Why Do We Even Fight Against Terrorism?

know1

FiveB247x wrote:

It's a long read, but not bad when discussing the various factors which cause terrorism.

http://www.safe-democracy.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf

That is a long read. I got as far as the part where it basically said that psychologically terrorist shouldn't be classified as abnormal and I stopped.

Collin

Wow, so you all think the war on terror is succesful and a good idea?

It's a war that will continue forever that feeds on the fear of the American public. I know it's a cliche and in about 5 seconds 17 very tough Americans will say they have no idea what the concept "fear" even means.

But I think it does hold some truth. Terrorism is not a direct threat to you at all. Of course you shouldn't just ignore it, but actively invading countries isn't going to work, people. Why? Because the terrorists themselves have said that America's presence in the Middle East and their support for Israel is one of the main reasons they are doing what they are doing. They're basically asking the US to get its big dick out of their sandy arse.

Yet the US spends billions of American tax payer money to fight a ghost that will never die as long as they try to fight it.

There's a big difference between defending yourself and actively going to look for people who might want to kill you.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

stickfig13 wrote:

Here we go.....

all wars are started on them...

I think we witnessed the mother of all of them thus far...

know1

_outlaw wrote:

how do you have a war on terror when these wars = terror?

But does preventing terrorism=a war?

Collin

know1 wrote:

But does preventing terrorism=a war?

Depends what you mean by preventing terrorism.

stickfig13

Collin wrote:

Wow, so you all think the war on terror is succesful and a good idea?

It's a war that will continue forever that feeds on the fear of the American public. I know it's a cliche and in about 5 seconds 17 very tough Americans will say they have no idea what the concept "fear" even means.

But I think it does hold some truth. Terrorism is not a direct threat to you at all. Of course you shouldn't just ignore it, but actively invading countries isn't going to work, people. Why? Because the terrorists themselves have said that America's presence in the Middle East and their support for Israel is one of the main reasons they are doing what they are doing. They're basically asking the US to get its big dick out of their sandy arse.

Yet the US spends billions of American tax payer money to fight a ghost that will never die as long as they try to fight it.

There's a big difference between defending yourself and actively going to look for people who might want to kill you.

I don't think anyone is saying it has gone well.....

What I'm saying is that if handled correctly (from the start) it would be a worthwhile venture.

slightofjeff

Collin wrote:

There's a big difference between defending yourself and actively going to look for people who might want to kill you.

This is true, which I think is the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, there are other pieces of this so-called "War on Terror" that have had pretty substantial effects in combatting (or preventing) terrorism. Freezing assets of terrorists and some of the "charitable organizations" being used to funnel money to them. Certain parts of the Patriot Act, which I know gets vilified here en total. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

All of that HAS made a dent in Al Qaeda's ability to attack us. Or maybe AQ just hasn't been able to mount another attack in seven years because bin Laden's been busy with a particularly tricky Sudoku puzzle.

Collin

stickfig13 wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying it has gone well.....

What I'm saying is that if handled correctly (from the start) it would be a worthwhile venture.

My point isn't that it's a disaster. I think most people realise that.

What do you mean by handled correctly? Just Afghanistan?

stickfig13

Collin wrote:

My point isn't that it's a disaster. I think most people realise that.

What do you mean by handled correctly? Just Afghanistan?

Correctly= Fighting terrorist on their level. Eliminating poverty. Freezing Funding. Psychological Warfare.

Incorrect= Large scale wars in shithole oil countries. Pre-Emptive Strikes (See: Bush Doctrine)

Collin

slightofjeff wrote:

This is true, which I think is the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, there are other pieces of this so-called "War on Terror" that have had pretty substantial effects in combatting (or preventing) terrorism. Freezing assets of terrorists and some of the "charitable organizations" being used to funnel money to them. Certain parts of the Patriot Act, which I know gets vilified here en total. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

All of that HAS made a dent in Al Qaeda's ability to attack us. Or maybe AQ just hasn't been able to mount another attack in seven years because bin Laden's been busy with a particularly tricky Sudoku puzzle.

I think there are definitely things that can be done to prevent or slow down terrorism without actually going in to kill the terrorists (and countless other random people).

Terrorists have time. You can never run out of terrorists. I truly believe that the longer this war on terror continues the more dangerous it will get, for us as well.

fuck

slightofjeff wrote:

And had it not been for Iraq, which I'm sure you'll quickly admit had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, we would still have most of the world on our side.

So what is your point exactly?

Actually, believe it or not, most Arabs are not happy with the occupation of Afghanistan.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Collin wrote:

Wow, so you all think the war on terror is succesful and a good idea?

.......

Why? Because the terrorists themselves have said that America's presence in the Middle East and their support for Israel is one of the main reasons they are doing what they are doing. They're basically asking the US to get its big dick out of their sandy arse.

Boom.... there it is...

NMyTree

This whole thread is ridiculous, speculative, horribly spun, completely rhetorical and hypothetical nonsense.

FiveB247x

Well you have to understand that in anything in life, designation or chacterization/labeling of a person, group or whatever is completely arbitrary. No one calls the founders fathers of America terrorists, but at that time, to England they were... to us they're "revolutionaries" with a good message.

In Noam Chomsky's book, "Pirates and Emperors, International Terrorism in the Real World", he tells this story, attributed to St. Augustine. A captured pirate was brought before Alexander the Great. "How dare you molest the sea?, said Alexander. How dare you molest the whole world?" replied the pirate and continued: "Because I do it with a little ship only I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy are called emperor."

"The rich and powerful have every right to demand that they be left in peace to enjoy what they have gained, often by violence and terror; the rest can be ignored as long as they suffer in silence, but if they interfere with the lives of those who rule the world by right, the 'terrors of the earth' will be visited upon them with righteous wrath, unless power is constrained from within." - Winston Churchill

know1 wrote:

That is a long read. I got as far as the part where it basically said that psychologically terrorist shouldn't be classified as abnormal and I stopped.

SoonForgotten2

Of course we need to fight terrorism. I mean look how crafty these lads are. They managed to pull off remarkable attacks all on their own, completely defying multiple US defense systems in place and managed to do so in a way that, when the facts are analysed, even implicate the US government in the event.

Surely, it's just a matter of time before these monsters attack again. Just when the political time is right...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NMyTree wrote:

This whole thread is ridiculous, speculative, horribly spun, completely rhetorical and hypothetical nonsense.

whatever you Obama hating anti-semite who wants to wipe Israel off the map!

you can't fool me!

Its Evolution Baby

slightofjeff wrote:

And had it not been for Iraq, which I'm sure you'll quickly admit had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, we would still have most of the world on our side.

So what is your point exactly?

Exactly.

The war on Terror was a noble fight fought AWFULLY by the Bush Administration for taking it to Iraq.

Bush is to blame for the world hating us not us going after Terrorists.

I believe if we kept up the fight we originally started we would still have most of the world on our side.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Exactly.

The war on Terror was a noble fight fought AWFULLY by the Bush Administration for taking it to Iraq.

Bush is to blame for the world hating us not us going after Terrorists.

I believe if we kept up the fight we originally started we would still have most of the world on our side.

you ignored my response to this. most of the arab world does not support our occupation of Afghanistan.

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

you ignored my response to this. most of the arab world does not support our occupation of Afghanistan.

I believe this has more to do with Iraq then Afghanistan. We can do no right in the Arab world's eyes right now so they hate on all of our activity in the region.

Had we stuck to Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc we would have had more support. Maybe not full support but more support.

Iraq was where the whole world turned and 100% of the Arab world.

NMyTree

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Exactly.

The war on Terror was a noble fight fought AWFULLY by the Bush Administration for taking it to Iraq.

Bush is to blame for the world hating us not us going after Terrorists.

I believe if we kept up the fight we originally started we would still have most of the world on our side.

Anyone who has a true interest in fighting Terrorism and the Terrorists commiting it, would know that you can't fight it this way.

Diplomacy (without appeasment and pandering), Policy changes and a thorough investigation of it all; would be the first step to fighting Terrorism.

With our government and corporate interests, cleaning up our own backyard first and then addressing our fickle and highly biased foreign policy; would be the first steps.

That would expose the true terrorists for what they are and seperate them from the one's who actually have a good, valid reason to be angry with the USA and hold a grudge.