Terrorism

[Dr Unne]

I grudgingly agree with something Shadow Nexus said in another thread, and rather than drag that thread off-topic I'll go with a new one.

[qq] Actually, we have been in terrorist threat for 30 years.You know there is more terrorism in the world than Al Quaeda.[/qq]

Remember SARS, and the huge hype and near-panic involved with it? I liken the current attitude in this country (the US) about terrorism to that. I have more of a chance of dying being run over by a bus on the way to work than I do of dying from terrorism. I want the government to hunt down the bad guys and kill or capture them, and if someone has a nuclear bomb I want them stopped. But I'm not sure that we need the 24/7 news coverage and 12-hour daily political speeches which specifically address terrorism. I'm not sure that our next President should be elected on this one issue alone, as many people seem to see it. Until people stop having babies, there's never going to be any way to completely stop terrorism or any other kind of crime. Reduce it as much as possible, until the government can quietly deal with it and I can forget about it and go on about my business, like we did the past 30 years. I'm not in favor of being soft on terrorists; I'm probably in favor of being harder on them than most people would agree with. I am in favor of not seeing a new movie about it every week, or living in constant fear of it.

[War Angel]

The threat of terrorism isn't by the amount of people it kills. It's the immense psychological, economical, and political impact it has. People don't like other people killing them, or forcing crazy-ass ideas on 'em. That's terrorism. So, it's of the utmost importance that terrorists are neutralised.

There's not much you can do against people falling down stairs. But there's a whole lot more you can do against criminals, of any kind.

[Dr Unne]

There's nothing I myself can do about criminals or terrorists though. Given that the whole point of terrorism is the psychological impact, and the economic and political impact that results from it, they seem to be doing a pretty good job, as it stands now, without even having to kill anyone.

If I knew how much crime goes on in my TOWN on a regular basis, I'd probably be afraid to leave for work in the morning. I guess I'm basically in favor of keeping the public as ignorant as possible. There is probably fine line here: you have to keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't doing things wrong. But there are things the public doesn't and can't (and shouldn't) know as well.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm in favor of killing the bad guys.

[Loony BoB]

The threat of terrorism isn't by the amount of people it kills. It's the immense psychological, economical, and political impact it has.

The big question is, how big would the impact be without the media covering it 24/7?

People don't like other people killing them, or forcing crazy-ass ideas on 'em. That's terrorism. So, it's of the utmost importance that terrorists are neutralised.

It's important that they are, but you have to be realistic and face the fact that terrorism can never be neutralised. If you can stop someone, do it. However you have to keep in mind that the amount that is spent on stopping terrorism can outweigh the amount that terrorists would take in the first place. Terrorism has always been fought against, however only now does the media track down every single notation of the word 'terror' and publicise it.

There's not much you can do against people falling down stairs. But there's a whole lot more you can do against criminals, of any kind.

Yes, but just because you crack down on crime doesn't mean you can stop it. You don't see every crime known being publicised on TV. I'm guessing that when someone has their house raided for drugs in LA, it doesn't generally make the papers. I'm guessing that if someone stole some cash from some shop in Israel that it wouldn't be front page news. However, all around the world, terrorism is publicised. Does this help or hinder terrorists? Does this help or hinder the fight against terrorism? I would say that it helps terrorism by spreading the terror and that it hinders the fight against terror for the same reason.

Remove the publicity of things such as men begging to the prime minister of the UK and we wouldn't know about it. Sure, if someone crashes a plane into a large building, we'll know about it - but we don't need to know all the tiny details of every single terrorist that gets his hand on a victim and a video camera.

The media is the greatest tool the terrorists have. I would go as far as to say that the media spreads more terror than the terrorists do. I look forward to the day when the president doesn't make weekly speeches on the war against terror and instead spends his time ensuring that the tactics they use against terror are covered up so that the media doesn't get a hold of it. Only then will the spread of terror lessen, and only then will terror in general decrease, and only then will the fight against terror be considered a winning fight in my eyes. The day that we don't see a single bit of terrorism in the papers is the day that the fight against terror would have succeeded as much as it could realistically achieve.

Well, that's my opinion, anyway.

[Dr Unne]

Remove the publicity of things such as men begging to the prime minister of the UK and we wouldn't know about it. Sure, if someone crashes a plane into a large building, we'll know about it - but we don't need to know all the tiny details of every single terrorist that gets his hand on a victim and a video camera.

That's along the lines of what I'm saying as well. People murder other people all the time. In Pittsburgh it happens pretty frequently. It doesn't make national or international news when it happens. Why does a terrorist killing a truck driver warrant international news, but a guy in my town shooting another guy in town doesn't? To paraphrase my favorite book: dead is dead. Whether you're beheaded by a crazed Muslim or shot in the head by a crazed mugger, you're dead either way; one way doesn't make you more dead than the other. Let the cops handle the latter and the army / intelligence agencies handle the former. I'm MORE worried about being killed by gang members in town than I am by terrorists. Why don't they pour hundreds of millions of dollars into my area to save me from the criminals that live down the street in the ghetto?

[fire_of_avalon]

I come from a small community. A tiny one. Every crime that occurs is in our local newspaper. There's no real reason to put it there, but the purpose is the same. Regardless of what the minority says the majority of the public wants to be informed about this type of happening. True, I do feel it's going completely overboard to broadcast every tiny little detail such as the hostages favorite kind of soup or their preferred brand of shampoo, but those things are typically found strictly in broadcast news who's livelihood depends on the amount of people watching. And the better informed people feel they are, the more likely they are to watch.

I'm not saying that newspapers don't do this, hell I just said my local paper does it. However, most respectable publications do offer a wider variety of news than CNN or MSNBC, and they go into greater detail than 30 second spots and blurbs. They also publish public opinion, and tailor themselves to what their particular readers want to see, which isn't nearly as similar to broadcast news as you might think.

I guess what I mean to say is you can't blame the media for what they do. They only give the public what it asks for.

[Turk]

People don't like other people killing them, or forcing crazy-ass ideas on 'em. That's terrorism.

So what do you call America?

[CloudSquallandZidane]

So what do you call America?

I dont know what he calls America, but i know what i call it. I call it a misled, scared nation, who was betrayed by its leaders finicial and bussiness interests, to beileve in a war under false pretenses.

I hope people around the world dont hate all Americans because the President Appoint(not elect) is wrong.

You cant defeat Terrorism, there will always be more Terrorists. But u cant give up and stop combating Terrorism. Is it a hype my answer is yes/no.

U see the media makes Terrorism seem more probably than it is, because we have 1000s of men and women working overtime to keep us safe. So yes. Yet it is a fact that if there is a constant effort there will be an eventual success. So no.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

There is too much profit in making people scared. Unne mentioned how many scary things happen in our own neighborhoods but I always wonder about all the good things that never make the news. Watching the news is a lot like living in Plato's cave.

[nik0tine]

If people weren't scared they might begin to question. And we can't have THAT, now can we?

[DMKA]

I've yet to understand this whole "OMG WE'RE USA AND NO ONE CAN HAVE NUKES BUT WE MUST HAVE A TON AND CONSTANTLY MAKE MORE BUT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE HAS THEM WE MUST GET THEM BEFORE THEY DISTROY THE WORLD!11!ONE!". I'm still waiting on an explination on that. =/

I also have yet to see where the US has the supremacy to go kill/capture whoever they think is "a threat to democracy"...that just pisses me off.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

I've yet to understand this whole "OMG WE'RE USA AND NO ONE CAN HAVE NUKES BUT WE MUST HAVE A TON AND CONSTANTLY MAKE MORE BUT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE HAS THEM WE MUST GET THEM BEFORE THEY DISTROY THE WORLD!11!ONE!". I'm still waiting on an explination on that. =/

I also have yet to see where the US has the supremacy to go kill/capture whoever they think is "a threat to democracy"...that just pisses me off.

Well we can only destroy the entire world 6 times over with the nukes we have right now. What if we need to blow it up once more after that?

(/sarcasm)

Seriously though we DO have the right to defend ourselves against PROVEN threats like Al queda. Too bad we took a few other unproven actions that cost the US its reputation.

[Loony BoB]

I don't really see how nukes would help you defend yourselves against Al Queda, but I guess the story of nuclear weapons would be a different topic. I don't really know where the nukes bit came from, really.

[Glendon]

Sadly, the "War on Terrorism" is not winnable with our current strategy. Much like the War on Drugs, it is doomed to fail. I think if we (the US) would seek out the source of the problem (why we are targeted in the first place), then a solution will follow. And no, I do not believe its because "they hate what we have".

America has the most overwhelmingly powerful, advanced, and destructive military in the world. Too bad that means precisely jack against this enemy. All our current strategy will accomplish is putting out fires and killing many, many innocent people. Edit: While making mad cash.

[Dr Unne]

It's the same reason the police can carry guns and non-police are more restricted. We trust the police. If the police wanted to, they could go berserk and do tons of damage, given their training and armament, but they generally don't do that. And having guns is a necessary part of being policemen; force to counter force. The US, like it or not, is like the police of the world. Or was, back when other countries trusted us. I think we still do have a large measure of trust, albeit not as much as before. When North Korea, which is a country where apparently the leaders have no problem with having massive amounts of people in the country die on a regular basis, gets nuclear weapons, people are afraid. The allies of the US aren't afraid of the US because they know we're not going to lob a missile into the middle of Britain tomorrow. With North Korea or Iran, we don't know that.

[qq=Glendon] Sadly, the "War on Terrorism" is not winnable with our current strategy. Much like the War on Drugs, it is doomed to fail.[/qq]

Depends on your definition of "win". Winning can mean "reducing as much as possible". A war on any crime will fail, in the sense that crime will still exist to some degree. We still have theft, rape, and murder, on a daily basis. That doesn't mean we should give up fighting thieves and rapists and murderers.

[qq]America has the most overwhelmingly powerful, advanced, and destructive military in the world. Too bad that means precisely jack against this enemy.[/qq]

Our military strength could defeat this enemy. We could lay waste to the entire country; we have the strength to do that, if you could call it strength. Our values are what are going to defeat us, not our lack of strength. Historically, I think we are acting very strange, in NOT laying waste to the entire country. Historically that's what countries do in war. I think in this case, fighting this war as a WAR probably couldn't be justified, so we're only half-fighting it.