Can we kick some real terrorist ass please?

[Odin]

Elijah,

[Whaleboy]

Terrorism is NOT a social problem. Terror attacks are not going to go away just by improving economic or social conditions. These terror groups have very specific political goals

You are confusing their demands, which by no means we should accept, and what they need to force them to stop. Its the difference between appeasement in the 30s and preventing Germany from becoming crippled after 1929. (lame analogy I know as that particular situation was difficult to prevent because of all the loans etc, but still, since so many of you erroneously compare terrorism to the nazis...).

Ok. Well, I happen to think that the war in Iraq is an effective response to the war on terror. If we hadn't gone in, Saddam would still be in power, able to massacre innocent civilians, and increase his power

Again, emotional BS failing to justify war here.

It was not in the interests of the US to have a despot like Saddam able to threaten his neighbors.

It has been shown he was no threat for years until his deposition. Its not in the interests of the USA to have people like me questioning them, but I'm not expecting the tanks on my doorstep! In terms of actual threat to the USA, I suspect the two are similar!! (EDIT: that would be a partial exaggeration

The alternative was not in our interests

So it was all about America then? . Either way, poor you!

[Whaleboy]

DP: Indeed it has been indicated that Gulf War II hampered the war on terror, as much of a fallacy that latter term is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
What I mean is that terrorists are an extreme end of society that hates the West. We remove that reason for them hating us, and then leave them be as much as possible for a while, and they will stop hating us.

Let's all convert to Islam then!

[Whaleboy]

Let's all convert to Islam then!

I'm too lazy to pray five times a day

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by elijah
What I mean is that terrorists are an extreme end of society that hates the West. We remove that reason for them hating us, and then leave them be as much as possible for a while, and they will stop hating us. Part of that will be because they realise they are dependent on us economically, thus hatred would move to popular support for a love fest. More extreme elements would still remain, but they would be far reduced, and easily taken out by the military or intelligence, and not be replaced (providing one judges it correctly).

They don't hate us because we are rich. They hate us because we stand in the way of their ambitions.

Sure, we could do what they want. We could completely remove ourselves from the ME. If we did that, then the Islamic extremists would be able to run amok throughout the ME. That is not in our interests. It is not in the interests of the US, to have Islamic extremists able to freely run around the entire ME, doing whatever they want.

The bottom line is this:

Conflict is always the result of competing interests. In this case, we have Islamic extremists who want to impose their totalitarian and religious extremist rule on the entire ME region. Our interests require a peaceful stable region, that is able to tolerate the differences of values and be able to trade with us.

The two interests are incompatible, resulting in a clash of interests, resulting in conflict.

The thing is we can't give the terrorists what they want. We can't remove our presence from the ME, because that would endanger our interests.

A tactical failure? Of course, tactically, even 9/11 was negligible. Unlike the Bush rhetoric, terrorism represents no threat to Western civilisation, the biggest threat is the pollution that we are pumping into the air, and the rate of oil consumption.

That is total bull**** crap! It is not negligeable when 3000 people die. The scores that died today in that UN building and on that Jerusalem bus, is not negligeable. It is not negligeable when a 2 month baby is blown to pieces in the arms of its mother.

Dip: 1-3 are good, couldn't have put it better myself. 4 and 5 are fantastic if you want to have more terrorism, more angry people, and a conflict that will last for years.

The thing is that number 4 and 5 are absolutely neccessary. Sometimes you gotta use some force and destroy the enemy. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not always solve problems. Sometimes, violence is the only way.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat That is total bull**** crap! It is not negligeable when 3000 people die. The scores that died today in that UN building and on that Jerusalem bus, is not negligeable. It is not negligeable when a 2 month baby is blown to pieces in the arms of its mother.

He's wrong, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. He's right in that, if their goal was to kill a significant portion of American citizens, 3000 people is one thousandth of one percent (literally). However, the POLITICAL effects of killing 3000 people and the ECONOMIC effects of destroying the WTC are ENORMOUS.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


I'm too lazy to pray five times a day

then u will die like the infidel u r!

[Whaleboy]

They don't hate us because we are rich. They hate us because we stand in the way of their ambitions.

They hate you for the history of imperialism, cultural, economic and militaristic, support for Israel, and due to the rich/poor divide.

Sure, we could do what they want. We could completely remove ourselves from the ME. If we did that, then the Islamic extremists would be able to run amok throughout the ME. That is not in our interests. It is not in the interests of the US, to have Islamic extremists able to freely run around the entire ME, doing whatever they want.

Well the status quo isn't exactly working. Like I said, economically the ME is dependent on us as the West. Remove our support for a while, they find they need us. Society stops hating us after realising that we are needed. The Arabs will work that out suprisingly quickly. Terrorism, or rather most of it will vanish like the vapourised remains of a suicide bomber. That which remains, without the support of the society in which it originates, will be like a car running on empty, and, if the situation is stable enough, can be arrested or otherwise dealt with. Its hard, its unpopular, but its the only thing that will work. Force will only perpetuate the problem, in the meantime, innocent people, American, British, Israeli, etc and Arab will continue to die needlessly.

Our interests require a peaceful stable region, that is able to tolerate the differences of values and be able to trade with us.

The status quo is very much in America's interests! The money generated by arms sales to the middle east effectively mean they get free oil!!

The thing is we can't give the terrorists what they want. We can't remove our presence from the ME, because that would endanger our interests.

Change hurts, but then it is temporary, and will result in a more stable relationship with the ME which will be better in the long term. Of course, it will stop terrorism. Nothing else will, its as simple as that.. is the hassle outweighed by the benefits? Of course! Is the political capital lost outweighed by the benefits? Unlikely, thus, as long as we have the same prevalent attitudes in America and the same types of politicians, terrorism will continually be a risk.

That is total bull**** crap! It is not negligeable when 3000 people die. The scores that died today in that UN building and on that Jerusalem bus, is not negligeable. It is not negligeable when a 2 month baby is blown to pieces in the arms of its mother.

Tactically, its negligible. Nuking a city, sinking ships, downing aircraft... that is tactically significant. Cut the emotional BS.

The thing is that number 4 and 5 are absolutely neccessary. Sometimes you gotta use some force and destroy the enemy. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not always solve problems. Sometimes, violence is the only way.

The last time that situation was necessary was when Iraq invaded Kuwait - they asked for our help thus the attack was equivalent to an attack on us, so the situation was like Britain in 1940.

Force is only necessary as a last resort in defence, neither of those concepts apply in the case of terrorism here. Indeed, even if it did, it would not work! . Nonetheless, I believe that if you cannot do what you want with words or money, you should not use force but re-evaluate what it is you are trying to do, and in most or all cases, you will find that you do not. I believe the situation applies here, as previously explained.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah Tactically, its negligible. Nuking a city, sinking ships, downing aircraft... that is tactically significant. Cut the emotional BS.

As I said before, it's tactically significant because of the POLITICAL and ECONOMIC effects, not do to the actual loss of 3000 people. Or do you think the destruction of the WTC had no real effect on the world? Didn't cause any changes?

[Whaleboy]

then u will die like the infidel u r!

Forgive me Allah!!

However, the POLITICAL effects of killing 3000 people and the ECONOMIC effects of destroying the WTC are ENORMOUS.

Hence terrorism was effective in causing terror, and the reactions thus... namely provoke the Americans in taking knee-jerk reactions so Bin Laden can justify jihad. Thus far, round one to Al Qaeda.

If you're under tactical threat, then a tactical response is called for. That is not the case here. Terrorism is a heinous crime, not an act of war.

[Kuciwalker]

It's still a tactical threat because of the effects it has. The effects on the economy and the American people cannot be ignored.

[yavoon]

so elijah. just for clarification, we prop their economies up so we should dump them and let their economies crash. and this will convince them to like us HOW?!

"more ppl starving cuz the US feels our religion is immoral and no longer wishes us to practice the ways our culture."

[Whaleboy]

As I said before, it's tactically significant because of the POLITICAL and ECONOMIC effects, not do to the actual loss of 3000 people. Or do you think the destruction of the WTC had no real effect on the world? Didn't cause any changes?

"Tactically" means militarily, a nations ability to fight or exist - or a reduction in a kind of national "hierarchy of needs".

Sure it had political and social effects. Thats not in question. Meh.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
"Tactically" means militarily, a nations ability to fight or exist - or a reduction in a kind of national "hierarchy of needs".

Sure it had political and social effects. Thats not in question. Meh.

Tactically has no such meaning. If you mean militarily, say that.