Terrorism Cannot Be Stopped With War

What most people don't seem to be grasping, is the concept that terrorists are not of a finite number.

UNDERSTAND: Anyone could carry out a terrorist attack, with no prior record, and no reason for you to suspect them. They could be next door, and recently angered by some of the worlds events, and plan an attack with a group of like-minded individuals. They could be radicals islamists, fundamentalist christians, ideological jews, anarchists, and anyone else who is losing their mind over the current state of the world.

The childish assumption that they all "live in caves" is ridiculous. Osama's work is done.

Some probably believe Bush when he says, "we are fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here," which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I have been to the mideast, both as a civilian, and in the uniform, and I will tell you, killing people over there doesn't stop people from coming over here, or people here sympathizing and joining their cause.

What will it take for you people to wake up and actually UNDERSTAND what terrorism really is? Our current gov't seems to love using it, as much as, if not more, than the "alleged" terrorists.

So while we bomb and kill tons of people in Afghanistan, Iraq and "whoever is next", and capture a couple of top names...more groups will spring up to avenge them, in an even more zealous and radical form. They may not plan as well, but they will try harder and more often.

You just wait until next year, like VP Dick said, "...we'll get hit..."

War on Poverty....more poverty.
War on Drugs.....more drugs.
War on Terrorism....?

Want to declare war on more "things"?

[edit on 8-9-2004 by cstyle226]

And about the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive strikes and Russia's new announcement:

What we have here, folks, is other countries now adopting the Bush Doctrine.

"If they can do it, why can't we?" And now other countries who want to be seen as independent and powerful will follow suit.

Soon, nations will be at war all over the world in the name of "freedom."

The very reason people said the Bush Doctrine set a dangerous precedent is now here. Who are we to tell other countries they can't pre-emptively strike other nations, when we do?

This was the fundamental reason why people knew it was a bad idea, and now it is coming full circle.

This is just the beginning. If you were a terrorist, and you saw these results...what better motivation to continue your campaign in other nations...how about China? Let's send them on some pre-emptive good times.

This is why the Neo-cons are idiots, and can't get elected in a decent way and have to hijack the idiot presidency of our current times.

Let's give the moron another term, and shout out "**** the world!!" in a blaze of stupidity, all in the name of "freedom."


[edit on 8-9-2004 by cstyle226]

Well, no I suppose we are just supposed to sit on our hands while the terrorists wreak havoc with the innocent people of the world. We need to go after them wherever they may be!!

Originally posted by Jalengrma
Well, no I suppose we are just supposed to sit on our hands while the terrorists wreak havoc with the innocent people of the world. We need to go after them wherever they may be!!

You are blinded by idealism!

How about changing the policies that create the motivation for terrorism?

I heard the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik, say something this weekend on C-Span.

"What do you think, that Osama Bin Laden was sitting somewhere in the Mideast and stumbled upon a copy of the Bill of Rights and went berzerk?"

They want us off their land. We won't get off their land, because we need their oil. So terrorism will never stop. Going over there and just attacking everything only makes it worse, especially in the haphazard, halfassed way we are doing it now.

Another thing Badnarik said, that I have said for about two years regarding our wars:

"If there is a hornet's nest on the side of your house, what are your chances of being stung? 10%? How about if you take that hornet's nest and smash it with a baseball bat? What are the chances now?"

It appears that you people want to learn the hard way.

Logic doesn't concern you. The "we must get 'em" attitude does.

AGAIN: What you don't realize is the people we are getting are not the people who would "get us." The people we are getting have friends and sympathizers who we are not getting who WILL attack us.

We'll see how safe we are when you fools re-(s)elect the War Criminal-In-Chief...how safe will we be?

"Bush will keep us safe!" Bull****.

Just watch.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by cstyle226]

Originally posted by Jalengrma
Well, no I suppose we are just supposed to sit on our hands while the terrorists wreak havoc with the innocent people of the world. We need to g
o after them wherever they may be!!

I guess that would mean a never-ending war then?

And another thing...the ASSAULT WEAPONS ban is about to expire.

Criminals can get them anyway you say...true.
BUT...they have a chance of getting caught.

NOW...terrorists or people who want to commit terrorist attacks can come here with clean records, buy assault weapons legally, and since they don't mind dying for their cause, they aren't really worried about the consequences.

So, any idiot, can go buy an "exciting" gun, drive to the store, kill everyone, spray people in the street until the cops show up with their pistols, spray a couple of them until he gets killed himself.

How many times will we have to watch that scenario play out before we bring the ban back?


[edit on 8-9-2004 by cstyle226]

Originally posted by Jalengrma
Well, no I suppose we are just supposed to sit on our hands while the terrorists wreak havoc with the innocent people of the world. We need to go after them wherever they may be!!

Or you could try an approach that doesn't create more enemies than it destroys.
Many seem to want to invade multiple countries around the globe to try and fight the terrorists, seemingly unaware that those invasions may incite more hatred towards the US and possibly more attacks.

A no-holds barred approach is not always the best option.

People justified harsh interrogation methods to extract information from captured terrorists, saying we can't be soft on these people as that won't work. After the Abu Ghraib scandal though, they started toning down the methods they were using and they are getting better intelligence as a result of the new methods.

In the same way that a less violent approach worked in that situation, a well thought out plan could work at stopping the insurgency in Iraq.
A plan that doesn't involve killing hundreds of Iraqis every week and doesn't involve bombing houses of insurgents, which sometimes contain children.

After they decided to get tough in April of this year, the number of deaths on both sides has increased, the number of hostages being taken has increased and the number of car bombings seems to have increased so the tough approach doesn't seem to work.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

For what it's worth, im not against war.
I've said "Give war a chance" only to be scolded by classmates haha.

It's hard to scare people who want to die, but except for a thin layer of the real fruitcakes, even nuts and zealots can be scared into behaving, and we need to do some of that. They said Saddam Hussein was crazy when the Gulf began, but actually, he loved his job and aimed to keep it, along with his a$$ and arteries. So when it was made clear to him then "you go biological, we go nuclear," he got sane real fast. The Japanese were notorious for welcoming death until Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed them what it looked like on a massive scale. And the reason no one has fired off a nuclear missile in the 50+ years since Nagasaki is MAD---mutually assured destruction. Key word assured. That�s right, assured, as in, "please, let me assure you, if you kill a lot of us, we'll kill all of you--rest assured."

Terrorists only understand the cold, unforgiving hammer of brute force. Sorry, but we need "MAD for Muslims". The terrorists gave us a good scare, but now we have to scare them and their help. I'd like for Bush to extended his already accepted "Bush Doctrine" of "any country that harbors terrorists will be considered terrorists themselves" to include "any nation harboring a terrorist bringing a nuclear bomb into the Untied States, even if it's brought in PBS tote bag, will be considered to have fired a nuclear missile at the United States, with everything that implies."

There must be a nuclear deterrent put in place regarding this threat equal to the one that worked for so long with the Russians. The only thing keeping certain people from killing all of us immidiately is that they can't. In a representative republic such as ours, where leaders write policies based on the will of the people, it's everybody's job to keep it that way.

[edit on 9/9/2004 by s13guy]

Originally posted by s13guy
I'd like for Bush to extended his already accepted "Bush Doctrine" of "any country that harbors terrorists will be considered terrorists themselves" to include "any nation harboring a terrorist bringing a nuclear bomb into the Untied States

And if the terrorists come from inside the United States?



Terrorists pledge no allegiance to any country. Do you think they'll care if after they do their deed, some random country gets a nuclear bomb dropped on it? They'd probably be happy. Because you sure as heck would have created a whole lot more terrorists in the blink of an eye.

Our government couldn't stop Timothy McVeigh - is that harboring a terrorist? Do you think many countries in the world have the ability to investigate and stamp out potential terrorists?

Terrorists are not concentrated in a certain area. They are everywhere, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Every innocent person killed by us, has family members and friends, who, with nothing else to live for, take up Jihad.

Every innocent killed spawns terrorists. Every terrorist killed spawns more terrorists.

It's never ending...remember:

War on Poverty, War on Drugs...those aren't working, and we now have more of each.

The War on Terrorism can only do the same.

It's good to see some sense here. Terror is a crime, not a nation, and the best (and only) way to deal with it is the way it has been dealt with in the past. By police action, investigation, intelligence gathering, and the odd military strike where nessecary. "War" on terrorists is impossible, for reasons already stated in this thread. All we can do is beef up security and try to deal with the underlying causes as best we can.

-koji K.

cstyle says:

How about changing the policies that create the motivation for terrorism?

But notice how he never really says how, except to allude to a "head in the sand" statement.

Another typical rant on ATS.. *sigh*

He goes on to say:

"If there is a hornet's nest on the side of your house, what are your chances of being stung? 10%? How about if you take that hornet's nest and smash it with a baseball bat? What are the chances now?"

I say, what if you buy some wasp killer and wipe out the whole nest. What are your chances of being stung now? 0%.

It dismays me to see how soon people forget 9/11. He even states "alleged terrorists" as if there were some doubt. All over this board people are posting again and again that the government of the United States is behind the 2001 attacks, at a place where the slogan is "deny ignorance". I would laugh out loud if it was not so pathetic.

He says:

Every innocent killed spawns terrorists. Every terrorist killed spawns more terrorists.

In spite of what you may believe the truth is that the United States does not try to kill innocents. Sometimes the few have to pay the ultimate price for the good of the many. As far as killing terrorists spawns more terrorists.... Whatever. I guess we will have to kill them faster.

It is high time some around here wake up and smell the coffee. These people have sworn an oath to kill Americans wherever they can. Here, there, everywhere. Kill or be killed. I don't know about cstyle, but faced with that choice, I would kill every time.

Originally posted by quango
And if the terrorists come from inside the United States?



Terrorists pledge no allegiance to any country. Do you think they'll care if after they do their deed, some random country gets a nuclear bomb dropped on it? They'd probably be happy. Because you sure as heck would have created a whole lot more terrorists in the blink of an eye.

Our government couldn't stop Timothy McVeigh - is that harboring a terrorist? Do you think many countries in the world have the ability to investigate and stamp out potential terrorists?

You're right; there isn�t a pledge of allegiance. But there are business relationships. And their associates are many a time government officials. Which is why we have to scare the help from assisting terrorists at all.

Bad analogies bother me, none more than those that were spawned by the War on Terrorism. Those clinging to political correctness like to bring up the example of Timothy McVeigh--the all-American terrorist, who shows it could just be as easily be the guy with the blonde crewcut. Yes, it could be, but not as easily. You can get wet by a single raindrop in a sunshower or by a tidal wave heading toward you. Timothy McVeigh isn't like bin Laden. He was a lone wolf, supported by maybe 5,000 fringe fringe militia types. 5,000 people in the whole world who thought McVeigh's philosophy and methods were sound, and only a handful would actually help out.

But how many Muslims around the world--in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Garza, and Saudi Arabia--think what bin Laden has been doing is a good thing, and would love to help out? He's the big seller on t-shirts, that ought to tell you something.

Stopping terrorism with war would be called terrorism in some peoples eyes.

Originally posted by drunk
Stopping terrorism with war would be called terrorism in some peoples eyes.

Killing someone who is about to kill you would be murder in some peoples eyes... Those people would be wrong.

Originally posted by cstyle226
Logic doesn't concern you. The "we must get 'em" attitude does.

AGAIN: What you don't realize is the people we are getting are not the people who would "get us." The people we are getting have friends and sympathizers who we are not getting who WILL attack us.

We'll see how safe we are when you fools re-(s)elect the War Criminal-In-Chief...how safe will we be?

"Bush will keep us safe!" Bull****.

Just watch.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by cstyle226]

by the way im voting Kerry and id like to give war a chance, just fyi

[edit on 9/9/2004 by s13guy]

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
cstyle says:

How about changing the policies that create the motivation for terrorism?

But notice how he never really says how, except to allude to a "head in the sand" statement.

Another typical rant on ATS.. *sigh*

He goes on to say:

"If there is a hornet's nest on the side of your house, what are your chances of being stung? 10%? How about if you take that hornet's nest and smash it with a baseball bat? What are the chances now?"

I say, what if you buy some wasp killer and wipe out the whole nest. What are your chances of being stung now? 0%.

It dismays me to see how soon people forget 9/11. He even states "alleged terrorists" as if there were some doubt. All over this board people are posting again and again that the government of the United States is behind the 2001 attacks, at a place where the slogan is "deny ignorance". I would laugh out loud if it was not so pathetic.

He says:

Every innocent killed spawns terrorists. Every terrorist killed spawns more terrorists.

In spite of what you may believe the truth is that the United States does not try to kill innocents. Sometimes the few have to pay the ultimate price for the good of the many. As far as killing terrorists spawns more terrorists.... Whatever. I guess we will have to kill them faster.

It is high time some around here wake up and smell the coffee. These people have sworn an oath to kill Americans wherever they can. Here, there, everywhere. Kill or be killed. I don't know about cstyle, but faced with that choice, I would kill every time.

Stop putting your nose in other country's bussines and aiding, training and arming nations and terrorists would be a good way to start. Stop stealing resources from already poor country's is another thing to consider.

Then with the Hornet comment, are you suggesting the US just wipes out each and every country that has muslims live there? How about those 13 million or so that live in the US? Anyone hear "Concentration Camps" or are you gona wipe out the US too?

Then last, every preemtitive and uncalled for attack on a sovereign nation creates new terrorists. Killing innocents creates even more, killing freedom fighters of a nation you invaded turns them from patriotic freedom fighters to liberate their invaded nation to potential international terrorists.

Strike the terrorists, not nations.
Stop seeing the world in black and white.

Originally posted by s13guy
Bad analogies bother me, none more than those that were spawned by the War on Terrorism. Those clinging to political correctness like to bring up the example of Timothy McVeigh--the all-American terrorist, who shows it could just be as easily be the guy with the blonde crewcut.

Understood.
But as you go on to point out, the ideas of Osama are popular - all the more reason it is likely that some single person, somewhere in the world, independent of al-queda, will snap and decide to attack.

Sure, large organized groups are easier to track - they leave behind a trail. Communications, money transfers, etc. But if the United States can't prevent terrorism from within its own borders (and i'm referring to how well funded and equipped our police and FBI are, compared to some other countries) then how can we expect other countries with less money, manpower, expertise, tools, etc. to stop the random terrorist. Or even the organized terrorist?

We can certainly do everything we can (and should do everything we can) to assist these nations - we should not use terrorism they failed to stop as an excuse to bomb them.

Corruption exists everywhere. So either you believe that most world leaders are wise enough and just enough to not sponsor terrorism or... to me, the logical opposite is to assume that corruption is equal across the board and atleast one or two AMERICAN leaders (politcal or corporate) are also sponsoring terrorism.

Afterall, in a global economy - money is more important to the greedy man than his nation.

The only way to stop terrorism is to submit to the demands of the terrorists. Everytime a terrorist takes a school hostage, give in to their demands. Everytime a plane is flown into a building full of innocent people, give in to their demands. Everytime a suicide bomber ingites on a crowded bus, give in to their demands. Everytime they make an entertaining video by slaughtering an innocent human being, give in to their demands. When they take your child hostage, give in to their demands. When the terrorists say boo, give in to their demands.

Submisson is the only way to win the war on terrorism!

�[W]ar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing is worth war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free.
--John Stuart Mill

Originally posted by koji_K
It's good to see some sense here. Terror is a crime���.. By police action, investigation, intelligence gathering, and the odd military strike where nessecary. "War" on terrorists is impossible, for reasons already stated in this thread����

Originally posted by cstyle226
War on Drugs.....more drugs.

ok so we fight it using the methods that these people making sense have already deemed a failure�.

Would that be intelligence gathering that wouldn�t do any good because you won�t believe it anyway?

The odd military strike. You say they make sense that killing a few people here and there will only create more terrorists and then say lets just occasionally when the mood strikes us�..bomb somebody.

Look at history when we have been strong on terrorism�.terrorism has receded�.when we have been weak on terrorism it has flourished. Carter, Clinton. In fact Osama himself used Clintons tail between legs and leave Somalia for recruiting and used it as justification for why we should be attacked.