Earth Military Corps
14-08-2008, 21:04
The purpose of this thread is to allow all world leaders to present their ideas/opinions on the correct way to deal with terrorism.
Be aware that "Extreme Terrorism" refers to a campaign of violence over the long term against a victim country ASWELL as attacks that cause significant amounts of damage and/or loss of life.
Just to get the conversation started, I'll start with what I believe is the correct way to deal with this:
So, 154 people just died in a train station bombing. Those responsible were killed in the ensuing gunfight with the police. All that is left is alot of angry politicians and destroyed lives.
The government moves swiftly to condemn these attacks whilst the security council meets to discuss the official reaction.
I believe that the best way to deal with an attack is to immedately use intelligence reports on hand to find the most strategically important target to the terrorists and attack, this retalitatory strike may result in further civilian casaulties.
To justify these casaulties? I say to you that in the long run, this will eliminate the threat and help to prevent further innocent deaths.
You might say that this will lead to anger at the government such as in the Iraq war, this however was because of poor strategy on the side of the American command. They were drawn into a long-conflict and appeared to not have inflicted any serious harm to there enemy. The American people are angry at being lied to.
Because the American people is so mass-media orientated, it appeared at least to the American people that they had been tricked into a long and unnecessary conflict with no real sense of achievement (after all, they're are still terrorist cells operating in Afghanistan as well as certain parts of Iraq.)
I don't want this to turn into a rant about Iraq but these points are key to my arguement.
1) If the initial strike had been against the leadership of al qaeda, there would of been no need for a long drawn out conflict in Iraq.
2) The media was not utilised by the government, there was plenty of footage of soldiers being killed by IED's and attacked on patrols. The American high command should of attempted to televise every single victory and blow it up to massive proportions. Thus the war would not have been viewed of as too costly.
Propaganda is a powerful tool, this is the absolute KEY to this approach, it doesn't matter what the actual result of the strike is. As long as the Government appears to have lead the people to a great and glorious victory.
This way, the government will retain popular support and be recognized for being strong. Hopefully this will also lower the morale of the terrorists and dissuade future attacks. Although this last part is unlikely, since fundamentally the terrorists believe that they are doing the right thing.
Propaganda is a powerful tool, essential infact.
EDIT: I just read this back and realized that it is a poorly constructed rant, I didn't intend for this, please don't be dissuaded from posting your opinions, they are so very valuable to me on a philosophical basis.
Be aware that "Extreme Terrorism" refers to a campaign of violence over the long term against a victim country ASWELL as attacks that cause significant amounts of damage and/or loss of life.
Just to get the conversation started, I'll start with what I believe is the correct way to deal with this:
So, 154 people just died in a train station bombing. Those responsible were killed in the ensuing gunfight with the police. All that is left is alot of angry politicians and destroyed lives.
The government moves swiftly to condemn these attacks whilst the security council meets to discuss the official reaction.
I believe that the best way to deal with an attack is to immedately use intelligence reports on hand to find the most strategically important target to the terrorists and attack, this retalitatory strike may result in further civilian casaulties.
To justify these casaulties? I say to you that in the long run, this will eliminate the threat and help to prevent further innocent deaths.
You might say that this will lead to anger at the government such as in the Iraq war, this however was because of poor strategy on the side of the American command. They were drawn into a long-conflict and appeared to not have inflicted any serious harm to there enemy. The American people are angry at being lied to.
Because the American people is so mass-media orientated, it appeared at least to the American people that they had been tricked into a long and unnecessary conflict with no real sense of achievement (after all, they're are still terrorist cells operating in Afghanistan as well as certain parts of Iraq.)
I don't want this to turn into a rant about Iraq but these points are key to my arguement.
1) If the initial strike had been against the leadership of al qaeda, there would of been no need for a long drawn out conflict in Iraq.
2) The media was not utilised by the government, there was plenty of footage of soldiers being killed by IED's and attacked on patrols. The American high command should of attempted to televise every single victory and blow it up to massive proportions. Thus the war would not have been viewed of as too costly.
Propaganda is a powerful tool, this is the absolute KEY to this approach, it doesn't matter what the actual result of the strike is. As long as the Government appears to have lead the people to a great and glorious victory.
This way, the government will retain popular support and be recognized for being strong. Hopefully this will also lower the morale of the terrorists and dissuade future attacks. Although this last part is unlikely, since fundamentally the terrorists believe that they are doing the right thing.
Propaganda is a powerful tool, essential infact.
EDIT: I just read this back and realized that it is a poorly constructed rant, I didn't intend for this, please don't be dissuaded from posting your opinions, they are so very valuable to me on a philosophical basis.