The "Terror" issue

[Hand Sword]

O.k. All,

We've been into the terror issue, arguing against each other's statements, and ignoring the reality of the situation, which is : It's going on! We have all of the reasons, on all sides, on the debate about the war on terror. In spite of personal politics, hatred of the President, His policies, conspiracy theories, etc.. I am asking all to lay it down and answer the real questions.

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?
2. Is there really a war against "terror"?
3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?
4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Remember, the reality of the situation, is our troops are out there fighting, and dying, irregardless of anything we think, or "know". That's what really matters! Do they want to be in their situation? NO! We, no matter our politics, wanted or wants it either. We all want them home and safe.

Please keep it civil, not attacking each other, and just lay down your ideas. If you want to fight so bad, join the troops on the front lines!

God bless the troops and keep them safe! :asian: Much respect to all of you and, Thank you very much!

 

[michaeledward]

. In spite of personal politics, hatred of the President, His policies, conspiracy theories, etc.. I am asking all to lay it down and answer the real questions.
. . .
If you want to fight so bad, join the troops on the front lines!

In spite of personal politics?

You will ridicule positions before the conversations begins.
e.g. 'conspiracy theories'.

You will create straw man arguments before the conversations begins. e.g. "hatred of the President"

Seems hardly a fair way to begin a conversation.

 

[Don Roley]

You will ridicule positions before the conversations begins.
e.g. 'conspiracy theories'.

So, I assume there is a chance that you believe that there is a conspiracy theory.

The questions seem fairly simple.

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?
2. Is there really a war against "terror"?
3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?
4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Yes, yes, yes and then a long explination.

I would like to see some discussion rather than a derailment of the thread because we do not want yet another thread about conspiracy theories laid out on martialtalk.

 

[Tez3]

I think we should be very thankful that we can argue against each other and I haven't seen anyone here who has ignored the gravity of the situation. I don't actually know what point Hand Sword is trying to make. What does he want us to say?
Everyone I know, including myself who is against the war has always supported our troops out there, I'm sure it's the same in America. Opposition to a war doesn't equate to opposition of your countries armed forces.
In Europe war on terrorism has been going on a long, long time - IRA, Prov IRA, UVF, Red Hand Brigade,PLO, Bader Meinhof etc etc. It's not a new situation for us.

 

[mrhnau]

Seems hardly a fair way to begin a conversation.

I think he was refering to his personal views more so than trying to steer the conversation. At least I hope so.

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?
2. Is there really a war against "terror"?
3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?
4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

1. You are a dummy if you think they don't exist.

2. I don't think our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan are there for the sun and surfing. Terrorist have to live in a country, so at this point, we need to go to those countries that they exist in. We can debate if there were terrorists in Iraq before we got there, but I don't think it's debatable that they are there now.

3. There should be. We can debate as to how and where it should take place, but if we want to live in a civil society w/out the fear of planes falling out of the sky, trains being exploded, biological weapons being used and nuclear weapons being exploded, we need a solution.

4. Elimination/incarceration of the terrorist. There are only a few ways to win a war. 1) kill the enemy 2) agree on a surrender/cease fire. 2) requires negotiation. you don't negotiate with someone that thinks a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon is to don a suicide vest. These guys are not planning on stopping until Israel does not exist and the US is gone/neutered. I'm not interested in either happening, and neither are most Americans (well, at least the US part).

That's what really matters! Do they want to be in their situation? NO! We, no matter our politics, wanted or wants it either.

I think thats a false assumption. I know many guys that have willingly gone. I'm sure they would rather be home, but alot of them believe they are safeguarding their childrens future. I tend to agree. Same reason millions signed up shortly after Pearl Harbor. That type of national pride and love for country still exists, regardless of what you might hear from the media.

If you want to fight so bad, join the troops on the front lines!

Not everyone in favor of the war should pick up a gun and go to Iraq. Not everyone is meant to be a soldier. We don't need 50 million guys there in Iraq. Nice try though...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Obviously there are terrorists out there with the money and sophistication (sp?) to pull off a 9-11.

Wishes and kisses are not going to stop them so something has to be done. We should have done more about them pre 9-11.

How do we run the war? I think it should be kind of like how cops do things. SWAT type guys (military) taking out known bad guys and training sites along with the "community policing" approach of trying to address the root causes of terrorism. You need both IMO. Policy change MAY make a long term difference but that wont help stop the short term killing. Bottom line is as along as there is strife in the mid east (read Isreal) we are going to have trouble. However Isreal is our ally and ditching them or distancing ourselves from them to appease terrorists for our own safety is cowardly and reprehensible.

 

[Marginal]

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?

Duh. Yes.

2. Is there really a war against "terror"?

No.

3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?

No. It's merely an excuse for the executive branch to amass broad unconsitutional powers. What better way than to claim we're in an open ended conflict with no future resolution? Then they get to compare themselves to Abe Lincoln while they hack away at the bill of rights*.

4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Gut the terrorist's support base.





*Yes, I know that the president was not to be mentioned, but since War On Terror is a marketing term coined by the administration, it does bear relevance to the discussion.

 

[Rich Parsons]

O.k. All,

We've been into the terror issue, arguing against each other's statements, and ignoring the reality of the situation, which is : It's going on! We have all of the reasons, on all sides, on the debate about the war on terror. In spite of personal politics, hatred of the President, His policies, conspiracy theories, etc.. I am asking all to lay it down and answer the real questions.

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?
2. Is there really a war against "terror"?
3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?
4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Remember, the reality of the situation, is our troops are out there fighting, and dying, irregardless of anything we think, or "know". That's what really matters! Do they want to be in their situation? NO! We, no matter our politics, wanted or wants it either. We all want them home and safe.

Please keep it civil, not attacking each other, and just lay down your ideas. If you want to fight so bad, join the troops on the front lines!

God bless the troops and keep them safe! :asian: Much respect to all of you and, Thank you very much!

To comment about the reality issue first. I believe that our troops are out there fighting and getting shot at and dying. For that I have respect and sympathy for the families and friends of those that are their.

Now to answer your questions:

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?

Yes.

My Opinion:
They exist to cause fear and terror and cause disruption to someone's lives in order to try to get a point across or to get someone to back off in fear. It is hard to target terrorist alone, versus national or regional areas.

2. Is there really a war against "terror"?

No.

My Opinion:
For war is terror in itself. To have a war against terror would be to not to take away rights and freedoms, but to embrace them and find ways to secure areas without invading personal liberties in the home. Travel security is one thing. Blank checks to have investigations or wire taps or such against with out court procedures.

3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?

Not sure.

My Opinion:
Attacking sources of those who attack us is fine. Freezing assets is fine as well. Illegal investigations in other countries is my opnion a violation of that countries rights in itself. Now if their is proof (* not required to be seen by the general public but members of congress is fine *) that a government is supporting or helping a group, then said government is an allie of these terrorists and therefore subject to action as well.

4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Real situations could include some of the following:

Assassination of lead Terrorists and their supporters. (* This could be seen as a violation of an agreement not assassinate leaders of countries. If we deem them to be a leader of a country even if it may nto be recognized then see next point *)

If terrorists are declared leaders of a nation and unable to be assassinated then all out warfare could be declared. It would make more sense to have one front, and to dedicate total control in one area then it would be to have multiple fronts at less than optimum or overkill numbers for total control.

The terrorists accept that they have to live in the world with others who will not live as they live. With this acceptance though comes for them a price that most are not willing to admit. That their culture has frozen in time and nto adapted well to modern issues and time frame. Yet, if they looked at the teachings of their great prophet (* one group of terrorists, and the one that many think are the only ones out there right now *), he handed down laws and guidelines to help his people. To adapt to a much larger society (* of that time frame *), and dealing with other cultures and dealing with issues of society. Unfortunately some took his words differently and now the extremists have people all up in arms over the possible loss of their life style. The terrorists in this case blame us and the western world for enticing their children away and corrupting their ways of life. They are chossing to fight for it. They are not taking responsibility for their own actions in raising their own children. They want them to follow blindly into what they have done, without showing and demonstrating why it is beneficial to them do such. They use their religion and terrorist ways to control their women and their children, (* Also done in a south east Asian Country with nuclear issues right now as well *) to promote hatred for outsiders, versus teaching the benefits of their society, and their beliefs.

If someone came into your country and tried to take away your children and teach them differently then one could see why they are so upset. And many have a point that other religions have continued to try to go in and teach the only way to the point that now everyone is not willing to accpet others and live in peace. They want the others to change and not themselves.

It would require a compromise by all parties. And while I think one side might think they are willing to, they are not, for their will always be those who "believe" they are following a call and have to go teach others the right way and the only way.

Just my opinions and I will stop here on this now, for I am beginning to ramble. My apologies.

 

[heretic888]

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?

Of course.

2. Is there really a war against "terror"?

No. The "War On Terror" is a marketing scheme for Pax Americana. If our government was actually determined to stop global terrorism, we would have targeted countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, not Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?

No. Our military should not be mobilized to police other countries.

4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

Historically, aggressive actions - whether military or economic - have only aided and abetted the "Enemies of Freedom", whether they be terrorists or dictators. Fareed Zakaria wrote an excellent article on this a year or so back in an issue of Newseek magazine.

The real Solution, by contrast, seems to be to ensure that the common people in the countries in question have social power; which means things like encouraging free trade, education, economic growth, less reliance on military resources, and so on. Putting the power in the hands of terrorists, despots, and warlords - whether by economic santions or militarily destablizing existing infrastructures - simply perpetuates the violence.

As Zakaria pointed out, although it feels good to "do something" about situations in countries like Iraq what we actually end up doing is making the situation worse.

Laterz.

 

[Monadnock]

Of course.



No. The "War On Terror" is a marketing scheme for Pax Americana. If our government was actually determined to stop global terrorism, we would have targeted countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, not Afghanistan and Iraq.

So us going into Saudi Arabia and Iran would not have fallen into your little Pax Americana theory? Please. Funny how convenient it just wasn't the two we already went into.

No. Our military should not be mobilized to police other countries.

Not as its primary function. But blowing up countries with air raids and just leaving them doesn't work either. But now the Democrats all have their big chance. After 4 years of complaining, they now hold the reins in the house and senate. Let's see them put those good ideas to work. Oh yeah, they hadn't had any, just complaints.

Historically, aggressive actions - whether military or economic - have only aided and abetted the "Enemies of Freedom", whether they be terrorists or dictators. Fareed Zakaria wrote an excellent article on this a year or so back in an issue of Newseek magazine.

The real Solution, by contrast, seems to be to ensure that the common people in the countries in question have social power; which means things like encouraging free trade, education, economic growth, less reliance on military resources, and so on. Putting the power in the hands of terrorists, despots, and warlords - whether by economic santions or militarily destablizing existing infrastructures - simply perpetuates the violence.

As Zakaria pointed out, although it feels good to "do something" about situations in countries like Iraq what we actually end up doing is making the situation worse.

Laterz.

You know, I almost agree, only you left out that those things aren't generally supported in most extremist theocracies/dictatorships. Saddam Hussein and Amenamenamenajab or however you spell the guys name are unfit to lead countries. They are murderous animals, but hey, let's send 'em food stamps and free subscriptions to scholastic, maybe the'll like us more.

 

[heretic888]

So us going into Saudi Arabia and Iran would not have fallen into your little Pax Americana theory? Please.

"Pax Americana" is not my theory.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I invented the term or the strategy underlying its formation. The term comes right out of a manifesto published by the PNAC a few months before the 2000 presidential election, as well as their plan for how to accomplish this goal.

If we had invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran, it still does not necessarily deflate my suspicions, but at least we could reasonably claim we were going after international terrorist hotbeds.

Funny how convenient it just wasn't the two we already went into.

Funny how convenient none of the terrorists that murdered thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001 were neither from nor affiliated with the two we already went into.

This isn't a matter of "convenience", unless you are referring to your own cognitive dissonance. Islamic terrorism has its hotbed in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. To claim otherwise is to, put it poetically, bury one's head in the sand.

Not as its primary function. But blowing up countries with air raids and just leaving them doesn't work either.

That was my point: no aggressive actions will "work". The military is ill-equipped to rebuild countries or develop a national infrastructure. That is not their purpose and that is not what our soldiers are trained for.

You know, I almost agree, only you left out that those things aren't generally supported in most extremist theocracies/dictatorships. Saddam Hussein and Amenamenamenajab or however you spell the guys name are unfit to lead countries. They are murderous animals, but hey, let's send 'em food stamps and free subscriptions to scholastic, maybe the'll like us more.

It as nothing to do with who will "like us more". It has everything to do with history and social dynamics.

Whether you like it or not, we created this mess in Iraq through our policy of airstrikes and economic sanction. All this did was ensure Saddam Hussein maintained unilateral power in his country. Any chance of an emerging middle class or professional class was all but eradicated with such policies.

It's quite simple. When you remove the social power from the populace, you hand it over to those in power --- whether they be terrorists, warlords, or sovereign despots. It doesn't matter if the means by which this is accomplished is economic sanction or military occupation. The end result is the same.

Your suggestions are motivated solely by what Zakaria described as "doing something" in order to feel good. It's a shame that you feeling good doesn't change the fact that the situation is as bad in the nations in question as they have ever been. Funny, that.

Laterz.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

They are murderous animals, but hey, let's send 'em food stamps and free subscriptions to scholastic, maybe the'll like us more.

Yeah. Sounds like the warm and fuzzies to me too. What do you do in the meantime while these people are planning to fly your plane into the White House? Its the typical college kid answer. Nice ideas minus any grip on reality.

 

[heretic888]

Yeah. Sounds like the warm and fuzzies to me too. What do you do in the meantime while these people are planning to fly your plane into the White House?

Implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I find the notion of improving our own security to be vastly more effective than "doing something" about every guy in the world that might wish us harm.

I realize that doesn't feel as good as causing widescale devastation across an impoverished nation, but oh well. Tough titties.

Its the typical college kid answer. Nice ideas minus any grip on reality.

Your poorly structured ad hominem notwithstanding, the reality is that the people that planned to fly a plane into the White House were from Saudi Arabia and were financed and supported by countries like Iran and Syria. Going after a nation like Iraq because it will make for a good staging ground for Pax Americana is not helping the "War On Terror". In fact, it's doing just the opposite.

And, just for the record, my "reality" is supported by the historical record and the realities of social dynamics. Your "reality" is supported by ideological wishful thinking, groupthink, and cognitive dissonance.

Have a good one.

 

[searcher]

I will answer numbers 1 and 4.

1.) Yes, there are terrorists.

4.) I am not sure there will ever be a solution to this problem. Outside of crazy amounts of killing and that will not really resolve anything. I think that if there were any real solution we would be working it out right now.


I would answer question 2 and 3, but the only thing I have is that there are to many of my students and family members that are fighting these terrorists right now for me to ever think that we don't have a war on terror going on.

 

[Hand Sword]

In spite of personal politics?

You will ridicule positions before the conversations begins.
e.g. 'conspiracy theories'.

You will create straw man arguments before the conversations begins. e.g. "hatred of the President"

Seems hardly a fair way to begin a conversation.

Nothing was ridiculed Mr. Edward. There was simply a request for everyone who takes part on these questions to not ridicule each other. We already had the political fight, which was fine in an open question of Why the war. I tried to focus people on specific questions and answers, based on what I felt was hidden between the lines of previous answers, in previous posts. I woill ask again, please just answer the questions. Acknowledging there is an enemy out there, and coming up with solutions to deal with that, based on how you think will work, has nothing to do with you needing to say I hate the President's policies. I think that was addressed enough already.

Thanks to all of you that kept to the guidelines.

 

[Hand Sword]

I think we should be very thankful that we can argue against each other and I haven't seen anyone here who has ignored the gravity of the situation. I don't actually know what point Hand Sword is trying to make. What does he want us to say?
Everyone I know, including myself who is against the war has always supported our troops out there, I'm sure it's the same in America. Opposition to a war doesn't equate to opposition of your countries armed forces.
In Europe war on terrorism has been going on a long, long time - IRA, Prov IRA, UVF, Red Hand Brigade,PLO, Bader Meinhof etc etc. It's not a new situation for us.

I want you all to answer the questions that I presented, in your honest opinion.

 

[Hand Sword]

Duh. Yes.
No.
No. It's merely an excuse for the executive branch to amass broad unconsitutional powers. What better way than to claim we're in an open ended conflict with no future resolution? Then they get to compare themselves to Abe Lincoln while they hack away at the bill of rights*.
Gut the terrorist's support base.





*Yes, I know that the president was not to be mentioned, but since War On Terror is a marketing term coined by the administration, it does bear relevance to the discussion.

Not to this conversation, we are all aware of people's feelings toward the president and his policies. The questions were straight forward, and the responses should be as well.

Please expand on gutting the terrorists support base, What do you think it is, and how would you have our government do it? Sounds like a very good point.

 

[Marginal]

Please expand on gutting the terrorists support base, What do you think it is, and how would you have our government do it? Sounds like a very good point.

Blotan covered a lot of what I was thinking. (Back to thse surgical strikes to deal with terrorists) I'd also try to make inroads with nations in the region diplomatically, economically etc. The more they benefit from the US, the less likely they would be to give terrorist activites a pass.

 

[Hand Sword]

Good ideas, but wasn't that tried already, in the past administration? What if what they want is abandoning the Israeli's, in terms of diplomacy. What if over half their population leans toward the politics of the terror groups. That would make it hard to not give their activities a pass. They're caught in the middle, needing our money, but, at the same time can't upset us by allowing the terror groups, and, not upsetting the terror groups, as it threatens their rule.

 

[Marginal]

Good ideas, but wasn't that tried already, in the past administration?

No process is going to be perfect, and there are still going to be outliers. The point is to make it harder for those outliers to gain popular support, and harder for them to operate with the resources of a nation supporting them.

What if what they want is abandoning the Israeli's, in terms of diplomacy. What if over half their population leans toward the politics of the terror groups. That would make it hard to not give their activities a pass. They're caught in the middle, needing our money, but, at the same time can't upset us by allowing the terror groups, and, not upsetting the terror groups, as it threatens their rule.

Few countries actively fear the terrorist groups. Iraq kept them out with no real retribution. (From those groups at least.) If half the population leans towards the terror groups, odds are better than half the population in those countries is not faring too well. Shifting that would take effort, money and time, but what's the alternative? Randomly knocking over regimes doesn't work. Failed in Iran, failed in Afghanistan, failed in Iraq.