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

[Jugghaid]

 

Originally posted by zachoff In fact, Saddam didn't like terrorism and saw it as a threat to his power.

 

 

Not true. SH personally handed out checks to the families of suicide bombers in the Gaza region. He paid them to strap bombs to their children and blow up buses and kill innocent civilians. And that's only one example.

[LanEvo]

 

Originally posted by phunkyhick I had this idea that what if we let bygones be bygones, negotiate with them and let them go...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.

Actually, you have that backwards. Look at ANY country that has endured terrorist attacks (Turkey, Israel, etc.) and one thing becomes clear: if you try to negotiate with terrorists, then you are legitimizing terrorism. You are turning it into an effective means of making people do what you want. The WORST thing you can do is sit down and negotiate.

 

Just look at what happened in Iraq. The first time they cut someone's head off, it was all over the news. Suddenly, more and more people started getting their heads cut off. When the Philippine government started negotiating...things really exploded. People got their heads sawn off every day.

 

If the newsmedia stopped reporting about it and if terrorists knew that no one would ever listen to their demands...no matter WHAT they do...then the motivation to engage in these activities decreases dramatically.

 

Emre

[zachoff]

 

Originally posted by Jugghaid Not true. SH personally handed out checks to the families of suicide bombers in the Gaza region. He paid them to strap bombs to their children and blow up buses and kill innocent civilians. And that's only one example.

 

 

Weird... I've heard different from many people, but they're wrong.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

 

Regardless, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are two completely different things started for two completely different reasons (though I believe Bush used the terrorist attacks to form a reason and support for attacking Iraq).

 

The war on terrorism won't do much but stop a few isolated incedents. If hundreds of millions of your tax dollars and continued revocation of your rights and freedoms are worth that, so be it.

[Mudbass]

 

Originally posted by zachoff 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.

 

 

Ok Zach, but how do you come to grips with the fact that there are millitant muslim factions who simply want Americans dead...all of us. How do you appease somebody who makes hating you their life's mission and sole purpose for living? How do you make peace with somebody who believes that killing you will get them 69 virgins and a free pass into heaven? You don't make a connection between Iraq and terrorism, fair enough, but I do and on 9/11 terrorism threw down the gauntlet and let us know they would be ignored no longer and that if we wouldn't come out and fight they would come in and get us. Maybe you're right and the war on terrorism is as futile as the war on drugs, but what choice have they given us? With drugs you can take a different approach as many countries have. Some people are willing to accept drug abuse as a fact of life. You can legalize it, tax it, manipulate it, but you don't have the same options with terrorism. Are you willing to accept with terrorism as a fact of life? I'm sure not. Accepting terrorism is simply not an option to me and I'll support my country fighting terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt or where ever the hell we have to for as long as it takes.

[zachoff]

 

Originally posted by Mudbass Ok Zach, but how do you come to grips with the fact that there are millitant muslim factions who simply want Americans dead...all of us. How do you appease somebody who makes hating you their life's mission and sole purpose for living? How do you make peace with somebody who believes that killing you will get them 69 virgins and a free pass into heaven? You don't make a connection between Iraq and terrorism, fair enough, but I do and on 9/11 terrorism threw down the gauntlet and let us know they would be ignored no longer and that if we wouldn't come out and fight they would come in and get us. Maybe you're right and the war on terrorism is as futile as the war on drugs, but what choice have they given us? With drugs you can take a different approach as many countries have. Some people are willing to accept drug abuse as a fact of life. You can legalize it, tax it, manipulate it, but you don't have the same options with terrorism. Are you willing to accept with terrorism as a fact of life? I'm sure not. Accepting terrorism is simply not an option to me and I'll support my country fighting terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt or where ever the hell we have to for as long as it takes.

 

 

There's nothing we can do to change the minds of the Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) that want Americans dead. It's the way they're brought up... It's the way they're taught... It's what their interpretation of their religion brainwashes them to believe. You don't make peace with them... You do your best to avoid them.

 

The choice is to fight terrorists, not try to "free" a country that didn't ask for it in the first place.

 

Terrorism is a fact of life and has been for most of the world for most of this century. It just wasn't until recently that it was brought to the U.S.

 

I support taking out terrorist leaders when attacks have been made against the U.S. but I'm not for "freeing" a country that didn't ask to be "freed" in the first place and I'm sure as {censored} not happy that a good part of my tax dollars will be spent rebuilding a country that the U.S. helped destroy.

[FreestyleIntruder]

 

Originally posted by phunkyhick We cannot kill all the terrorists.

 

 

Not with a defeatist attitude like that you can't

[Kaesh]

 

Originally posted by Craigv 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.

 

Sure it works only with cowards, but most people ARE cowards.

Both in USA and in Spain it made people lose their reason. In USA it didn't result in changing their votes, because there's not much to choose from there.

 

Originally posted by Craigv 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.

 

Good luck.

[Kaesh]

 

Originally posted by Mudbass 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.

 

War pulled US out of the depression, because there was a depression - preparing for war gives people something to do. In the current situation it's not very nice, because it suckers out federal funds without any benefit for the citizens.

[phunkyhick]

 

Originally posted by LanEvo Actually, you have that backwards. Look at ANY country that has endured terrorist attacks (Turkey, Israel, etc.) and one thing becomes clear: if you try to negotiate with terrorists, then you are legitimizing terrorism. You are turning it into an effective means of making people do what you want. The WORST thing you can do is sit down and negotiate.

 

 

Well, it was a thought I had that I later realized was not going to work. We have to keep fighting terrorists.

 

But my main thought was that fighting them won't do anything to change the core of the problem, which is that these folks are born and raised to think we are evil, and we support them in their beliefs through our dependency on Middle eastern oil.

 

I would guess that if we stopped buying their oil, Middle Eastern countries would think twice about what they teach their children about western civilization. We need to cut off the lifeline.

 

I also think that by telling towelhead jokes and boot in your ass songs, we are making it worse for ourselves.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by Kaesh Sure it works only with cowards, but most people ARE cowards. Both in USA and in Spain it made people lose their reason. In USA it didn't result in changing their votes, because there's not much to choose from there. Good luck.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree on either point. You display a rather low opinion of people. People are afraid of air travel today, but this hasn't slowed it one bit. Londoners continued to crowd the subways amid bombing threats. Contractors still go to work over in Iraq despite the very real threat of kidnapping. Thousands of soldiers fight in incredibly dangerous conditions over there. This is not cowardice. I know you'll argue about "losing reason", but that's such a subjective issue it's not possible to prove one way or another.

[Jugghaid]

 

Originally posted by zachoff Weird... I've heard different from many people, but they're wrong. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html Regardless, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are two completely different things started for two completely different reasons (though I believe Bush used the terrorist attacks to form a reason and support for attacking Iraq). The war on terrorism won't do much but stop a few isolated incedents. If hundreds of millions of your tax dollars and continued revocation of your rights and freedoms are worth that, so be it.

 

 

You've heard different (along with millions of others in this country and around the world) because you are consistently lied to and misinformed by the mass media and the people who religiously regurgitate whatever they are told by them. Funny how Abu Grabe dominated the headlines and sound bites for months, but SH passing out checks to suicude bomber's families got just about zero coverage. Same with every other fact you linked to. But there is no bias in the media.

 

Now that you know that your information was wrong on this point, I would humbly suggest you check the premises of many other "facts" that you base your opinions on. I think you will find that things are not always as they seem, and are almost never what we are told they are. By either side.

 

Fact is, a war against SH and his regime IS a war against terrorism. As much as you and many others would like to seperate the two, it can't really be done. Now I'm not saying that is the only reason we went into Iraq, but it is a real, valid reason. There were a lot of real valid reasons.

 

If the war on terrorism only stops a few isolated incidents then I'm happy. Especially if one of those incidents is a WMD to be detonated in a major US city. Don't think it hasn't been tried or won't be. It'sa major goal for many terrorist organizations.

 

I think that's money well spent.

 

So far as my rights and freedoms being revoked, maybe you could be more specific? How exactly has your life been changed and your rights compromised (reality time here, not theory)? Is security tighter? Sure it is and it was long overdue. You know me Zach, and you know that I'm in favor of a small federal government that doesn't infringe on the peoples rights. In fact one of the very few things I think they should be involved in is national security/defense. I think it's going to be a learning process, and I think it's a tough job, but they'll get it all figured out no matter which party sits in the White House. I think they overreacted on some issues and policies initially and I think when all is said and done there will be a reasonable amount of inconvenience to the average Joe and a lot better means of security for our citizens.

[zachoff]

Originally posted by Jugghaid You've heard different (along with millions of others in this country and around the world) because you are consistently lied to and misinformed by the mass media and the people who religiously regurgitate whatever they are told by them. Funny how Abu Grabe dominated the headlines and sound bites for months, but SH passing out checks to suicude bomber's families got just about zero coverage. Same with every other fact you linked to. But there is no bias in the media. Now that you know that your information was wrong on this point, I would humbly suggest you check the premises of many other "facts" that you base your opinions on. I think you will find that things are not always as they seem, and are almost never what we are told they are. By either side. Fact is, a war against SH and his regime IS a war against terrorism. As much as you and many others would like to seperate the two, it can't really be done. Now I'm not saying that is the only reason we went into Iraq, but it is a real, valid reason. There were a lot of real valid reasons. If the war on terrorism only stops a few isolated incidents then I'm happy. Especially if one of those incidents is a WMD to be detonated in a major US city. Don't think it hasn't been tried or won't be. It'sa major goal for many terrorist organizations. I think that's money well spent. So far as my rights and freedoms being revoked, maybe you could be more specific? How exactly has your life been changed and your rights compromised (reality time here, not theory)? Is security tighter? Sure it is and it was long overdue. You know me Zach, and you know that I'm in favor of a small federal government that doesn't infringe on the peoples rights. In fact one of the very few things I think they should be involved in is national security/defense. I think it's going to be a learning process, and I think it's a tough job, but they'll get it all figured out no matter which party sits in the White House. I think they overreacted on some issues and policies initially and I think when all is said and done there will be a reasonable amount of inconvenience to the average Joe and a lot better means of security for our citizens.

 

Go Broncos.

 

I'll answer when I can focus on the computer screen. Not only am I a little drunk, but I also need glasses.

[Jugghaid]

Originally posted by zachoff Go Broncos. I'll answer when I can focus on the computer screen. Not only am I a little drunk, but I also need glasses.

 

Good game. We whooped that KC ass tonight.

[zenfascist]

GREASECAR!

 

I'm looking for all of the chances I can to post this link. You don't have to buy blood-stained oil if you don't want to.

[Víctor]

 

Originally posted by Craigv 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.

 

 

That's very true. From the moment you negotiate with terrorists you're legitimizing them. Regarding Madrid train bombing, it is not so clear that Al-Qaeda was behind the train attacks and I'm confidence the only goal of the attacks was to change the spanish goverment. And the spanish left parties colaborate a lot to discredit our last goverment

[Tim in WV]

 

From the moment you negotiate with terrorists you're legitimizing them.

 

 

I would say from the moment you start fighting them you do the same thing. The best cure for terrorists is to have a population well trained and packing heat, everywhere they are, like the Founders intended to be the case. 9/11 would have been a vastly different result if the flight crews had been armed, or if the {censored}ing Air Marshalls has been aboard each plane. The box cutters would not have done much.

 

We havent "won" a single war we have ever fought since WW2, and we are not going to "win" this war in the classical sense. War against poverty = more poverty, war against drugs = more drugs, Korea = stalemate, Vietnam = loss, and so on.

[hawkhuff]

Originally posted by 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...

Throughout history there has NEVER been a negotiated peace without vanquishing the enemy.

 

This is not PC but this war on terrorism is, in fact, a religious war. The press might fan it but these scum are not going to go away. The only thing they understand is power they would see negotiating and diplomacy as weakness.

 

There is a solution to this mess but it will never happen and of course, it is not PC to discuss.

 

A final thought; nationalism is not a crime nor is it shameful behavior on the part of ANY US President.

 

One more. Let us celebrate the death of zarqawi's number 2 al aqeda scum!!! I hope we got his family too!

 

Singing...... celebrate good times come on !!

 

Yessssss!!

[Víctor]

 

Originally posted by hawkhuff . This is not PC but this war on terrorism is, in fact, a religious war. The press might fan it but these scum are not going to go away. The only thing they understand is power they would see negotiating and diplomacy as weakness. D

 

 

X1000