And we don't do that. Why do you think we still have thousands of troops in Iraq? For fun?
Printable View
And we don't do that. Why do you think we still have thousands of troops in Iraq? For fun?
Not to throw this entire thread into chaos, but the question comes to my head now:
Since terrorism is such an obviously HUGE problem, why are we focusing on anything besides it really, globally? What is the point of declaring we're going to Mars in 20 years, unless Bush and others are planning to send either all the terrorists who only have interests in taking lives, up there, or perhaps, all of Earth will eventually leave....
It just seems to me that almost all governments have become less and less interested in this issue that in my opinion is still white hot. Perhaps, because the elections are coming up in America and elsewhere?
Really, the great problem with politics is that those who are vying for power care more about securing their position than actually doing things that would benefit the country and world as a whole. Just once, I'd like to have a President who didn't suddenly abandon all his policies because the re-election machine needed to get started. I believe that if you truly are determined to fix problems, focus on those and don't even worry about getting re-elected. I have faith in people that they'll come around and see the admirable job you are doing and reward you as such.
Just one man's opinion.
Take care all.
I know we still have troops there, but Bush keeps talking about pulling out and transferring sovereignty by this summer. Even if we stay in, we need to fix things the right way and not just do a half-assed job. I'm not sure that I trust any US government officials in that regard, on either side of the aisle.
You scare me very, very much.Quote:
The right way to deal with terrorists is to think like them. They don't care about human life? Well, neither should you. If they kidnap someone, you found out where they are, and send in an assault team. No negotiations, nothing, whatever the cost may be.
Terrorism should be handled with not roughly, but brutally. Islamic terrorists, for example, should be burnt wrapped in pork-skin. That was done by Russia, and it brought an end to suicide bombings there. Russia is a fine example of how one should deal with terrorism, of any kind. Sure, they get lots of criticism from the world, but in the end, they're doing the right thing for them. They deal with terrorism using the only way - force, and the more of it, the better.
OK, here is the classical maniacheist speech. Well, I think thats a preety simple-minded analysis on the situation. "They kill because they are evil". And why are they evil and despicable? Because they were born like this? God, somewhere out there, in hell, heaven or whatever, Freud is crying.Quote:
Sure there is. They're evil, despicable human (?) beings that deserve death.
Probably. Take into account the primitive, cruel and barbaric way of their culture, and you'll get an explosive combination (God, I love puns.. XD).Quote:
And why are they evil and despicable? Because they were born like this?
Understandable. Those who fight are always scarier than those who sit around doing nothing. Sitting on your bum saying sweet, nice and peaceful things is looked upon brightly in Western societies, while saying one should fight is frowned upon by most. That's because most don't know how their 'freedom' is earned.Quote:
You scare me very, very much.
Like burning people wrapped in pork skin? Yeah, probably.Quote:
Take into account the primitive, cruel and barbaric way of their culture
Huh? You fight? Sitting in your bum saying salty, not-nice and violent things? I should give you a medal.Quote:
Those who fight are always scarier than those who sit around doing nothing. Sitting on your bum saying sweet, nice and peaceful things is looked upon brightly in Western societies, while saying one should fight is frowned upon by most. That's because most don't know how their 'freedom' is earned.
Plus, how do you know I don't fight? You know nothing about my life, I could be....say....Subcomandante Marcos posting from Lacandona.
On the other hand, the text above I just quoted, the fighting one, could easily apply to a terrorist. Plus, previously you said:
Isn't that what the terrorists do? Strike fear to get to a cause? Then, you are defending terrorism against terrorism? If for fighting the mosters you have to become a monster yourself, please take Nietzsche out of your signature.Quote:
But, sometimes, it's also good to strike fear.
Dead mass murderers.Quote:
Like burning people wrapped in pork skin? Yeah, probably.
Yes, unfortunatly, you must descend to their level in order to achieve victory. That is, there is no victory over terrorism without physical combat. You must battle them ferociously, or there won't be any hope of defeating them.Quote:
Isn't that what the terrorists do? Strike fear to get to a cause? Then, you are defending terrorism against terrorism? If for fighting the mosters you have to become a monster yourself, please take Nietzsche out of your signature.
Nietszche's quote is just a reminder not to go too far, and also a reminder for the cost a fighter against evil has to pay - he loses some of his humanity.
Each terrorist you kill is like a brach you cut out from a tree, but branches grow up again. How then, are you going to end the problem? Exterminating a whole culture?Quote:
That is, there is no victory over terrorism without physical combat. You must battle them ferociously, or there won't be any hope of defeating them.
From that analogy, it seems that you're implying that terrorism is a culture.
Virtually all terrorists become what they are because of cultural influences. Most Islamic terrorists feel that their culture and beliefs are threatened by Western/Christian/Jewish lifestyles and practices, and strike out against it. The IRA believed that Northern Ireland would never be 'free' as long as it was under British rule - they felt that their culture and people were being oppressed. The ANC, who fought long and hard against apartheid in South Africa, were branded 'terrorists' by their government; they too were fighting so that their culture wouldn't be forced to continue an oppressed and downtrodden life.
Terrorism itself is not a culture, but culture greatly influences those who choose to become terrorists.
Almost, yes. It's a cultural norm. It almost always exists in backwards socities, where power reigns and violence solves almost all problems.Quote:
From that analogy, it seems that you're implying that terrorism is a culture.
What Big D said.
Violence dosen't tend to solve problems, it just covers them up. Anyway, then if terrorism is like a culture, you defend ending with that culture?Quote:
Almost, yes. It's a cultural norm. It almost always exists in backwards socities, where power reigns and violence solves almost all problems.
Oh, it solves problems alright. Question is, are you willing to suffer the consequences of your actions, most often legally, and if not that, than morally.Quote:
Violence dosen't tend to solve problems, it just covers them up.
I assume this slightly awkward-built question means whether I am willing to battle terrorism using terrorism. The answer is no, but not a clear no. I am willing, and I also think it is needed, to go pretty far in order to defeat or at least weaken terrorism.Quote:
Anyway, then if terrorism is like a culture, you defend ending with that culture?
Well, I don't think instilling fear on a population (And thus hate) is going to make terrorism weaker. It's not like an army: The more pressure you instill, the more people will be willing to fight you back. And since they don't have an army, they will fight back with terrorism.
I frankly don't believe there is a way of solving terrorism asides from dialogue. Violence may bring them back for a while, but the next strike will be more powerful, you just give them more reasons to be violent. And no, I am not basing this in mere supposition, here in my country we have terrorists too, and the closer we have been to end their killing has been through dialogue, but of course, it means you have to listen to them and give something, and thats not easy, not at all. But you know, if people are willing to blow themseleves up to kill people in your side, it's because they consider you responsable or partly responsable on the problem they have, because I don't think someone who lives well would go and blow themselves up for anything at all. My point is, many times (Not always) the institution (Not the people) being attacked is in fact facing the consequences of a bad administration of that institution. Is there another way to solve this other than attempting to reach to a deal with the people going against the institution? So far I can't think of a modern terrorist group that has ended it's killing because they were repressed with violence, however I can think of two groups that stopped or have decided to cease fire for a while (IRA stopped, ETA ceased fire for 18 months).
Of course, there's the other argument: If you give the terrorists what they want (Or at least part of what they want reaching to a deal) you are showings signs of weakness and fomenting the idea that terrorism is a way of getting things. Well, I wouldn't call it weakness, it takes courage to be able to face problems for what they are and come up with a real solution despite all the criticism, and about the second point...yes, you are giving that image. Well, thats too bad, but no solution is perfect here. And truth is, terrorism IS a way to get what you want, it's not ethical or socially acceptable, but it is a way, violence is a very effective transformation engine. Of course, I'd never defend a group killing innocent people as a way of getting to their objective, but it is a way of getting things. Suppose someone blackmails you to show pictures of you doing whatever to the newspapers, and you are a famous person. Well, you can either try to solve it in a civilized manner or raid into the person's house and shoot them in the face. Probably, if you don't get discovered, the second one may proove effective and give results, but of course, it's not ethical.
As for fighting terrorism, I can use the same example. The only problem here is that I don't believe the violent solution is going to solve anything: You just become as bad as them. Oh, well, I admit there is a way of stopping terrorism through violence, yes: Arab terrorists are bombing this and that. Well, this suicide bombers tend to be religion fanatics (Ah, religions, see, quite a nasty thing if not used correctly) so every religious person is bound to become a fanatic if put under pressure. Thus, the only solution would be to just kill every arab in the world to solve the problem, just like Hitler wanted to do with the Jews. Of course, that would make you the biggest genocide in mankind's history, but hey, you'd solve overpopulation problems.
[q=Shadow Nexus]Well, I don't think instilling fear on a population (And thus hate) is going to make terrorism weaker. It's not like an army: The more pressure you instill, the more people will be willing to fight you back. And since they don't have an army, they will fight back with terrorism.
[/q]Too true. Terrorism almost always results from a culture feeling threatened, for whatever reason. Increasing the threat will just increase the response.