NationStates Jolt Archive

OMGLOLZORZ! A Poll!

But, yeah, seriously. You're the President of the United States, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Chancellor of Germany and President of France all rolled into one gigantic happy ball, and you're going to be making a speech about terrorism tonight. You've got to compare the problems caused by terrorism, and the solution to it, to a past conflict/campaign. What do you compare it to?

And no, you can't ignore it, ignoring it is officially political suicide, and the person who would replace you has an avowed policy of Nuke the Muslims.

Why would I need an analogy?

What if I nuke the muslims first?

I'm Chancellor of Germany? Then I'll compare terrorism to the French Resistance; if we don't grind them into dust now, they'll come back to bite us on the ass later.

Why would I need an analogy?

Because you've become a pompous airbag politician who always feels a need for precedent.

Just to be pedantic: there is no such position as Prime Minister of England.:)

Terorism is like an armadillo.
Its crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside, and wants to kill the USA.

What if I nuke the muslims first?

Then your opponent will recant his "nuke the muslims" stance, and call for your head to be cut off and thrown into the Hague.

none of the above. if i had to i'd compare it to previous terrorist campaigns and then point out the differences.

and: prime minister of england? who's that?

edit: you'll have no apologies for pedantism from me cuz that's not what it is.

and: prime minister of england? who's that?

A new position I created out of thin air, just for you.

Terorism is like an armadillo.
Its crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside, and wants to kill the USA.

I hereby proclaim a War on Armadillos!

OMGLOLZORZ! A Poll!

But, yeah, seriously. You're the President of the United States, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Chancellor of Germany and President of France all rolled into one gigantic happy ball, and you're going to be making a speech about terrorism tonight. You've got to compare the problems caused by terrorism, and the solution to it, to a past conflict/campaign. What do you compare it to?

And no, you can't ignore it, ignoring it is officially political suicide, and the person who would replace you has an avowed policy of Nuke the Muslims.
And with something useful, how is it being compared to terrorism? Is it in terms of perceived danger, human cost, financial cost, something else, or all of the above?

I'm sorry. I was an annoying pedant, and then answered your question with a question.

Terrorism is like education, for as Stalin once said, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

You can say the same thing about terrorism.

*cuts funds for public schools*
*increases anti-terror funding, whatever that is*

I say drugs:
Europe’s easy going approach = fairly good
Americas approach of burning South American crops = bad

Plus if I’m sorting cocaine at the time it draws attention away from the fact that I forgot to wear trousers again

I'd say something along the lines of it being not nearly as dangerous as the media makes it out to be, that it cannot be stamped out without turning ourselves into a police state, and that we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of living in the 21st century, much like spam and identity theft.

Not that I'd do nothing about it, of course. I'd empower the government to stop terrorist plots within the full extent of the law, and I'd also encourage a foreign policy that would improve America's image as a leader and help other nations out of the conditions of poverty and hopelessness that leads to religious extremism. But I would not sacrifice our rights to stop a phenomenon that is less dangerous to the average American than drunk driving and heart disease.

Terrorism is like education, for as Stalin once said, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

You can say the same thing about terrorism.

*cuts funds for public schools*
*increases anti-terror funding, whatever that is*

You appear to win.

And with something useful, how is it being compared to terrorism? Is it in terms of perceived danger, human cost, financial cost, something else, or all of the above?

I'm sorry. I was an annoying pedant, and then answered your question with a question.

Aye, it's whatever you feel to be the appropriate comparison, on whatever level you feel is appropriate.

I say drugs:
Europe’s easy going approach = fairly good
Americas approach of burning South American crops = bad

Europe's easy going approach to terrorism got us London, Madrid and the Hamburg cell.

I'm Chancellor of Germany? Then I'll compare terrorism to the French Resistance; if we don't grind them into dust now, they'll come back to bite us on the ass later.

so you mean to say they will support you know but once you leave everyone will say they where terrorists?

You appear to win.

Apparently, the Nazz will not allow it. Official Mind Reader of the Forum and all that you know.

Apparently, I believe in sand niggers and am happy that there's a "War On Terror"

Europe's easy going approach to terrorism got us London, Madrid and the Hamburg cell.

Ah but we handled it well and got on with our lives thus rendering terrorism pointless in Europe:)

I chose poverty, as the way to end poverty is similar to the way to end terrorism; as in, not violently.

Ah but we handled it well and got on with our lives thus rendering terrorism pointless in Europe:)

Yeah, see, that doesn't render terrorism pointless. That just lets them do it again.

Aye, it's whatever you feel to be the appropriate comparison, on whatever level you feel is appropriate.
Well, in balance, I'd say that the current terrorist 'hype' (for lack of a better word) is similar to the perceived threat from communism before the Soviet Union broke up. Although they have different causes, the effects on the civilian population and domestic/foreign policy seem quite similar, as are the ways seen to tackle the thread abroad.

Apparently, the Nazz will not allow it. Official Mind Reader of the Forum and all that you know.

Nazz hasn't posted in this thread go be whiny somewhere else


this sums up what I'm saying rather well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgZgLBIfbQ)

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6681/armadilloai6.jpg

Yeah, see, that doesn't render terrorism pointless. That just lets them do it again.

what would be the point?

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6681/armadilloai6.jpg

It's comin' straight for us!

*opens fire*

Yeah, see, that doesn't render terrorism pointless. That just lets them do it again.
Name me a policy that doesn't.

Go with Nazism. How overblown fear of Communism got the Germans into something about as bad.

Maybe Nazism makes a good analogy for terrorism.

Nazists = want to kill Jews.
terrorists = want to kill Jews.

Nazists = use racial hatred.
terrorists = use religious hatred.

I have the best analogy for terrorism :)

It's just like *Censored*
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg

piracy. that way everyone will understand why the terrorists hate us. hint: it's 'cause pirates are cool.

piracy. that way everyone will understand why the terrorists hate us. hint: it's 'cause pirates are cool.

So terrorists are cool? You're a complete fucktard.

I have the best analogy for terrorism :)

It's just like *Censored*
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg

I fought them off with one hand tied behind my back.

So terrorists are cool? You're a complete fucktard.

yeah, that's what i said

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/jewenger/Fucktard.jpg