War on Terrorism

Tr0n

Tr0n

Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
0
How do you fight against a strategy used by people for violence? Who the hell could believe that shit? That's like saying you're gonna fight a war on the blitzkrieg. Seems like after the fall of the Soviet Union, the government needed something to keep it at the centerstage of power, which has became "terrorism". Anyone else agree?
 
You fight it by wiping out the people who use terrorism and kill thousands of innocent lives as a means of achieving their religious goals. And you don't stop.

Terrorism is not a excuse to keep the goverment in central power, keeping the goverment in central power is an excuse for terrorism.
 
It's hard to fight terrorism with terrorism, which is essentially what this "war on terror" is.

-DaMaN
 
"If you have these disputes, it enables negative forces in both the countries to blame the other country and exploit the sentiment and you cannot be certain.

"So I think we should try and take advantage of this improved atmosphere and resolve outstanding differences, particularly the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir," he had said.
Click to expand...

This is the Pakistani PM , hours after the Mumbai blasts.
With guys like these in charge, how can anyone achieve anything constuctive( vis-a-vis India -Pak relations a nd terrorism)

He later claimed he was misquoted.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
Everything is terrorism to someone.
Click to expand...

Not nececarially, i mean, if I shake a fluffy rabit at you, that's not terrorism...

Wait...

You may have a point here.


However, I would personally draw the line where terrorism is meaning life or death to someone.

-DaMaN
 
Terrorism: Killing or wounding and specifically bombing/attacking civiliian targets in order to achieve political or religious goals.
 
Wrong again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroism

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands.
Click to expand...
Many of the rebels during the revolutionary war are considered terrorist. Hell under this definition alone, Bush could be considered a terrorist along with many other leaders.
 
In a related incident, Al Qaida praised the perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts. A**holes.
 
Tr0n said:
Wrong again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroism


Many of the rebels during the revolutionary war are considered terrorist. Hell under this definition alone, Bush could be considered a terrorist along with many other leaders.
Click to expand...

I think that the definition needs fleshing out some what. Just because it is on wiki doesn't mean it is true.
 
The only real and effective way to fight terrorism is to fight the causes of what creates the terrorists in the first place. Like I have said before though, no one wants to fight those causes because its all politics/money/power. As long as these things govern the actions of nations, there will always be terrorism...:x
 
Tr0n said:
How do you fight against a strategy used by people for violence? Who the hell could believe that shit? That's like saying you're gonna fight a war on the blitzkrieg. Seems like after the fall of the Soviet Union, the government needed something to keep it at the centerstage of power, which has became "terrorism". Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...


it's the ideal enemy: unseen, always at the ready, savage ..perfect scare tactic, useful in getting soccor moms and dads into blindly accepting some military campaign in some god forsaken country which they probably couldnt find on a map

the only way you'll ever end terrorism is by taking away their reason for fighting
 
Rupertvdb said:
I think that the definition needs fleshing out some what. Just because it is on wiki doesn't mean it is true.
Click to expand...

Yea, wiki is made by people. So it could be what they think the definition is. Not that I am saying that specific one is incorrect.
 
There isn't a spedific one, now shut your faces. Also yes it does. Why? Because wiki's are always checked and re-checked by a group up people to see if that article is biased or factually incorrect.

So yes it's right.
 
As futile as it may be to fight a concept...

It needs to be fought on an ideological basis. No amount of military might you pump into a conflict will resolve it. It needs to be in the form of education and enabling young people to succeed instead of being disillusioned and resorting to violence. You need to eliminate the factors that can push people closer and closer to terrorism and the indoctrination that comes with it.

It would take a lot of time. Perhaps generations. But it would be more effective than sheer force, as that mode of action offers little long-term success.
 
To defeat Islamic jihad terror which seems to be the most popular source of terror today, you have to conduct genocide on every country with strong Muslim populations and imprison/silence all the muslims in your own country. Destroy the seeds. Blanket nuclear strike on the middle east, indonesia, and parts of africa then bioweapons to mop up the mutated survivors.

Of course that won't destroy terrorism forever. There will still be home grown terror in the coming decades/centuries when groups who lack the ability to fight the power of modern militarys choose different options, good old terrorism!

You then need to turn your own countries into police states, total monitoring of civilian activity 24/7. Locational information devices implanted into everyone at birth. Etc etc you know the drill.

Appalling atrocities and throwing away all your freedoms for a possibly short-term way to avoid the terrible terror of terrorism? Nah....there's a better solution somewhere that probably involves education, keeping moderate opinion at the center of public debate, keeping right wing muslim conservative opinion out of the picture. The right wing muslims that insist jihad is the way to go and 72 virgins await has to be stamped out. Too many Ann Coulter equivalents in the middle east swaying young kids to kill themselves. The Muslim world needs someone like Martin Luther King. A leader, a public speaker that can inspire goodness. Dare i say they need another prophet....

Then the issue of the west royally screwing around the with the affairs of the middle east, invading, bombing, raping, torturing, oh my...democracy doesn't really help here because no matter which political party is voted in oil is the life blood of the west and control over it has to be maintained, which means endless meddling in the region.

**** it!
 
The real way to fight terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of the people, the terrorists are trying to recruit, who ever has the better propaganda will win.
 
It's not possible to win a war where the opposition believes it's an honor to die.
 
Well if that's true, the japanese during WW2 wouldn't have surrendered.
 
Tr0n said:
Well if that's true, the japanese during WW2 wouldn't have surrendered.
Click to expand...
ya cause we nuked them twice. maybe we should nuke the arabs and they wouldnt try and kill us.
 
Tr0n said:
Well if that's true, the japanese during WW2 wouldn't have surrendered.
Click to expand...

It's different.

I meant honor in their point of view. Even here in America, it's kind of an honor to die, protecting your country. But, to them... you're heroic... you get virgins... etc. They WANT to die.
 
gh0st said:
ya cause we nuked them twice. maybe we should nuke the arabs and they wouldnt try and kill us.
Click to expand...

We could, but inturn if we just blindly launched a few, it would cause major problems for the countries around it. And thus there would be more war against us. If their land and water is polluted with nuclear radiation from the aftermath of the missle, they would have nothing left to lose. I mean, seeing as how they want to die. I would doubt they would just leave the country quietly. And this would cause insanly bad economic problems for us, like the lack of oil. We would probably be thought of as worse people than we are thought of to be now. But it really is toobad we just can't build a missle that kills just terrorists, as Weekly World News attempts to lead people to believe.
 
gh0st said:
ya cause we nuked them twice. maybe we should nuke the arabs and they wouldnt try and kill us.
Click to expand...

Yeh, incinerating a few million of their people and irriadiating the land will SURELY sway their opinion into the favor of America.
 
like any typical 6 year old gh0st doesnt actually think through his ideas before blurting them out ...nothing a little ritalin/shock therapy/frontal lobotomy wouldnt fix
 
The best way to win is to turn a blind eye to it. Stopgiving them the attention they want. Just stop caring about them. If news sources stopped reporting on terrorist activities and there was a general area of indifference in the world towards terrorists and their causes then terrorism would fade away. Because if something isn't working, sooner or later people will stop doing it.

But I know that'll never happen, since the news prospers off the death and destruction and people are utterly fascinated by all the bad things in this world.
 
just because some soccor mom stops watching fox"news" doesnt mean their problems are going to disapear ..in fact most terrorists arent inundated with media reports on their evil deeds ...they're too busy planning and trying to survive to watch Nancy Grace or Bill Oreilly
 
CptStern said:
just because some soccor mom stops watching fox"news" doesnt mean their problems are going to disapear ..in fact most terrorists arent inundated with media reports on their evil deeds ...they're too busy planning and trying to survive to watch Nancy Grace or Bill Oreilly
Click to expand...
I don't mean just normal people, I mean the governments as well. Most of the point of terrorism is to enact political change, but if the governments stop paying attention to the terrorists and stop reacting to them then sooner or later they'll have to come up with a different way to do things.

But there is no really good way to combat terrorism, not with the way human beings are. Besides, someon will always use terrorism, since it's the weapon of the weak vs. the strong, and there will always be weak groups trying to get the strong to change something.

And pick on Fox News all you want, but they had some very good coverage of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict last night.
 
ya

"the valiant isrealis (very much like god fearing christians only circumcised ..we even share the same book of truths) bombed the evil lebanese back to the stone age as god intended them to be"


"fair and balanced" my ass


anyways yes I see your point however governments have a vested interest in fighting terrorism ..because the majority of the times they are the terrorists target
 
I'm certainly not going to say Fox is fair and balanced, because that simply isn;t true, but at the same time, it's not this evil, corrupted entity you all make it out to be. And besides, if you want a true view of the world you have to look at things from all angles.
 
I do. That's why fox sucks. :p

I get my news always online anyways and weather from the local news station.
 
Tr0n said:
I do. That's why fox sucks. :p

I get my news always online anyways and weather from the local news station.
Click to expand...
Yeah, find a news source that has as few ties to big business as possible. That's why there is so little real news on the news. Its all spin based on political/corporate affiliations. :frown:
 
*Jumps in mid thread*

Actually the Japanese didn't surrender from the atomic weapons we used. They surrendered from the firebombing which killed hundreds of thousands in the span of a few short hours and because their cities were being decimated. :O

Chow.

*Does action dive out of nearby window*
 
*sweeps up shards of glass and says "who was that masked man? ...zorro?"
 
Very true, at the time of the atom bomb being dropped, Japans economy had already taken a huge beating with a giant stick, their navy was almost gone, along with the majority of their planes.

So we dropped a nuke on them to find out what would happen.

Oh, here's an interesting clip of Truman saying that Hiroshima was a military base: http://www.moviesoundclips.net/misc1/americanpolitics/truman1.wav

[/slightly offtopic]

-DaMaN

P.S. Nice dive Top Secret *holds up a card that says 9.5*
 
im circumcised.

i thought i was being pretty obviously sarcastic about "nuking the arabs".
 
gh0st said:
im circumcised.

i thought i was being pretty obviously sarcastic about "nuking the arabs".
Click to expand...

The annoying thing about sarcasm is that you never know when a literal-minded person will come along and take you seriously. ;)

-DaMaN
 
DaMaN said:
The annoying thing about sarcasm is that you never know when a literal-minded person will come along and take you seriously. ;)

-DaMaN
Click to expand...
its best not to take much of what i say seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
Omnomnick
TF2 "Meet Your Match" Update - Day 1
Replies
0
Views
6K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top