrorism.

Exactly how much control do you believe family members have over each other in today's world?

In the Middle East? Plenty.

Family bonds and tribal ties go to the very core of their values. Just look at Saddam's entourage prior to the war, they were either blood relatives or Tikritis. Fundamentally, most Arabs have very strong bonds within the family, its their greatest asset.

Your own family would stop you. Your neighbors would stop you. If I were you neighbor I would stop you for fear of losing my life for something YOU did.

Communal punishment works.

So you concede that the practice is barbaric and lowers you to the level of your enemy?

If we did that, I think that there are many nations that would actually declare war on the US, and while we may be powerful, we can't take on everybody at once.

In the Middle East? Plenty.



Terrorism is not isolated to the Middle East, in case you hadn't noticed.

So your solution is that America should bow out of the world and isolate itself? Or maybe allow anyone and everyone to walk all over it? We're talking about the West here, the entire West is in the same boat, but for now it seems only America is willing to steer the boat.
Canada is not in the same boat.
I'm not saying that America should become isolationist, but how would you like it if you had a bunch of foreign soldiers occupying your country? You wouldn't like it at all. You would want them gone, just the way the Middle Easterners do

Oh, this is kinda funny, actuall. Have you hear of a nation called Israel? Thier military are retaliating actions by terroristskind of like you suggest. Has the terrorism ended there? No, rather gone from bad to worse. So I highly doubt it would work.

I suggest that religion should be seperated from the power in all nations, then we would prolly have taken the 1st step towards less terrorism.

Israel? It hasn't done enough to punish the Palestinians. As far as terrorist attacks go, how many have occured since the fall of Saddam's regime compared to 2000-2002. How many attacks occur nowadays in the north of Israel after the wall was finished there compared to 2000-2002 when there wasn't? Israel has also one disadvantage, its locked with borders to states that would love nothing more than to see it vanish. America is on a continent with Canada and Mexico...I doubt any of these would be candidates for future terrorist sponsors.

No. The next family will not allow a member to go on such a course for fear of themselves being killed. It ensures that their own people watch over themselves and don't allow their brand of extremism to overflow into other states. If they want to be extremists and treat their own poorly, fine, don't export it abroad or else.

And you have never been out later then your mother told you to? It does not work that way, really. If you wanna do this thing, then your mother can't stop you. or any other relative, actually.

And also, wasn't there a terrorist action in NYC done by an american terrorist? Alabama Bomber? or something. Do you want your country to kill your innocent fellow contrymen aswell?

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

This link is a statement from Osama saying how we are weaker and that they should call on allah to give them strength to defeat the weak.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

This link is a statement from Osama saying how we are weaker and that they should call on allah to give them strength to defeat the weak.

And the relevance of this to the matter at hand is what exactly?

Canada is not in the same boat.
I'm not saying that America should become isolationist, but how would you like it if you had a bunch of foreign soldiers occupying your country? You wouldn't like it at all. You would want them gone, just the way the Middle Easterners do

Canada is in the same boat. We've been threatened just the same. Canada shares the basic values of everyone else in the Western world.

There is a difference between what I like and what I believe must be done. I seperate the two. I distinctly said it wouldn't be PC in another thread and that this "Kill them all" solution isn't fair. Tough luck for them.

http://www.geocities.com/arabracismplusjihad/IndonesianPersecutionJihadEthnicCleansingMaluku.html

Here's another link how muslims have driven christians out of a SouthEast Asian island.

So your solution is that America should bow out of the world and isolate itself? Or maybe allow anyone and everyone to walk all over it? We're talking about the West here, the entire West is in the same boat, but for now it seems only America is willing to steer the boat.

No, that's not his solution. his(assuming he is a he and not a she) is just saying that USA is just trying to force thier ways to to many contries in the world and should back of. And I agree. Then there would be much less anti-americanism ijn the world, less terrorthreaths against USA and also less Terrorism in the whole world. Imo.

Terrorism is not isolated to the Middle East, in case you hadn't noticed.

Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

Phillipines and Indonesia? Those terrorist cells are far more interested in creating problems in their areas. Added part is that many of them are foreigners. If you believe that the majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi then your mistaken.

No, that's not his solution. his(assuming he is a he and not a she) is just saying that USA is just trying to force thier ways to to many contries in the world and should back of. And I agree. Then there would be much less anti-americanism ijn the world, less terrorthreaths against USA and also less Terrorism in the whole world. Imo.

There is anti-americanism in the world, because America is the top dog so to speak. When the Soviet Union was all powerful the same feelings existed against them. The same for the Japanese, British, French Empires in their times. America supports Israel; how would you alleviate this point of contention? Bow to their demands and drop support for Israel?

So you concede that the practice is barbaric and lowers you to the level of your enemy?

If we did that, I think that there are many nations that would actually declare war on the US, and while we may be powerful, we can't take on everybody at once.

Name these countries you believe would declare war in order to prevent the West from carrying out its threat. And why do you all insist on saying the U.S., I said the West, any state in the West.

And yes the tactic would be low on the morality scale but quite effective.

osama is an islamic extremist who believes for some reason that our values are less than his, so his solution is to kill us and destroy our religion.

what planet are you living on? Through history muslims have always tried to destroy the infidels. they started this holy war, not us. if we leave them alone they will just keep coming at us.

if my method is soo radical then why did it stop in Jordan. A terrorist won't sacrifice himself if he knows his 15 sons will die like him.

Yeah, only muslims are terrorists. No Hindus or Christians can ever be terrorists. Nor can atheists. Know what? That's not correct, cuz they actually can and also are.

Stop make it sound like only Islam can produce Terrorism cuz that's about the worst bullshit there is. It's actually a very peaceful religion.

Canada is in the same boat. We've been threatened just the same. Canada shares the basic values of everyone else in the Western world.

There is a difference between what I like and what I believe must be done. I seperate the two. I distinctly said it wouldn't be PC in another thread and that this "Kill them all" solution isn't fair. Tough luck for them.
Who's threatened Canada? I've never heard anything about this.
Also, as a Canadian who is living in America, I will tell you, our values are very different, and please do not ever say we are the same again.
You didn't respond to my comment.

Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

It was you that introduced that element: the original poster simply asked "How do you stop Terrorism?"

Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

Phillipines and Indonesia? Those terrorist cells are far more interested in creating problems in their areas. Added part is that many of them are foreigners. If you believe that the majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi then your mistaken.


How about spain? britain?

Root cause discussion don't look at the fact there is a culture of death in the Middle East. It's the cool thing to join Al-Qaeda, its cool to oppose America at every turn and its great when Westerners are killed.

Poor people don't seek training as pilots costing over 100,000$ a piece, they don't buy plane tickets and they don't get to study abroad. The problem is a small fringe group has scapegoated Islam and made the entire region look bad.

The solution is to convince individuals living in the region that their current course of action is unacceptable and that Western powers will return to pre-WW1 tactics and advocate wholesale punishment of entire communities.

It'll work. It won't be fair or nice. But it will work.
Root-cause advocates want to remove the culture of death. I see you go for the standard neocon "all Muslims are terrorists" line. You are mistaken if you think that everyone in the Middle East supports al-Qaeda. (Though the support base for those terrorists has grown since America started to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

That's right. Osama bin Laden is not poor, but most of those young men who join his group and become his pawns are poor. You're rigt when you say that "a small fringe group has scapegoated Islam and made the entire region look bad." But you play right into that when you say that "It's the cool thing to join Al-Qaeda" in the middle east!

I strongly disagree with your encouragement of genocide. History shows that policies of punishing the many for the actions of a few don't work, and they only make the many angrier. They will only hit harder. The only version of your suggestion for a final solution to the terrorist threat that would work is a complete extermination of the Middle Eastern population. And that would be, in my opinion, injustifiably evil. Your ideas smack of those that Hitler's Nazis put into practice in your own homeland 60 years ago.

Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

Phillipines and Indonesia? Those terrorist cells are far more interested in creating problems in their areas. Added part is that many of them are foreigners. If you believe that the majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi then your mistaken.
I grew up in Indonesia, so I feel I must speak up now. The Indonesian government does not support Terrorism, so it's not Indonesia's fault. Indonesia has always had terrorist problems. Indonesians have a right to hate Americans, I hate Americans for what they did to Indonesians.

i never said that any other religion didn't have stake in this I just said that islam was the number 1 hater of our values.

btw i have never heard of any christian or hindu or even buddhist terrorists. care to explain? and no Pat Robertson does not count as a terrorist.

how is it america's fault? we don't strap bombs onto ourselves and go over there and take out cafes.

Ok, well do you remember the Oklahoma City Bombings? Christian terrorist right there.

Second off, Hinduism and Buddism condem violence of any sense, and Hindu and Buddist countries are not really being occupied by US troops.

Islam is not a terrorist religion. The religion condems terrorism. It is just some people, not the religion

Israel? It hasn't done enough to punish the Palestinians. As far as terrorist attacks go, how many have occured since the fall of Saddam's regime compared to 2000-2002. How many attacks occur nowadays in the north of Israel after the wall was finished there compared to 2000-2002 when there wasn't? Israel has also one disadvantage, its locked with borders to states that would love nothing more than to see it vanish. America is on a continent with Canada and Mexico...I doubt any of these would be candidates for future terrorist sponsors.

Nol, prolly not done enough according to you. but afaik it's by far the closest irl experience you can come to your way of dealing with it. And they aren't close to peace now, are they? They where talking about peace why Clinton was in the house. But now, where is that talk? Gone. Also, they are building a wall... Makes me think of Berlin. Was that a good idea? Not really.

btw i have never heard of any christian or hindu or even buddhist terrorists. care to explain?

You haven't been paying attention: Chrisitians - IRA, UVF, Hindu - RSS, Buddhist - I can't actually name any, but seeing as how the entire philosophy (not religion) is based on non-confrontation, this is not entirely surprising.

Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

Phillipines and Indonesia? Those terrorist cells are far more interested in creating problems in their areas. Added part is that many of them are foreigners. If you believe that the majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi then your mistaken.

How about North Ireland? Or maybe those terroristsvictims there aren't Westerners. Afterall, they are only british.

I think the best way is to work a deal out with a country and have them welcome terrorists groups to come to their country with safe passage and safety in their country. Once they have several of the big terrorist parties setting up shop in their country then you send the forces in and kill them off. Make them feel secure and then kill them.

How about North Ireland? Or maybe those terroristsvictims there aren't Westerners. Afterall, they are only british.

Ah, but they weren't being targetted for being Westerners - rather representatives or sympathisers with either the UK or with Eire. (an extremely vague explanation for the sake of clarity)

So far no one has actually argued against my suggestion: talking to them.

Any response?

There is anti-americanism in the world, because America is the top dog so to speak. When the Soviet Union was all powerful the same feelings existed against them. The same for the Japanese, British, French Empires in their times. America supports Israel; how would you alleviate this point of contention? Bow to their demands and drop support for Israel?



yeah, you are right that US is the top dog atm. But if they where more humble about it and didn't think of them as the superhero of the world, there would be less hatred.

And no, I don't say you should drop all support and bow down to them, rather make them realise that they should act as adults, if they can't agree straight over on something they gotta walk half the way each.

What you fail to realise, is that everything isn't just this or that. Sometimes it's also in between.

"The tree of liberty from time to time neds to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson


Er, you realize this quote concerns the uprising in Massachusetts and Jefferson is, in a way, praising the insurgents for acting when they felt their liberty and freedoms were threatened, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorringia
Name me one other region where terrorists have threatened to attack and kill Westerners for the sole reason of being Westerners?

Phillipines and Indonesia? Those terrorist cells are far more interested in creating problems in their areas. Added part is that many of them are foreigners. If you believe that the majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi then your mistaken.




How about spain? britain?

i never said that any other religion didn't have stake in this I just said that islam was the number 1 hater of our values.

btw i have never heard of any christian or hindu or even buddhist terrorists. care to explain? and no Pat Robertson does not count as a terrorist.

erm, lol? you are just trying to start a flaming aren't you?

1) there will always be SOME terrorism. there will always be someone out there who feels that he isnt being listened to and he'll kill someone to make his point.

2) the macho solution doesnt work. "kill them all down to the 7th generation" isnt a good solution in a world where its on TV within 20 minutes. it just breeds more terrorists.

3) its gonna be really hard to end terrorism when it is so very successful for those funding it. the supporters of terrorism have varied and complex motivations for their actions ranging from true sympathy for palestinians (the minority of the money backers) to self aggrandizement to making money out of it somehow. and everything inbetween. and motives that we wont understand when they come to light.

4) people must be treated with respect. the root of terrorism is in the lack of a more reasonable solution for people with legitimate greivances but no consideration from the rest of the world. if you look at the terror hotspots of the world you will see it started with oppressed people who needed a way to get their problems noticed. it's more complex now but thats where it starts.

5) we need to keep terrorism in perspective. we give these people way too much power over us in relation to the damage they do. well now i dont remember who issued the report but 625 people were killed by terrorists last year. most of those were israelis. there are 6 billion people in the world. more died of choking on bugs than that.

6) dont give them what they want. when the phillipines pulled out of iraq early they doomed 100 more men to beheading. they should have stayed an extra 6 months and doubled their force. when something works, you keep doing it.

7) do what we have been doing for the past 3 years (something i will give bush credit for) try to dry up the money. terrorism is expensive esp if you are trying to bring it to the US. they need money. less money = less recruits. iraq was sending payments to the families of suicide bombers, i guess they must not be doing that any more.

8) keep an eye on radical groups around the world and put pressure on the various governments to prosecute them when possible. the world spent way too much time feeling sorry for those that terrorist groups "represent" and not going after them for crimes against the innocent.

we didnt get into this mess in a day and we wont get out of it quickly. there is no easy solution.

Okay..once again here we go.
Stopping terrorism isn't a black and white affair. Ronald reagan is now called the champion against terrorism, or some other kind of right wing nazi propganda. Reagan veto'd multipole UN resolutions aimed at stopping international terrorism, because that would have also put a halt to US terrorist operations in east Timor, Nicaragua, central america and elsewhere. You have to understand that tere are other forms of media other than CNN..the mouth piece for the right. Read from the guardian in britain on the web, look at others like znet or the multitude of other organizations that report on the things that CNN and most american media avoids..even canadian media reports on things they won't go near. You can't seriosuly say "kill em all" and kill their families do you?...What kind of sadistic monster can you really be? Thast why they hate you..becaes you hate them...but yours is based on racism and propanda...and your country slaps them around in the name of preserving freedom..which trasnlated from Newspeak means the freedom to steal whatever they want, and maintain poverty and subjugation in third world nations.

Ah, but they weren't being targetted for being Westerners - rather representatives or sympathisers with either the UK or with Eire. (an extremely vague explanation for the sake of clarity)

That's actually correct. But then terrorists have other goals. All this make it sound like the only terrorism is down in the middle east. other terrorism such as in spain and NI doesn't really count it seems. Or any other terrorism. Maybe it's cause the victims are extremly rarely americans?

So far no one has actually argued against my suggestion: talking to them.

Any response?


Prolly wont make it worse atleast ;)

Another thing is that other cultures seem to be so antiamerican. But you have to look at it in the big picture. America is one of the top powers in the world, but the people of america don't make the decisions it's the government that does. I very small part of american population who are in the government decide on what the country is or isn't going to do. So it's unfair to stereotype every single person in america because of the decision of a few people in ther government. It's just like terrorist orginizations in the world a very small percentage of the people of that culture act out their feelings but then the whole culture is stereotyped in that kind of manner. So instead of fighting about where we live and what culture we are. we should work together and stop terrorists.

Seriosuly now people....read a book and learn something.

1) there will always be SOME terrorism. there will always be someone out there who feels that he isnt being listened to and he'll kill someone to make his point.

2) the macho solution doesnt work. "kill them all down to the 7th generation" isnt a good solution in a world where its on TV within 20 minutes. it just breeds more terrorists.

3) its gonna be really hard to end terrorism when it is so very successful for those funding it. the supporters of terrorism have varied and complex motivations for their actions ranging from true sympathy for palestinians (the minority of the money backers) to self aggrandizement to making money out of it somehow. and everything inbetween. and motives that we wont understand when they come to light.

4) people must be treated with respect. the root of terrorism is in the lack of a more reasonable solution for people with legitimate greivances but no consideration from the rest of the world. if you look at the terror hotspots of the world you will see it started with oppressed people who needed a way to get their problems noticed. it's more complex now but thats where it starts.

5) we need to keep terrorism in perspective. we give these people way too much power over us in relation to the damage they do. well now i dont remember who issued the report but 625 people were killed by terrorists last year. most of those were israelis. there are 6 billion people in the world. more died of choking on bugs than that.

6) dont give them what they want. when the phillipines pulled out of iraq early they doomed 100 more men to beheading. they should have stayed an extra 6 months and doubled their force. when something works, you keep doing it.

7) do what we have been doing for the past 3 years (something i will give bush credit for) try to dry up the money. terrorism is expensive esp if you are trying to bring it to the US. they need money. less money = less recruits. iraq was sending payments to the families of suicide bombers, i guess they must not be doing that any more.

8) keep an eye on radical groups around the world and put pressure on the various governments to prosecute them when possible. the world spent way too much time feeling sorry for those that terrorist groups "represent" and not going after them for crimes against the innocent.

we didnt get into this mess in a day and we wont get out of it quickly. there is no easy solution.

Don't agree with all of it, but on the bolded points... *applauds*.

Maybe it's cause the victims are extremly rarely americans?

Maybe it is because the United States has been quite happy to both officially and unofficially support terrorist groups around the world for years, but are only now beginning to experience their tactics.

Therefore the concentration on terrorist groups based in the Middle East, and a clear ignorance of the history of terrorism beyond that (I'm looking in Castle Wolfenstein's virtual direction as I write that last clause).

So far no one has actually argued against my suggestion: talking to them.

Any response?

I think talking to them may be too little, too late. You have a mindset where terrorists are convinced that all the ills their society or viewpoint is experienceing are the direct fault of whatever group or organization their targetting. It is probably beyond diplomacy at that point, when someone is willing to inflict terror and murder innocents, possibly ending their own life in the process.

However, I think you are right in that the key lies in communication. Talking and openly communicating with potential terrorists and understanding one another as people and not abstract supporters of political systems is the key, both to convincing people that terrorism is bad and short-circuiting terrorist recruitment. Of course, these words and this communication must be backed up with appropriate action, but it starts with the communication. Indeed, once a majority see the inappropriateness of terrorism in any instance, it may be possible to diffuse the terror urges of members of these organizations. When their own family and friends and religious leaders are urging them to stop or at least reconsider, it carries more of an impact than when some spokesperson for the West does it.

I think talking to them may be too little, too late.

Ah, so we should call off all peace talks in Northern Ireland and just start shooting people, as others on the thread advocate?

It is never definitely too late: even if talks break down you have lost very little.


Note: although I quoted Berkulvania here, the comments are really addressed to him (her?).

To quote Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith, "Wipe them out...all of them."

We conquer or die.....

Is it my imagination or are we the only country that follows the geneva accords? how can you reason with someone who wants to kill you for being you. drying up the money doesn't work. If we stop funding it, then oil prices go up and we end up paying for it anyway.

how can you reason with someone who wants to kill you for being you.

Most of 'them' have extremely ill-informed views of what 'you' actually are, and vice-versa. By opening communication channels between the two sides you can attempt to address this problem.


By the way: do you still assert that there are no Christian or Hindu terror groups? - or were you openly admitting your ignorance of world affairs when you said you had never heard of any?

and how do you propose to do that?

That's actually correct. But then terrorists have other goals. All this make it sound like the only terrorism is down in the middle east. other terrorism such as in spain and NI doesn't really count it seems. Or any other terrorism. Maybe it's cause the victims are extremly rarely americans?

Maybe cause the victims of the IRA and ETA terrorists (we should determine if they are actually terrorists or people fighting for the indipendence of their land) doesn't vote the US President...

and how do you propose to do that?

Organise talks through intermediaries and sit down around a table with them.

Ah, so we should call off all peace talks in Northern Ireland and just start shooting people, as others on the thread advocate?

It is never definitely too late: even if talks break down you have lost very little.

No, no, absolutely not. I think I may not have been clear in my statement. The situation in Northern Ireland and the situation in the Middle East are very different, but talking should be at the root of solving both of them.

Northern Ireland's populace has decided that it's tired of being bombed and killed by it's own citizens and is demanding accountability from both sides. This pressure by the very everyday social grouping that terrorists live in is what has brought about the change in tactics. When the people themselves say no more of this, we can't remember what you're even fighting for and it's working and we're the only ones who are dying then terrorism no longer serves as an outlet for governmentally-repressed political goals. Terrorist organizations must talk because they require at least the tacit support of the public to exist in the first place.

However, until the public is willing to give up that support, be it explicit or tacit, then terrorist organizations can not be "negotiated" with like one might negotiate with a foreign power. They have, basically, nothing to lose. That's the mindset that allows them to do what they do and drives them to cause as much pain and fear as they feel the opposing power has caused them.

The public, though, can always be addressed and must be because they are the only effective tool in combating terrorism. By convincing them to not be a source for recruits for terrorist organziations or to support those organizations, they provide the only leverage possible in defusing the hatred and sense of disempowerment that fuels terrorist organizations.

Maybe it is because the United States has been quite happy to both officially and unofficially support terrorist groups around the world for years, but are only now beginning to experience their tactics.

Therefore the concentration on terrorist groups based in the Middle East, and a clear ignorance of the history of terrorism beyond that (I'm looking in Castle Wolfenstein's virtual direction as I write that last clause).

That's also prolly a reason

To quote Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith, "Wipe them out...all of them."

We conquer or die.....

You're basing real world policy that affects human lives on an evil and fictional character?

Seek.

Psychological.

Help.

So far no one has actually argued against my suggestion: talking to them.

Any response?

Every country that I know of states categorically that they will not negotiate with terrorists. Of course, that's the public face of it - the truth is that in private, Western Governments have pandered for years to dictators, warlords and so on in order to preserve their own interests. Obviously, if everyone was of the same opinion on this matter it'd be settled pretty quickly, but it's not and it won't be. Taking the moral high ground against islamic extremism whilst at the same time funding murderous dictators is bizarre behaviour - you might think I'm talking about the Reagan or Nixon administrations, but the truth is it's happening right now.

You're basing real world policy that affects human lives on an evil and fictional character?

Seek.

Psychological.

Help.

:rolleyes: The quote applies to the situation. We must bring the war to the enemy....

You're basing real world policy that affects human lives on an evil and fictional character?

Seek.

Psychological.

Help.

It's a cinematic metaphor. Calm down, seriously. Where do you think the inspiration for the Empire came from, anyway? "Final solution" ring any bells?

Is it my imagination or are we the only country that follows the geneva accords? how can you reason with someone who wants to kill you for being you. drying up the money doesn't work. If we stop funding it, then oil prices go up and we end up paying for it anyway.

erm... Now you are beeing funny again. since you say "we" I assume you are meaning USA. And USA the only nation living up to the geneva accords? Oo

One of the major problems with anti-americanism is that the United States government hasn't just recently given reason to hate us. The U.S. has been screwing around in international politics ever since they became aware of the fact that they HAD to do something in the world, after WW2. Ever since then, the U.S. has been involving itself in conflicts that were not of immediate threat to its borders. I'm not saying that it is wrong for the U.S. to do this. Someone had to and I prefer the United States to the Soviet Union, but there were far too many mistakes after too many years. This has festered a lot of hatred, though it is a given fact that a lot of hatred would have occured if the U.S. had not made such mistakes as My Lai or the Greek Dictatorship. The U.S. has a seriously hypocritical stance in world politics.

Calm down, seriously. Where do you think the inspiration for the Empire came from, anyway?

One part the US getting beaten in Vietnam by low-tech forces to one part the Sherrif of Nottingham in Hollywood Robin Hood movies?

Is it my imagination or are we the only country that follows the geneva accords? how can you reason with someone who wants to kill you for being you. drying up the money doesn't work. If we stop funding it, then oil prices go up and we end up paying for it anyway.

It is just your imagination. The US most certainly does not live up to the Geneva accords

Is it my imagination or are we the only country that follows the geneva accords? .


U live in switzerland ? :P

Ok BW/o O lets talk with them like the phillipines did. Then what happens 50 more people disappear.

Most of 'them' have extremely ill-informed views of what 'you' actually are, and vice-versa. By opening communication channels between the two sides you can attempt to address this problem.


By the way: do you still assert that there are no Christian or Hindu terror groups? - or were you openly admitting your ignorance of world affairs when you said you had never heard of any?

Actually, if you look closer to this thread you see he actually 1st mention IRA or Northern Ireland just to in a later post assert(a fancy word i really dunno, but sounds fancy! =P)that there are no Christian terror groups.

It is just your imagination. The US most certainly does not live up to the Geneva accords

Do we actually have any countries that do these days? (Vatican City, San Marino, Andorra, and other micro-countries possibly excepted...)

Ok BW/o O lets talk with them like the phillipines did. Then what happens 50 more people disappear.

Or talk to 'them' like 'we' did in Northern Ireland, and the killings are suspended?

If we even torture one person here everybody is bitching and complaining about civil rights. I'm glad they did what they did at abu ghraib make the bastards suffer. They didn't get in there by waving at a soldier.

who cares? terrorism isnt even a threat. Why dont we just spend the money on somethign else. Kofi Annan said that it would take around 12 billion dollars to stop the aids crisis in africa. why dont we jsut take all the money we spend on terrorism and give to africa to stop the aids virus. the world would love us for it and then maybe just maybe not killing the terrrorists families would make it so they wont attak us. besides, thousands die in the sudan every year because of famine, how many people ever have died because of terrorism? lets tackle the bigger problems then work on terrorism.

If we even torture one person here everybody is bitching and complaining about civil rights.

Ah right, so abducting and torturing people without trial is your way of stopping terrorism. Explain to me how this differs from terrorists abducting and torturing people without trial?

OK inform me since you think i'm "ignorant" on world events. Name one christian terrorist group that straps bombs to people and does that stuff.

People, people, do you bother to analyze what you say? Do you bother to momentarily reject your own values to take on others so as to gain an understanding of the whole?

I've lived in three countries in my life: Canada, Syria, and Japan. Admittedly, for the latter two I was there for less than a year and did not speak the local language beyond basic survival terms. Still, with the help of local English/French speaking friends, I gained a good insight into local mentalities. I've also visited Taiwan, several European countries, a Carribean island, and different parts of the US many times. Even these short stays allowed me to pick up something on the cultural whole.

As much as everyone likes to generalize, and in stating it as such I am no exception to this rule, the truth is invarialby both more complex and simple.

The complexity stems from the long and short standing traditions of local origin, adoption, and variation. Contact with other groups, geography, history and pure fluke have combined to create a myriad of cultures within a single one which may in turn be grouped with numerous others to form a "whole".

In my experience throughout the world, the simplicity is expressed in a basic kindness and generosity. Everyone posessed a fundamental human decency that I believe is common to us all. The United Nations charter has, in my view, captured the essence of this, but to label it as "western values" is entirely, and without question, a racist position. This said, racism is rampant throughout the world and I witnessed it in some form EVERYWHERE i have been.

Now, to correct some imprecision in what I have said above, when I used the term EVERYONE, I was referring to groupings of people. The practice is not one that I like, but commonly used to simplify things because most people don't recognize individual sovereignty except when it comes to themselves. And then, if it makes themselves look good, they are willing to be grouped in with a whole. In fact, on an individual level, not everyone is kind or generous. Many people are assholes. My point is that we all have our fair share of assholes, and to blame an entire community for their acts, does not work in this day and age of diversity.

I'm absolutely certain that many Americans and Middle-easterners would get along with each other better than many of their own countrymen.

who cares? terrorism isnt even a threat. Why dont we just spend the money on somethign else. Kofi Annan said that it would take around 12 billion dollars to stop the aids crisis in africa. why dont we jsut take all the money we spend on terrorism and give to africa to stop the aids virus. the world would love us for it and then maybe just maybe not killing the terrrorists families would make it so they wont attak us. besides, thousands die in the sudan every year because of famine, how many people ever have died because of terrorism? lets tackle the bigger problems then work on terrorism.

You've got to be kidding me.....terrorism isn't a threat? Tell that to the families to the victims....

Do we actually have any countries that do these days? (Vatican City, San Marino, Andorra, and other micro-countries possibly excepted...)

For one, I would consider living up to the Geneca Accords as when a country follows the accords and puts a stop to violations. Canada and most European states live up to the Geneva Accords rather well. The US violates them intentionally, that's the problem...
I'll back this up:
According to the Geneva Conventions, child soldiers are illegal (as in no one under the age of 18), yet the US allows minors to join the military with parental consent.
The denial of basic legal representation to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is also a krass violation of the Geneva Accords.

If we even torture one person here everybody is bitching and complaining about civil rights. I'm glad they did what they did at abu ghraib make the bastards suffer. They didn't get in there by waving at a soldier.

Actually, yes, that's all most of them did do to get there. That's the problem. These were not terrorists or sympathizers or even conventional criminals. They were picked up in random sweeps at roadblocks across the country and held for no reason and then tortured.

So, yeah, we should "bitch" if we even torture one person here (and substantially more than one person was tortured). Because we're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be fighting the terrorists, not becoming them. We're supposed to be promoting freedom and democracy and all of the rights and liberties that entails, not "disappearing" people like Soviet Russia.

Ok BW/o O lets talk with them like the phillipines did. Then what happens 50 more people disappear.

actually, I think the safeness of a phillipines citizen are more important then the relation to any other nation they have. So they did the right thing, South Korea did not. Sadly. I think it was US that wanted this war and maybe also GB. So let them do the work and don't let other nations sacrifice thier citizens to please some nation.

OK inform me since you think i'm "ignorant" on world events. Name one christian terrorist group that straps bombs to people and does that stuff.

The IRA invented the truck bomb:

1. Take the family of a truck driver hostage.
2. Threaten to kill them unless he drives his bomb laden truck into an army checkpoint, where it will be detonated by remote control.
3. Load explosives onto truck and fit remote control detonator.
4. Have the truck driver drive the truck to the checkpoint where it is detonated, killing the driver and soldiers manning the checkpoint.
5. Release the truck drivers family if he complies with your instructions.

Not technically strapping explosives to people, but somewhat more destructive.

If we even torture one person here everybody is bitching and complaining about civil rights. I'm glad they did what they did at abu ghraib make the bastards suffer. They didn't get in there by waving at a soldier.


This guy is clearly Flamebating in this thread.

If we even torture one person here everybody is bitching and complaining about civil rights. I'm glad they did what they did at abu ghraib make the bastards suffer. They didn't get in there by waving at a soldier.

U said "we r the only one respecting geneva pacts" and then u come out with this after hmmmm 5 mins?

Stop thinking that u americans are the good heroes against the evil villains.

Then, maybe, u will look at other solutions.

You've got to be kidding me.....terrorism isn't a threat? Tell that to the families to the victims....

Tell that to Bush who's claiming success in his War on Terror.

You can't have it both ways.

Everybody follows our ideals when it applies to us. during wwII how many trials did germans have for captured prisoners? During the gulf wars how many iraqi trials did they have for the pows? It seems when we capture prisoners it's civil rights, but when someone else does it people turn a cold cheek.

I wa sgone for 5 minutes because I had a phone call fyi.

Tell that to Bush who's claiming success in his War on Terror.

You can't have it both ways.

That's completely irrelevant. No logical person can say that terrorism is not a threat.....

you track down the terrorists with a very well funded intelegence network and when it is determined that they can no longer provide you with clues to other terrorists or that they are going to strike soon you hunt them down in the night like the animals they are and leave their bodies for their friends to find a few weeks later

One part the US getting beaten in Vietnam by low-tech forces to one part the Sherrif of Nottingham in Hollywood Robin Hood movies?

No, just the Nazis.

Sorry if you were being sarcastic, it's hard to tell when discussions become this partisan.

why dont you tell the hundreds of thousands in rwanda who have died that we couldnt help because we had to spend billions of dollars trying to stop a problem that hasnt even killed 10 thousand people EVER. The fact remains too that right now terrorism is at its lowest level in about 20 years, yet we wanna spend billions of dollars instead of helping the hundreds of thousands that die in africa and asia and south america due to famine, civil war and genocide. i think our piorities need a little spring cleaning.

Everybody follows our ideals when it applies to us. during wwII how many trials did germans have for captured prisoners? During the gulf wars how many iraqi trials did they have for the pows? It seems when we capture prisoners it's civil rights, but when someone else does it people turn a cold cheek.

This may stem from the fact that people hope to actually get a change done in the US. Besides, people did complain about the lack of trials in Nazi Germany. They got jailed without a trial, if they lived in Germany at the time. You have little chance of getting a positive change done in a dictatorship. They're bad to begin with, but the US is supposed to be better.

I wa sgone for 5 minutes because I had a phone call fyi.

fyi i am not looking what u do in ur real life, i am just noticing that u said that US are the only respecting geneva pacts, then u come out with what u said.

When, to kill a terrorist, ur governement kills 20 people with a missile, u can't think that this will end the conflict or the terrorism.

killing everyone of them?

That would make moderate people to get the weapons and fight back too.

+ violence = + terrorism


Cheers.

and i stand corrected, it is a threat, jsut not a very big one.

That's completely irrelevant. No logical person can say that terrorism is not a threat.....

Making sure terrorism is no longer a threat is the exact goal of the "War on Terror" that Bush has been waging for the last three years.

you track down the terrorists with a very well funded intelegence network and when it is determined that they can no longer provide you with clues to other terrorists or that they are going to strike soon you hunt them down in the night like the animals they are and leave their bodies for their friends to find a few weeks later

Ah, what a genius idea! I'm amazed the U.S. Government hasn't thought of it already. Oh wait - they do have a very well funded intelligence network. Problem is, its mandate is to find weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, which is part of the reason why two airliners were hijacked and flown into the WTC. "You hunt them down in the night like the animals they are"? I hope people like you don't vote...

you track down the terrorists with a very well funded intelegence network and when it is determined that they can no longer provide you with clues to other terrorists or that they are going to strike soon you hunt them down in the night like the animals they are and leave their bodies for their friends to find a few weeks later

I'm sorry, but if you consider good funding the sollution, then the CIA wouldn't have screwed up so wonderfully as it did. What you are suggesting is a utopian fantasy.

Ah, what a genius idea! I'm amazed the U.S. Government hasn't thought of it already. Oh wait - they do have a very well funded intelligence network. Problem is, its mandate is to find weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, which is part of the reason why two airliners were hijacked and flown into the WTC. "You hunt them down in the night like the animals they are"? I hope people like you don't vote...

clinton had them looking for WMDs?

and seeing as how they have more than 20 times the budget and resources of their nearest rival they should probobly be able to do both at the same time

Guns.

why dont you tell the hundreds of thousands in rwanda who have died that we couldnt help because we had to spend billions of dollars trying to stop a problem that hasnt even killed 10 thousand people EVER. The fact remains too that right now terrorism is at its lowest level in about 20 years, yet we wanna spend billions of dollars instead of helping the hundreds of thousands that die in africa and asia and south america due to famine, civil war and genocide. i think our piorities need a little spring cleaning.

as i repeat, helping rwanda won't give a lot of votes in the US President Elections...

fighting terrorism = economic and politic interests?

nah... they r making the world a better place to live.
At least in TV they say so.

Cheers
PS: i'm hyronic :P

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

clinton had them looking for WMDs?

and seeing as how they have more than 20 times the budget and resources of their nearest rival they should probobly be able to do both at the same time

Bush has had them looking for bin Laden for the last three years and they haven't managed to wrap that one up yet.

terrorism has probably killed more than 10,000 people.
bad statistic :headbang:

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

The problem is that the US needs to interfere, but when it does, it does it wrong.

Making sure terrorism is no longer a threat is the exact goal of the "War on Terror" that Bush has been waging for the last three years.


whoever realized terrorism existed before bush started saying "war on terror" raise your hand

well i'm happy i got over 350 hits. :p

clinton had them looking for WMDs?

and seeing as how they have more than 20 times the budget and resources of their nearest rival they should probobly be able to do both at the same time

I don't know where on earth you got Clinton from, but obviously you're not paying attention. I'm talking abou the Bush administration being so fixated on the idea that Iraq was in league with al-Qaeda, they neglected all else until they found "evidence" that gave them cause to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

sorry but The USA interferred even in that conflict.


Cheers.

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

Don't whine about it. AIDS is a helluva lot more our problem than Hussein was. Understanding and combating emerging viruses, particularly ones that don't respond to conventional treatments, is a challenge the entire world faces. Are you suggesting that we only wade into a situation when we can drop a bomb on it?

you can't please everybody all the time. :(

umm..ok....youre right ,helping rwanda wont help get more votes, but the topic isnt what ill or wont help bush get more votes, its how to stop terrorism. andfrankly terrorism is a mnor threat. one which we shouldnt even worry about. how many times have you even paid attention to the threat level colors? yay, its yellow, a small risk of terrorism. that mean didly squat. terrorism is a belated issue as it is small threat. we shoudlnt even focus on it. lets instead spend our money on something else, maybe to help the poor in this country or to help end world hunger, instead of worrying about soethign that isnt gonna happen.

I don't know where on earth you got Clinton from, but obviously you're not paying attention. I'm talking abou the Bush administration being so fixated on the idea that Iraq was in league with al-Qaeda, they neglected all else until they found "evidence" that gave them cause to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

you said since they were looking for wepons they couldn't stop 9/11

9/11 was set up during clinton's time

so clinton had the CIA looking for WMD's?

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

AIDS is a global ecidemic and its up to the TECHNOLOGICALLY, and one would hope socially, advanced nations to solvce the problem, WORLD WIDE> it is the united states's duty as an advanced nation, and self proclaimed most advanced, to help with this problem...

...as soon as it stops playing games and fixes the problem at home, the US is crying foul in other nations about their AIDS programs and there are more and more people getting it in the US everyday..

whoever realized terrorism existed before bush started saying "war on terror" raise your hand

noone will, and who will is a liar.


Cheers

People make it our duty as a super power to help out third world countries, and that's out of good faith. nobody here really cares about unless it was in the news. the average tyekwan the crackhead probably doesn't even know there is a problem.

The problem is that the US needs to interfere, but when it does, it does it wrong.

amen

umm..ok....youre right ,helping rwanda wont help get more votes, but the topic isnt what ill or wont help bush get more votes, its how to stop terrorism. andfrankly terrorism is a mnor threat. one which we shouldnt even worry about. how many times have you even paid attention to the threat level colors? yay, its yellow, a small risk of terrorism. that mean didly squat. terrorism is a belated issue as it is small threat. we shoudlnt even focus on it. lets instead spend our money on something else, maybe to help the poor in this country or to help end world hunger, instead of worrying about soethign that isnt gonna happen.

Tell that to us when a plane crashes into the Sears Tower. Tell that to us when a canister of Sarin goes off in LA. Tell that to us when a dirty bomb is detonated in NYC. Tell that to us when a suitcase nuke is detonated in Washington D.C.....

We must wipe out the threat of AIDS. AIDS is horboring diseases of mass destructiona and NOONE is safe. We must take swift decisive acton and bomb it into oblivion. AIDS supports terrorism and has ruthlessly killed millions. You are either with us or against us. Bring it on AIDS! If you don't leave Africa in 30 days we are coming in after you with all our military might.

*making frustrated face at the screen and wondering why i bother*

1) there will always be SOME terrorism. there will always be someone out there who feels that he isnt being listened to and he'll kill someone to make his point.

2) the macho solution doesnt work. "kill them all down to the 7th generation" isnt a good solution in a world where its on TV within 20 minutes. it just breeds more terrorists.

3) its gonna be really hard to end terrorism when it is so very successful for those funding it. the supporters of terrorism have varied and complex motivations for their actions ranging from true sympathy for palestinians (the minority of the money backers) to self aggrandizement to making money out of it somehow. and everything inbetween. and motives that we wont understand when they come to light.

4) people must be treated with respect. the root of terrorism is in the lack of a more reasonable solution for people with legitimate greivances but no consideration from the rest of the world. if you look at the terror hotspots of the world you will see it started with oppressed people who needed a way to get their problems noticed. it's more complex now but thats where it starts.

5) we need to keep terrorism in perspective. we give these people way too much power over us in relation to the damage they do. well now i dont remember who issued the report but 625 people were killed by terrorists last year. most of those were israelis. there are 6 billion people in the world. more died of choking on bugs than that.

6) dont give them what they want. when the phillipines pulled out of iraq early they doomed 100 more men to beheading. they should have stayed an extra 6 months and doubled their force. when something works, you keep doing it.

7) do what we have been doing for the past 3 years (something i will give bush credit for) try to dry up the money. terrorism is expensive esp if you are trying to bring it to the US. they need money. less money = less recruits. iraq was sending payments to the families of suicide bombers, i guess they must not be doing that any more.

8) keep an eye on radical groups around the world and put pressure on the various governments to prosecute them when possible. the world spent way too much time feeling sorry for those that terrorist groups "represent" and not going after them for crimes against the innocent.

we didnt get into this mess in a day and we wont get out of it quickly. there is no easy solution.

you can't please everybody all the time. :(

But you don't have to actively try and piss them off either.

no superpower before us has ever helped another country out of good faith. there's a price for everything.

umm..ok....youre right ,helping rwanda wont help get more votes, but the topic isnt what ill or wont help bush get more votes, its how to stop terrorism. andfrankly terrorism is a mnor threat. one which we shouldnt even worry about. how many times have you even paid attention to the threat level colors? yay, its yellow, a small risk of terrorism. that mean didly squat. terrorism is a belated issue as it is small threat. we shoudlnt even focus on it. lets instead spend our money on something else, maybe to help the poor in this country or to help end world hunger, instead of worrying about soethign that isnt gonna happen.

i was being hyronic in my post Islam, i wrote that, i agree on everything u said
(just to make things clearer :D )

Cheers

I think the point is being missed. The word "Terrorism" is being used by Western Governments to frighten their citizens into supporting pretty much anything that these governments wish to do. Parallells can be drawn with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia: To create a climate in which the population is complicit, united and obedient, you must first create something for them to unite against, namely, "Terrorism". The word itself has been used so much since 9/11 by politicians and the security services to justify everything from the restriction of Civil liberties (The Patriot Act I and II in the US and the Updated Terrorism Act in Britain) to the invasion of sovereign nations (Iraq) and Ethnic Cleansing in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Throughout history singular words have been used to strike fear into people and to denounce those who ask questions: "Witch", "Communist", "Un-American" and now, "Terrorist". Whilst people continue to believe whatever they're told to believe and continue to fear anything which differs from them in terms of Religion, Ideology, Race etc... then there's no hope. Incidently, "Terrorism" is defined as "The use of violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community", therefore "Terrorists" are "Terrorists" whether they use Suicide Bombers and Car Bombs or Tanks and F-16's.
From
A Pacifist

i think a good method would be to kill off the families of the terrorists. That method was used when Jordan started getting attacks and it stopped very quickly.

Many here think that killing all the terrorists and their families up to seven times seven removed is how terrorism should end. But I have another idea that I think is easier to implement: let the terrorist kill every one else. Then they will have no one else to kill and terrorism will have ended. It's also much more Christian.

Remember: it takes two to tango.

If that's not appealing then maybe trying to find the roots of terrorism... after all, something must be happening for all those people to want to blow themselves up.

Another sarcastic comment brought to you by the new Izta Cola Hi, now with extra sugar.

as i said before cutting funding doesn't work. they'll just raise oil prices like they already did.

umm..ok....youre right ,helping rwanda wont help get more votes, but the topic isnt what ill or wont help bush get more votes, its how to stop terrorism.

BULL. why do you think bush declared a war on terror? because the simpleton american majority realized terrorism is real and was crying foul cuz it bothered with us, this whole war on terror never would've happened if not for bush's want to get votes and support after the 9/11 incident, too bad he bauched it up by going into iraq and playing cowboy isntad of concentrating on the actual terrorism of the WORLD, which he doesnt even know how to fight ANYWAY, he and his idiot administration think the war on terrorism is on a person or persons, when terrorism is based on an idea (one that bush is furthering by the way by pretending its on a peoples), bush likes to point out how terrorists arnt actually soldiers, then makes a habit of not realizing it

Who's threatened Canada? I've never heard anything about this.
Also, as a Canadian who is living in America, I will tell you, our values are very different, and please do not ever say we are the same again.
You didn't respond to my comment.

Yes we are very similar and on the same boat. We both have liberty, freedom and democracy. We both believe in seperation of church and state. Both have an anglo-saxon background, including a small but vocal French background in both states (Quebec and Louisiana/New Orleans).

Al-Qaeda threatened Canada with retaliatory terrorist actions for our close ties to America.

This is the link where it explicitly stated we were a target:
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/newsworld/viewer.cgi?FILE=NL20021120.html&TEMPLATE=newsreal_archive.ssi&SC=NL

Again same boat. For all of our peace loving nature, we're a target.

It was you that introduced that element: the original poster simply asked "How do you stop Terrorism?"

No you did. You specifically stated your belief that other states would declare war on the U.S. if it attempted this tactic. I simply asked who you thought would commit to such an action. Just curiosity.

How about spain? britain?

How about North Ireland? Or maybe those terroristsvictims there aren't Westerners. Afterall, they are only british.

They were/are targets. I have never heard the IRA state their intended goal was to kill as many westerners as possible. The same for the Basque, they haven't stated they would attack everyone who was a westerner. Those are instances of internal terrorism/freedom fighting whichever way you see it or whatever side you may sit on. Many Irishmen/women will find the notion of being "British" annoying at best.

Root-cause advocates want to remove the culture of death. I see you go for the standard neocon "all Muslims are terrorists" line. You are mistaken if you think that everyone in the Middle East supports al-Qaeda. (Though the support base for those terrorists has grown since America started to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

That's right. Osama bin Laden is not poor, but most of those young men who join his group and become his pawns are poor. You're rigt when you say that "a small fringe group has scapegoated Islam and made the entire region look bad." But you play right into that when you say that "It's the cool thing to join Al-Qaeda" in the middle east!

I strongly disagree with your encouragement of genocide. History shows that policies of punishing the many for the actions of a few don't work, and they only make the many angrier. They will only hit harder. The only version of your suggestion for a final solution to the terrorist threat that would work is a complete extermination of the Middle Eastern population. And that would be, in my opinion, injustifiably evil. Your ideas smack of those that Hitler's Nazis put into practice in your own homeland 60 years ago.

Read all of my comments, I specifically said these people don't represent the majority of Arabs or Muslims. They've completely warped Islam to justify whatever they feel like doing. The Islam "Wahhabists" profess is NOT what Islam is supposed to look like.

I've said that this tactic would not be fair, I'l go on to say that it would be undeniably against most of our cherished values. Fact of the matter is it'll work. Queen Victoria punished Sudan and other African states by sending the army and doing just this. Chinese revolutionaries and Japanese Imperialists used the same tactics. In those regions where it was used, it worked. It worked in all of Eastern Europe, except they didn't kill a community they just deported entire swathes of people into Siberia or Kazkhstan or even Kamchatka. Stalin deported all of the Chechens starting in 1928 and it ended the problem until people began returning to their land. That tactic has worked and it will work.

Ok, well do you remember the Oklahoma City Bombings? Christian terrorist right there.

Second off, Hinduism and Buddism condem violence of any sense, and Hindu and Buddist countries are not really being occupied by US troops.

Islam is not a terrorist religion. The religion condems terrorism. It is just some people, not the religion

Oklahoma wasn't Christian terrorism. It was anti-government terrorism by a former soldier. He didn't profess to be doing it in the name of God.

I agree, Islam is not a terrorist religion and anyone who says this doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Some of them have a very warped view of what the world should look like and unfortunately the governments in those states are unable or unwilling to deal with it. If they don't want to have Western troops on their land, then why don't they try and keep their terrorists in check and hunt them down accordingly. Its when terrorism is exported to a proxy state that it becomes a problem.

Nol, prolly not done enough according to you. but afaik it's by far the closest irl experience you can come to your way of dealing with it. And they aren't close to peace now, are they? They where talking about peace why Clinton was in the house. But now, where is that talk? Gone. Also, they are building a wall... Makes me think of Berlin. Was that a good idea? Not really.

Erm...The Berlin Wall was meant to keep people from fleeing East Germany and not to keep people out...Its not at all the same thing.

Clinton tried and failed. He even states in his autobiography that Arafat made him a failure, because of it. They haven't been close to peace since 1948 and they won't be at peace with their neighbors until one side is gone. I don't particularly care which. Bush also tried with his Road Map to Peace; it also failed. The governments in the Middle East are also unwilling to let it go and accept Israels existence and power. Its also a convenient scapegoat for their complete lack of reforms, both economic and political, and the fact that their states resemble more 17-18th century dictatorships then anything else.

So far no one has actually argued against my suggestion: talking to them.

Any response?

They have no interest in talking to us. Otherwise, Bin Laden would have proposed a tea and biscuit meeting at some location for a chat about Islamic and Western values.../sarcasm off

Those people who follow Al-Qaeda's warped vision for the world aren't going to sit down and chat. Their interested in forcing us to do things their way. They don't want middle ground, otherwise they would have tried for domestic reforms in their local countries in an attempt to gain power and change things. Instead they have embarked on an international campaign to kill/maim asmany westerners as possible until America bows to their demands.

Actually here's another solution: Massively fund alternative research into a different combustible material. Without the funds they receive from oil revenues (specifically Saudi Arabia) they will be unable to fund their attacks.

if that isn't the biggest pile of shit i've ever heard

are you suggetsing opening the borders and welcoming them to kill us. oh plz tell me that's not what you're trying to say :rolleyes:

No, just the Nazis.

Sorry if you were being sarcastic, it's hard to tell when discussions become this partisan.

I wasn't actually being sarcastic, I just wasn't giving the answer you wanted to give, but I stand by my two sources above.

no superpower before us has ever helped another country out of good faith. there's a price for everything.

out of good faith?

lol

cheers

finally somebody backs me up :p :)

Tell that to us when a plane crashes into the Sears Tower. Tell that to us when a canister of Sarin goes off in LA. Tell that to us when a dirty bomb is detonated in NYC. Tell that to us when a suitcase nuke is detonated in Washington D.C.....

yes, lets make stuff up and defend that. you cant justify doing somethign with the presumption that something bad is goign to happen, i think they made a movie about that with tom cruise.

i'm getting tired of this. i'll be back on probably tomorrow. bye all


btw thx for all the hits. :sniper:

no superpower before us has ever helped another country out of good faith. there's a price for everything.

Of course, no government has ever helped another just out of the goodness of their hearts. There will obviously need to be benefits for the US to help out other countries. And there are, a more stable world, less antiAmericanism, less terrorism, more developed economies and markets, etc. etc. It's just that these benefits won't be eviden tomorrow or coming next election, or the election after that.

Now, never before in the history of manking has so much power been concentrated on a single nation. The US defense budget alone would be enough to feed every man, woman and child in poverty around the world. Does the US has to do it? No, I don't think so, but it sure would be nice.

I think the point is being missed. The word "Terrorism" is being used by Western Governments to frighten their citizens into supporting pretty much anything that these governments wish to do... [cutted]
From
A Pacifist

i couldn't have said a better thing than what u said, I totally agree.

It was you that introduced that element: the original poster simply asked "How do you stop Terrorism?"


No you did. You specifically stated your belief that other states would declare war on the U.S. if it attempted this tactic.


No that wasn't me: that was ...

If we did that, I think that there are many nations that would actually declare war on the US, and while we may be powerful, we can't take on everybody at once.

I think it's time that we clarify where the word terrorism actually comes from. Back in the good ol' days of the French revolution, some guys around a man called Robespierre decided to put a little order into the chaotic government and turned it into an oligarchical dictatorship called "Terreur", French for terror. The point was that the populace and thereby the hated monarchists were forced into submission by trials based on denounciations by just about anybody. What happened was that people got even with eachother by denouncing people they hated and watching them get their heads lobbed off by the guillotine. It got so popular to get someone the death sentence that they began drowning people en masse in order to save time. Terror originally comes from doing what the government says because you fear the government and has become far more popular with "non-governmental organizitions" since the spread of representative governments.

whoever realized terrorism existed before bush started saying "war on terror" raise your hand
noone will, and who will is a liar.


Are you claiming that despite living in Northern Ireland for over 30 years I was unaware of the existence of a thing called terrorism until the president of the USA told me about it?

No that wasn't me: that was ...

Sorry my mistake, so many people to keep track of.

Again sorry for the mix-up.:o

Are you claiming that despite living in Northern Ireland for over 30 years I was unaware of the existence of a thing called terrorism until the president of the USA told me about it?

no sorry, wasn't talking about "terrorism" but about the Term (and the implications) that Bush gave on the "war on terrorism" concept

Are you claiming that despite living in Northern Ireland for over 30 years I was unaware of the existence of a thing called terrorism until the president of the USA told me about it?

i meant americans captain oblivious

yes, lets make stuff up and defend that. you cant justify doing somethign with the presumption that something bad is goign to happen, i think they made a movie about that with tom cruise.

You can't logically justify your point that the deliberate bombing, kidnapping, and murder of innocent civillians around the world by terrorists isn't a valid threat....

Always prepare for the worst. Always. No matter what circumstances are. I'm not even talking about gov't or politics with this one. You always prepare for the worst....

You can't logically justify your point that the deliberate bombing, kidnapping, and murder of innocent civillians around the world by terrorists isn't a valid threat....

Always prepare for the worst. Always. No matter what circumstances are. I'm not even talking about gov't or politics with this one. You always prepare for the worst....

let's take the fingerprints of every citizen and let's scan every phone line.

Cheers

Our freedom is threatened more by Bush than by bin Laden. Things like the Patriot acts and, to a much greater extent, the war on drugs have been eating away at our freedom more than any terrorist organization. The terrorists can destroy buildings and a few kill people, sure. But they can't bust down your door and lock you up and allow you to be raped in a group shower by several large men because you somke pot/disagree with the gov't/hate Bush. All the terrorists really do is give Bush an excuse to take away our freedom.

They have no interest in talking to us. Otherwise, Bin Laden would have proposed a tea and biscuit meeting at some location for a chat about Islamic and Western values.../sarcasm off


Certainly bin Laden and his closest, most fanatical followers don't have any intention of talking. But those are only a handful, most are simple people without any hope other than a place in heaven, easily manipulated but not really willing to die. And these are the ones that are sent to die, the actual base. You can talk to them or manipulate them into listening, same thing.

The people funding them, well, you just have to make them a business proposition that makes better sense.


Actually here's another solution: Massively fund alternative research into a different combustible material. Without the funds they receive from oil revenues (specifically Saudi Arabia) they will be unable to fund their attacks.

Research on alternative fuels should be funded terrorism or no terrorism. Peak oil production is going to be reached in a handful of years anyway.

if that isn't the biggest pile of shit i've ever heard

are you suggetsing opening the borders and welcoming them to kill us. oh plz tell me that's not what you're trying to say :rolleyes:

No, I was thinking more of us making a line and going over there. They can kill us one by one then. When there are none of us left, then terrorism will stop.

You can't logically justify your point that the deliberate bombing, kidnapping, and murder of innocent civillians around the world by terrorists isn't a valid threat....

Always prepare for the worst. Always. No matter what circumstances are. I'm not even talking about gov't or politics with this one. You always prepare for the worst....

yes, always prepare for the worst, but does preparing for the worst involve preemptive strikes. its just like the movie, you cant arrest someone for a crime theyre going to commit. yes you can prepare for terrorism...ie...build bomb shelters, train medical personal..stuf liek that, but not attacking them.

and youre right, it is a threat, but we've got more important things to spend our money on. when famine and poverty are elminated then we can have this discussion

The same for the Japanese, British, French Empires in their times.

So, you just said that as an imperialist nation we shouldn't be surprised if the masses don't like us. Good luck stopping terrorism with that logic.


Name these countries you believe would declare war in order to prevent the West from carrying out its threat. And why do you all insist on saying the U.S., I said the West, any state in the West.

First off, I sat the U.S. because no other western nation would stand by us while we slaughtered the families of suicide bombers. As for who might declare war, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (all it would take is a popular revolution, whihc might be easy if American troops were pulled out to fight other wars) France, Russia, and probobly most of the rest of the world would be ready to go to war to stop that kind of genocide, even our current allies. If europe doesn't like the war in Iraq, imagine how they would feel about this tactic?

And yes the tactic would be low on the morality scale but quite effective.
So you really think that America is justified in empire building, no matter what the cost? You would agree that it is justified for us to eradicate all who stand against us? And the you wonder why people call America "the great satan"? You are one sick little puppy.

ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS.

I have been reading this and I cant believe what I have been seeing. Do you really believe wiping out families will work? because if that is the case go ahead, wage your little war and see what happens. I very much doubt everyone will sit back and relax.

Terrorism is about fighting for what you believe in. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Ido not like what these people do. But your option would mean mass genecide. The destruction of many people. This would create out rage and may even create more terrorist groups which will hate the west. And more importantly the main power. AMERICA. Americans will not admit it but they control the world. People move and America want s to know what is going on. And this is why terrorists hit america hard. and where it hurts. The twin towers was terrible. But it got over a message. America can not control everything.


So get of your high horses and start thinking of a way to stop this without killing thousands possible millions of people.

i meant americans captain oblivious

Oh, right, so you post to a server located in the UK on an international forum owned by an Australian and expect everybody to understand that 'whoever' equals 'Americans only'? How could I have been so stupid as to think you actually meant what you said?

ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS?


I can't really believe the serious weighing that the idea has gotten here. I have actually tried to objectively deconstruct the consequences of such a policy, and its basically come down to The World v. U.S in the final round.

I think there might be one crazy person who thinks this might be a good idea, and the rest of us just don't have enough to do so we are humoring him.

Oh, right, so you post to a server located in the UK on an international forum owned by an Australian and expect everybody to understand that 'whoever' equals 'Americans only'? How could I have been so stupid as to think you actually meant what you said?

because of course it would sound stupid to you not living in the US, maybe if you sat around and thought for a second it wouldve got to you

because of course it would sound stupid to you not living in the US, maybe if you sat around and thought for a second it wouldve got to you

Sorry, but you sounded stupid her in New York also. Come on the universe doesn't revolve around your oversized head.

because of course it would sound stupid to you not living in the US, maybe if you sat around and thought for a second it wouldve got to you

I still fail to see what point you were trying to make: that Americans were ignorant of terrorism, or that Bush somehow redefined the term?

The only way to truly stop terrorism is to work toward eradicating poverty and ignorance. All other solutions are temporary and do not attack the problem at its roots.
ditto

I still fail to see what point you were trying to make: that Americans were ignorant of terrorism, or that Bush somehow redefined the term?

the former for the most part

I don't know exactly how to stop terrorism, but the first step which nobody seems willing to take is obvious: stop creating terrorists. And don't tell me you honestly believe that they "hate America because they hate our freedom" because that's hardly the whole of it. They hate America because we are actively denying them theirs. Think of our support for the regime of Saudi Arabia as an example.

Furthermore, killing families of terrorists won't stop the problem. If someone in the family decides they want to be a terrorist, their families will much more likely join them, because they'd all die anyway. This same thing applies to other countries if we wiped out the people in the Middle East. Either everyone in each country would agree with the U.S. (West) or they'd all attack us. And they all won't agree, I can guarantee that.

Furthermore, examples of Christian terrorists, are, for example, the Army of God. They set off a bomb at the Olympics, (in Atlanta in 1996) and also bombed Abortion Clinics and gay bars. Other Christian terrorists also bomb the clinics and bars, or they simply kill the doctors/patrons of those bars.

So, you just said that as an imperialist nation we shouldn't be surprised if the masses don't like us. Good luck stopping terrorism with that logic.



First off, I sat the U.S. because no other western nation would stand by us while we slaughtered the families of suicide bombers. As for who might declare war, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (all it would take is a popular revolution, whihc might be easy if American troops were pulled out to fight other wars) France, Russia, and probobly most of the rest of the world would be ready to go to war to stop that kind of genocide, even our current allies. If europe doesn't like the war in Iraq, imagine how they would feel about this tactic?


So you really think that America is justified in empire building, no matter what the cost? You would agree that it is justified for us to eradicate all who stand against us? And the you wonder why people call America "the great satan"? You are one sick little puppy.

Very large and powerful nations with a military and cultural reach that spans the known world will breed some discontent, because their actions to get to that position probably stepped over alot of smaller nations to get there.

As for who would go to war. None of what you said makes any logical sense. Why would any of those states stand up and attempt to defend another nation to which they in most likelyhood have very little interests compared to interests with America. Saudi Arabia and North Korea can declare war all they want, the former needs America more than the other way around and NK doesn't have any ability to reach America. China isn't interested in any struggle with America at the moment, they've got their own problems. France doesn't have enough political will do so, or the military power and neither does Russia. Europe is militarily weak. Face it, no one would oppose it IF the U.S. attempted it. If the world was prepared to stop genocidal wars then where were they when Chechens, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Tutsis/Hutus, Armenians were being slaughtered? Where was the world's hurried military aid when Mao announced his great leap forward condemning millions to die? Same for Stalin? The world will do exactly what it had been the most adept to do, condemn with words, pass the buck and do nothing.

I did being with the West in general. It centered on America due to the general nature of the conflict. I believe America has the capability to end the threat if it so chooses, it simply doesn't have the political will to do so. If your only argument for not doing something is morality then your argument is rather weak in terms of world politics.


The people funding them, well, you just have to make them a business proposition that makes better sense.


Such as, Surrender or Die?

I personally think you are forgetting a vital thing.

Not all of us are like Bair, alot of us HATE what you guys did in Iraq. Under the pretense it was about WMDS. What WMDs. Thats means it was illegal. Oh look perhaps more people will start hating you, due to the fact you dont need justifacation. By all rights Bush AND Blair should have been striped of power.

And when you say. "No-one will stop the U.S." Your wrong. You can say we dont have the military power, and you are right, but dont forget one thing...Terrorism, by doing this you will start new waves. War is not done on a battlefield anymore it is done with stealth. You head them all. this is a new type of war. They are right only no more need for face to face. Not when you have bombs that can explode anywhere. And dont forget, no-one likes a bully.

IF America tried this they will be facing something that I do not think they could handle. A war that will be fought in America, and I dont think carpet bombing will work then...but then Americans do like the odd bit of friendly fire.

Sorry for the bitch, but America needs to look at its self, it put Saddam in power, and then took him away with an ILLEGAL war. Get off your high horse and think...Why do they want us dead? Why so they hate us? The answers are there and in them are also the solution to the problem.

So all I say is look at yourselfs. You are no better than the terrorists. bombing everywhere making sure you stay on top. theres a quote by a famous German playwrite called Bertolt Brecht

"Long is not forever"

Remember that.

I personally think you are forgetting a vital thing.

Not all of us are like Bair, alot of us HATE what you guys did in Iraq. Under the pretense it was about WMDS. What WMDs. Thats means it was illegal. Oh look perhaps more people will start hating you, due to the fact you dont need justifacation. By all rights Bush AND Blair should have been striped of power.

And when you say. "No-one will stop the U.S." Your wrong. You can say we dont have the military power, and you are right, but dont forget one thing...Terrorism, by doing this you will start new waves. War is not done on a battlefield anymore it is done with stealth. You head them all. this is a new type of war. They are right only no more need for face to face. Not when you have bombs that can explode anywhere. And dont forget, no-one likes a bully.

IF America tried this they will be facing something that I do not think they could handle. A war that will be fought in America, and I dont think carpet bombing will work then...but then Americans do like the odd bit of friendly fire.

Sorry for the bitch, but America needs to look at its self, it put Saddam in power, and then took him away with an ILLEGAL war. Get off your high horse and think...Why do they want us dead? Why so they hate us? The answers are there and in them are also the solution to the problem.

So all I say is look at yourselfs. You are no better than the terrorists. bombing everywhere making sure you stay on top. theres a quote by a famous German playwrite called Bertolt Brecht

"Long is not forever"

Remember that.

You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're not doing anything or thinking anything in the US that the UK didn't do or think first. The only difference is that our fall from grace is being televised so everybody feels that they can weigh in.

You can also climb off your high horse because what we know about colonialism and empire we learned at your knee. Blair is in power and that makes you just as guilty as those of us over here in the US that didn't vote for Bush.

Terrorism is not to be stopped with the kind of reasoning our modern society enjoy -- killing their family will merely make them single and even more antagonized --
Terrorism comes from inside -- no outside cure can heal those souls.
Curing it would mean you can dig into human nature most hidden aspects.

Universal conscience improvment is the remedy, it seems to me, and it will occur after a Shock -- a Ultimate Shock-

And yes the tactic would be low on the morality scale but quite effective.
Those of us who actually have morals and ideals would not stand for your final solution. If we were to do things your way, what would we be protecting? Our physical bodies and possessions. Why have those when you are miserable and have no soul?

Are you claiming that despite living in Northern Ireland for over 30 years I was unaware of the existence of a thing called terrorism until the president of the USA told me about it?

We had The Rainbow Warrior attack in NZ in the Eighties (by France)

Speaking of which What countries have not been associated with terrorism in one form or another at some point in their history?

The Indonesian government does not support Terrorism
Not now, but Suharto's regime did. But oh wait, it was the CIA that put him in place and supplied him with "kill lists" of socialists.

The issue, i think, is not that "Terrorism" did not exist before "The war on Terror", simply that "Terrorism" has been adopted as the new enemy and Unlike Nazism, Communism etc... it can't be defeated by the armies of those countries who represent "Freedom", (dont know how to use quotes on this board) but someone mentioned earlier that "Terrorism" is (for the most part) based upon ideas, and you can't destroy, invade or kill an idea. If it wasn't "Terrorism" it would be something else, that way Western governments can maintain a state of under-education and ignorance in relation to their "Subjects", that way the majority of people can never and will never want, never mind seek, the truth.

A Pacifist

The solution is to convince individuals living in the region that their current course of action is unacceptable and that Western powers will return to pre-WW1 tactics and advocate wholesale punishment of entire communities.

It'll work. It won't be fair or nice. But it will work.

Hmmmm people here have complained about Saddam doin the same thing with the Kurds? You advocate the same kind of resolve?

I'll go on to say that it would be undeniably against most of our cherished values.
Yeah, so thus we shouldn't do it.

I notice that most of your examples of where this tactic has worked are from the 19th century. Your newest is from 1928! We live in a different world now, a world of instant media, and we are more humanitarian.

Maybe cause the victims of the IRA and ETA terrorists (we should determine if they are actually terrorists or people fighting for the indipendence of their land) doesn't vote the US President...
I'm Irish and I can say without a doubt that the IRA are terrorists. So are the ETA. They kill innocent people.

i think a good method would be to kill off the families of the terrorists. That method was used when Jordan started getting attacks and it stopped very quickly.

LOL - either you are very funny or a complete simpleton.

You will never completely stop terrorism, but here's a few things that would lessen it:

1.) Large nations should stop sticking their "political penis" into smaller countries, when it's for personal gain. Stop destabilising democratically elected governments whose idealology you dont agree with. Chile ring a bell? No, I guess it wouldn't - people like you believe that history only started in 2001...

2.) Let the middle east be! If the Jews, Muslims and secularists want to wipe each other out, let them go for it! Fact is, the whole area would be far more stable if the west hadn't been interfering there for the last few hundred years. Yes, there would still be fighting, of course, but not on the scale and with the devestating weapons that it is currently being fought with.

3.) Spread some of the obscene wealth that the richest 5% of the worlds population hoarde like greedy, ancient dragons, among the worlds poorest 50%.

4.) Try to remember that one man's terrorist (a word that America has totally bastardised the meaning of in the last 3 tears) is another man's freedom fighter. Here's a newsflash - a big slice of the worlds population (and not just from Muslim or Middle Eastern countries) consider Bush and Rumsfeld terrorists. But they declared war first, so it's all OK - but wait, didn't Usama declare war on the USA years before S11? Hmm...

I would recommend that if your post was serious and not a joke or flamebait, that you broaden your world social and political outlook beyond Chuck Norris movies, CNN and Bush's propaganda...

Try to remember that one man's terrorist (a word that America has totally bastardised the meaning of in the last 3 years)



Hear, Hear

One of the major problems, not only with relation to "Terrorism" but also within the wider world is the Abuse of Language. Words are being systematically raped and used for whatever ends the media, government and individuals with their own personal agendas wish them to mean. This, as George Orwell pointed out, is the greatest danger of all; namely that language will be distorted and changed by those in power to such a degree that one will no longer be able to express any form of dissent. For examples read: "Terrorism", "Collateral Damage", "Freedom", "Democracy", "Sugrical Strikes", "Axis of Evil" and so on....

A Pacifist

Hear, Hear

One of the major problems, not only with relation to "Terrorism" but also within the wider world is the Abuse of Language. Words are being systematically raped and used for whatever ends the media, government and individuals with their own personal agendas wish them to mean. This, as George Orwell pointed out, is the greatest danger of all; namely that language will be distorted and changed by those in power to such a degree that one will no longer be able to express any form of dissent. For examples read: "Terrorism", "Collateral Damage", "Freedom", "Democracy", "Sugrical Strikes", "Axis of Evil" and so on....

A Pacifist

Part of this problem could be resolved if the Bush administration would just offer a legal definition of the word "terrorist." Of course, this would mean that they wouldn't have the sweeping power the PATRIOT act gives them anymore, but I'm sure they could get one of their legal eagles to come up with a definition broad enough to encompass everyone who disagrees with them.

My idea is to complete anhillate one fairly large city kill every with a bomb then drop hog guts all over the bodies. Then round up all the terrorists captured and shoot the with bullets soaked in hog fat like General Perhsing did.

My idea is to complete anhillate one fairly large city kill every with a bomb then drop hog guts all over the bodies. Then round up all the terrorists captured and shoot the with bullets soaked in hog fat like General Perhsing did.

What city are you planning to start with? London? Berlin? Jerusalem?

What city are you planning to start with? London? Berlin? Jerusalem?

No, I mean a terrorist city like Tehran, Mecca, or any other terrorist place.

No, I mean a terrorist city like Tehran, Mecca, or any other terrorist place.

Belfast?

No, I mean a terrorist city like
Washington DC?

Belfast?

What Belfast is not an arab city its in Ireland, thats one of the dumbest responses I ever been given.

What Belfast is not an arab city its in Ireland, thats one of the dumbest responses I ever been given.

Arab != Terrorist.

Washington DC?

Another stupid answer, Washington DC is not a terrorist city.

What Belfast is not an arab city its in Ireland, thats one of the dumbest responses I ever been given.

You just really don't get it, do you?

Arab != Terrorist.

Yes, but for the most part it is islam.

Another stupid answer, Washington DC is not a terrorist city.
You have your opinions....I HAVE MINE.

You have your opinions....I HAVE MINE.

How is Washington a terrorist city.

Yes, but for the most part it is islam.

So you are saying there is no difference between an Arab city, and Islamic city and a terrorist city?

How is Washington a terrorist city.

Headquarters of the CIA (IIRC - certainly the seat of the US government which overwatches the CIA), who were responsible for funding and training those that went on form Al Qaeda...

So you are saying there is no difference between an Arab city, and Islamic city and a terrorist city?
No, that's what Bush is saying, with the exception of Israel.

So you are saying there is no difference between an Arab city, and Islamic city and a terrorist city?

Exactly.

Headquarters of the CIA (IIRC - certainly the seat of the US government which overwatches the CIA), who were responsible for funding and training those that went on form Al Qaeda...

That was a different age during the times when we had to do all in our power to beat the soviets.

That was a different age during the times when we had to do all in our power to beat the soviets.
Therefore, we are absolved from putting terrorists in power in Afghanistan. Although, doctors who treat hurt terrorists in Iraq justify a war in Iraq.

So you are saying there is no difference between an Arab city, and Islamic city and a terrorist city?

Exactly.

You, good sir, are talking absolute and utter bollocks.

You, good sir, are talking absolute and utter bollocks.

Hows that?

Hows that?
He said so.

Hows that?

Well, not all Islamic cities are Arab cities - take a look at the far east - but according to your claim they are.

I am unable to delve into the murky waters of what could possibly constitute a 'terrorist city' - would you care to provide some kind of definition? Is it a city that contains terrorists? A city where terrorists are born? A city where terrorists find support? A cirty where terrorists carry out their actions?

Enlighten me.

How is Washington a terrorist city.

Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

"Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible." -- from the March 2003 Bush speech.

Seems like a "slam dunk" to me. The message is clear: Get out of Iraq, Saddam, or we'll bomb and kill and "shock and awe" you until we get you, even though we have no right to do so.

Hows that?
Its just an expression...IT means your your brain is flawed...or something like that :D

Well, not all Islamic cities are Arab cities - take a look at the far east - but according to your claim they are.

I am unable to delve into the murky waters of what could possibly constitute a 'terrorist city' - would you care to provide some kind of definition? Is it a city that contains terrorists? A city where terrorists are born? A city where terrorists find support? A cirty where terrorists carry out their actions?

Enlighten me.

What I mean is its more of a category how many British or American cities have terrorist comeing from the or are supporting terrorists. I don't mean ALL when I say all I mean like 99%. Let me rephrase what I said.

I think all citys that support muslim terror should be listed and the biggest should be obliterated.

Its just an expression...IT means your your brain is flawed...or something like that :D

I know what it means. I was just saying the in an expression.

I know what it means. I was just saying the in an expression.
My mistake :cool:

Hows that?

Well, IMHO, you are one of three things:

- A shrewd troll/flamebaiter who is getting exactly the reaction he is looking for

- A six year old who's watched one too many B-grade action movies

- Someone who is pro-Islam and anti-America trying to make the average American look like a complete moron

Terrorist cities - what was Timothy McVey's hometown? Maybe we should bomb that...a terorist comes from there, so it's obvioulsy a "terrorist town", right?

Just in case you ever want to overcome your racism and Muslim-hating phobia, I would suggest you start by reading "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Villifies a People". Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566563887/102-0550994-5348947?v=glance

Try this one too: http://www.thirdway.org/files/articles/antiarab.html

Q) How do you stop Terrorism?
A) Kill all the terrorists.

I personally think you are forgetting a vital thing.

Not all of us are like Bair, alot of us HATE what you guys did in Iraq. Under the pretense it was about WMDS. What WMDs. Thats means it was illegal. Oh look perhaps more people will start hating you, due to the fact you dont need justifacation. By all rights Bush AND Blair should have been striped of power.

And when you say. "No-one will stop the U.S." Your wrong. You can say we dont have the military power, and you are right, but dont forget one thing...Terrorism, by doing this you will start new waves. War is not done on a battlefield anymore it is done with stealth. You head them all. this is a new type of war. They are right only no more need for face to face. Not when you have bombs that can explode anywhere. And dont forget, no-one likes a bully.

IF America tried this they will be facing something that I do not think they could handle. A war that will be fought in America, and I dont think carpet bombing will work then...but then Americans do like the odd bit of friendly fire.

Sorry for the bitch, but America needs to look at its self, it put Saddam in power, and then took him away with an ILLEGAL war. Get off your high horse and think...Why do they want us dead? Why so they hate us? The answers are there and in them are also the solution to the problem.

So all I say is look at yourselfs. You are no better than the terrorists. bombing everywhere making sure you stay on top. theres a quote by a famous German playwrite called Bertolt Brecht

"Long is not forever"

Remember that.

Firstly I live in Canada and I'm Polish. I'm not American and I don't have any influence on their system.

No one would oppose if X state decided to begin a policy of mass communal punishment. If you take Israel for instance and its continued use of collective punishments then evidently no one has come to the aid of the Palestinians will military aid. Long may not be forever, but we are living in the now and 100 years from now is a whole other ball game. You state alot of things, but very little in terms of facts except for the fact no WMDs have been found. If Blair and Bush are going to be removed from power then their own people will do it through the electoral process if they so choose to. Non-withstanding the problem of international terrorism directed at the West will persist regardless whether Bush and Blair are still in power or not. Appeasement has NEVER worked, it didn't work with Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union and it didn't work between Pakistan or India.

You also threw the word illegal around. Wars aren't illegal, otherwise the Napoleonic wars were illegal and so was Genghis Khan's campaign, Polish-Teutonic Wars, Punic wars, WW1, WW2 and so on. Wars are neither legal nor illegal, they can only be rated as just versus unjust. Legality does not belong in the definition of warfare.

Like Berkylvania said, whatever the West is doing now it has done in the past, repeatedly and far more ruthlessly. Somehow people have forgotten that at one time Europe dominated the world with an iron fist.

Those of us who actually have morals and ideals would not stand for your final solution. If we were to do things your way, what would we be protecting? Our physical bodies and possessions. Why have those when you are miserable and have no soul?

My solution isn't final and I realize that someday in the future the problem will resurface. Morals and ideals stand in the way of hard decisions. I hope there are other solutions, but this is the easiest one to implement and also IMO the most effective. We'd be protecting our way of life and our liberties at the expense of others liberties. Soul is a manner of faith and miserable is a manner of opinion. I'd rather see citizens in the West safe and having to live with an immoral act rather then see them die, because states weren't wiling to make the tough choices.

Hmmmm people here have complained about Saddam doin the same thing with the Kurds? You advocate the same kind of resolve?

Saddam slaughtered the Kurds when they had done nothing to him. There was no revenge there except for his hatred of the Kurds. I don't hate Arabs, I don't hate Islam, I see it for what it should be and I also see what a few have corrupted it into. I'm proposing an objective and cold approach to the problem of international terrorism.

Yeah, so thus we shouldn't do it.

I notice that most of your examples of where this tactic has worked are from the 19th century. Your newest is from 1928! We live in a different world now, a world of instant media, and we are more humanitarian.

Newest would be the Hutus and Tutsis, Mao founded Communist China in 1949 and continued his policies, removal and displacement of ethnic groups by the Soviet Union continued well into the late 1960's. The Armenian genocide occured in 1915. The Cambodian genocide occured in 1975-79. Plenty of modern examples where the West did nothing, absolutely sat down and did nothing. So when people tell me X states will stand up against another to oppose them on moral grounds I believe it to be false.

Yes this is a different world. And yes instant media changes the picture. And yes many consider themselves more humanitarian, its also that same admirable quality that makes them weak and unable to take that gut wrenching decision.

Q) How do you stop Terrorism?
A) Kill all the terrorists.

Consquence: you create more terrorists.

What I mean is its more of a category how many British or American cities have terrorist comeing from the or are supporting terrorists.

So, we'll add Belfast back to the list again, shall we?


I don't mean ALL when I say all I mean like 99%. Let me rephrase what I said.

So when you say the phrase "exactly" you mean "no, not really"?


I think all citys that support muslim terror should be listed and the biggest should be obliterated.

How do you determine if an entire city supports terrorism - I'm sure you will find sympathisers and supporters of the Al Qaeda, the IRA and ETA in New York or Mexico City... which would make them the biggest city and top of the list.

You seem to have a peculiar fascination with what you term 'muslim terror', but are blinkered to other forms of terrorism around the world. Why is this?

Consquence: you create more terrorists.
Q) How do you prevent the creation of more terrorists?
A) Take over all countries and fill them with McDonalds so all the terrorists can get real jobs.

Q) How do you stop Terrorism?
A) Kill all the terrorists.



I'm somewhat surprised no one has said this so far:

Q) How do you stop terrorism?
A) Stop committing it.

I think all citys that support muslim terror should be listed and the biggest should be obliterated.
Thats why Washington is not in your List...Because YOUR List is exclusively about *Muslim* Terror....
Mine is about Terror....PERIOD

And...THE Biggest Source of Terror is Washington DC
.

Q) How do you prevent the creation of more terrorists?
A) Take over all countries and fill them with McDonalds so all the terrorists can get real jobs.

LOL - OK, now I know you're taking the piss! :)

Consquence: you create more terrorists.

Then you kill them.

i dont

Saddam slaughtered the Kurds when they had done nothing to him. There was no revenge there except for his hatred of the Kurds. I don't hate Arabs, I don't hate Islam, I see it for what it should be and I also see what a few have corrupted it into. I'm proposing an objective and cold approach to the problem of international terrorism.


Ummm, not to excuse the manner in which Saddam went after certain groups of Kurds - but you seem to have forgotten that Kurdish nationalist groups and tribes allied themselves with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and were in open revolt against Baghdad.

you can certainly point to some valid reasons why the Kurds did not like Saddam, but to characterize themselves as blameless folks just minding their own business when Saddam up and decided he hated them one day is just plain wrong!

Indeed, the situation got about as ugly as possible given that there were occasions where some Kurdish groups worked WITH Saddam to try and stamp out rival independance factions.

Then you kill them.


Let me tell you a story about a fishing town that was plagued by starfish: at the end of every day the fishermen would pull in their nets and find a few starfish caught amongst the fish they wanted. Their reaction was to cut up the starfish and throw them back into the sea. The next year they found that there were even more starfish and less of the fish they wanted caugh tin their nets, so they chopped up all the starfish and threw them back into the sea...

You people who advocate killing off terrorists and their families realize that, in doing so, you become terrorists yourself? The irony makes me happy and sad all at once.

Indeed, the situation got about as ugly as possible given that there were occasions where some Kurdish groups worked WITH Saddam to try and stamp out rival independance factions.


That last sentence could be misconstrued to read that there are no values more important than cultural/racial solidarity...

You can not fight a war on hatred and/or jealousy. You can't kill an idea.

That last sentence could be misconstrued to read that there are no values more important than cultural/racial solidarity...


I certainly did not mean to imply that concept. Just pointing out that Kurds willingly involved themselves in the attacks on other Kurds by Saddam - a matter of some complicity in some of the atrocities that are blamed entirely on just one of the parties. Just a part of a rebuttal to the idea given by Vorringia that this was all just a case of racism/hatred on the part of Saddam.

Ok, for all you people who advocate the "Kill em all" approch, I have a question for you -

What if some country, or group of countries, decided to attack America. They declare we have WMD's (of cource, we actually DO) and that we are a threat to their national security. They say that the current administration is evil and needs to be taken out. So, they come in, "liberate" America, and in the process kill who knows how many civilians with smart bombs that "miss". Your home in destroyed in the process, and your daughter/son/wife/husband is blown apart. In the rubble, and you can find of them is a severed hand, becuase the rest of their body has been obliterated. All this happens, and YOU woluldnt go blow yourself up to hurt the attackers - the people that have invaded your country and taken everything you had?

Of cource this is highly improbable, becuase America is too mighty to be counquered. But still, what if?

The funny thing is, down the track, everything that's happened with America in the middle east in the last three years is breeding a whole new generation of American hating potential-terrorists, probably larger and more hate filled than any previous generation. And if and when these strike at America, a whole new generation of Americans will stand around, scratching their heads and wondering "Gee, why do these guys hate us so much? They must be jealous of our freedom!".

Saddam slaughtered the Kurds when they had done nothing to him. There was no revenge there except for his hatred of the Kurds. I don't hate Arabs, I don't hate Islam, I see it for what it should be and I also see what a few have corrupted it into. I'm proposing an objective and cold approach to the problem of international terrorism.

The reason that Saddam attacked the Kurds was due to the following:

During the Anfal operation, some 1,200 villages were destroyed. More than 180,000 persons are missing and presumed dead. While the Iraqi government was motivated partly by the fact that some Kurdish groups cooperated with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, documentation recovered in the Kurdish safe haven in 1991 reveals that this operation was part of a larger campaign undertaken by Saddam throughout his time in power.

Saddam was attacking the Kurds, using the same methods that you suggested earlier, and yet you condemn Saddam for what he did. Why is that?

What also should be noted is that this attack was within his own country and should be considered no different than any other civil war, or uprising?

Earlier you stated the following in regards to resolving the terrorist methods:

"The solution is to convince individuals living in the region that their current course of action is unacceptable and that Western powers will return to pre-WW1 tactics and advocate wholesale punishment of entire communities."

Not only do you come across as being a hypocrite, you are advocating genocide?

Also I think your solution does not adequately address the fact that westerners were the original transgressors in this region?

Kill every last man, woman, and child associated with them, then salt the earth.
And do you advocate this position for my homeland, Northern Ireland, as well?

Nope. Last time I looked, the IRA, UDF, and other "terrorists" in Northern Ireland were simply criminal gangs of thugs, not terrorists. When they start suicide bombings, let me know.

Nope. Last time I looked, the IRA, UDF, and other "terrorists" in Northern Ireland were simply criminal gangs of thugs, not terrorists. When they start suicide bombings, let me know.

Since when is terrorism restricted to suicide bombings?

Ok, for all you people who advocate the "Kill em all" approch, I have a question for you -

What if some country, or group of countries, decided to attack America. They declare we have WMD's (of cource, we actually DO) and that we are a threat to their national security. They say that the current administration is evil and needs to be taken out. So, they come in, "liberate" America, and in the process kill who knows how many civilians with smart bombs that "miss". Your home in destroyed in the process, and your daughter/son/wife/husband is blown apart. In the rubble, and you can find of them is a severed hand, becuase the rest of their body has been obliterated. All this happens, and YOU woluldnt go blow yourself up to hurt the attackers - the people that have invaded your country and taken everything you had?

Of cource this is highly improbable, becuase America is too mighty to be counquered. But still, what if?

Exactly, what you don't like, don't force it on others.

man u guys are still going at it.
i started this post 12 hours ago :cool:

americans have different values then most of the terrorist organizations. if your scenario were to happen I would not strap a bomb to myself and go into a crowd and blow them up. Of course don't get me wrong I'm not saying bow down with your ass in the air. there will always be rebellion to the controlling force. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Fact: 9/11 was caused by Al Quieda.

Fact: Al Quieda had nothing to do with Iraq.

Fact: The Bush Administration lied, and claimed that Iraq was connected to Al Quieda.

Fact: The Bush Administration lied, and claimed that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", including chemical weapons and biological weapons, and was working on achieving nuclear capability.

Fact: To date, no evidence of WMD have been found in Iraq, except for a handful of 20-year-old weapons canisters that may possibly, at some point several years ago, have contained mustard gas.

Fact: Al Queida is still on the loose, as is Osama Bin Laden.

Fact: The Bush Administration lied to us to take us to war, invaded instead of liberated, occupied, conquered, and devastated a country full of regular folks just like you and me. Yes, the country is also full of war-like assholes who want to harm innocent people. So is ours.

How to stop Terrorism?

How about one big group hug! ;)

US "credibility" will return. If not simply because people forget. Who remembers Sandino?

B-52
B-1
B-2
Need I say more?

Jim SC

You can't stop terrorism--it's a tactic, just like carpet bombing, pincer movements, and pre-emptive strikes. And depending on the point of view of the person using terror as a tactic, it can be more or less effective. But you can't stop it any more than you can stop knife fighting or gun use.

What you can do is try to change the conditions that cause people to become so desperate that they're willing to give their own lives in exchange for taking out a large number of people they perceive to be the enemy. But as long as terrorist tactics are effective, they'll be around.

There is no way to actually stop terrorism. The actual act of terrorism is supposedly the reaction of a group of people to any kind of injustice they feel. Now the problem with this is that not one of us likes to be told by someone how or what we feel. Therefore no-one can argue with someone or a group and tell them that their feelings are just rubbish. We live in a world where people are intolerant to each other feelings, whether we are terrorists or not, we can't accept that sometimes people are just not going to agree with what we say or think. Hence this is a perpetuating problem that will never be solved. UNLESS, of course every country and every person in the world banned the production and use of all weapons of any type and I don't think this will happen. Do you???

Who ever said that african AIDS was our problem? The US can't win no matter what. When we don't interfere people get mad and when we do people get mad!!!!! IE-israel/palestine

maybe cause you interfere in a wrongfully way when you do, and stay out when you shouldn't?

noone will, and who will is a liar.


Cheers

Hope that is 100% sarcasm.

maybe cause you interfere in a wrongfully way when you do, and stay out when you shouldn't?

LaLa:

We are the last super power on earth, and the only one capable of taking us beyond it. Capability is the point, not failure.

Jim SC

Jim,
I've thought about that a lot in the last few months--the idea that the US is the last, or the only superpower. I have my doubts. This little episode in Iraq has shown me that we're not as powerful in real terms as we think we are. We're a superpower in technological terms, especially nuclear, but will we realistically ever use nuclear weapons except in a last ditch, no other option scenario? Of course not, and any politician who said he would do otherwise would be run out of town immediately.

So I wonder if maybe the US is still called a superpower just because we've got the most nukes and that's all. And if that's all we've got, is that enough?

Yes! The U.s. Is Not A Superpower No More! Make Way For China!

i meant americans captain oblivious

still, if you really think that, you must think your fellow countrymen and women are very badly enlighted.

You can't stop terrorism--it's a tactic, just like carpet bombing, pincer movements, and pre-emptive strikes. And depending on the point of view of the person using terror as a tactic, it can be more or less effective. But you can't stop it any more than you can stop knife fighting or gun use.

What you can do is try to change the conditions that cause people to become so desperate that they're willing to give their own lives in exchange for taking out a large number of people they perceive to be the enemy. But as long as terrorist tactics are effective, they'll be around.

Indeed...

Something about this whole "War on Terror" thing still stuns me. One of the first things that crossed my minds after seeing those two planes hit the World Trade Centre was, "why would someone do something like this?" Yet it seems that no world leaders, or at least none of the top politicians in the Coalition of the Willing countries, have really considered this question. One of the dumbest explanations is "they hate freedom/democracy" and therefore hate the US. There are plenty of other nations in the world with much better forms of democracy then the US, just take any in which most of the population actually votes.

Maybe less emphasis on military action and more on improving the situation for countries in which terrorism seems to thrive may reduce terrorist acts in the long run.

It's pretty frightening to think that world leaders actually believe that you can stop terrorism by killing terrorists. When people are prepared to die for a cause, our priority should be to address the cause itself.

Indeed...

Something about this whole "War on Terror" thing still stuns me. One of the first things that crossed my minds after seeing those two planes hit the World Trade Centre was, "why would someone do something like this?" Yet it seems that no world leaders, or at least none of the top politicians in the Coalition of the Willing countries, have really considered this question. One of the dumbest explanations is "they hate freedom/democracy" and therefore hate the US. There are plenty of other nations in the world with much better forms of democracy then the US, just take any in which most of the population actually votes.

Maybe less emphasis on military action and more on improving the situation for countries in which terrorism seems to thrive may reduce terrorist acts in the long run.

It's pretty frightening to think that world leaders actually believe that you can stop terrorism by killing terrorists. When people are prepared to die for a cause, our priority should be to address the cause itself.

So your option is for me to solve someone else's problems? If they are unemployed..it is up to them to get a job..if they don't feel represented in their government..then they need to change it themselves...if they feel like Mickey D's are culturally damaging...then don't buy there...If they feel like only their religion is acceptable..I have a problem then...

Indeed...

Something about this whole "War on Terror" thing still stuns me. One of the first things that crossed my minds after seeing those two planes hit the World Trade Centre was, "why would someone do something like this?" Yet it seems that no world leaders, or at least none of the top politicians in the Coalition of the Willing countries, have really considered this question. One of the dumbest explanations is "they hate freedom/democracy" and therefore hate the US. There are plenty of other nations in the world with much better forms of democracy then the US, just take any in which most of the population actually votes.

I heard something somewhere where Osama Bin Laden had said he targeted American civilians because, as a democracy, the people decide what the government does, therefore, the civilians are responsible for the actions of our government, like as in our military actions too and our expansionism and our sticking our finger into everyone's pie which apparantly pissed off the wrong people.

What I mean is its more of a category how many British or American cities have terrorist comeing from the or are supporting terrorists. I don't mean ALL when I say all I mean like 99%. Let me rephrase what I said.

I think all citys that support muslim terror should be listed and the biggest should be obliterated.
Then why not list Belfast? Terrorists are born there and they find support there. They're not Muslims, but what does that matter? Catholic/Protestant terrorism or Muslim terrorism, it's the same shit.