(OT Politics) Is there another option to fighting terrorists?

[phunkyhick]

When 9/11 happened, and Toby Keith sang the song about "boot in your ass", I was all about it. (the message, not the song).

 

In retrospect, I don't think it's done us any good. I had this idea that what if we let bygones be bygones, negotiate with them and let them go. People seem to think I'm crazy for it, and in some ways, yeah, it is a crazy idea.

 

Fighting terrorists is a vicious cycle. We kill one, we make 3 more. But if we don't do anything, they'll think they can go right on killing us.

 

These people cannot be bought. It is part of their beliefs that the western world is evil and that they will be smiled upon in the afterlife if they die fighting the western world.

 

Some Islamic children are taught that Christians and Jews are descended from swine. No wonder they want to bomb us. And it comes right out of the Qu'ran. But those particular verses are widely disputed. There are several verses in the Bible that are widely disputed, and also those that have been used to support the Crusades. There are also those Catholic teachings which led to Vatican II.

 

A light look at religious history will show that persecution goes both ways. The Jews were persecuted, then they persecuted Christians. The Christians were persecuted, then they persecuted non-Christians. The Muslims were persecuted, and now they are persecuting Christians and Jews. It's nothing new. What religion has not been persecuted, and what religion has not had its misinformed fanatics? I'm waiting for an answer on that one..........

 

Anyways, the only way to end terrorism is to fix the problem at the source. We should not do business with nations that teach that Christians and Jews are descended from swine. Arab children need to be taught the truth about the western world.

 

We cannot kill all the terrorists. We have to stop it at the source. And "boot in your ass" cheering is only strengthening the source. Some folks will say "they haven't attacked us again since then, it must be working!"

 

Ummmm, let's see here, the last major foreign attack on American mainland soil, when was that? Hmmmm, War of 1812? (unless the Confederacy counts) Pearl Harbor was not mainland soil.

 

Then again, everything I have read is probably skewed in one way or another.

 

We cannot sit idly by and let terrorists attack us, but neither can we add fuel to the source. I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but I think we may not be putting enough into the real solution to the problem.

[bassguy]

ok, the reason they call it a terror attack is because it scares the whole country and interupts their lives for weeks....

 

if major news groups stopped reporting them and making that fear intensify then it would become less effective, and therefore they wouldnt happen anymore

 

bassguys way for gwb. to deal with terrorists:

 

concentrate on your own country, not the world. If people want to live a way thats different from yours, who cares. want to get rid of the biggest terrorists? shutdown cnn/place restrictions on them, cause newsgroups like cnn cause the most terror in the states. you dont interfere with other countrys beliefs they will leave yours alone.

[jazzbassist]

Giving into terror threats is called appeasement...

 

It didn't stop Hitler in WW2, in fact, it drove him harder...

 

There is no answer to the terror question. In order to teach them what we think right from wrong we must overtake and occupy their homelands.

 

We are fighting 3rd generation warfare right now, (state sponsered terrorism), 4th generation is going to be self sponsered terrorism. Unfortunately, a large standing army is set to fight 2nd gen (global conflict) warfare... As of right now, we have no easy solution, nor do we ahve an exit strategy to get out of the sandbox. GWB started it, and he really isn't going to get us out. If we stay in, we are raising a whole new generation of anti-americans... if we leave, the country collapses and we get dictators all over again...

[sunburstbasser]

Shutting down a newsgroup wouldn't stop anything. Besides, everyone has a right to be informed even if its a bit scary.

 

Shutting down a newsgroup effectively eliminates 1/4 of the First Amendment entirely and severely weakens the rest of it and also damages the rest of the Bill of Rights. If I was a terrorist and that happened, I'd take ADVANTAGE of it. If no one knows whats going on awareness goes out the window too.

 

If we stopped doing business with countries because they have a perverted interpretation of Islam, that will also anger more people. Its not a realistic solution either, as even if the US stopped the rest of the world would still be getting oil from them. We could get oil from Alaska, Venezuela, or make Iraq the 51st state but all countries need it so the Middle East will always be able to find business. They don't need our dollars, a terrorist or two can easily steal some of those pounds/euros/rubles/yen and do something sick.

[phunkyhick]

 

Originally posted by jazzbassist Giving into terror threats is called appeasement...

 

 

I'm not suggesting that we give in to terrorist threats.

 

What I am saying is that every time you kill one, you breed at least one more.

 

Killing them will only limit terrorism, it won't end it.

 

We will have to fight terrorists until the very end.

 

But if we ever want that end to come, we need to put more energy into stopping it at the source.

 

We need to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, for one. That will be one step to stopping the source.

[phunkyhick]

I guess the title to this thread should be?

 

Killing them isn't working, but is there a better idea?

[mounds]

 

Originally posted by jazzbassist There is no answer to the terror question. In order to teach them what we think right from wrong we must overtake and occupy their homelands.

 

 

I think you're right on the first part, but I think there's a problem with that 2nd section there. They know exactly what we think is right and wrong. That's why it's so effective when they do things to the US. They know exactly which buttons to press. There are so many cultural differences, and such a breadth of support for their cause that our occupation of their "homeland" will never be wholly effective. It may have worked in Japan and Germany, but this is totally different in almost every respect.

 

or i could be wrong. either way.

[syciprider]

Some great conquerors had the inhabitants of stubborn cities slaughtered.

[Tim in WV]

the only thing they have ever said they actually wanted was for US troops to get out of places they consider holy.

 

Since the only reason we give a single {censored} about what happens in the middle east at all is becuase of oil, why not develop our own supplies, pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, ( and the rest of the area ) and let them all {censored} off?

[NeonVomit]

I agree with that. But not developing your own supplies, how about converting to other means of energy? Hydrogen, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion (if it works)? Then you'd never have to worry about oil again.

 

America would truly be free then, not dependant on the whims of other countries.

[Tim in WV]

Yeah, all that {censored}.

 

It amazes me how the "environ-mentalists" will say we need to to do all that and yet when it is actually proposed, there's always something wrong with the plan.

 

Case in point - the windmills in Somerset Co, PA. They have the giant 3 prop turbines there and the locals fought them bitterly when it was proposed and got help from the Sierra Club and other groups to try to block the windmills. Yet they are for alternative energy sources. Just not in my backyard..

 

the reality is thats it's always a NIMBY deal. What they mean is they want alternative energy, as long as it's somewheres else.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Tim in WV Yeah, all that {censored}. It amazes me how the "environ-mentalists" will say we need to to do all that and yet when it is actually proposed, there's always something wrong with the plan. Case in point - the windmills in Somerset Co, PA. They have the giant 3 prop turbines there and the locals fought them bitterly when it was proposed and got help from the Sierra Club and other groups to try to block the windmills. Yet they are for alternative energy sources. Just not in my backyard.. the reality is thats it's always a NIMBY deal. What they mean is they want alternative energy, as long as it's somewheres else.

 

NIMBY indeed. I recall a show discussing how Walter Cronkite (queue Holy Music) was fighting installation of an offshore windmill farm. It spoiled the lovely view from his shoreside home. Prior to this he was "all about" alternate energy soures.

 

We need oil from the Middle East. Gonne be that way for a long time too....there's no viable alternative for transportation.

[Víctor]

Is there another option to fighting terrorists?

I don't think so. Dialog is not possible with people that consider you an infidel and that's for them a fair reason to kill you. Dialog is not possible with people who are still living in the XII century and who believe that God must be in the heart of a XXI century society.

[Fran da Man]

Arab terrorist's have struck on American soil? Don't kid yourself...

Close the goddamn boarders and STOP immigration...oh...you want or need a US education? work opportunities? you're a refugee?...sure, reapply "after" you actually do something to change your own damn Country. What? that means you may have to die trying to change "your" Country? Tough {censored}in' {censored}.

[Undertoad]

 

Originally posted by phunkyhick What I am saying is that every time you kill one, you breed at least one more.

 

Do you have proof of this or is it just the standard line?

 

There are a few hints recently that the insurgency is running out of foreign fighters. One is that they captured a suicide bomber pre-blast and it turned out that he had been heavily drugged and brainwashed into doing it. Not that any suicide bomber isn't brainwashed but this is a sign they are running low.

 

Another is that they recently found recruiting operations for Iraq in France. It's gotta be harder to get guys from France than it is from Saudi Arabia. But if some French muslims are hardass enough to think it's a good idea to travel a few thousand miles to take on the US Military, well, let's kill or capture them to disabuse them of the notion.

 

[Mudbass]

Yes there is. We can all become muslims, put our women in burkas, surrender all of our freedoms and rights and start slaughtering Jews.

[Kaesh]

It's been said before, but it's too damn valid to not mention it again.

Terrorists are like trolls on an Internet forum. What they want is attention. Fighting them (especially when the repercussions are felt by normal citizens) is exactly what they want us to do. We should ignore them as much as it is possible, and they will eventually realise that what they are doing doesn't really have any effect on anything and will get past it.

[mounds]

Originally posted by V

[vanlatte]

Originally posted by sunburstbasser Shutting down a newsgroup effectively eliminates 1/4 of the First Amendment entirely and severely weakens the rest of it and also damages the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

This statement is a bit hard to swallow.

 

As irrelevant as shutting down a newsgroup would be with regards to world affairs, does that mean until usenet became popular the first amendment was only functioning at 75% ?

 

[Mudbass]

Originally posted by Kaesh It's been said before, but it's too damn valid to not mention it again. Terrorists are like trolls on an Internet forum. What they want is attention. Fighting them (especially when the repercussions are felt by normal citizens) is exactly what they want us to do. We should ignore them as much as it is possible, and they will eventually realise that what they are doing doesn't really have any effect on anything and will get past it.

 

Ignore them??? Do you suffer from long term memory loss or what?

 

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by vanlatte This statement is a bit hard to swallow. As irrelevant as shutting down a newsgroup would be with regards to world affairs, does that mean until usenet became popular the first amendment was only functioning at 75% ?

 

No, I believe he meant that Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

...consists of several loosely related areas, of which freedom of speech is a good percentage.

[Kaesh]

 

Originally posted by Mudbass Ignore them??? Do you suffer from long term memory loss or what?

 

Do you not get that this is exactly what they want you to do? Spend resources on law enforcement and war, stunting economic growth, and making life for citizens annoying because of all the extra control and invigilation. Even 9/11 didn't make terrorism a death cause worth mentioning in the big picture. Just a big bang and a ton of smoke that successfully deceived the common folk into thinking that terrorism is a threat big enough to jeopardize our civilisation.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by Kaesh Do you not get that this is exactly what they want you to do? Spend resources on law enforcement and war, stunting economic growth, and making life for citizens annoying because of all the extra control and invigilation. Even 9/11 didn't make terrorism a death cause worth mentioning in the big picture. Just a big bang and a ton of smoke that successfully deceived the common folk into thinking that terrorism is a threat big enough to jeopardize our civilisation.

 

 

Terrorism only works with cowards. Brave people will continue to fly in jets, live their lives, etc., and this {censored}s up terrorists...they expected or hoped that the US would crumble in fear at the prospect of more 9/11-like attacks. They had much greater success in Spain; the Madrid bombing seems to have frightened people into changing their votes.

 

I don't think anyone in the US fears our civilization is jeopardized, but most people are pissed enough to say that it's worth taking big measures to eradicate it. We don't like being {censored}ed with, even if it's minor annoyances punctuated by big events every few years.

[Mudbass]

 

Originally posted by Kaesh Do you not get that this is exactly what they want you to do? Spend resources on law enforcement and war, stunting economic growth, and making life for citizens annoying because of all the extra control and invigilation. Even 9/11 didn't make terrorism a death cause worth mentioning in the big picture. Just a big bang and a ton of smoke that successfully deceived the common folk into thinking that terrorism is a threat big enough to jeopardize our civilisation.

 

 

Stunting economic growth? You have miscalculated as badly as the terrorists have. War is good for the economy when you're on the winning side. War needs bullets and bombs and people to make them. It was war that pulled the US out of the great depression and it was gearing up for war that put Germans back to work after WWI and the treaty of Versailles. Aparrently you don't think the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and thousands of dead Americans were any big deal. Bush won't go down in history as the best President ever, but it could be much worse, we could have somebody in the oval office who thinks 9/11 was no big deal.

[zachoff]

 

Originally posted by Mudbass ...we could have somebody in the oval office who thinks 9/11 was no big deal.

 

 

I don't think anyone will ever think that.

 

My problem is people linking the "war on terrorism" with the war in Iraq. They're two very separate things. In fact, Saddam didn't like terrorism and saw it as a threat to his power.

 

IMO, the "war on terrorism" will be as fruitless as the "war on drugs" - Sure you can do your best to stop isolated incedents, but completely putting a halt to it will never happen.