NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the US government, the objectives are:

1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism.
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
4. Working with willing and able states.
5. Enabling weak states.
6. Persuading reluctant states.
7. Compelling unwilling states.
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
2. Win the war of ideals.
5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad.
4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability.

Now to me, that looks pretty loose. "Win the war of ideals?" So when will that happen - when no one's "ideals" disagree? So - fuckin' never?

What about you? For those here who support the War On Terror, just what exactly will it take to win and how can you assure anyone that it WILL, or even CAN be won? If you can't, then how can you justify perpetual warfare?

After the apocalypse

The War on Terror, for me will be won when extremist Islamic doctorine becomes smaller and less supported in Europe, when major Terrorist organizations like Al Qaida are destroyed and when middle eastern countries become tougher on terrorists whilst improving standards of living to diminish support for them.

When we stop surrendering to them. In other words, no more security theatre.

It's virtually impossible. The sad reality is that while religions (especially Islam) exist, there will be terrorism.

When humans lose all will to become motivated.

When the word 'terror' is obliterated from every dictionary, thesaurus, book, poem, media report, newspaper, play, web site and cookbook in every language in every country of the entire world.

When everybody shuts the fuck up about it, frankly.

It's virtually impossible. The sad reality is that while religions (especially Islam) exist, there will be terrorism.

No, you're wrong there.

When *ideaology* ceases to exist there will be no terrorism. When selfishness ceases to exist there will be no more terrorism. When HUMANS cease to exist, then (and alas probably ONLY then) will terrorism cease to exist.

No, you're wrong there.

When *ideaology* ceases to exist there will be no terrorism. When selfishness ceases to exist there will be no more terrorism. When HUMANS cease to exist, then (and alas probably ONLY then) will terrorism cease to exist.

There may always be terrorism, but I don't think that the widespread terrorism that happens today will always exist.

No, you're wrong there.

When *ideaology* ceases to exist there will be no terrorism. When selfishness ceases to exist there will be no more terrorism. When HUMANS cease to exist, then (and alas probably ONLY then) will terrorism cease to exist.

He said it's virtually impossible. Taking your post and his together, you haven't proved him wrong.

It's virtually impossible. The sad reality is that while religions (especially Islam) exist, there will be terrorism.

Terrorism isn't strictly a religion thing. Even without religion, there would still be terrorism.

Terrorism isn't strictly a religion thing. Even without religion, there would still be terrorism.

Should we add this to the list of guarantees? Death, taxes and terrorism.

According to the US government, the objectives are:

1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism.
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
4. Working with willing and able states.
5. Enabling weak states.
6. Persuading reluctant states.
7. Compelling unwilling states.
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
2. Win the war of ideals.
5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad.
4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability.

Now to me, that looks pretty loose. "Win the war of ideals?" So when will that happen - when no one's "ideals" disagree? So - fuckin' never?

What about you? For those here who support the War On Terror, just what exactly will it take to win and how can you assure anyone that it WILL, or even CAN be won? If you can't, then how can you justify perpetual warfare?

Never, because it's too nebulous.

When the word 'terror' is obliterated from every dictionary, thesaurus, book, poem, media report, newspaper, play, web site and cookbook in every language in every country of the entire world.
what about songs?

Terrorism isn't strictly a religion thing. Even without religion, there would still be terrorism.

Not as much though.

what about songs?
Blast! I knew I'd miss some. I also should have said 'and all it's derivatives', as well.

Terrorism isn't strictly a religion thing. Even without religion, there would still be terrorism.

The thing is, most non-religious terrorist groups have specific aims, and will end their campaigns when they are fulfilled. For example, the IRA (ok, I know they didn't get what they wanted, but they stopped, ok?). Religious terrorist groups aims consist of "Kill non-believers until the other religions are gone".

when it is no longer profitable for Washington.

The thing is, most non-religious terrorist groups have specific aims, and will end their campaigns when they are fulfilled. For example, the IRA (ok, I know they didn't get what they wanted, but they stopped, ok?). Religious terrorist groups aims consist of "Kill non-believers until the other religions are gone".

Yep. It's an objective they'll stop fighting for when it's acheived.

Just 'cause it goes beyond what most secular groups go for doesn;t make it any less an objective.

And (at a risk of Godwin) it's not like the Nazi's were gonna stop until they'd spread their beliefs accross the globe...

The thing is, most non-religious terrorist groups have specific aims, and will end their campaigns when they are fulfilled. For example, the IRA (ok, I know they didn't get what they wanted, but they stopped, ok?). Religious terrorist groups aims consist of "Kill non-believers until the other religions are gone".

If what you say is true, then they don't really qualify as terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence or threats to intimidate societies, usually for political reasons, not the act of trying to kill as many people you disagree with as possible.

when it is no longer profitable for Washington.

It never was.

Yep. It's an objective they'll stop fighting for when it's acheived.

Just 'cause it goes beyond what most secular groups go for doesn;t make it any less an objective.

And (at a risk of Godwin) it's not like the Nazi's were gonna stop until they'd spread their beliefs accross the globe...

The Nazis were hardly terrorists. Terrorism implies the use of guerilla tactics.

It never was.

If only they knew it wouldn't be five years ago.

When they think they've found something scarier. Or the commies come back.

If what you say is true, then they don't really qualify as terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence or threats to intimidate societies, usually for political reasons, not the act of trying to kill as many people you disagree with as possible.

Oh, they have political reasons. Which tend to be along the lines of "Remove all military and civilian presence from our lands!", "Stop insulting our religion and curb free speech!" and "Convert to [insert religion here] and you will be spared!"

And there's the ever popular "Stop preventing us from destroying this tiny country that we disagree with and you will be spared!"

The Nazis were hardly terrorists. Terrorism implies the use of guerilla tactics.

Implies.

Shock And Awe. A massive campaign designed to (essentially) terrorise people into compliance. Blitzkrieg by any other name.

The tactics of fear have never been restricted to a bunch of guys in balaclavas/turbans hiding out in the mountains and occupied cities seeking to defeat some more powerful, more 'official' entity.

We won't, and that's the whole point.

This has been another installment of short answers to easy questions.

Implies.

Shock And Awe. A massive campaign designed to (essentially) terrorise people into compliance. Blitzkrieg by any other name.

The tactics of fear have never been restricted to a bunch of guys in balaclavas/turbans hiding out in the mountains and occupied cities seeking to defeat some more powerful, more 'official' entity.

In my mind, there is a distinction between "terrorism" and "terror campaign".

Remember, terrorism is merely a filler tactic used by questionable ideologies until they can commandeer a whole nation complete with military for their use.

In my mind, there is a distinction between "terrorism" and "terror campaign".

Remember, terrorism is merely a filler tactic used by questionable ideologies until they can commandeer a whole nation complete with military for their use.

What about countries like Libya in the 80s which had their own military, but still used terror tactics against western powers? You're limiting your definition a bit too much, I think.

In my mind, there is a distinction between "terrorism" and "terror campaign".

Remember, terrorism is merely a filler tactic used by questionable ideologies until they can commandeer a whole nation complete with military for their use.

Whereas to me there is a distinction between their tactics but the AIM is the same.

Terrorism is used to describe 'unnoficial' groups but when the aim is to acuase fear then it matters little whether the thousand pounds of explosive is applied by a JDAM or a carbomb, only that it is applied.

What about countries like Libya in the 80s which had their own military, but still used terror tactics against western powers? You're limiting your definition a bit too much, I think.

Libya is different in that it was a country with an ideology, not an ideology with a country. It's the same reason that many nations today use secret police and special forces rather than bombing the hell out of their enemies.

yous fellas are terror in the brain, its all you ever see. can you not chat about washing machines and jaffa cakes or something? :confused:

Libya is different in that it was a country with an ideology, not an ideology with a country. It's the same reason that many nations today use secret police and special forces rather than bombing the hell out of their enemies.
The problem, it seems to me, is that you're buying into the idea that terror is an ideology instead of a tactic. Anyone can use terror--state, group, individual. Hell, in the US, the majority of the terrorist acts in the last 20 years have been carried out by so-called pro-lie groups against abortion clinics, and the most destructive one prior to 9/11 was a far right militiaman named Tim McVeigh.

The "War on terror" is the application of military force against a sensation? What if the face of the man across the street terrorizes you - I think we should call the police! We've killed men, women, children, and animals --what next? Let's fight emotion - how rational! This war is farcicle, again war has been declared on a concept; religion, government type (communism), and now "terror". We won't get anywhere, we'll progress even less than against religion, or communism, as obviously this war on "terror" connects to theocracy, and therefore religion.

The idea of proportional response has long gone; we've lost too many, and had those on their second, third, or fourth tours kill in vain. There is no such thing as victory in this case; what are people thinking? The Israelite war against Arabs has not been won. The Vietnam War, a fragment of the cold war was resolved, but neither Russia or America lost or won out of that. The Korean War was not won or lost, just resolved - heck probably the only victory in war over the last hundred years was World War I and II; millions were lost, and there was actually a real enemy. And the killing of many is not the cause of victory, as proven by the crusades, the only religious war any western civilisation can relate to.

This war on terror will not be about winning or losing, but about the resolution. And I worry, because in war there is always one way to settle; through diplomacy and negotiation. Perhaps terrorism will have to experience its first victory ever to achieve the peace we all long for. Surely we will not be able to kill or capture the 325,000 terrorists listed on the FBI watchlist (Washington Post), especially as it only takes six of these men to hijack a plane, or one man with a car, or a suicide bomber....

If only we could turn back time and stop September 11, then those in the twin towers, the planes, and the hundreds of men and women in Iraq could be back with their families.

The war on terror will be won when we everyone can watch a cat play piano on youtube!

Oh yeah, and we have to eliminate all gun smileys!

Hard to win a war against a concept.

1. Republicans out of office
2. US forces drastically cut down or removed completely in Iraq
3. Israel returned to its legal borders
4. US compensation to Palestinians for support of Israel
5. Strong and generous incentives for Muslim immigrants who do not belong (refuse to act appropriately, to assimilate) to leave Europe and go back home.
6. Incentives for Muslims who do belong to stay, prosper.

The emotion of fear is eradicated from our psyches.

Seriously, you can't win a war on a concept.

5. Strong and generous incentives for Muslim immigrants who do not belong (refuse to act appropriately, to assimilate) to leave Europe and go back home.


Why just Europe?

Why just Europe?

Because that is where they are problematic in meaningful numbers.

The US has no Muslim immigrant problem, we are a nation of immigrants and they can and do succeed here. Europe is not like the United States, there is no reason to think that what is necessary or works in one will be necessary or work in the other.

we are a nation of immigrants and they can and do succeed here.

Then why the issue with Mexican immigrants?

1. Republicans out of office
2. US forces drastically cut down or removed completely in Iraq
3. Israel returned to its legal borders
4. US compensation to Palestinians for support of Israel
5. Strong and generous incentives for Muslim immigrants who do not belong (refuse to act appropriately, to assimilate) to leave Europe and go back home.
6. Incentives for Muslims who do belong to stay, prosper.

Overall, while i agree with most of your points, 6. isn't really going to be beneficial to people that need money or other incentives, and 5. reminds me of some of the darker times in U.S. History. Back in the 1800s the Native American's were being enticed to move from their homeland. They were told they would receive money for their homeland and they would receive even more land then they had before. They were told they would keep that land until forever, or as long as their was still a living member of their tribe. And what happened...

The people that left got some of the things they were promised, but things were harsh, moving to a new land and having to rebuild everything. They didn't get all the food and money they were promised. They didn't get protection from land hungry settlers in the end either. And the people that didn't want to leave, they were forced to leave, in chains!

So basically, i don't think the removal of people is generally a good idea. It starts off with good intentions, but it ends up with bad results. And as well, i am a muslim and i don't see any reason why we should receive benefits for "being successful?" I mean it doesn't make sense, people who are already integrated and doing well in society would be the ones receiving the benefits, not the people that are living difficult lives and are not assimilated.

Then why the issue with Mexican immigrants?

1) because there are so many of them.
2) because 'murkuh dun'd like brown people.

I don't have an issue with mexican immigrants, we really do need people to do the dirty work of running society.

Why just Europe?

Assimilation probably won't work; Al-Zakawi (or one of the guys who helped found the idea of the Islamist Government) was sent to the US as a teenager to try and remove the anti-American views he had. What he saw in America hardened his anti-american views, though I suppose seeing people dance in a church would do that to most people ;). Of course, whoever this man was, he helped influence Osama bin Laden to find murder acceptable in the eyes of Allah and Islam.

And of course when you refer to Moslems, you offer due respect, and actually mean to talk about extremists. While refering to Moslems, you also know that the Torah, and therefore the Old Testament allows capital punishment, killings of those who work on the Sabbath, punishment for those who touch the skin of a pig, and incrimination for those who plant an unaccepted order of plants in a row. And being intelligent, you also know that with time, all scripiture adapts to modern day life, which includes the interpretation of the Quran. You would know that Moslems are generally wonderful people... wouldn't you?

1) because there are so many of them.
2) because 'murkuh dun'd like brown people.

I don't have an issue with mexican immigrants, we really do need people to do the dirty work of running society.

So what you mean to say is that your previous post about the difference between immigration in the US than in Europe was based on what exactly?

All it takes to create a terrorist is an angry man and a Kalashnikov 47. Considering Bush´s War on Terror only made more people angry with the US, and that more than 100 million AK 47 were built, I really dont think that the war against terror can be won at all.

A "victory" would happen if somehow all the terrorists cells and groups were found, and their members destroyed. But you cant do that. A terrorist group is like a Hydra, where you take its head off and you create two new cells. You can also take away their ressources. But considering they can get manpower, explosives and money quite easily, that is hard too.

Meaning Bush can win the war on terror if he manages to get money out of it.

What if we used reverse psychology? If we laughed and relaxed security after every bomb went off, and panicked and tightened security whenever there was peace, do you think we could trick them into being peaceful to try and scare us into compliance? :p

So what you mean to say is that your previous post about the difference between immigration in the US than in Europe was based on what exactly?

The US is made up of immigrants from other countries who came here and were accepted into the fabric of society, who became just as American as any other American. I don't see why this needs explaining?

The idea that has informed a lot of European immigrant policy, that of multiculturalism, where immigrants are expected to live in-country but keep their foreign culture is problematic, as you can learn about by looking at the events of the past decade in, say, Holland. Cultural bias, like that in France, also works against immigrants by excluding them from civic and social life with the natives.

If Europe is not prepared to have Muslim immigrants become equal and full members of the german/french/dutch/&c. culture/ethnicity/what-have-you, then it ought not hold onto them. On the flip-side, if immigrants are not prepared to become full members of the same, then they certainly do not belong and should instead go home.

The idea that has informed a lot of European immigrant policy, that of multiculturalism, where immigrants are expected to live in-country but keep their foreign culture is problematic, as you can learn about by looking at the events of the past decade in, say, Holland. Cultural bias, like that in France, also works against immigrants by excluding them from civic and social life with the natives.


And these are all the same problems the US has experienced in the past and often continues to experience. I do recall entire laws being past limiting Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were often basically secluded to their own towns because of discrimination. Hell, the Irish experience immigrating to the US was similar to Muslim immigration to France. I fail to see how your argument for Europe is any different than what the US has experienced in the past or future, and I see a massive contradiction between your blaming multiculturalism and then flipping around to argue cultural bias keeps immigrants excluded. Seems a tad contradictory.

Just a note on immigrants for everyone...

An immigrant leaves his or her country either because they were either forced to, or because they were in search of a better life. It's that simple. Otherwise there is just no reason to leave home, so these immigrants you are talking about, the immigrants you are saying should get the boot, these immigrants probably came to Europe or the USA in search of a better life, and many of them came legally, so why are you kicking them out? They are there for a reason, and even if they might not assimilate, their children most likely will, so you have a severe punishment (kicking them out), for a rather short term problem. (If you look at history it is pretty short term problem.)

Just a note on immigrants for everyone...

An immigrant leaves his or her country either because they were either forced to, or because they were in search of a better life. It's that simple. Otherwise there is just no reason to leave home, so these immigrants you are talking about, the immigrants you are saying should get the boot, these immigrants probably came to Europe or the USA in search of a better life, and many of them came legally, so why are you kicking them out? They are there for a reason, and even if they might not assimilate, their children most likely will, so you have a severe punishment (kicking them out), for a rather short term problem. (If you look at history it is pretty short term problem.)

Thats a pretty superficial view of the whole issue

Thats a pretty superficial view of the whole issue


Sometimes simplicity is the best.

Why tell citizens that the government is "Fighting a War on Extremist Ideologies and Those that Oppose Western Thought and Defy the Orders of the American Government" when they can simply say that they are waging a "War on Terror".

in the nuclear age war is the enemy not which side your on.... WAR

Just a note on immigrants for everyone...

An immigrant leaves his or her country either because they were either forced to, or because they were in search of a better life. It's that simple. Otherwise there is just no reason to leave home, so these immigrants you are talking about, the immigrants you are saying should get the boot, these immigrants probably came to Europe or the USA in search of a better life, and many of them came legally, so why are you kicking them out? They are there for a reason, and even if they might not assimilate, their children most likely will, so you have a severe punishment (kicking them out), for a rather short term problem. (If you look at history it is pretty short term problem.)

Why would I repatriate them? Firstly, I am immalleably opposed to them on such grounds. Immigration upon the grounds of "seeking a batter life" or seeking asylum invariably places an economic and social strain upon the recipient country, neither of which are strains I care to undergo. Is it my concern is Mr. Al Jubahli has a bad life, if I have an ever better one? Of course not, rather him than me.

Secondly, their children will not assimilate. I assure you of this. Most immigrant communities isolate themselves in ghettoes and inner-city districts, and hence assimilate only into an extant culture imported from their land of origin. If assimilation is improbable, and toleration little more than a compromise unbefitting of a nation of the calibre of Britain, I would happily endorse repatriation, and, for that matter, laugh as I did so.

Immigration upon the grounds of "seeking a batter life" or seeking asylum invariably places an economic and social strain upon the recipient country...

Where did you say you were from, again?

Why would I repatriate them? Firstly, I am immalleably opposed to them on such grounds. Immigration upon the grounds of "seeking a batter life" or seeking asylum invariably places an economic and social strain upon the recipient country, neither of which are strains I care to undergo. Is it my concern is Mr. Al Jubahli has a bad life, if I have an ever better one? Of course not, rather him than me.

Secondly, their children will not assimilate. I assure you of this. Most immigrant communities isolate themselves in ghettoes and inner-city districts, and hence assimilate only into an extant culture imported from their land of origin. If assimilation is improbable, and toleration little more than a compromise unbefitting of a nation of the calibre of Britain, I would happily endorse repatriation, and, for that matter, laugh as I did so.


Well, as far as immigrants placing a strain on a country lets think about America for a second. It's a country made almost entirely out of immigrants, and last time I checked, even if our leaders make dumb choices, and we are hated around the world, we are still one of the world's most powerful nations. So if one of the world's most powerful countries is made almost entirely from immigrants, tell me how immigrants place an economic and social strain on the recipient country. Immigrants come, generally ready to work harder then any citizen, just to better themselves and to provide their children a life better then they had. Yes, there are exceptions, but I believe that this is what drives the majority of immigrants.

I think we'll have to reduce the human population to a maximum figure in double digits to have any chance of eliminating terrorism.

1. Republicans out of office

Why? They seem to be in line with your ideals.

Like...

5. Strong and generous incentives for Muslim immigrants who do not belong (refuse to act appropriately, to assimilate) to leave Europe and go back home.
6. Incentives for Muslims who do belong to stay, prosper.

This idiotic notion of "assimilating." Humans aren't Borg, not even European ones.

This idiotic notion of "assimilating." Humans aren't Borg, not even European ones.

We are the Anglo-Saxon collective. Your cultural and intellectual differences are irrelevant. Prepare to be assimilated.

We are the Anglo-Saxon collective. Your cultural and intellectual differences are irrelevant. Prepare to be assimilated.

Heh. Sigged!

Why? They seem to be in line with your ideals.

Like...



This idiotic notion of "assimilating." Humans aren't Borg, not even European ones.

I don't agree with one plank in 50 in the republican platform, you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't see the republicans trying to fix the immigration issues in Europe, I see half of them brown-nosing to the Mexicans here and the other half fantasizing about shooting them all, two equally repugnant propositions.

I don't agree with one plank in 50 in the republican platform, you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't see the republicans trying to fix the immigration issues in Europe, I see half of them brown-nosing to the Mexicans here and the other half fantasizing about shooting them all, two equally repugnant propositions.

Yeah, murdering immigrants and tolerating them, each is obviously equally repugnant. :rolleyes:

But I find your foolish standard of "assimilation" which is nothing more than overt cultural supremacism to be repugnant too.

And these are all the same problems the US has experienced in the past and often continues to experience. I do recall entire laws being past limiting Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were often basically secluded to their own towns because of discrimination. Hell, the Irish experience immigrating to the US was similar to Muslim immigration to France. I fail to see how your argument for Europe is any different than what the US has experienced in the past or future, and I see a massive contradiction between your blaming multiculturalism and then flipping around to argue cultural bias keeps immigrants excluded. Seems a tad contradictory.

The biggest immigrant group in Europe for most of its history was the Jews, it didn't turn out nearly as well for them as things did for the Irish and Asians in the US.

I say again, if Europe is unwilling to let immigrants become full members of society, it should send them home, and if immigrants are themselves unwilling to behave appropriately, and become the same, then they should be induced to leave.

The biggest immigrant group in Europe for most of its history was the Jews, it didn't turn out nearly as well for them as things did for the Irish and Asians in the US.


Yeah and interestingly enough, many Europeans agreed with your "make them go home" platform. And complained about how... different *gasp* ... those Jews were. Not acting German enough. They didn't "belong." So, leaky boats and concentration camps. That's where your type of thinking ends up. Only now it's Muslims instead of Jews, and apparently that's politically correct of you.

In about 90 years when the (U.S.A) copyright runs out.

Yeah, murdering immigrants and tolerating them, each is obviously equally repugnant. :rolleyes:

But I find your foolish standard of "assimilation" which is nothing more than overt cultural supremacism to be repugnant too.

The abortion of a bill that was proposed this last month or so was not "tolerating" immigrants, it was a deeply unfair, bizarre, flawed and unreasonable piece of legislation.

I've posted my opinion on how to deal with immigration from the south in threads on that topic, and you can use the search button if you want to read it.

The war on Terrorism can only be won when the American government stops trying to keep us in constant fear of terrorist attacks, which is the exact goal of terrorists. And also when the Government stops using force to try to quash there terrorists and instead looks at and changes the policies which are the root causes of terrorism, Like trying to throw our weight around and tell the rest of the world what to do rather than encourage other countries to act morally by leading through example. So basically it will be over when the government realizes the entire War on Terror policy is flawed and gives it up.

Yeah and interestingly enough, many Europeans agreed with your "make them go home" platform. And complained about how... different *gasp* ... those Jews were. Not acting German enough. They didn't "belong." So, leaky boats and concentration camps. That's where your type of thinking ends up. Only now it's Muslims instead of Jews, and apparently that's politically correct of you.

This rambling barely deserves a reply, since it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted, but here it is.

Offering immigrants free passage and money if they want to go back home because their new country isn't working out doesn't have anything in the world to do with leaky boats or concentration camps. Non sequitur.

You may as well say "rubber was used on car tires back in the third reich, and some of the victims of the holocaust were transported to their doom in rubber-tired vehicles, so rubber is a terrible thing and shouldn't be considered!"

I've posted my opinion on how to deal with immigration from the south in threads on that topic, and you can use the search button if you want to read it.

I've read about as much of your opinion as to the Final Solution to the Immigrant Problem as I want, thanks.

I've read about as much of your opinion as to the Final Solution to the Immigrant Problem as I want, thanks.

Like I said above, and like you're admitting is true now - you don't know what you're talking about.

This rambling barely deserves a reply, since it doesn't have anything to do with what I posted

Of course it does. You have the same, "ew get away from me!" attitude towards anyone different.

Offering immigrants free passage and money if they want to go back home because their new country isn't working out doesn't have anything in the world to do with leaky boats or concentration camps. Non sequitur.

Wanting people to leave because they aren't similar enough to your "culture" is the same no matter what methods you might propose to address the "problem."

You may as well say "rubber was used on car tires back in the third reich, and some of the victims of the holocaust were transported to their doom in rubber-tired vehicles, so rubber is a terrible thing and shouldn't be considered!"

Or, I may as well say that nazis were bigoted against immigrants who weren't "assimilated" into their culture, based mostly on religion, and wanted to be rid of them - and you do too.

Don't like the comparison? Gosh, I'm sorry. But it's quite valid.

Like I said above, and like you're admitting is true now - you don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't "admit" anything of the sort. Nice try at twisting my words. Your opinion as to the specific "solution" to the immigrant problem is completely irrelevant to what I've said. Next time, try reading, or just STFU.

We are the Anglo-Saxon collective. Your cultural and intellectual differences are irrelevant. Prepare to be assimilated.

Resistance is proof of your culture's inferiority.

1) Of course it does. You have the same, "ew get away from me!" attitude towards anyone different.



2) Wanting people to leave because they aren't similar enough to your "culture" is the same no matter what methods you might propose to address the "problem."



3) Or, I may as well say that nazis were bigoted against immigrants who weren't "assimilated" into their culture, based mostly on religion, and wanted to be rid of them - and you do too.



1) No I don't, you don't understand what you're talking about.

2) No it isn't, you don't understand what you're talking about.

At any rate, I haven't proposed that anyone leave because they aren't similar, only if they are doomed to fail either because their host country refuses to let them be successful or because they themselves refuse to act appropriately and be successful. Again, you aren't grasping even the broadest and simplest points which are easily evident from the most rudimentary reading comprehension.

3) Jews were very well assimilated into German culture, many were very prosperous, you don't understand what you're talking about here either.

The Germans didn't kill all the jews because the jews were unsuccessful immigrants, they killed all the jews because they hated jews both out of simple racism and out of frustration at that success and assimilation itself.


4) My opinion on the immigration "problem" in the US (if one actually exists, something I disagree with to begin with) is the model of tolerance.

Whereas to me there is a distinction between their tactics but the AIM is the same.

Terrorism is used to describe 'unnoficial' groups but when the aim is to acuase fear then it matters little whether the thousand pounds of explosive is applied by a JDAM or a carbomb, only that it is applied.

Terrorism is used to describe when someone or a group of peoplw try to use fear to accomplish political/personal goals.
Or when the US needs some propaganda.

Or, I may as well say that nazis were bigoted...

1, 2, 3... GODWIN!

The war on terror cannot be won (or lost?) b/c it really means nothing...

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. The tactic can be diminished in a world where there is tolerance and a basic understanding of human rights. While the US is far from perfect in that regards, I believe it is far above the minimum threshold of human rights that would be required for a world "without" terror, at least how terror is now defined. But can it ever be eliminated? Definitely not. Especially, since terror is a term that is defined so relatively.

For example, the US would define terror as somebody aiming an explosion at a group of civilians, hoping to scare the populace into some political policy.
Other groups might call US tactics terrorist when civilians are killed alongside enemy combatants. Techically speaking, they are not terrorist, b/c current international law requires some intent to harm civilians (and although there are definitely US service members intentionally harming non-combatants, it is not the policy of the US military). But perhaps in the future, it would be lawful warfare only if armies met in fields specially set aside for wars and a nation engaged another in a populated area? The point is that the definition of terrorism is relative and therefore changing.

I suppose a 'win' in the war on terrorism would be for most states to accept the current level of warfare that other states engage in (i.e. no 'asymmetrical' warfare).


But earlier I said that the US has misdefined the war on terror. Everybody knows that it is a war on states and organizations that either tacitly or expressly support the triumph of an Islamic theocracy over liberal society. Can the west win this war? I think it is very possible, being that most people (even most Middle Easterners) yearn for freedom and the problems that the US is having that these societies haven't seen anything but totalitarian regimes in so long. I think another problem is that the US is having to pick and choose which regimes to go after and which to leave in place, b/c even our 'allies' in the region are far from what we wish the region to look like.

According to the US government, the objectives are:

1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism.
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
4. Working with willing and able states.
5. Enabling weak states.
6. Persuading reluctant states.
7. Compelling unwilling states.
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
2. Win the war of ideals.
5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad.
4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability.

Now to me, that looks pretty loose. "Win the war of ideals?" So when will that happen - when no one's "ideals" disagree? So - fuckin' never?

What about you? For those here who support the War On Terror, just what exactly will it take to win and how can you assure anyone that it WILL, or even CAN be won? If you can't, then how can you justify perpetual warfare?

Since it's a war on terror, they'd have to kill all the spiders, since they terrify the hell out of me.

The war on terrorism is won when there aren't any terrorist states around any longer, or when existing ones have been neutered. Simple enough, until you try and decide which states are sponsoring terrorism, and against who, and whether it's *enough* terrorism to call for action, etc.

Since it's a war on terror, they'd have to kill all the spiders, since they terrify the hell out of me.

Sounds like a future Terminix ad campaign. :p That is, once memory of the original usage fades a bit.

Sounds like a future Terminix ad campaign. :p That is, once memory of the original usage fades a bit.

Yeah. That ad with the termites chewing down the twin towers didn't go over so well the first time around.

Yeah. That ad with the termites chewing down the twin towers didn't go over so well the first time around.

Yeah, it might take a while for the 'war on terror' to be funny again. I'm predicting animated temites wearing turbans around the year 2050. :p

Yeah, it might take a while for the 'war on terror' to be funny again. I'm predicting animated temites wearing turbans around the year 2050. :p

Allah Oakbar!

Allah Oakbar!

And a jihad on high prices! :p

And a jihad on high prices! :p

This thread is more hijacked than a paper plane full of fleahadists.

So, goodnight!

When everybody shuts the fuck up about it, frankly.

You win the thread!

Terrorism is never going to go away...so stop giving it attention it doesn't deserve. When the publicity for the act of terrorism goes away, so does the incentive to commit violence for political purposes...nobody is paying attention.

I've read about as much of your opinion as to the Final Solution to the Immigrant Problem as I want, thanks.

Oh look. Greater Trostia plays the Hitler card. Again.

Oh look. Greater Trostia plays the Hitler card. Again.

And thats because he is right to, nazi boy

"Win the war of ideals?" So when will that happen - when no one's "ideals" disagree? So - fuckin' never?


Yeah. Fuckin' never. Else, in 1984. Not the year. The book.

Since it's a war on terror, they'd have to kill all the spiders, since they terrify the hell out of me.

They might as well kill you to achieve the same goal.
It's "war on terror", not "war on terrorists".;)

-_-.-_- terror here -_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned today that
suicide bombings like those that have left hundreds dead in Israel
are "inevitable" on American soil.

"I think we will see that in the future — I think it's inevitable,"
said the director, Robert S. Mueller III,
whose agency is under siege by critics in Congress and elsewhere
who contend that the bureau failed to follow up on clues
that might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks.

- Philip Shenton, The New York times, May 20, 2002
Suicide Attacks Certain in U.S., Mueller Warns

-_-.-_- terror there -_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-

... Israeli officials acknowledge that
military action alone cannot halt terrorist bombings
if the Palestinians are determined to resist.
* * *
Operation "Defensive Shield," as the Israelis call their campaign in the West Bank,
represents a new type of Arab-Israeli conflict. It is an example of... asymmetric warfare,
a conflict that pits a force well trained and equipped against bands of militants
who are able to make their own explosives for a relative pittance
and turn their bodies into warheads.
* * *
Mr. Sneh said of the West Bank campaign...
"But I do not think that any military move
can bring about a full cessation of terrorism.
That can only be brought about if the Palestinian side sincerely wants it..."

-Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, April 14, 2002
Superior Israeli Firepower Isn't Likely to End Terror

-_-.-_- terrorism broadly -_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-

It is not possible to defeat terrorism.
Terrorism takes a couple of loonies in a basement
putting together a bomb or some other device.
We can gain a measure of defense against terrorists
but we can not ever be terrorism-proof.

- Jonathan Tal, President,
Homeland Security Research Corporation

- - more - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a formidable enemy.
To dismiss it as a bunch of 'cowards' perpetuating 'senseless acts of violence'
is complacent nonsense.
People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards.
They are deadly vicious warriors and need to be treated as such.

- Charles Krauthammer

-_-.-_- the cost of trying -_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-


You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars;
instead, you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking.
These days, it only matters who's in charge.
Right now, that's us - for a while, at least.
Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks
because they have no other way to win.
We can't beat anyone anymore.
- George Clooney

-_-.-_- and why we're doing it anyway -_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-

to rally people, governments need enemies.
They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them.
And if they do not have a real enemy,
they will invent one in order to mobilize us.
- Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk
who, during the war in Vietnam,
worked to reconcile North and South Vietnam.
Martin Luther King, Jr. nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to the US government, the objectives are:

1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism.
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
4. Working with willing and able states.
5. Enabling weak states.
6. Persuading reluctant states.
7. Compelling unwilling states.
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
2. Win the war of ideals.
5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad.
4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability.

Now to me, that looks pretty loose. "Win the war of ideals?" So when will that happen - when no one's "ideals" disagree? So - fuckin' never?

What about you? For those here who support the War On Terror, just what exactly will it take to win and how can you assure anyone that it WILL, or even CAN be won? If you can't, then how can you justify perpetual warfare?

When radical militant Islam no longer exists in the world, except as a historical footnote.

October 24th 2032.........give or take a month or two

When terrorism is gone. Or, when Osama Bin Laden appears on the steps of the US Capitol wearing a T-shirt with the American flag on one side, Mohammed's face on the other and distributing flowers to everyone he sees, whichever comes first.

More realistically, when Al-Qaeda is eliminated as a functioning network, but at this rate it's not going to happen much earlier than the above.

And thats because he is right to, nazi boy

No, he would be right to think a bit more before he types out his messages and hits "post."

He would also be right to read and pay attention to the posts he purports to reply to, and to put more effort into reading comprehension regarding the same.

Far be it from me to do the written equivalent of drinking my own piss and shit - which is to say, posting some idiot meme like "godwin rule huhuhuhuhuhuhu" - there are certainly fair and reasonable comparisons between the nazis and other groups and ideas, but this is not one of them.