My Thoughts On Terrorism

skywalker · 09-18-2001, 08:37 AM

This just my opinion, but I do not believe anyone can win a war against terrorism. Terrorism is not a solid thing that can be destroyed, it is a way of thinking or a belief. It is hatred in action. We can not cleanse the minds of everyone who hates....the technology is just not there.

We think we can stop it by removing the leaders of these groups, but the hate can never be completely wiped out.

It has been said by our President and our Government (USA of course) that we will attack any group that commits terrorism and any State that supports and harbours them!(I think they mean with physical, political, and economical attacks.)

Does this mean we will attack Israel, Ireland, and in some cases, areas of the USA? I know this is a pretty simplistic statement, but how do we choose who gets attacked. I did hear on CNN that Iraq will be attacked, not necessarily for a connection with this incident, but because of past terrorism.

Terrorist groups are everywhere and we need to be very careful about how we go about what we do, in words and actions. I'm very glad it is not me who has to make these decisions.

I welcome all opinions on this subject!

Mark

[This message has been edited by skywalker (edited 09-18-2001).]

Kaz · 09-18-2001, 08:54 AM

IMHO
I agree that terrorism is not easy to destroy. OK, so you kill the leaders. But their friends, family, followers,... will start hating you for what you did. The next generation of terrorists grows up. Terrorists are people who are so convinced that they are right, that their way is right, that they will do anything for their beliefs. You cannot use force to destroy terrorists. And "every land that harbors them" would mean almost every land in the whole world, or so I believe.

------------------

Kazara

Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe

Lifetime · 09-18-2001, 09:43 AM

So you kill 'em all and shoot 'em as they come.

Joking, naturally.

------------------
Proud to be American

Ryanamur · 09-18-2001, 09:53 AM

You're right, terrorism cannot be destroyed with the simple actions of killing the leaders and attacking the states that harbor them. The only way to remove terrorism is to remove the ideology, which quite frankly, is barbaric and would make us Nazis.

Even if killing terrorists is not an effective solution to terrorism, it is an effective protection measure. Those people consider the American way of life a threat. We consider them a threath. By our standards, they are wrong and the ennemy. By their standards, we are wrong and the ennemy. Who's really right? The truth of it is that we don't know and we'll never know.

Nonetheless, we are face with a strong delima. If we do nothing, they will keep attaking. If we kill innocent people (like the indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan or other country) they will gather more followers to their cause. So, what do we do? I believe that assassinating any terrorist on site is the answer to protect many of our people. Again, we face a dileama: how do we know if they are terrorists? We don't and that's the dangerous part of it. We cannot ascertain that the individual is a terrorist until he strikes. Which of course is not good to us. We need to take him out before he strikes. Thus, we will likely remove terrorists and non-terrorists individuals in the process (that means that innocent people on the other side will die).

As far as going after the states that harbor terrorists, it's essential but deadly dangerous if done sloppily... like what we are about to see. Bombing, sending in ground troops will only lead to a stronger anti-American sentiment. This means that we must find a way to remove all terrorist supportive leader without hurting the general population. In fact, I would go further and suggest that we must help (money, supply, support...) the civilian population in the process to try to remove that anti-American sentiment. This must be done in a way that respect core muslim values.

Now, let's talk about selecting the targets. Personnally, I don't think that Irak is going to be bombed in this wave unless there is a clear link with Saddam (or the Iraki government) and terrorist. Congress as made it quite clear to the President that he could use force to go after those that commited (and helped commit) the terrorists attack on the WTC/pentagon/Pittsburg and future terrorist attack on the US. This is not a blank approval to fight all terrorist attack around the world. It's only to fight terrorism against the US.

One thing for sure about terrorists attack on the US (or any other Western countries) is that it's not over. What we will see over the next few years/decades will be a spread of sporadic terrorist attack. We have to get use to it and it will be costly. What I'm talking about here is not only plane hijacked, but terrorist walking in a theater, a school, a building, a subway... and bombing it. People willing to use biochemical warfare (or nuclear warfare if they gain the capability) to pass their point.

This battle will not be fought on distant battlefields like many American would like to believe (thanks to the media not doing their job). It will be fought in America as well. Right now, there's (taken from another tread) over 30 terrorists cells in the US. We know that Canada currently has about 350 terrorists. I don't know about France, England, Germany and other European nations but I'm sure the number is also in the hundreds. We need, as a society, to recongnize this and strike hard to help protect the lives and values of Westerners.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-18-2001).]

Mirac Honorguard · 09-18-2001, 10:29 AM

Well, your true about getting rid off terrorism, it will be tough, but not imposible. I think that the way it's going it's going right. Terrorism has grown to a too large scale and has to be cut down. After that has happenend the west should help the lower classes of society in the countries where terrorism is easier deployed. If we make sure that the people in the terrorism-infested countries are content, then terrorism wouldn't play a role in those people lives, they wouldn't have any reason anymore to terrorize. That's my opinion. I will anxiously wait for any replies.

------------------
There's something in your eyes, ah no, I see now, it's the reflection of my deadly gaze - Mirac Honorguard
(Necromancer)
You deal, I'll cut -- Lilarcor

[This message has been edited by Mirac Honorguard (edited 09-18-2001).]

Billikins the Bold · 09-18-2001, 10:44 AM

In this case I think you can more or less equate terrorism with guerilla warfare. I'm thinking in particular about the ways in which one fights actions like this, and that is by serperating the fighters from the people supporting them. I think it was Mao (though I could be wrong) who made the analogy of the guerilla as fish and population as the water surrounding and supporting it.

In order to effectively fight terrorism you need to deal with the reason why the terrorism is happening. Once you have identified that you can work to isolate the support of the terrorists and resolve the situation. If a course of "vengance and to hell with the collateral damage" is followed all you do is fan the flames of the problem: a classic example here the Britsh army going ape in Northern Ireland in 1973 (Bloody Sunday) and killing 13 civilians who in all probablity were not involved in terrorism in any way. Biggest boost to IRA recruitment ever.

So IMHO, the sole answer is *not* to strike now and strike hard. Whats needed is far harder than that and its identifying and dealing with the causes: a political solution in other words. I keep thinking of one post that someone made a few days back, on the lines that "America won militarily in Vietnam but lost the war politically at home" (apologies if I'm wildly mis-quoting). Rubbish. The US lost militarily becuase they were trying to fight a regular war: winning is not about body count, its about achieving your objectives. The objective in Vietnam was the "hearts and minds" of the people and this objective ws comprehensibly lost. For pities sake, don't let the same mistake be made again with indiscriminate bombing.

------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

EyeOfHorus · 09-18-2001, 10:49 AM

I agree with you that winning a war against terrorism isn't like any other type of war America has been involved in. Terrorists don't wear uniforms, they don't live in barracks and they don't drive around in tanks that we can launch missiles at. That having been said, this is a war we MUST win. Although we may not know a whole lot about fighting terrorism now, I bet you that within a year or so, we will know much, much more. I'm sure some of our allies wanted us to fight this war years ago, but this is the US, and we don't change things until something really falls apart. Sad but true. Like you I'm glad that I don't have to make the strategic decisions as to who we go after. But we are not in this war alone, we have network of allies with whom we can share intelligence. The civilized world will band together to rid this scourge of humanity from the Earth once and for all...

Billikins the Bold · 09-18-2001, 10:52 AM

Unfortunately, both the US and it allies (my country included) have all to often been responsible for starting these terrorists off. Osama bin Laden was initially funded and trained by the CIA.

------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to end terrorism	Dirty Meg	General Discussion	28	09-15-2004 10:37 AM
War on Terrorism: I just don't get it	GForce	General Discussion	25	11-15-2003 01:10 AM
Another act of terrorism?	Skunk	General Discussion	8	08-06-2003 02:43 PM
Terrorism	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	1	10-10-2002 12:32 PM
Act of terrorism?	Jorath Calar	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	14	10-07-2002 07:17 AM

09-18-2001, 08:37 AM	#1
skywalker Banned User Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: VT, USA Age: 63 Posts: 3,097	This just my opinion, but I do not believe anyone can win a war against terrorism. Terrorism is not a solid thing that can be destroyed, it is a way of thinking or a belief. It is hatred in action. We can not cleanse the minds of everyone who hates....the technology is just not there. We think we can stop it by removing the leaders of these groups, but the hate can never be completely wiped out. It has been said by our President and our Government (USA of course) that we will attack any group that commits terrorism and any State that supports and harbours them!(I think they mean with physical, political, and economical attacks.) Does this mean we will attack Israel, Ireland, and in some cases, areas of the USA? I know this is a pretty simplistic statement, but how do we choose who gets attacked. I did hear on CNN that Iraq will be attacked, not necessarily for a connection with this incident, but because of past terrorism. Terrorist groups are everywhere and we need to be very careful about how we go about what we do, in words and actions. I'm very glad it is not me who has to make these decisions. I welcome all opinions on this subject! Mark [This message has been edited by skywalker (edited 09-18-2001).]

09-18-2001, 08:54 AM	#2
Kaz Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: August 16, 2001 Location: UK Posts: 2,891	IMHO I agree that terrorism is not easy to destroy. OK, so you kill the leaders. But their friends, family, followers,... will start hating you for what you did. The next generation of terrorists grows up. Terrorists are people who are so convinced that they are right, that their way is right, that they will do anything for their beliefs. You cannot use force to destroy terrorists. And "every land that harbors them" would mean almost every land in the whole world, or so I believe. ------------------ Kazara Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe

09-18-2001, 09:43 AM	#3
Lifetime Red Dragon Join Date: March 3, 2001 Location: Scotch College, Melbourne Posts: 1,503	So you kill 'em all and shoot 'em as they come. Joking, naturally. ------------------ Proud to be American

09-18-2001, 09:53 AM	#4
Ryanamur Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: March 29, 2001 Location: Montréal, Canada Age: 49 Posts: 1,763	You're right, terrorism cannot be destroyed with the simple actions of killing the leaders and attacking the states that harbor them. The only way to remove terrorism is to remove the ideology, which quite frankly, is barbaric and would make us Nazis. Even if killing terrorists is not an effective solution to terrorism, it is an effective protection measure. Those people consider the American way of life a threat. We consider them a threath. By our standards, they are wrong and the ennemy. By their standards, we are wrong and the ennemy. Who's really right? The truth of it is that we don't know and we'll never know. Nonetheless, we are face with a strong delima. If we do nothing, they will keep attaking. If we kill innocent people (like the indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan or other country) they will gather more followers to their cause. So, what do we do? I believe that assassinating any terrorist on site is the answer to protect many of our people. Again, we face a dileama: how do we know if they are terrorists? We don't and that's the dangerous part of it. We cannot ascertain that the individual is a terrorist until he strikes. Which of course is not good to us. We need to take him out before he strikes. Thus, we will likely remove terrorists and non-terrorists individuals in the process (that means that innocent people on the other side will die). As far as going after the states that harbor terrorists, it's essential but deadly dangerous if done sloppily... like what we are about to see. Bombing, sending in ground troops will only lead to a stronger anti-American sentiment. This means that we must find a way to remove all terrorist supportive leader without hurting the general population. In fact, I would go further and suggest that we must help (money, supply, support...) the civilian population in the process to try to remove that anti-American sentiment. This must be done in a way that respect core muslim values. Now, let's talk about selecting the targets. Personnally, I don't think that Irak is going to be bombed in this wave unless there is a clear link with Saddam (or the Iraki government) and terrorist. Congress as made it quite clear to the President that he could use force to go after those that commited (and helped commit) the terrorists attack on the WTC/pentagon/Pittsburg and future terrorist attack on the US. This is not a blank approval to fight all terrorist attack around the world. It's only to fight terrorism against the US. One thing for sure about terrorists attack on the US (or any other Western countries) is that it's not over. What we will see over the next few years/decades will be a spread of sporadic terrorist attack. We have to get use to it and it will be costly. What I'm talking about here is not only plane hijacked, but terrorist walking in a theater, a school, a building, a subway... and bombing it. People willing to use biochemical warfare (or nuclear warfare if they gain the capability) to pass their point. This battle will not be fought on distant battlefields like many American would like to believe (thanks to the media not doing their job). It will be fought in America as well. Right now, there's (taken from another tread) over 30 terrorists cells in the US. We know that Canada currently has about 350 terrorists. I don't know about France, England, Germany and other European nations but I'm sure the number is also in the hundreds. We need, as a society, to recongnize this and strike hard to help protect the lives and values of Westerners. ------------------ If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I? [This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-18-2001).] [This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-18-2001).]

09-18-2001, 10:29 AM	#5
Mirac Honorguard Red Wizard of Thay Join Date: August 21, 2001 Location: Limburg, Netherlands, Europe Age: 42 Posts: 894	Well, your true about getting rid off terrorism, it will be tough, but not imposible. I think that the way it's going it's going right. Terrorism has grown to a too large scale and has to be cut down. After that has happenend the west should help the lower classes of society in the countries where terrorism is easier deployed. If we make sure that the people in the terrorism-infested countries are content, then terrorism wouldn't play a role in those people lives, they wouldn't have any reason anymore to terrorize. That's my opinion. I will anxiously wait for any replies. ------------------ There's something in your eyes, ah no, I see now, it's the reflection of my deadly gaze - Mirac Honorguard (Necromancer) You deal, I'll cut -- Lilarcor [This message has been edited by Mirac Honorguard (edited 09-18-2001).]

09-18-2001, 10:44 AM	#6
Billikins the Bold The Magister Join Date: June 7, 2001 Location: Manchester Posts: 147	In this case I think you can more or less equate terrorism with guerilla warfare. I'm thinking in particular about the ways in which one fights actions like this, and that is by serperating the fighters from the people supporting them. I think it was Mao (though I could be wrong) who made the analogy of the guerilla as fish and population as the water surrounding and supporting it. In order to effectively fight terrorism you need to deal with the reason why the terrorism is happening. Once you have identified that you can work to isolate the support of the terrorists and resolve the situation. If a course of "vengance and to hell with the collateral damage" is followed all you do is fan the flames of the problem: a classic example here the Britsh army going ape in Northern Ireland in 1973 (Bloody Sunday) and killing 13 civilians who in all probablity were not involved in terrorism in any way. Biggest boost to IRA recruitment ever. So IMHO, the sole answer is not to strike now and strike hard. Whats needed is far harder than that and its identifying and dealing with the causes: a political solution in other words. I keep thinking of one post that someone made a few days back, on the lines that "America won militarily in Vietnam but lost the war politically at home" (apologies if I'm wildly mis-quoting). Rubbish. The US lost militarily becuase they were trying to fight a regular war: winning is not about body count, its about achieving your objectives. The objective in Vietnam was the "hearts and minds" of the people and this objective ws comprehensibly lost. For pities sake, don't let the same mistake be made again with indiscriminate bombing. ------------------ Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

09-18-2001, 10:49 AM	#7
EyeOfHorus Elite Waterdeep Guard Join Date: August 24, 2001 Location: chicago, IL USA Posts: 8	I agree with you that winning a war against terrorism isn't like any other type of war America has been involved in. Terrorists don't wear uniforms, they don't live in barracks and they don't drive around in tanks that we can launch missiles at. That having been said, this is a war we MUST win. Although we may not know a whole lot about fighting terrorism now, I bet you that within a year or so, we will know much, much more. I'm sure some of our allies wanted us to fight this war years ago, but this is the US, and we don't change things until something really falls apart. Sad but true. Like you I'm glad that I don't have to make the strategic decisions as to who we go after. But we are not in this war alone, we have network of allies with whom we can share intelligence. The civilized world will band together to rid this scourge of humanity from the Earth once and for all...

09-18-2001, 10:52 AM	#8
Billikins the Bold The Magister Join Date: June 7, 2001 Location: Manchester Posts: 147	Unfortunately, both the US and it allies (my country included) have all to often been responsible for starting these terrorists off. Osama bin Laden was initially funded and trained by the CIA. ------------------ Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)