NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, first off, I am not American and I do not live in North America or Europe. This is not against Islam. This is not against any particular country. This is not a rant, it is simply a question. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

Anyway, It seems that no matter how strict or tight security is (unless you have eternally belegirant(sp?) soldiers stationed at every public station) ,terrorists could strike at any moment. We're at their mercy, in a way. Got metal detectors? A terrorist might just hide the bomb in a package and pose as a delivery boy. Or they might just bribe the guards or any other method. They're creative enough to think of some way.

It seems the only way to truly stop terrorism is to stop terrorist thought from spreading and somehow convincing all potential terrorists against it, somehow. Or giving in to their demands. Since I don't beleive you could catch every single potential terrorist before they commit their actions by force...And simple force cannot stop the spread of recruiting.

But,what do you think?How on earth do we fight terrorism?

But,what do you think? How on earth do we fight terrorism?
You render their cause obsolete by maneuvering the prevailing culture around it.

Like the UK did with the Irish. The IRA was never defeated, but the political landscape moved on, and it was rendered irrelevant.

OK, first off, I am not American and I do not live in North America or Europe. This is not against Islam. This is not against any particular country. This is not a rant, it is simply a question. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

The fact that these are the only two incidents of terrorism you can recall from the 90's make me incredibly concerned for the vast gaps in your knowledge of the world.

You render their cause obsolete by maneuvering the prevailing culture around it.

Like the UK did with the Irish. The IRA was never defeated, but the political landscape moved on, and it was rendered irrelevant.

They haven't gone away, you know.

The fact that these are the only two incidents of terrorism you can recall from the 90's make me incredibly concerned for the vast gaps in your knowledge of the world.

I meant big incidents.Besides,I was still a child during the 90's,so I wasn't paying attention to much besides my own little world.

To fight terrorism, you basically need to make your country or area something which isn't going to be hated by everyone.

Most places where terrorist actions take place have either attacked/insulted another state, and someone has taken upon themselves to fight back without any kind of government support, because they're either very determined or a bit crazy, or have been repressing peoples' rights (see the actions of the IRA and the Suffragettes).

So if you treat others nicely, you won't get blown up.

This world needs more Barney the Purple Dinosaur!

Most places where terrorist actions take place have either attacked/insulted another state, and someone has taken upon themselves to fight back without any kind of government support, because they're either very determined or a bit crazy, or have been repressing peoples' rights (see the actions of the IRA and the Suffragettes).

Are you claiming that this woman is a terrorist?

http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec/50/50suf.jpg

This world needs more Barney the Purple Dinosaur!

That would cause more terrorism. Well, more murder anyway.

To fight terrorism, you basically need to make your country or area something which isn't going to be hated by everyone.

Most places where terrorist actions take place have either attacked/insulted another state, and someone has taken upon themselves to fight back without any kind of government support, because they're either very determined or a bit crazy, or have been repressing peoples' rights (see the actions of the IRA and the Suffragettes).

So if you treat others nicely, you won't get blown up.

That's not necessarily true.You could have terrorist actions within a country.For example,Egyptian Islamic Fundementalist terrorists who attack the secular regime in Egypt or the various anti-monarchist terrorists groups in Saudi Arabia.

Besides,you'll always offend someone,either accidentally or purposefully,in politics.

This world needs more Barney the Purple Dinosaur!
That would cause more terrorism.

That's not necessarily true.You could have terrorist actions within a country.For example,Egyptian Islamic Fundementalist terrorists who attack the secular regime in Egypt or the various anti-monarchist terrorists groups in Saudi Arabia.

Besides,you'll always offend someone,either accidentally or purposefully,in politics.
I know you have terrorist actions within a country... the Suffragettes are an example that I used...

What you have to do is let people have some level of freedom to do what their ideology leads them to want to do, and it'll end.

And you will not always offend someone in politics if you make the right choices.

I know you have terrorist actions within a country... the Suffragettes are an example that I used...


Again with this? Under what definition were the Suffragettes terrorists?

Are you claiming that this woman is a terrorist?

http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec/50/50suf.jpg
The Suffragettes were blowing up houses, beating up the Prime Minister and trying to strip him at a golf course, setting fire to stations and churches and generally being rowdy.

I fully agree that the Suffragettes' intentions were excellent, universal suffrage is a wonderful thing, but the way in which they tried to get the vote was the wrong side of terrorism.

Possibly a less militant group would have got the vote faster (but not as complacent as the Suffragists, who were pretty much slowing down the process).

I know you have terrorist actions within a country... the Suffragettes are an example that I used...

What you have to do is let people have some level of freedom to do what their ideology leads them to want to do, and it'll end.

And you will not always offend someone in politics if you make the right choices.

True,but it's not that they're not right choices.It's that others will view them as incorrect choices.

Also,some ideologies call upon the forcing of ideologies against other,so essentially,you're giving people the freedom to attempt to take this freedom others.Blah,that seems paradoxical.

True,but it's not that they're not right choices.It's that others will view them as incorrect choices.

Also,some ideologies call upon the forcing of ideologies against other,so essentially,you're giving people the freedom to attempt to take this freedom others.Blah,that seems paradoxical.
Which is why you have certain elements of each ideology in your own government, or as another solution, have several semi-autonomous regions for, say, communists or nationalists or whatever.

The Suffragettes were blowing up houses, beating up the Prime Minister and trying to strip him at a golf course, setting fire to stations and churches and generally being rowdy.

So excluding any attempt to beat up the PM, causing economic damage is sufficient for your definition of terrorism?

So excluding any attempt to beat up the PM, causing economic damage is sufficient for your definition of terrorism?
No, don't twist my words. Burning down churches and stations, and blowing peoples' houses up isn't (in my eyes) just economic damage.

Those are the kinds of things that get people killed, and stop people living their lives properly. That's much worse than the monetary cost of such things.

BWO, you're a very angry person. Either that or just plain arguementative.:D No offense.

Considering the goal of terrorism is to terrorise you, I would think that not being scared is a pretty good way of defeating terrorism.

Sure, they'll bomb you a few times, but what the hell, there are easier ways to die - Driving your car for example.

In all honesty, terrorism isn't that much of a threat to your health, and as far as their goals, they fail if you don't feel scared by their acts.

You render their cause obsolete by maneuvering the prevailing culture around it.

Like the UK did with the Irish. The IRA was never defeated, but the political landscape moved on, and it was rendered irrelevant.

Exactly. We shouldn't be aiming to fight a military war on terror, but an ideological/psychological one. Basically use preventive medicine rather than treatment. Right now we kill a terrorist and it's almost as if two will spring up in his place. Improving the economies and education of the places where terror grows while killing the terrorists who have already made up their minds is the best defense against future terrorism.

So excluding any attempt to beat up the PM, causing economic damage is sufficient for your definition of terrorism?

Bodies, you are attempting to hijack the thread. The poster's, or anyone else's opinion of the Suffragettes is not the issue here. Regardless to say, the political establishment of the time did view them as terrorists and so it is appropriate to mention them in a thread about terrorism. I doubt anyone here opposes female suffrage.

To fight terrorism, you basically need to make your country or area something which isn't going to be hated by everyone.

Most places where terrorist actions take place have either attacked/insulted another state, and someone has taken upon themselves to fight back without any kind of government support, because they're either very determined or a bit crazy, or have been repressing peoples' rights (see the actions of the IRA and the Suffragettes).

So if you treat others nicely, you won't get blown up.

Nonsense.

Almost every group of islamist terror has a govt hand behind it. Jihadis were their dogs of war. They still are.

Behave nicely and they will leave you alone....pffft.

We did and we have 50,000 dead and 200,000 refugees.

It seems the only way to truly stop terrorism is to stop terrorist thought from spreading and somehow convincing all potential terrorists against it, somehow. Or giving in to their demands. Since I don't believe you could catch every single potential terrorist before they commit their actions by force...And simple force cannot stop the spread of recruiting.

But,what do you think?How on earth do we fight terrorism?

The greatest terrorist threat in the world today is GWB and his marauding armies. They strike without rhyme or reason. They kidnap and torture people from all over the world without warning or purpose. They ignore rational advice and will not negotiate or live up to their word. Religious fundamentalism is causing the secular laws which once ruled the land to be torn up and replaced by religious dogma. Bearded couples are being broken up and denied civil liberties.

How to fight this terrifying threat is tough but they must be resisted if freedom is to prevail.

To fight terrorism, you basically need to make your country or area something which isn't going to be hated by everyone.

Most places where terrorist actions take place have either attacked/insulted another state, and someone has taken upon themselves to fight back without any kind of government support, because they're either very determined or a bit crazy, or have been repressing peoples' rights (see the actions of the IRA and the Suffragettes).

So if you treat others nicely, you won't get blown up.

oh ya right. Lets all kiss and make up meanwhile someone says to themselfs wow look at those loosers their completly defenceless. History tells us that militant groups of people will prey on those who can't defend themselfs.

This is not a nice world that we live in.

Terrorism has to be fought in two separate battlefields: nationally and internationally.

In this nation the battle will be won by integrating potentially dangerous elements into society as a whole, while taking steps to avoid alienating them. An example of this in the UK would be to allow British Muslims (along with all other significant religious groups) to elect a representative of their faith to the House of Lords while simultaneously combatting discrimination. We should also encourage the growth of moderatism in all religions.

Internationally the battle will be won by eliminating the support base of terrorism. This can only be achieved by winning the 'hearts and minds' of the people. The West is currently regarded (not unreasonably) as interfering and imperialistic; we should make it our priority to improve our reputation and strengthen links with foreign countries. We can achieve this in the short-term through various aid projects but a longer-term solution would be to encourage friendship and understanding between the young people of all countries. We could do this by encouraging schools to 'twin' with foreign schools as some already have through the 'link Africa' scheme.

Nonsense.

Almost every group of islamist terror has a govt hand behind it. Jihadis were their dogs of war. They still are.

Behave nicely and they will leave you alone....pffft.

We did and we have 50,000 dead and 200,000 refugees.

Considering your previous posting history, I would have to ask you this:

When exactly did the first terror conflicts occur and how closely related were they to the original border disputes between India and Pakistan?

I don't really know who was wrong and who was right in that instance, but I don't think it would be easily identified either.

oh ya right. Lets all kiss and make up meanwhile someone says to themselfs wow look at those loosers their completly defenceless. History tells us that militant groups of people will prey on those who can't defend themselfs.

This is not a nice world that we live in.
Urmm no, history teaches us that if you're not a complete twat then you're usually going to do alright in life.

When exactly did the first terror conflicts occur and how closely related were they to the original border disputes between India and Pakistan?

I don't really know who was wrong and who was right in that instance, but I don't think it would be easily identified either.

"Direct Action Day", 1946- the call by muslim league leaders to drive away non-muslim from the areas that would become Pakistan. This was the starting point of the partition violence (in which everyone's hand is soaked in blood - hindus, sikhs and muslims...)

"We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India" - M.A.Jinnah, the chief terrorist.

And the invasion of the then independant princely state of Kashmir by Pakistani tribals (armed and led by Pak army regulars) which was the starting point of the mess in Kashmir.

How on earth do we fight terrorism?

*cue campy music*

My boy, you fight Terrorism by filling up every day with a fresh tank of clean burning and efficient American gasoline and oil products! Nothing gives a shot in the eye to Ol' Towlie like driving your largest SUV into one of our many fine fuel establishments, conveniently located across the great American landscape.

V is for Victory! Buy war bonds where you work and bank.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

The 1990s had probably more terrorism than most decent decades, although the 1980s were pretty bad, especially in Northern Ireland and Israel. Terrorism, I wouldn't say is on the rise, I would say it's probably the same as it was but if anything, awareness is MUCH higher, albeit it seems people care less about that then what car they drive.

*cue campy music*

My boy, you fight Terrorism by filling up every day with a fresh tank of clean burning and efficient American gasoline and oil products!

Well, if we built the solar power satellites and fusion power plants like I told, you... we could all have plenty of power, and use our coal reserves to make plastics and fertilizers.

Then we could leave the Middle East, and in a few years, they would all revert to the 19th century, with automatic weapons.

The problem, and what most people don't want to hear, is you can't fight terrorism. Wherever different view points on issues exist, may they be religious, political, economical, terrorism will always exist. This is why the "war on terror" is such a futile war.

The problem, and what most people don't want to hear, is you can't fight terrorism. Wherever different view points on issues exist, may they be religious, political, economical, terrorism will always exist. This is why the "war on terror" is such a futile war.

Well, you can't exactly do nothing. You do, for instance, at the very least, have to track down terrorists who actually commit attacks.

The problem, and what most people don't want to hear, is you can't fight terrorism. Wherever different view points on issues exist, may they be religious, political, economical, terrorism will always exist. This is why the "war on terror" is such a futile war.

I wouldn't call it futile but neither would I call it something that will be achieved at the drop of a hat.

Yeah, you can, and should fight it, but I'm just pointing out that it will never be "defeated". Kill a terrorist leader, you turn him from a figure-head to a martyr. You can't win, but don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean you should stop trying to.

I wouldn't call it futile but neither would I call it something that will be achieved at the drop of a hat.

I have little faith in wars on abstract nouns, especially those with such incredibly vaguely defined objectives as this one. All it takes for the US to be able to say it is winning is to shift the focus of its rhetoric.

You can't win but..... it doesn't mean you should stop trying to.

That's just.... silly.

That's just.... silly.
Stop cutting your hair and fingernails - they'll just grow back.

That's just.... silly.

An example of 'live forever or die trying' thinking?

Stop cutting your hair and fingernails - they'll just grow back.

No, there's a difference between ''We can never win...... lets fight on anyway'' and "We can never win by doing it this way..... lets change tactics and fight on".

You fight terrorism the same way you fight against strategic bombing... or even tactical bombing. Or guerilla warfare. Or mobile warfare. Or just war itself.

People seem to think terrorism is somehow inherently different from other tactics because it is mean and nasty and called criminal by polite governments. It's not. It's a form of war. Making a "War on Terror" is the stupidest shit I've ever heard, for this reason.

How to stop terrorism is easy but we are not willing to do it. A full scail attack, Kill everyone men woman and children in every country that has major teroist threats. Destory there buildings there hospitals, There churches. However if we do that we have become what we hate.

No, there's a difference between ''We can never win...... lets fight on anyway'' and "We can never win by doing it this way..... lets change tactics and fight on".
Well, rather than waging a conventional war, it would be more productive to wage an unseen clandestine war on a multinational basis - but that sort of thing tends to piss off Europeans (when you either do extrajudicial killing or even simple captures to return the enemy to the US).

Then it would be a resource war - one based on who had better long term logistics. It would be possible to wear them down.

How to stop terrorism is easy but we are not willing to do it. A full scail attack, Kill everyone men woman and children in every country that has major teroist threats.

So, once we've wiped the USA and the UK off the map, to whom do we turn our attention next?

DK,

I think I recommended this book before, not sure, anyways...try to get KPS Gill's "Knights of falsehood". It is an excellent read.

Sorry has goverment supported terrorist.

You fight terrorism the same way you fight against strategic bombing... or even tactical bombing. Or guerilla warfare. Or mobile warfare. Or just war itself.

And that is how? Massed public shows of displeasure with the actions?*


* not to imply that these don't work, as they patently have worked in some cases.

Sorry has goverment supported terrorist.

???

Well, rather than waging a conventional war, it would be more productive to wage an unseen clandestine war on a multinational basis - but that sort of thing tends to piss off Europeans (when you either do extrajudicial killing or even simple captures to return the enemy to the US).

Then it would be a resource war - one based on who had better long term logistics. It would be possible to wear them down.

It only pisses Europeans off when its found out :D

Instead of going after the leaders in the military/criminal aspect, you work for the long term aim and go after the rallying reasons- corrupt governments, poor standard of living, educate the potential recruits.

Take away the 'ammunition' the popular radicals need to attract followers. Longer, more expensive but a more solid solution, to just 'kill em all'

Stop fighting.

No, I do not mean let terrorist attack.

What I mean is just end the war. We'll all be happy then. Except Bush, the Fox News guys, the bush administration, anne coulter, and trhose blindly patriotic idiots from america's Bible Belt. but what do we care for those retards?

We have a full scall attack on all coutrys that have terrorist, Destroy everything

Terrorism is not fought as a war, unless your true goal is to amplify the problem to serve some covert agenda.

Terrorism is fought as a combined domestic social and criminal justice issue.

Any war on terrorism is unwinnable by definition, in the same way that wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and election-winning abstract nouns of your choice, are unwinnable. What you must do is put into place a set of processes which ensure that the damage at home is minimised, without provoking escalations, and the defence of other parties you leave to them. You always seek to fight a defensive war, because especially in this case, the aim of the opponent is to provoke an attack and get you out into the open. This must be denied to them.

From 1990-2001, there was anger among an Arab minority over the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia. But few opportunities to attack were presented to them. Since then, they have been given two shooting galleries where they may seek the death they desire.

It is often said that these wars are fought overseas so they do not have to be fought at home. But fighting these wars at home is cheaper both financially, and in lives. It does however require the swallowing of considerable pride, and abandonment of hubris.

And that is how? Massed public shows of displeasure with the actions?*


* not to imply that these don't work, as they patently have worked in some cases.


My point wasn't actually to come up with a solution. I'm cynical and don't believe terrorism, or war for that matter, will ever be "defeated." My only point was that terrorism is itself merely another form of humans making war on other humans.

Stop fighting.

That is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Hey stop hurting me does not work.

My point wasn't actually to come up with a solution. I'm cynical and don't believe terrorism, or war for that matter, will ever be "defeated." My only point was that terrorism is itself merely another form of humans making war on other humans.

War may or terrorism may not be defeated, but some wars or terrorist campaigns have been ended or at least postponed due to protest or resistance. The question is how to carry out that protest or resistance.

It only pisses Europeans off when its found out :D

Instead of going after the leaders in the military/criminal aspect, you work for the long term aim and go after the rallying reasons- corrupt governments, poor standard of living, educate the potential recruits.

Take away the 'ammunition' the popular radicals need to attract followers. Longer, more expensive but a more solid solution, to just 'kill em all'

Well, we changed the government in Iraq, and look how pissed off everyone got.

I'm sure that if we did that in Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan, a lot of people would get upset, especially if we said, "we're here to get rid of your corrupt government, raise your standard of living, and help you establish a real democracy (or market socialist or whatever we think is good that day)"

Lot of IEDs on that road.

That is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Hey stop hurting me does not work.
no. I mean stop the wars in the middle east.

We have a full scall attack on all coutrys that have terrorist, Destroy everything

Same question, once again: So, once we've wiped the USA and the UK off the map, to whom do we turn our attention next?

1) You can't fight terrorism. That's like fighting Blitzkreigism. You can fight opponents who use terrorism. However, opponents willing to use truly suicidal terroristic tactics are very rare.

2) There are 3 historically proven methods of fighting guerrilla "terroristic" opponents:
a) The "Mongol Method" - Kill every single last man, woman, and child of the opposing population.
b) Bribery - essentially paying off the opposition.
c) Redress - solve whatever underlying problems exist.

3) By the point the opposition reaches the level of using suicide "terrorism" tactics, options 2b and 2c are almost impossible to achieve.

4) 2a is the only historically proven method of dealing with suicidal "terrorist" opponents. However, it is unteniable under current politics.

Same question, once again: So, once we've wiped the USA and the UK off the map, to whom do we turn our attention next?
*Glares at BWO* :mad:

Don't confuse the child with facts.

Well, we changed the government in Iraq, and look how pissed off everyone got.

I'm sure that if we did that in Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan, a lot of people would get upset, especially if we said, "we're here to get rid of your corrupt government, raise your standard of living, and help you establish a real democracy (or market socialist or whatever we think is good that day)"

Lot of IEDs on that road.

No. The much maligned 'soft power' approach is what I was talking about.

The British Conservative approach in the late 19thC was "Killing them with kindness".

Not, 'kill' the people, but kill the reasons for resisting. Economics instead of military.

We have a full scall attack on all coutrys that have terrorist, Destroy everything
that would desroy the world. terrorism exist everywhere. you cannot destroy a concept.

Sorry has goverment supported terrorist.
what?? theres a cuntry called sorry??

No. The much maligned 'soft power' approach is what I was talking about.

The British Conservative approach in the late 19thC was "Killing them with kindness".

Not, 'kill' the people, but kill the reasons for resisting. Economics instead of military.

Gee, I recall a lot of subduing people with the Maxim in the late 19th.

that would desroy the world. terrorism exist everywhere. you cannot destroy a concept.

You can with a thought police.

:D

Gee, I recall a lot of subduing people with the Maxim in the late 19th.
Really? Me too.

How to stop terrorism is easy but we are not willing to do it. A full scail attack, Kill everyone men woman and children in every country that has major teroist threats. Destory there buildings there hospitals, There churches. However if we do that we have become what we hate.
so your idea is to make humans extinct??

3) By the point the opposition reaches the level of using suicide "terrorism" tactics, options 2b and 2c are almost impossible to achieve.

4) 2a is the only historically proven method of dealing with suicidal "terrorist" opponents. However, it is unteniable under current politics.

Are we to consider the hunger strikers of Northern Ireland to fit into the category of 'suicide "terrorism"' or not? If so then it would appear that as 2c may be the best label for the current peacefire we have a historical example of it working.

so your idea is to make humans extinct??
well, everyone except a few thousand hand-picked people...

The British Conservative approach in the late 19thC was "Killing them with kindness".

Not, 'kill' the people, but kill the reasons for resisting. Economics instead of military.
The thing is, that was a completely different administrative culture. Every man involved in the British imperial enterprise viewed with great pride the prospect of handing over to his successor a completely functioning asset, with everything in place for it to generate a revenue stream for centuries. It was a long-termist approach which looked forward well beyond the lifetimes of the architects.

Today, we have electronic markets, quarterly figures and 24-hour rolling news. And no-one has bought into it more completely than the American elite.

There are sensible ways of addressing terrorism and general discontent in client states, yes, but our culture is evolving in a direction which is completely destroying that capability.

that would desroy the world. terrorism exist everywhere.

Nonsense. The Pitcairn Islanders may have incredibly high rates of convictions for sex crimes, but terrorism? No.

The thing is, that was a completely different administrative culture. Every man involved in the British imperial enterprise viewed with great pride the prospect of handing over to his successor a completely functioning asset, with everything in place for it to generate a revenue stream for centuries. It was a long-termist approach which looked forward well beyond the lifetimes of the architects.

Today, we have electronic markets, quarterly figures and 24-hour rolling news. And no-one has bought into it more completely than the American elite.

There are sensible ways of addressing terrorism and general discontent in client states, yes, but our culture is evolving in a direction which is completely destroying that capability.

The future will be a unified high-tech government that blends the corporation with the police state. Terrorism will be around, but the technology will make it harder and harder to be a rebel of any kind.

The thing is, that was a completely different administrative culture. Every man involved in the British imperial enterprise viewed with great pride the prospect of handing over to his successor a completely functioning asset, with everything in place for it to generate a revenue stream for centuries. It was a long-termist approach which looked forward well beyond the lifetimes of the architects.

Today, we have electronic markets, quarterly figures and 24-hour rolling news. And no-one has bought into it more completely than the American elite.

There are sensible ways of addressing terrorism and general discontent in client states, yes, but our culture is evolving in a direction which is completely destroying that capability.

Exactly. The people in the positions of power have lost the sight of the long term approach. Now it is merely in 4 year stunts.

"Then the guy after me can clean it up. Its his problem then."

As much as I dislike the Conserv. view on that, it worked.

Gee, I recall a lot of subduing people with the Maxim in the late 19th.

Yeah, but it was mainly just natives qua natives being subdued, rather than terrorists qua terrorists.

"Whatever happens we have got, The Maxim gun, and they have not".

Yeah, but it was mainly just natives qua natives being subdued, rather than terrorists qua terrorists.

"Whatever happens we have got, The Maxim gun, and they have not".

And the occasional Boer...

OK, first off, I am not American and I do not live in North America or Europe. This is not against Islam. This is not against any particular country. This is not a rant, it is simply a question. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

Anyway, It seems that no matter how strict or tight security is (unless you have eternally belegirant(sp?) soldiers stationed at every public station) ,terrorists could strike at any moment. We're at their mercy, in a way. Got metal detectors? A terrorist might just hide the bomb in a package and pose as a delivery boy. Or they might just bribe the guards or any other method. They're creative enough to think of some way.

It seems the only way to truly stop terrorism is to stop terrorist thought from spreading and somehow convincing all potential terrorists against it, somehow. Or giving in to their demands. Since I don't beleive you could catch every single potential terrorist before they commit their actions by force...And simple force cannot stop the spread of recruiting.

But,what do you think?How on earth do we fight terrorism?
It has to be a multi-pronged approach.

* Defending against terrorism via increased vigilance ( airport, transport, nuclear facility, chemical plants, etc. )

* Increased security along borders and at primary entry points.

* Intensive intelligence gathering ( Internet, spies, infiltrators, data-mining, etc. )

* Taking out known terrorists by whatever means necessary ( military operations, clandestine operations, monetary rewards, etc. )

* Intensive focus on the sources of terrorism ( increasing face-to-face aid to hotbed sources of terrorists, aid to groups in opposition to terrorists, intensive economic development of poverty-stricken regions where terrorists recruit, etc. )

* Intensive psychological warfare ( using prominent non-violent Muslims [ or of other groups involved in terrorism ] to preach against terrorism, disinformation activities, etc. )

This approach not only targets current terrorists, but addresses many of the primary sources of terrorism.

The future will be a unified high-tech government that blends the corporation with the police state. Terrorism will be around, but the technology will make it harder and harder to be a rebel of any kind.
Probably, yes. Though I do not view that as a victory worth fighting for.

* Taking out known terrorists by whatever means necessary ( military operations, clandestine operations, monetary rewards, etc. )

Within the law, or without it?

Eradicate the idiocy of religion! If they realize that after they blow up they are nothing but worm food perhaps they'll think twice to some extent, no point in vapourizing your self if there is no fuzzy happy place to go to.

Once you remove sky daddy and every one knows that you have to rely on the person next to you to pull your ass out of the fire when shit happens they will be less inclined to screw that person over, as the old saying what goes around will come around. Religion destroys this concept by pedalling this BS about some sky daddy who will make it all better so fuck your neighbour, fuck the planet your job is to force every one to believe in your flavour of sky-daddy at what ever cost or if they disagree on some crack pot issue kill them. This is the major problem in BOTH the US and Iraq, you have a bunch of idiots who think their sky daddy has a sexier ass, Iraq Sky Daddy and his retarded minions run the place, the USA is falling over its self trying to do the same fare too many want Sky-Daddy running there too at which point it will be just like Iraq, and terrorism will increase as they "Do it for god, allah, moses, what ever".

So want to end terrorism or at least do great damage to the concept, remove the mental dilution ahem religion, then start with education, and the biggest thing is STOP FUCKING THEIR COUNTRY AT EVERY TURN! Then follow this suite with every other country and see how the world will hate you allot less

* Intensive focus on the sources of terrorism ( increasing face-to-face aid to hotbed sources of terrorists, aid to groups in opposition to terrorists, intensive economic development of poverty-stricken regions where terrorists recruit, etc. )

So, in order to combat the IRA you would have funded the UDA, UFF and UVF?

So, in order to combat the IRA you would have funded the UDA, UFF and UVF?
Hey, it just worked in Somalia right?

Oh wait.....

Probably, yes. Though I do not view that as a victory worth fighting for.
If all the "good" things happen, through a "soft" approach, the entire world will eventually become "developed", minus a few pockets here and there.

Life in those pockets will be a living hell, and in the developed world, life will be more tightly controlled by technology than anyone today can possibly imagine.

The government will know and remember more about everything that everyone does than they remember themselves.

If all the "good" things happen, through a "soft" approach, the entire world will eventually become "developed", minus a few pockets here and there.

Life in those pockets will be a living hell, and in the developed world, life will be more tightly controlled by technology than anyone today can possibly imagine.

The government will know and remember more about everything that everyone does than they remember themselves.

D'you ever watch Equilibrium? :D

Hey, it just worked in Somalia right?

Are you implying that the funding of the Iraqi regime in order to oppose the threat posed by Iran was a bad idea? That giving weaponry and training to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was a bad idea? That support for the Contra movement in Nicaragua was a bad idea? Ghod, you're just so full of negativity today.

D'you ever watch Equilibrium? :D
No, but Aeon Flux looks possible to me, without all the sexy acrobatics.

Terrorists, by definition, use extra-legal means to achieve their ends. Implicit in that is that they will not be convinced by rational logic or behaviour. Hence there are only two ways to deal with terrorists.

One is to give them what they want. Almost certain to fail, because they just keep wanting more and more as you give into them.

The other is use their own tactics against them. Infiltrate and eliminate. For those who believe in the rule of law you try them, hopefully find them guilty, and lock them up forever. For those of a more direct bent, use their own techniques against them.

Whatever the approach, the government cannot fall into the trap of not following the rule of law (i.e. don't descend to their level). The general population must just get on with life and not let the terrorists win through fear alone.

Eradicate the idiocy of religion! If they realize that after they blow up they are nothing but worm food perhaps they'll think twice to some extent, no point in vapourizing your self if there is no fuzzy happy place to go to.

Ah, a firebrand atheist. It's so long since I've seen one around here...

Outlaw religion and we'll only make it worse for you. Forget the fact that you're wrong, you're also pretty much trampling on the right to freedom of thought. A right which is quite clearly the root of all terrorism now we come to think of it...

OK, first off, I am not American and I do not live in North America or Europe. This is not against Islam. This is not against any particular country. This is not a rant, it is simply a question. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

Anyway, It seems that no matter how strict or tight security is (unless you have eternally belegirant(sp?) soldiers stationed at every public station) ,terrorists could strike at any moment. We're at their mercy, in a way. Got metal detectors? A terrorist might just hide the bomb in a package and pose as a delivery boy. Or they might just bribe the guards or any other method. They're creative enough to think of some way.

It seems the only way to truly stop terrorism is to stop terrorist thought from spreading and somehow convincing all potential terrorists against it, somehow. Or giving in to their demands. Since I don't beleive you could catch every single potential terrorist before they commit their actions by force...And simple force cannot stop the spread of recruiting.

But,what do you think?How on earth do we fight terrorism?
I think intelligence is a good way to fight terrorism. No, not making everyone in your country smarter (although that's not a bad thing at all), I'm talking about intelligence agencies. Sure, they won't catch EVERY terrorist plot, but I tend to think that's a bit impossible.

Finding out about the attack before it happens makes it a lot easier to prevent it.

Urmm no, history teaches us that if you're not a complete twat then you're usually going to do alright in life.

Well, I wouldn't quite say that. Martin Luther King Jr. for example was by no means a complete twat and he got arrested(?), beaten, and finally shot.

Meanwhile, although I'm too lazy to think of a specific example right now, I'm sure there's plenty of complete twats who did just fine for themselves.

so your idea is to make humans extinct??

That's just crazy enough to work! Extinction is the last phase of evolution according to Charles Darwin, or something like that anyway - I never read it all.

:p

That's just crazy enough to work! Extinction is the last phase of evolution according to Charles Darwin, or someting like that anyway - I never read it all.

:p

But what about the terrorist insects? We all know that the direct charges at lightbulbs is just training...

But what about the terrorist insects? We all know that the direct charges at lightbulbs is just training...

S'ok - I'm a pest controller - I'll just have to deal with them first.....

Hold the extinction of the human populace for just a wee bit........
:p

OK, first off, I am not American and I do not live in North America or Europe. This is not against Islam. This is not against any particular country. This is not a rant, it is simply a question. Just so no one gets any wrong ideas.

It seems to me that terrorism is on the rise for some reason,which many people have different theories. Remember the 90's? The only terrorism that is memorable from that period is the bombing of Oklahoma City and the bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, I think...

Anyway, It seems that no matter how strict or tight security is (unless you have eternally belegirant(sp?) soldiers stationed at every public station) ,terrorists could strike at any moment. We're at their mercy, in a way. Got metal detectors? A terrorist might just hide the bomb in a package and pose as a delivery boy. Or they might just bribe the guards or any other method. They're creative enough to think of some way.

It seems the only way to truly stop terrorism is to stop terrorist thought from spreading and somehow convincing all potential terrorists against it, somehow. Or giving in to their demands. Since I don't beleive you could catch every single potential terrorist before they commit their actions by force...And simple force cannot stop the spread of recruiting.

But,what do you think?How on earth do we fight terrorism?

In the long run you must remove the terrorists reasons for existing in the first place .

You must give people hope for a better future and contoll over their own lives. by doing this you remove the largest " pool " to draw terrorist recruits from .
The injvasion and regime change in Iraq is an attempt to form a democracy in an area where the radical form of Islamic terrorism was born and thrives.
Its believed that free and prosperouse people will be not inclided to be terrorist . If democracy takes hold in iraq then it is felt by some that other countries in the area will be forced to open up to Democracy.
what it does not address is the allure of radical Islam to those that yearn for a return of the dominance of Islamic rule over the world as the only true path
to freedom. You can only kill or jail as many of that type as you can . Unless of course you are willing to just surrender to them and place yourself at their mercy..that is always an option .
In the short term the world of Islam must be able to see fairness from the west and resolve to fight and destroy terror and any state that supports it .
The Palestinian question and Israel is a key place to start showing fairness along with the iranian questions reguarding nukes and the resolve in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect and nurture these new democracies.

Failure in Iraq or Afghanistan will embolden those that embrace terror and do more for recruiting than any invasion could ever hope to do.
It would make the leaders of terror heros and would be used as further proof that terror works as a tactic and should be embraced and celibrated by the " faithfull " After all if we few faithfull can defeat the greatest Satan in the world...then why cant we destsoty the society that spawned it ?

When the US President ( Clinton ) tucked his tail and ran from Somalia after a few soldiers were killed and striped and drug through the streets Al -Queda used that as the new template for ridding the lands of Islam of the infidels...
So now we get public beheadings ...bodies hanging from bridges...pictures of the most brutal killings and a constant barrage of media from the terroris ...because they have learned that the picture on the internet is greater than any ARMY they can field . Attack the resolve of the soft couch potato people from the west and win ...the more bodies the better in the most gruesome way possible and be sure it gets on TV at 6 pm when the most couch people will be watching .

Stand up and fight or let them rule thats the choice . Thats the only one THEY have given us .

Of course if a cartoon can set off riots..what will an episode of " Sex in the City" do ? Or anything else we take for granted in the west.
Our culture is what drives them to rid the earth of Satan .
So who or how do you negotiate that with ?

Are we to consider the hunger strikers of Northern Ireland to fit into the category of 'suicide "terrorism"' or not? If so then it would appear that as 2c may be the best label for the current peacefire we have a historical example of it working.

Nope. While the IRA did commit terroristic acts and did commit suicidal acts, I don't think anyone would classify them as suicide terrorists. For one thing, there was one isolated suicidal act. Secondly, the hunger strike had little to do directly with IRA's cause, as can be seen in the "5 Demands", all of which were aimed at the re-establish prisoner's privileges. Finally, a hunger strike is hardly an act of terrorism.

CONFORM ERASE ALL THOUGHTS SPREAD DEMOCRACY BRAINWASHING... you dont fight terrorism thats what you do you get the fack outta iraq you get out of the middle east where you dont belong and let them settle their own problems. Iran on the other hand needs to be dealt with swiftly because they are deveolping nuclear weapons along with north korea but as for spreading democracy=bullshit let them be weve been around for 300 years now not even 300 and they have been around for? about 4000 longer than us. i mean 911 that wasnt terrorists that was a ploy by the government to be able to start this war.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change right here boys and girls

listen as for terrorism some people say get rid of the thoughts get rid of the people who lead get rid of this get rid of that whatever you cant stop terrorism it isnt possible be realistic here people unless our world turns into some backwards totalitarian 1984 world where thoughts speech everything you do is monitored that would be the only way to eliminate terrorism control peoples minds. that is what free will is people whether god given or not im going to do whatever the fuck i want when i want and if you want to try and stop me go ahead but your probably gonna get messed up. i mean people arent born terrorists they become that way because of things that have happened to people of their religion ethnicity whatever i mean if i bomb your little hamlet in the middle of nowhere afghani town your gonna be pissed arent you? then some like zarqawi comes along and says hey if your so pissed go blow yourself up and kill them american bastards JIHAD JIHAD DERKA DERKA and that sounds good tot hem i mean whats one or two soldiers for this kids whole family...and even if you got rid of the leaders the people who turn these kids anger into this its not like the thought of terrorism is going to die out since there is noone to lead there is always a leader people are born leaders and people are born followers damn i dont know if any of this makes sense to you or me even because im just typing away but i suppose if i sat down i could right something nice and neat.... but fuck it

it may shock you to know there is a difference between terrorism and "violent terrorism" Both are bad yes... but this so-called "war" is against the violent terrorism that is trying to kill people to get their point across.. there will always be terrorism, there always has been, durring the french revolution the french people used terrorism, durring the american revolution the Colonists used terrorism, ALF are terrorists, many of the times protesters can be classified as terrorists that is if the protest turns violent, and al queda is a terrorist organization, there is no way to battle terrorism(because is is so widespread) , but there is a way for us as a people to focus our energies on one type of terrorism.

the media demands to much information, they demand to know everything that the world is doing, the media is told how the terrorists get funds, the terrorists change that, the media knows something then the terrorists know that we know so they change... for now i think it is important that the media stops demandinf so much information some is good... but they ask for to many details

second we need to find out where they are being trained, where many of them are, hit them where they live in a sense. we are so intent on killing the leaders instead of the actualy forces. there is always someone new to take the place of a leader, but if you kill the followers at some point there will be no more force, even with "new recruits". it is human to fear death and if we keep killing the recruits eventually there will be no more

It is best fought through effective police work and intelligence, not reckless wars around the globe.

Ok but where does the media get this information? From the ''experts'' yea experts those are the kind of people politicians like...there are some people out politickin in my state right now and one of them Pete Rickets see pete here tells me what my values are and what my states values are...fuck politics man you cant tell me what to do what i feel who i am what my values are because i live in your shitty corn field state fuck you man i mean goddamn everyone and his brother here in Nebraska knows the mentality of these terrorists these experts know exactly what they are thinking because? how do they know? they dont these so called experts are a bunch of lying fucks telling me what to believe...kind of makes you think

It is best fought through effective police work and intelligence, not reckless wars around the globe.


Yep because policeman are more equipped than soldiers and marines for going abroad to kill terrorists :rolleyes:

effective police work tell me whos police force is really effective if your in an alley and i run up and stab the shit outta you and run off with your wallet take your money and ditch your wallet in the river lets say im in paris whatever london either one are the police gonna catch me...no if anyone tries hard enough the police cant catch them that brings me to another thing police cant do shit anymore in this world because the mans keepin me down or whatever i mean how are police really effective if they let the crazy mother fucker goin 120 down the interstate in his sports car on the wrong side of the road hit people and almost kill people endanger others lives i mean they should drive up to that hot shot motherfucker and shoot him put a 3030 right in his head but no hes mentally ill hes insane he got scurred yea whatever you had no reason to run and kill people kill yourself do that kind of shit get your 15 minutes of fame youd be better off givin the cops what they want and gettin bail

Yep because policeman are more equipped than soldiers and marines for going abroad to kill terrorists :rolleyes:

Good point... but he is right on the intellegence part... but if the government could get some good intellegence that might help -_-

Yep because policeman are more equipped than soldiers and marines for going abroad to kill terrorists :rolleyes:

marines police special forces bombs lazer guided shit whats that do nothing you cant fight a terrorist i mean if i walked down the middle of baghdad or wherever there is a strong terrorist presence i bet i could look at maybe one two terrorists and eh would look just like me or the next iraqi and then i double take and he pushes a button and boom he explodes kills a buncha civillians and some soldiers man my marines and police are reallly fighting that you cant fight that shit you can just let it fix itself

Yep because policeman are more equipped than soldiers and marines for going abroad to kill terrorists :rolleyes:
You miss the point not that Im surprised. There is no reason to spend money and lives killing people abroad both innocent and not so much when you make it impossible to attack them at home. If you secure the ports, borders, have good intelligence and police agencies to break up terror plots before they can be carried out as Europe has done very well, there is no need for things such as "the war on terror"

marines police special forces bombs lazer guided shit whats that do nothing you cant fight a terrorist i mean if i walked down the middle of baghdad or wherever there is a strong terrorist presence i bet i could look at maybe one two terrorists and eh would look just like me or the next iraqi and then i double take and he pushes a button and boom he explodes kills a buncha civillians and some soldiers man my marines and police are reallly fighting that you cant fight that shit you can just let it fix itself


none of that made sense to me.... Sorry

marines police special forces bombs lazer guided shit whats that do nothing you cant fight a terrorist i mean if i walked down the middle of baghdad or wherever there is a strong terrorist presence i bet i could look at maybe one two terrorists and eh would look just like me or the next iraqi and then i double take and he pushes a button and boom he explodes kills a buncha civillians and some soldiers man my marines and police are reallly fighting that you cant fight that shit you can just let it fix itself
.<--- that is a period. please learn how to use one before posting.

Good point... but he is right on the intellegence part... but if the government could get some good intellegence that might help -_-

trust me the government has all the intelligence it needs for all we know they could be in cahoots with the terrorists i mean you dont know i dont know we will never know because everything is classified hidden for our protection i mean if there was a bioterrorist attack and i send in the best rescue team but the suits they have are too big and useless they rip and it takes you several hours to do a job that the experts say should be done in this amount of time well if they are experts lets see them do it yea sure there is only one man in this world i can really respect and say that man is one honest son of a bitch and thats robert p mcnamera the secretary of defense during the vietnam era all of you should watch the fog of war its basically his confessions on what he did how he fucked it up he was an expert he figured if this soldier shot 100 shots he should kill this many vietnamese but it doesnt work that way

shit im all fired up now but sleep i must
numbers dont solve problems chrome plating on the inside of the reciever did but hell what does he care hes not fighting they need him hes an expert

.<--- that is a period. please learn how to use one before posting.

sorry dude but this shit just flows from my fingers and i dont really pay attention to any of that i mean unless im writing a paper i shouldnt have to. <--- hows that one :upyours:

sorry dude but this shit just flows from my fingers and i dont really pay attention to any of that i mean unless im writing a paper i shouldnt have to. <--- hows that one :upyours:

That emote is unnececary -_-. it is just hard for people who are in college english classes( yay for AP english!!) to read english writing without puncation, mainly beacause i have had it pounded into my head for about 14 years that you need to use puncuation. so yeah

You miss the point not that Im surprised. There is no reason to spend money and lives killing people abroad both innocent and not so much when you make it impossible to attack them at home. If you secure the ports, borders, have good intelligence and police agencies to break up terror plots before they can be carried out as Europe has done very well, there is no need for things such as "the war on terror"

We just busted up a northern africa terrorist group in Miami.

If they were training in civilized countries and operating exclusively there there would be no need for a GWOT. Unfortunately they ALWAYS Choose a rat infested cesspool of a turd world country to breed in.

And that's why we have MEUs :D :fluffle:

We just busted up a northern africa terrorist group in Miami.

If they were training in civilized countries and operating exclusively there there would be no need for a GWOT. Unfortunately they ALWAYS Choose a rat infested cesspool of a turd world country to breed in.

And that's why we have MEUs :D :fluffle:


Dude. u have typing problems ^^.
But yeah you have a good point ^^.

We just busted up a northern africa terrorist group in Miami.

If they were training in civilized countries and operating exclusively there there would be no need for a GWOT. Unfortunately they ALWAYS Choose a rat infested cesspool of a turd world country to breed in.

And that's why we have MEUs :D :fluffle:
you seem to miss the point, again. They werent N.African, they were from the US but thats beside the point. It doesnt matter where they train or if they plan to attack. If they cant get into the country because the borders are secure it doesnt matter what training they have. Is this hard for you to understand?

Dude. u have typing problems ^^.
But yeah you have a good point ^^.


Did I make any grammatical or english errors? I try to type correctly when I can. No need to sound like an uneducated dunce.

you seem to miss the point, again. They werent N.African, they were from the US but thats beside the point. It doesnt matter where they train or if they plan to attack. If they cant get into the country because the borders are secure it doesnt matter what training they have. Is this hard for you to understand?

So the ONLY way they can attack the US is by striking us INSIDE?

Embassies-Kenya ring a bell?
Military bases Khobar Barracks?
Vessels re-fueling USS COLE?
Taking Americans hostages Leon Klingenhoffer?
Hijacking airliners? (too many to list-they ALL have done it at some point)
Bio-weapons-(the 2002 anthrax attacks? Ehh? It easily could have been mailed across the border in canada)

And yes, they were of North African (read: Muslim) descent. And they got "pw3ned" by the FBI.

Of course, we COULD wall of the northern border with Canada, after all they'd get into Canada much easier than the US. But oh Noes!!11!!!

Did I make any grammatical or english errors? I try to type correctly when I can. No need to sound like an uneducated dunce.

GWOT= gov't
turd world countries= third world countries...

.

Of course, we COULD wall of the northern border with Canada, after all they'd get into Canada much easier than the US. But oh Noes!!11!!!

god forbid we make it harder to get into our country to protect it's citizens.... station me at the border. i'll shoot all the bastards (i am joking i guess it wan't funny but still)

Within the law, or without it?
Internally, within the law. Externally, by whatever means are expedient.

So, in order to combat the IRA you would have funded the UDA, UFF and UVF?
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the terrorism in Ireland to answer that question.

GWOT= gov't
turd world countries= third world countries...

Negative tango whiskey foxtrot Delta niner.

GWOT-Global War on Terror.

:D

god forbid we make it harder to get into our country to protect it's citizens.... station me at the border. i'll shoot all the bastards (i am joking i guess it wan't funny but still)

I am all for walling the borders. And yes, shoot ANYONE trying to break through the walls. If they aren't going through legal means-IE walking up to the friendly INS booth at the checkpoint, you need a hole in the head because obviously you aren't using your head.

You miss the point not that Im surprised. There is no reason to spend money and lives killing people abroad both innocent and not so much when you make it impossible to attack them at home. If you secure the ports, borders, have good intelligence and police agencies to break up terror plots before they can be carried out as Europe has done very well, there is no need for things such as "the war on terror"
That's so wrong it's scary! Wars aren't won by being defensive. Wars, of whatEVER kind, are won by taking the initiative. That's axiomatic.

That's so wrong it's scary! Wars aren't won by being defensive. Wars, of whatEVER kind, are won by taking the initiative. That's axiomatic.

Yes, but one can be on the 'defense' and still take the initiative.

Yes, but one can be on the 'defense' and still take the initiative.
DUH! That goes without saying. You have to defend things you can't move and attack with what you can.

That's so wrong it's scary! Wars aren't won by being defensive. Wars, of whatEVER kind, are won by taking the initiative. That's axiomatic.

:rolleyes: :eek:




NO WAY!


Yes, EUT is right.

:fluffle:

The simple reply to the original question is you fight hate with love. Too bad we don't have Christian leadership that would try it.

Actually, a Jew, Shimmon Peres (sp?) suggested in his book "The New Middle East" that the rich nations should start in Gaza and build water, sewer, electric, schools, roads, a port, etc. If the people had the basics they could start businesses and have a reason to have peace. In a few years Gaza could look like Hong Kong. And it would have cost a lot less than war. Then after practice on Gaza the same could be done with the West Bank. After all it was money from the rich countries that built Israel why not the rest of Palistine?

As long as people have no hope there will be those that will lead them to actions of hate. And actions of hate bring actions of hate which bring actions of hate.

Yes, but one can be on the 'defense' and still take the initiative.

ROFLMAO

We didn't beat Nazi germany from the shores of America.

We went over and beat him, house by house, in his own country.

:D

The simple reply to the original question is you fight hate with love. Too bad we don't have Christian leadership that would try it.

Actually, a Jew, Shimmon Peres (sp?) suggested in his book "The New Middle East" that the rich nations should start in Gaza and build water, sewer, electric, schools, roads, a port, etc. If the people had the basics they could start businesses and have a reason to have peace. In a few years Gaza could look like Hong Kong. And it would have cost a lot less than war. Then after practice on Gaza the same could be done with the West Bank. After all it was money from the rich countries that built Israel why not the rest of Palistine?

As long as people have no hope there will be those that will lead them to actions of hate. And actions of hate bring actions of hate which bring actions of hate.

I'll bet there will be countries lining up to help out the Palistinians....



NOT. We've already thrown tons of cash into the Gaza and nothing has come of it.

And nothing ever will, because they want to destroy Israel, not become a civilized country.


ETA:

Hippies: Hey! Radical islamists! We know you killed 3000+ Americans, but we're going to show you love!
Radical islamist one: BOOM
Radical islamist two: Oh the westerners are so easy. Especially the peaceniks!

Peace through superior firepower and threat of total annihilation.

:D

I can propose a very final solution to terrorism, and its capable of being undertaken right now. The only "problem" is that to undertake said solution would require a lack of character and moral fibre on a scale I am yet unaware of ever having existed previously or existing currently in any man, woman, or child.


The "final solution" is to have the US destroy every square inch of every nation which has ever posed a problem to the US in the past 75 years. And the US could do this if given roughly 4-5 years of massive production and preparation. I can't exactly comment how this would be accomplished, but suffice it to say that it need not involve a radioactive wasteland...

And by every inch I do mean men, women, children, cripped, sick, etc are all dead, and every last evidence of their culture destroyed: buildings and all.



And you do this in one fell swoop: essentially over the course of two or three days; which requires logistical coordination not outside the realm of possibility.



When its all over and the aftermath has to be dealt with, quite a few nations will take up the position of moral indignation (rightly so I might add) and disavow all ties to the US, but in the final analysis no nation or group would ever dare mess with the US ever again.

The US simply makes sure to continue development of chemical, biological, nuclear, super-incendiary, EMP, Re-entry weapons, and directed energy weapons. Once its understood that the US will do "whatever it takes" to secure its borders everyone will just ignore the US; its not worth it to risk an alliance or economic relationship with the US, and so the US regresses into a kind of super isolationistic phase.


Sometimes it is best to let sleeping giants lay... It's akin to the old US Mafia strategy: you don't just kill your enemies, you kill your enemies' friends, family, children, and everyone who cares about them.

Eseentially the "cycle of violence" need not continue necessarily because there always exists a point where someone is unwilling to go, and thus you make sure you have the most firepower and the least morals and you "win" by default. If the US is willing to unleash an unstoppable "super bug" and destroy 90% of humanity to secure the safety and integrity of its nation, then you just don't ever mess with the US.




That all said I don't think anyone is capable of undertaking the strategy, and thus terrorism is going to have to remain a reality for quite some time.

NT

ROFLMAO

We didn't beat Nazi germany from the shores of America.

We went over and beat him, house by house, in his own country.

:D

I'm starting to wonder if you're a military man at all, if you don't even understand the differense between offensive operations and taking the initiative.

How did we beat the USSR? We didn't go to Russia, house by house...

Assuming you aren't willing to seriously entertain the above solution, then you have to ignore military options as a solution to terrorism: sorry DM, but the sociology doesn't support you here.



Fighting hate through love though is just non-sense. It hasn't worked historically, and there exists no convincing evidence to suggest that it will any time soon.

So in order to fight terrorism you have to engage in massive scale ideological warfare. Create, sponsor, facilitate, what ever you have to do, to foment an ideology more pervasive and convincing than radical Islam or anything else so as to make the thought of attacking other nations in a terrorist manner unthinkable or morally reprehensible.


The "problem" with this strategy is that it is contingent upon the presence of demagogues, requires a very large time-scale, and is no where near as "certain" to work as the complete and utter annihilation of everything strategy.


But I suppose that is what you are left to work with if you aren't willing to engage in a global genocide campaign.

NT

Assuming you aren't willing to seriously entertain the above solution, then you have to ignore military options as a solution to terrorism: sorry DM, but the sociology doesn't support you here.



Fighting hate through love though is just non-sense. It hasn't worked historically, and there exists no convincing evidence to suggest that it will any time soon.

So in order to fight terrorism you have to engage in massive scale ideological warfare. Create, sponsor, facilitate, what ever you have to do, to foment an ideology more pervasive and convincing than radical Islam or anything else so as to make the thought of attacking other nations in a terrorist manner unthinkable or morally reprehensible.


The "problem" with this strategy is that it is contingent upon the presence of demagogues, requires a very large time-scale, and is no where near as "certain" to work as the complete and utter annihilation of everything strategy.


But I suppose that is what you are left to work with if you aren't willing to engage in a global genocide campaign.

NT

Shite just killing the bad guys is easier.

I'm starting to wonder if you're a military man at all, if you don't even understand the differense between offensive operations and taking the initiative.

How did we beat the USSR? We didn't go to Russia, house by house...

Since when have I claimed I'm in the military? never.

The USSR was a country with an economy and a gov't. Terrorism doesn't have an economy or any type of gov't. You can't defeat terrorism through economics or peace proposals. They're predators, animals, and savages. They don't understand peace proposals and thus should be given something they DO understand-Hell :p

Since when have I claimed I'm in the military? never.


Not now, nor ever have been?

Huh. My mistake then.


The USSR was a country with an economy and a gov't. Terrorism doesn't have an economy or any type of gov't. You can't defeat terrorism through economics or peace proposals. They're predators, animals, and savages. They don't understand peace proposals and thus should be given something they DO understand-Hell :p

If terrorism is not a country with an economy and government, then why are you suggesting it can be defeated in the same manner as the state of Germany?

I can propose a very final solution to terrorism, and its capable of being undertaken right now. The only "problem" is that to undertake said solution would require a lack of character and moral fibre on a scale I am yet unaware of ever having existed previously or existing currently in any man, woman, or child.


The "final solution" is to have the US destroy every square inch of every nation which has ever posed a problem to the US in the past 75 years. And the US could do this if given roughly 4-5 years of massive production and preparation. I can't exactly comment how this would be accomplished, but suffice it to say that it need not involve a radioactive wasteland...

And by every inch I do mean men, women, children, cripped, sick, etc are all dead, and every last evidence of their culture destroyed: buildings and all.



And you do this in one fell swoop: essentially over the course of two or three days; which requires logistical coordination not outside the realm of possibility.



When its all over and the aftermath has to be dealt with, quite a few nations will take up the position of moral indignation (rightly so I might add) and disavow all ties to the US, but in the final analysis no nation or group would ever dare mess with the US ever again.

The US simply makes sure to continue development of chemical, biological, nuclear, super-incendiary, EMP, Re-entry weapons, and directed energy weapons. Once its understood that the US will do "whatever it takes" to secure its borders everyone will just ignore the US; its not worth it to risk an alliance or economic relationship with the US, and so the US regresses into a kind of super isolationistic phase.


Sometimes it is best to let sleeping giants lay... It's akin to the old US Mafia strategy: you don't just kill your enemies, you kill your enemies' friends, family, children, and everyone who cares about them.

Eseentially the "cycle of violence" need not continue necessarily because there always exists a point where someone is unwilling to go, and thus you make sure you have the most firepower and the least morals and you "win" by default. If the US is willing to unleash an unstoppable "super bug" and destroy 90% of humanity to secure the safety and integrity of its nation, then you just don't ever mess with the US.




That all said I don't think anyone is capable of undertaking the strategy, and thus terrorism is going to have to remain a reality for quite some time.

NT
Now that's taking it old school. I like it.:D

I don't have a complete answer to your question, but in part, I would like to see governments (esp. the U.S. government) put the threat of terrorism in proper perspective. In many ways the U.S. has inflated the importance of terrorists.

For example, the current reward for Osama bin Laden is $25 million dollars. I would like to see the U.S. drop the reward to $1 and a McDonald's Happy Meal. It humiliates bin Laden and tells his followers just how important he really is in the larger scheme of things.

I don't have a complete answer to your question, but in part, I would like to see governments (esp. the U.S. government) but the threat of terrorism in proper perspective. In many ways the U.S. has inflated the importance of terrorists.

For example, the current reward for Osama bin Laden is $25 million dollars. I would like to see the U.S. drop the reward to $1 and a McDonald's Happy Meal. It humiliates bin Laden and tell his followers just how imporatant he really is in the larger scheme of things.


Hahaha I like it.

I would say the way to fight terrorism is with humor. The problem up to this point is that terrorism is seen as a serious threat, which is what the terrorists want. If the US started doing silly things, like flour-bombing mosques or dropping pigs and cows out of airplanes, they would think that we were crazier than them and back off.

Terrorists are not afraid of dying; they are afraid of living. Capture their wives and post naked pictures of them on the internet.

Shite just killing the bad guys is easier.

Problem with that is that simply killing your enemies does not destroy their basis of support. As long as the ideology which breeds hatred of the US or some other nation exists there will always enemies to fight. It is a perpetual struggle so long as the ideological war has not been won.


So if you want to end the "war on terrorism" with any kind of finality you either have to commit global genocide on a scale that shakes human beings to the very core or you must win a complete ideological victory over the ideological basis for the formation of your enemies.


So while, yes, killing the enemy is easier; it doesn't actually address the problem and leads to perpetual battle.

NT

Nonsense. The Pitcairn Islanders may have incredibly high rates of convictions for sex crimes, but terrorism? No.
where theres people theres terrorism.

where theres people theres terrorism.

Not necessarily. A small-scale society that is given to moderation is not very likely at all to have any thing resembling terrorism.


If you were to simply look at a community it stands to reason that very little resembling terrorism occurs between members of the community.


NT

Originally Posted by Tactical Grace
You render their cause obsolete by maneuvering the prevailing culture around it.

Like the UK did with the Irish. The IRA was never defeated, but the political landscape moved on, and it was rendered irrelevant.

FYI: The UK created the problem 100 years ago. The IRA moved on of its on accord. If you look to the unionists side. Not one Unionist terrorist organisation has disbanded yet you have the DUP with mad Ian Paisley demanding this and that off nationalists.

We all know why they dont want to form a government with nationalists its been made perfectly clear. The unionists dont want to share power with anybody. If they dont form a government and it falls apart the english government will come in and withdraw power from the northern assembly and who will this hurt?? Not the unionists who want to stay part of Britain, no it will hurt the nationalists again.

So what exactly is the benefit of unionists joining the northern assembly?? Will it further their cause to stay part of Britain?? No it will harm their cause and they will use every excuse in the book to get out of forming a government because god forbid that they might have to share power with the lowly nationalist peasants they stole the land from in the first place!!

Can I just point out that terrorism is with us to stay as long as we have any warfare whatsoever? It is a tactic, nothing else. Civilians are easier to target than soldiers in many cases, and have a greater effect on the enemy. It's like trying to fight a war against guerrilla warfare.