NationStates Jolt Archive

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000081&sid=aFiHntYkn9D4&refer=australia
The Euroepan wing of al-Qaeda has threatened Bulgaria, Poland, Australia, and Italy with attacks if they don't withdraw their forces. All thanks to some bad judgement in Manila.

If I started up a website and talked big I could get onto the news too.

Well in this day and age, these threats need to be taken seriously. And the thing that worries me is if they carry their threats out. Then what?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000081&sid=aFiHntYkn9D4&refer=australia
The Euroepan wing of al-Qaeda has threatened Bulgaria, Poland, Australia, and Italy with attacks if they don't withdraw their forces. All thanks to some bad judgement in Manila.Britain and Spain got the same offers too. No-one takes these threats seriously, they're asking for something that is simply unthinkable for us to deliver. In essence, it just means that they're going to attack us anyway, and we're not going to slit our own throats just so they don't do it for us. Gotta just weather it through.

Well in this day and age, these threats need to be taken seriously. And the thing that worries me is if they carry their threats out. Then what?They really don't. Its not extortion. Its just a reaffirmation of what we already know that they'll do.

They really don't. Its not extortion. Its just a reaffirmation of what we already know that they'll do.
I guess. But hey, no matter what happened in Iraq, an attack on European soil was inevitable. In fact, I think an attack on British soil is most likely, only because of Britain being the most powerful player in Europe.

The weakness of the governments of Spain and the Philippines has encouraged these groups by showing that if they talk tough the west will eventually back down.
The short-sightedness of the opposition party here in Australia in promising to withdraw our troops by Christmas if elected only plays into the hands of these groups.

The weakness of the governments of Spain and the Philippines has encouraged these groups by showing that if they talk tough the west will eventually back down.
The short-sightedness of the opposition party here in Australia in promising to withdraw our troops by Christmas if elected only plays into the hands of these groups.
Exactly. And what the Philipines did didn't make them safer. There's still Abu Sayyef around, and Jemah Islamiyah (the US, which has soldiers in the Philipines, would've wiped them out by now if it weren't for the Phillipines forbiding foreign soldiers on their soil). And because of Jemah Islamiyah, it wouldn't make Australia safer, either.

The weakness of the governments of Spain and the Philippines has encouraged these groups by showing that if they talk tough the west will eventually back down.
The short-sightedness of the opposition party here in Australia in promising to withdraw our troops by Christmas if elected only plays into the hands of these groups.Agreed. Issues like this should never be on the table in an election, it makes terror a political tool, and whoever most reduces the fear to the people is the one who gets in.

I guess. But hey, no matter what happened in Iraq, an attack on European soil was inevitable. In fact, I think an attack on British soil is most likely, only because of Britain being the most powerful player in Europe.
A thought that bothers me each time I travel to London.

Terrorism isn't about the demands, or what they want or why they want it or even if they are right or wrong. If at any point we cave to terrorist demands, we declare open season on the whole of western civilization. And suddenly everyone with a social gripe starts taking a hostage or straps themselves to a bomb. You can draw a line nowhere but right at the start.

A thought that bothers me each time I travel to London.

Terrorism isn't about the demands, or what they want or why they want it or even if they are right or wrong. If at any point we cave to terrorist demands, we declare open season on the whole of western civilization. And suddenly everyone with a social gripe starts taking a hostage or straps themselves to a bomb. You can draw a line nowhere but right at the start.
I'm glad you recognize this about terrorists. Most left leaners that I know of think that caving to terrorist demands somehow makes terrorists stop. It doesn't. The worst thing to do, actually, is cave into their demands, because they will take it as an invitation to attack a country further. Spain, for example, will see an attack on its soil before year's end, if withdrawing from Iraq is what the terrorists wanted.
As you said to Tygaland, btw, about making terror a political tool. That's what these terrorists are hoping for. They want to destabilize our governments, and then, they'll really strike. In any case, the best thing to do is not to give into them. In fact, as I believe, we need to show them an iron fist wrapped in a silk glove. Perhaps you'd prefer to think of it as giving carrots to the innocent, and throwing lots of sticks to the guilty. That is, sticks in the form of MOABs.

A thought that bothers me each time I travel to London.

Hmmm...I am not fussed. If its going to happen it is going to happen!

Terrorism isn't about the demands, or what they want or why they want it or even if they are right or wrong. If at any point we cave to terrorist demands, we declare open season on the whole of western civilization. And suddenly everyone with a social gripe starts taking a hostage or straps themselves to a bomb. You can draw a line nowhere but right at the start.

I agree. Terrorists have pre-conceived aims and by backing down it does not stop the terrorists from trying to achieve these aims. In fact, it empowers them to continue the method that proved successful in getting a nation to back down. There can be no negotiation or appeasement of terrorist groups.

Hmmm...I am not fussed. If its going to happen it is going to happen!



I agree. Terrorists have pre-conceived aims and by backing down it does not stop the terrorists from trying to achieve these aims. In fact, it empowers them to continue the method that proved successful in getting a nation to back down. There can be no negotiation or appeasement of terrorist groups.
The problem, though, turns a bit into a paradox. Terrorists won't stop until they are dead. But there are few ways to kill them without enflaming more people, and recruiting more terrorists. That's why we all need to tread carefully. For example, I supported Iraq, as I believe that in a few years, it may be a big help in the War on Terror. However, it could backfire, especially if Iraq decends into anarchy. If it does, terrorism will through the world into a state of fear and chaos. That is why this is a gamble, and the stakes are very high. Of course, victory comes with huge advantages.

I'm glad you recognize this about terrorists. Most left leaners that I know of think that caving to terrorist demands somehow makes terrorists stop. It doesn't. The worst thing to do, actually, is cave into their demands, because they will take it as an invitation to attack a country further. Spain, for example, will see an attack on its soil before year's end, if withdrawing from Iraq is what the terrorists wanted.
As you said to Tygaland, btw, about making terror a political tool. That's what these terrorists are hoping for. They want to destabilize our governments, and then, they'll really strike. In any case, the best thing to do is not to give into them. In fact, as I believe, we need to show them an iron fist wrapped in a silk glove. Perhaps you'd prefer to think of it as giving carrots to the innocent, and throwing lots of sticks to the guilty. That is, sticks in the form of MOABs.
The appalling generalisation about left-leaners aside, most people able to hold two thoughts in their heads can see that if you give in once, they're never gonna leave you alone.

However, there does have to be a balance reached sometimes. Negotiations are good, usually the only way to end a long-running conflict short of killing everyone, but it should be a case of "stop whatever the hell you're doing, then we can talk" rather than giving to terrorist demands based on a promise they've made.

I agree. Terrorists have pre-conceived aims and by backing down it does not stop the terrorists from trying to achieve these aims. In fact, it empowers them to continue the method that proved successful in getting a nation to back down. There can be no negotiation or appeasement of terrorist groups.
I'm not sure about this actually. It is possible to neutralise a terrorist group by giving them what they want. The problem though is the broarder picture, and the precedant you set by giving in. It makes other groups think that what they're doing will lead to results, thus leading to a never-ending spiral of terrorism and terrorist-appeasement.

The problem, though, turns a bit into a paradox. Terrorists won't stop until they are dead. But there are few ways to kill them without enflaming more people, and recruiting more terrorists. That's why we all need to tread carefully. For example, I supported Iraq, as I believe that in a few years, it may be a big help in the War on Terror. However, it could backfire, especially if Iraq decends into anarchy. If it does, terrorism will through the world into a state of fear and chaos. That is why this is a gamble, and the stakes are very high. Of course, victory comes with huge advantages.

The only ways Iraq will descend into chaos is if the troops in Iraq are withdrawn prematurely and/or certain pressure groups undermine the efforts to rebuild Iraq. It will be a long process to stabilise the nation and hold democratic elections. If the coalition troops leave then the elections will never happen. Iraq is paramount to the war on terror. If troops are withdrawn prematurely and Iraq descends into anarchy this will signify a "victory" for the terrorists, if only in their minds and strengthen their resolve and also provide more material to recruit more people to their cause.
Now, a short term situation whereby terrorists recruit based on a holy war in Iraq is bad but to capitulate and withdraw based on short-sightedness and turn the war on terror in Iraq into a "victory" for terrorist organisations is a complete disaster.

The problem, though, turns a bit into a paradox. Terrorists won't stop until they are dead. But there are few ways to kill them without enflaming more people, and recruiting more terrorists. That's why we all need to tread carefully. For example, I supported Iraq, as I believe that in a few years, it may be a big help in the War on Terror. However, it could backfire, especially if Iraq decends into anarchy. If it does, terrorism will through the world into a state of fear and chaos. That is why this is a gamble, and the stakes are very high. Of course, victory comes with huge advantages.
In the instance of Al Quaida, I don't think there is any way that both they and western civilisation can exist. Its not like whats going on in say, Ireland, or Israel, where a peaceful solution is at the very least conceivable. I mean, who actually knows what Al Quaida wants? (Beyond the demands that they make for pulling out of Iraq etc) I don't think they want anything that we can give them. I don't know what to do but try to destroy them. I'm open to alternative suggestions though...

I'm not sure about this actually. It is possible to neutralise a terrorist group by giving them what they want. The problem though is the broarder picture, and the precedant you set by giving in. It makes other groups think that what they're doing will lead to results, thus leading to a never-ending spiral of terrorism and terrorist-appeasement.

Ok, lets take Al Qaeda. Neutralising them by giving them what we want would involve the Earth's population to either convert to Islam or be killed. The implementation of Islamic Sharia law for the entire planet. It would neutralise them because we would become one of them.

Appeasing terrorists or giving in to their demands is a sell out and will only fan the flames, not extinquish them.

I say we should just take over the world. That would solve problems for the next 50 years or so :-)

Ok, lets take Al Qaeda. Neutralising them by giving them what we want would involve the Earth's population to either convert to Islam or be killed. The implementation of Islamic Sharia law for the entire planet. It would neutralise them because we would become one of them.

Appeasing terrorists or giving in to their demands is a sell out and will only fan the flames, not extinquish them.
As you see in the post just above your one, I do understand this.

I say we should just take over the world. That would solve problems for the next 50 years or so :-)
Leaving aside the fact that thats morally abhorrant and just plain wrong, how do you figure it would actually help? You think they'll hate us less if all their bases are belong to us?

In the instance of Al Quaida, I don't think there is any way that both they and western civilisation can exist. Its not like whats going on in say, Ireland, or Israel, where a peaceful solution is at the very least conceivable. I mean, who actually knows what Al Quaida wants? (Beyond the demands that they make for pulling out of Iraq etc) I don't think they want anything that we can give them. I don't know what to do but try to destroy them. I'm open to alternative suggestions though...

I agree with you here. Situations such as those in Israel and Ireland have a realistic solution, it is just a matter of finding it. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, want to destroy Western Civilisation and convert the world to Islam. Not something we can realisticly give them and they know that. Hence, they cannot be appeased only destroyed.

As you see in the post just above your one, I do understand this.

Yes, I saw that post after mine was posted!

While you all amde very good points about not caving in to terrorists, I would like to make one about Iraq. It is NOW a crucial part of the war on terror, but only because, through our invasion, we have stirred up many islamic people against the US.

While you all amde very good points about not caving in to terrorists, I would like to make one about Iraq. It is NOW a crucial part of the war on terror, but only because, through our invasion, we have stirred up many islamic people against the US.

If you will recall 9/11 was before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq so it would be fair to say that their were Islamic groups with a grudge against the US before these occurred. The importance of Iraq is as a precedent. If it succeeds it could facilitate changes in many countries in the Middle East, if it is undermined and fails then the terrorist groups resolve will be strengthened and attacks will increase as they would perceive the west as weak.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000081&sid=aFiHntYkn9D4&refer=australia
The Euroepan wing of al-Qaeda has threatened Bulgaria, Poland, Australia, and Italy with attacks if they don't withdraw their forces. All thanks to some bad judgement in Manila.
None of them should have been there in the first place. Don't blame it on bad judgement in Manila?

The weakness of the governments of Spain and the Philippines has encouraged these groups by showing that if they talk tough the west will eventually back down.
The short-sightedness of the opposition party here in Australia in promising to withdraw our troops by Christmas if elected only plays into the hands of these groups.
Hopefully the opposition will win a resounding victory!! The short-sightedness of the Bush administration in invading Iraq is the root cause for creating even more hatred towards the west and its' allies. Terrorist attacks have increased since the start of the Iraq War.

None of them should have been there in the first place. Don't blame it on bad judgement in Manila?

The troops are there. Get over it. The actions of the Phillipines' government does nothing to ensure their safety and only encourages such activity from terrorist groups.

Hopefully the opposition will win a resounding victory!! The short-sightedness of the Bush administration in invading Iraq is the root cause for creating even more hatred towards the west and its' allies. Terrorist attacks have increased since the start of the Iraq War.

This is the short-sightedness I was referring to. The withdrawal from Iraq will not stop terrorists it will make them more brazen.

My two cents of defeating radical Islamic violent groups.

If we can get the mainstream Islamic population to isolate these groups, and cease supporting them, we will never hear about them again. Correction, its only a very small portion of Muslisms who fund/provide for these groups.

The reasons some people support these groups is either to advance their own agenda ('Do what I say or I'll unleash my hit squad') or a general hatred/resentment of foreign influence.

Of course, corrupt rulers set up by Western governments in the Arab World has done a lot to stir this resentment.

At the most basic level, Islamic terrorism isn't about Islam. Its about how the West likes to impose their own ways down the throats of other cultures. Or just exploit them for economic gain.

This post is bound to stir up !@#$ from everybody.

JiangGuo

easy, just nuke them all.

At the most basic level, Islamic terrorism isn't about Islam. Its about how the West likes to impose their own ways down the throats of other cultures. Or just exploit them for economic gain.

JiangGuo

Well said.
But its hard to see the "enemy" as anything else then a mindless evil.

Faces of the enemy by Sam Keen should be required reading for ppl debating the terrorisém issue in depth.

Flax.