How do you win a "War On Terror"?

How is that only the west creates terrorists? Saddam is responsible for 2 million Iraqi deaths,, yet their weren't 20 million Iraqi's out ofr his death...

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
If that means that we have to hunt down each and every terrorist then that too should come to pass.

Agree. We also need to stop the flow of money to the people who are running the schools that turn innocent kids into America haters, and potential terrorists. And that folks, would mean playing hard ball with the Saudis!

I almost missed that one Phoenix, but this too, is an important point. And one my critics might actually agree with me on. It is high time we start working harder towards utilizing more green energy and less fossil fuel. The technology is there, but our current administration is charging in the opposite direction. See... Told you guys I was non partisan.

0 Replies

before reaching out to destroy "terrorism" perhaps a good start would be defining what the hell we are talking about. "terrorism" is, on a good day, a buzz word for whatever we want it to mean. The american revolution was a terrorist act against the government, and then, of course we have our own american breed of terrorists but we called them "native americans" and we gave them a good secular education to boot. (oh yeah, we also gave them small pox) and don't forget we targeted innocent women and children just to make an example of our intolerance of "savages" So come on folks before turning rabid here lets make some difficult decisions about the difference between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" and everyone else that's just trying to survive in a world gone mad. Hunt down those terrorists in their hidey holes and kill them. D'oh.....

0 Replies

I get the feeling several of the folks on this forum have watched too many Steven Seagal movies. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I appreciate your point dyslexia... There is frequently no fundamental difference between those labeled terrorists and those labeled freedom fighters. To me; the difference is the target. If you aim to harm civilians you are a terrorist. Note the key word in that sentence is AIM. Please don't anyone offer up accidental collateral damage as evidence of the United States practicing terrorism. That simply isn't so. Not until we intentionally start targeting civilians. That, at least is how I make the distinction. If you would prefer; I'll provide the dictionary version.
I agree completely that in the past the United States has been guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, too. The American Indian makes a fine example or, more recently, the treatment of the people of Bikini Atol. I'd like to think we've grown since then. I don't see us doing anything like that again. I also think you know full well which terrorists the majority of folks on this thread are referring to. And I doubt you think the title is unjust.

0 Replies

Israeli MIlitary: Sends missiles into residential areas, kills civillians.

US Military: Bombs Afghan villages, kills civilians.

US Military: Fires into Iraqi crowds, kills civillians.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

I don't see how improving infrastructure, building schools, etc.. is "rewarding" terrorism, Unless one thinks that certain portions of humanity "deserve" to live in squalor while others live in luxury.

0 Replies

freedom fighters=the afghani's resisting Russian occupation.
terrorists=the afghani's resisting US occupation.

0 Replies

Seems to be the current definition.

0 Replies

Maybe you guys are finally beginning to understand!

Israeli MIlitary: Sends missiles into residential areas, kills civillians. - To kill terrorist leaders hiding among the civilian populace using laser guidance to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.

US Military: Bombs Afghan villages, kills civilians. - To kill terrorists hiding amongst the civilian populace etc., etc.

US Military: Fires into Iraqi crowds, kills civillians. yadda, yadda, yadda...

Compare this with loading a brain washed kid with explosives and telling him to get on a bus full of civilians and blow themselves up.

Or placing anti-aircraft weapons next to hospitals

or hiding in a crowd of protesters and attacking the legal combatants in the area hoping the the crowd will absorb the bullets meant for you.

I think your definition of terrorism needs adjustment.

freedom fighters=the afghani's resisting Russian occupation.
terrorists=the afghani's resisting US occupation.

Right, Afghans seeking a democratic government and keeping it's nation soveriegn are freedom fighters. Afghans protecting terrorists who declare war on the strongest military in the world and trying to hold onto a regime dedicated to making life as miserable as possible are terrorists.

They are not the same people. Sure, they are all afghani, but their goals are different.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Maybe you guys are finally beginning to understand!

Israeli MIlitary: Sends missiles into residential areas, kills civillians. - To kill terrorist leaders hiding among the civilian populace using laser guidance to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.

If they had any real desire to avoid "collateral damage" they wouldn't use those sort of munitions.

Quote:

US Military: Bombs Afghan villages, kills civilians. - To kill terrorists hiding amongst the civilian populace etc., etc.

See above.

Quote:

US Military: Fires into Iraqi crowds, kills civillians. yadda, yadda, yadda...

Can you deny this has frequently happened?

Quote:

Compare this with loading a brain washed kid with explosives and telling him to get on a bus full of civilians and blow themselves up.

Equally heinuos.

Quote:

Or placing anti-aircraft weapons next to hospitals

Or bombing the anti a/c sites, regardless of where they are?

Quote:

or hiding in a crowd of protesters and attacking the legal combatants in the area hoping the the crowd will absorb the bullets meant for you.

Or not knowing or caring that in Iraq shots are fired into the air in demonstrations, and theerefore firing into crowds that were not actually firing on anyone.

Quote:

I think your definition of terrorism needs adjustment.

I think the word may have become meaningless.

Quote:

freedom fighters=the afghani's resisting Russian occupation.
terrorists=the afghani's resisting US occupation.

Too true.

Quote:

Right, Afghans seeking a democratic government and keeping it's nation soveriegn are freedom fighters. Afghans protecting terrorists who declare war on the strongest military in the world and trying to hold onto a regime dedicated to making life as miserable as possible are terrorists.

I don't know that that many Afghans who have been engaged in violence recently are that interested in democracy. Many have been more interested in carving out or expanding fiefdoms.

Quote:

They are not the same people. Sure, they are all afghani, but their goals are different.

Doesn't really matter to those whose village we bomb. All thye know or care about is that the US killed their children, and now they wish to make the US pay.

0 Replies

Just couldn't resist misclassifying the collateral damage ay bob. Okay, that's your opinion. I'll give you another shot at me. Regimes who deny their people basic human rights are not on my Christmas List this year. Donating aid to N Korea, as bad as they do need it, equates to donating money to Kim Jong IL. He routinely sells even food aid to the tiny minority of N Koreans who actually have a little bit of money. If you want to give them a present, how about the right to get together, if only to say "we're hungry can you please help", without being locked up in death camps to await the arrival of their families before they can all be tortured to death for demonstrating. Do I think we should help build them some schools, so Kim Jong IL's people can be more comfortable while brainwashing another generation of people into thinking they live in the greatest country on earth, while in reality they live in one of the poorest nations which is directly attributable to the murderous monster in charge? No. The 38th parallel may as well separate heaven and hell. Check out the difference here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
If you really care about the thousands of innocent people who are accidentally killed by bombs, how can you not care about the millions of N Korean's who are being tortured, beaten and starved to death?

0 Replies

I don't recall saying that I didn't. I just refuse to view the world through the parameters of bad action movies. The situation in N. Korea is quite different from that of Rwanda, or Afghanistan, or Belize. N. Korea is a totalitarian Stalinist nation, where outside efforts at change arel likely to be futile. There is little that can be done to change the situation. Containment of the government of N. Korea seems to be the proper thing at the moment.
Now compare this to a nation like Afghanistan, that suffered under a brutal, repressive regime, and then has been plunged into anarchy by another outside group. Yes, the old oppressors are gone, and in there place is starvation, adn random violence. It seems quite easy from where I sit (comfortably, inside a nice warm house), to understand how the Afghans would develop resentment toward those who, in their eyes, increased the danger in their lives.

In Israel a similar situation is in place. Imagine yourself to be a moderate Palestinian, who often makes it to work or school only one or tweo days a week, because of the neccessity of passing through multiple "checkpoints" set up by an occupying government. Often your power or water are turned off with no notice, and the occupying government frequently bombs your neighborhood, killing tens of people at a time. Would you not wish to fight back ? Would you not become radicalized?

0 Replies

Try following the link I provided, instead of throwing foolish insults around.

0 Replies

Bill, disagreeing with you is not insulting you. What I have done is pointed out that you have attempted to imply that completely different situations (N. Korea and Afghanistan) are equivalent. This is not so. Dofferent situations require different responses. I'm sorry if you are easily offended. If you are, this is probably not the best place to be.

0 Replies

I'd like to start off by writing how NOT to win the war on terror:

- you don't surrender.
- you don't give in to their demands.

With respect to the IRA, I recall Prime Minister Thatcher saying "You can either give in to the terrorists, or you can kill them." I believe that position has stood the test of time.

To say that wars against terror cannot be won ignores the historical record. The Romans had it down to a science. Using only slightly less unpalatable tactics, we defeated the terrorist Hitler 60 years ago. The only question, as I see it, is do we believe Western Civilization is worth defending?

I'd like to conclude with a text from Dr. Michael Grant from the book "The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire", pages 67-68. This was published in 1999:

"Dare one, also, link up this theme with modern affairs, as possibly relevant to some of our own predicaments? Certainly the Roman Empire had very different boundaries from our own western world - which does not terminate at the Rhine, but much further east and north - and it is more than doubtful whether we can ever extend the western world as far to the south-east as the Romans did. Nevertheless, the Roman imperial phenomenon does ring a bell, because it does contain points of relevance to what is happening today, or rather to what will be happening before long. For what is likely to be happening is a confrontation between the western world and those outside it. It also attacked the Roman empire, which was nearly destroyed (3rd century) but not quite. It was saved because of its superior organisation. This meant that, in the end, it was able to overcome the enemies who had seemed so extremely likely to demolish it. The price was terrible; and so will be the price today. But the point at issue is survival - the Roman empire survived, and so, in all probability, will the West today."

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

If they had any real desire to avoid "collateral damage" they wouldn't use those sort of munitions.

You obviously don't even try to get it. We used a great number of tomahawk missiles to pinpoint our strikes as well as is technologically possible, to avoid collateral damage. Most every other military force on earth would have used a whole lot of "dumb" bombs, at a tiny fraction of the price, to get the job done. You are so set in your beliefs, that you ignore facts to make your points. It makes it rather pointless to debate with you. It is a real shame too, because I believe you could probably teach me much if you weren't so hell-bent on backing your incorrect statements.

0 Replies

'Win' the war?

Perhaps not, but I believe we can make it so costly for our enemies to conduct such a war against us that the frequency of attacks drops off to almost nothing.

I haven't seen any reports of terrorist attacks against targets in America since the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq so our current course must be having some effect on the terrorist networks.

0 Replies

So when exactly was the last terrorist attack on America?
Does anything happening in Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with that? I don't have the kind of imagination that would allow me to think something like that.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Bill, disagreeing with you is not insulting you.

hobitbob wrote:

I just refuse to view the world through the parameters of bad action movies.

This type of implied insult showed up in your very first post on this thread as well. I'm not terribly insulted. I simply don't enjoy a debate with one who argues for the sake of argument. You only address things you disagree with and these you attack with a vengeance. I could easily provide you with parallel reasons why Afghanistan and Iraq are not on my Christmas list either. But at this juncture, I believe it would be pointless to do so. I couldn't possibly make a statement you'd agree with anyway. Have fun tearing this up as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

You only address things you disagree with and these you attack with a vengeance.

This is called debate. As I mentioned elsewhere, should I agree with you, I will mention it. I agreed with Mcgentrix on another thread. It is possible, just unlikely. Wink

0 Replies

How do you win a "War On Terror"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know