Terrorism Cannot Be Stopped With War

Originally posted by cstyle226
..........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?
........

and those would be people who don't understand american history we have been pre-emptively striking other nations for a very long time now. silly, we are the US.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
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.

To be fair, bin Laden has used the response of the Reagan administration to the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon as proof of America's lack of resolve. Bill Cowan left the Reagan administration because of that bombing.

Our enemies have also used the withdrawal of America from Vietnam as proof of our lack of resolve. Just more proof that the anti-war movement has the blood of millions on their hands for allowing the genocide carried out by the communists in Southeast Asia to take place after the US withdrawal and the blood of all those who have died because terrorists have judged America by the actions of the anti-war movement.


[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

We'll see who is right, Grady.

To combat terrorism on home soil we could always accede to government plans for greater surveillance and intrusion into our lives. A vast security network made up of ordinary men and women spying upon one another coupled with a sense of fear at what may happen if anyone steps out of line may go some way to curb internal terrorism.

Having said that, we are told we are dealing with foes who are based internationally. The only way we can deal with this I suppose is greater intelligence and a program of clandestine shoot to kill policies. Massive bombing campaigns just seem to polarise public opinion both home and abroad and a political solution is hard to find when your enemies don't seem to have a tangible set of aims.

Originally posted by cstyle226
We'll see who is right, Grady.

We will see who wins the war, but it may be less clear as to why.

Originally posted by cstyle226

War on Poverty....more poverty.
War on Drugs.....more drugs.
War on Terrorism....?
Want to declare war on more "things"?

This is the part of your post that I agree with the most. The reason that wars on drugs and poverty and crime do not work is because we divorce the action from the perpetrator. It is called reification in the Social Sciences and it is the mistake of either novices or politicians who have to make an effort to make an action more palatable to an increasingly squeamish public.

When we declare war on criminals, we must target people. That's not PC. We want to eradicate poverty, but we don't want to hold people accountable for their own lives or convince them that working hard to get an education is the way out of poverty because we just can't hurt the feelings of the poor, so we engage in war on poverty that grants more and more entitlement programs for people who not motivated to move up in life and we wind up with multi-generalization families on the public dole.

So it is with the war on Terror. Terror is a tactic, that, as you said can be used by anyone. We don't want to wage a war on terrorism; we want to wage a war on terrorists. Who are the terrorists who are responsible for the terrorist acts that have killed thousands of Americans, Australians, Russians, Spaniards and Isrealis and others. Why, it is the Muslim extremists, but for God's sake we can't declare a war on people, we have to declare war on a tactic. Of course, even when we declare a war on some concept or inanimate object we still target people, but somehow the public is more willing to accept it in the beginning before the learn that some will get hurt. Politicians would be better served if we just called a war a war and went on about prosecuting it.

But, the fact is, also, that when we target concepts and inanimate objects to get the public to go along, then when people get hurt, the ultra-sensitive get squeamish and start congregating en masse so as to put a strain on the homefront so that the war front begins to suffer. This leads to a prolonging of the war and the loss of even more lives. The opposition never seems to accept this and go about their merry way feeling all gratified because they brought an end to the war, when the fact is that they have the blood of thousands on their hands because they extened the fighting.

Life is really complicated and never is as simple as some would have us believe and when the simplistic begin to take over the streets and campuses of America, disrupting the lives and the traquility of the public to blackmail the public in to accepting their demands, they are in a sense committing acts of terrorism. There is almost always violence accompanied with "peaceful demonstrations." And the cost in dollars to the municipalities involved is enormous to provide protection for the "peaceful protestors."

I agree we should stop waging war on "things" and start waging war on those who commit crimes. We should fight poverty by making education madatory and we should fix the schools so that we don't keep graduating the functionally illiterate. We should not wage war against terror, but we should wage war on the terroists and the nations that habor and support them. And I think that is exactly what GW is doing, even though the sheep people are made too squemish by calling the war what it really is.

I hope this helps to clarify a situation muddied by the obsfucation of the left.

[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Cstyle,

Since you started this thread, with a copy of a previous post of yours..
I'll respond with my answer to that previous post as well.

on me declaring war on something else:

"Yes,

I'd like to declare war on "Those who lack a sense of self-preservation, because it's been overwhelmed with Political Correctness"

Wait, I can't do that. It's already been done! By Islamic Fundementalists.. "

Cstyle pointed out one fundamental reason that terrorists exist, and I noticed that it's that point which continually gets ignored on all threads regarding this subject matter.

Foreign Policy

The US administration has for many many years refused to change or even address it's foreign policies, refusing to be preached to or acknowledge common sense. It has trained, funded and armed, numerous terrorist organisations throughout the world, and continues to do so.

And why do they do it, economic gain, power and control.

The war on terror has no end, so long as administrations like Bush's continue to govern.

Try using your brains instead of your fists, educate yourselves, you are being used, abused and manipulated by a regime that is no different to the dictators they place in power then start a war against.

Bush is not an accident waiting to happen, it's happened, and it's down to you guys to stop it.

Originally posted by cstyle226
What most people don't seem to be grasping, is the concept that terrorists are not of a finite number.
...
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.
....
War on Poverty....more poverty.
War on Drugs.....more drugs.
War on Terrorism....?

It's like a marketing ploy isn't it "War on Terrorism", like terrorism is, like you say a finite, or tangible thing - you take action a,b,c and you eradicate it forever.

Of course, this is exactly what it is, a marketing/propaganda ploy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
- Adolf Hitler

I can find lots of pro-war quotes but many are from men whose ideals I would rather not embrace.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

i think you hold a good point cstyle226. the government of countries who are "targets" have to put out and admit where they messed up. there are real reasons why these people are killing themselves to kill us. not just for allah or whatever, i think thats just used for support of the cause. its about having your family and friends being leveled/incinerated by bombs. id be pissed off to if for example, the USA, came and bombed my neighbourhood for their own self interests. man up i say! dfh out.

Koka, cstyle226

I agree with you. However, it seems a lot of folks �just don�t seem to get it�, and I�m afraid they never will. These are the Neanderthal stragglers that evolution forgot. Kind of like leftover artifacts from the Stone Age. You put them in a Brooks Brothers suit, send them to the RNC and what do you get? Planet of the Apes. It just goes to show, it wasn�t all that long ago we were swinging through the trees.

I firmly believe humanity will not see the next century. There�s just too many things that can go wrong. Mother Nature has blessed the lowly ape with the ability to launch a thermonuclear armageddon, and yet failed to give us the wisdom of restraint.

It�s too bad. With technology advancing so rapidly, before long the world would have seemed like magic. What a damned shame �

A true "War on Terror" is one that must be fought in the shadows, and in the world of Finance, and it is, and will be, a neverending battle.

Terrorist leaders must be assassinated, and those funding them likewise, while eliminating those money fronts being used to shuffle around the funds. The terrorists must be made to fear their targets. One method of doing this is to use their ideology against them. This is a prime weapon at our disposal, yet nobody will use it because it isn't "PC". The nice thing about religous zealots is their fears of not entering the afterlife. Let it publicly known that terrorists are not only executed, but first sodomized by a pig, then buried face down facing away from Mecca, and you just might start terrorizing the terrorists!

Originally posted 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!!

You are blinded by idealism!

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

Change the policies that create 'motivation' for terrorism?
Excellent idea. How about hte radical muslim policy that their
religion demands jihad against infidels? That would be a good
place to start. Follow up with a change to the policy that
Wahabbi's and other radical islamists believe the only good Jew
or American is a dead Jew or American because THEIR RELIGION
SAYS SO.

So ... I agree with you. Definately, let's have the radical muslims
change their policies, which would require them to change their religion.

BTW - the talking to them thing has been tried and tried and tried.
They use peace and 'talks' as a strategy, not an end to achieve.
Bill Clinton tried and tried. He had Arafat to Camp David. He got
a 'dove' Jewish leader to give in to 95% of the terrorist Arafat's
demands. Still, Arafat wouldn't sign for peace. Why? Because
his murderous religion DEMAND that Israel cease to exhist and that
the Jews die.



[edit on 9/9/2004 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by quango
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

well back to my previous point, we have to scare the help from assisting terrorists, which in some cases is a foreign gov't. Money talks, but foreign gov'ts would rather like to exist than not.

[edit on 9/9/2004 by s13guy]

Netbound,

Unfortunately, you are too right. It's really sad what has become of the most promising race, and that the most "advanced" nation on this planet doesn't seem to advanced in it's thought process.

cstyle226, koji-k, thematrix, netbound and koka: Could not agree more

And Drunk brings me to my point:

If a bullet, a bomb, a chemical or a virus killed either my mother, father, brother, sister, girlfriend or any other person I loved, I don't give a flying f@ck what the reason was, they were innocent and a threat to no one.

You can bet that any one of us would become a threat to someone in that circumstance and once revenge had been taken we would then become targets for their loved ones. Killing is a vicious little circle, no?

The way I see it, the current terrorist threat is more akin to organized crime than to a military force. As such it should be fought in a similar way as organized crime. Now, I'm not saying that the US has a perfect record against organized crime, but you have to admit that we've managed to conduct some pretty potent intelligence operations against the US mafia and have brought in more than a few capos and bosses.

If you look at terrorism like organized crime with a main boss, sub-bosses, capos, henchmen, hitmen, etc. you begin to notice that the reason anti-social groups like mafia and terrorists organize themselves the way they do is that it is simply the most operationally effective form of organization available to them. With that in mind, you go after the structure. Let a few guys continue to operate at large while keeping an eye on them to see who they talk to and when. After a while the picture begins to become clear and you can sweep in and take out a whole organization.

Personally, I believe that our tried and true anti-organized crime tactics, combined with an eye toward 'elimination' instead of prosecution will suit us just fine in the 'war against terror.' Unfortunately, (and I'll probably get flamed for this) some of our success in identifying the bad guys will come in allowing some terror operations to succeed. Just like good signals intelligence, you can't act on everything lest you give away the fact that you're wise to your opponents communications.

Do I think the 'war on terrorism' can be won? Uhhh, yeah. Do I think that this whole 'war on...' thing is contrived and as close to bull s**t as you can get without a cow? Completely. Do I think that in an effort to siphon money from US coffers will ensue in the name of prolonging the 'war on terror'? Absolutely.

Do I have faith that if left to actually conquer our terrorist enemies, politics, policy, and bureaucracy aside, the FBI, CIA, and NSA could wrap up this whole mess within a decade? Oh yeah. Will that ever happen? I don't know. Anyone plan on electing a president and not a tool anytime soon...because that'd be real helpful!

Originally posted by chaosrain
If you look at terrorism like organized crime with a main boss, sub-bosses, capos, henchmen, hitmen, etc. you begin to notice that the reason anti-social groups like mafia and terrorists organize themselves the way they do is that it is simply the most operationally effective form of organization available to them. With that in mind, you go after the structure. Let a few guys continue to operate at large while keeping an eye on them to see who they talk to and when. After a while the picture begins to become clear and you can sweep in and take out a whole organization.

Personally, I believe that our tried and true anti-organized crime tactics, combined with an eye toward 'elimination' instead of prosecution will suit us just fine in the 'war against terror.'

...

the FBI, CIA, and NSA could wrap up this whole mess ...

I agree.

The Bush Crime Family and their Saudi and Israeli connections need a good investigation.

Originally posted by chaosrain
The way I see it, the current terrorist threat is more akin to organized crime than to a military force. As such it should be fought in a similar way as organized crime.

The government is already using this method by following money trails and other tactics authorized by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Law (RICO).

[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by cstyle226
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]

You obviously dont know much about the ''Assualt weapon'' ban. The Assualt weapon ban deals with cosmetic features that make a gun look like a military gun. But despite the similar or identical appearances to military firearms, the functionality of "assault weapons" is no different than any other semi-automatic.

Rifles

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher

Among this list of "evil features", only one item initially stands out to the layperson as possibly making the firearm significantly more dangerous, and that is the grenade launcher. But grenades and the components to make them are already extremely tightly regulated as "destructive devices"

Was there ever a crime that used a 40mm grenade in the united states?
A bayonet yea they are used in crimes all the time dont want any terrorist to get their hands on those. Oh and a folding stock those kill so many people.

"the ban has significantly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings

www.awbansunset.com...