How does the West win the 'War on Terror'?

[guy]

"Ask yourself which is better, a crazy man isolated in his own country, or a quagmire in which provides the perfect breeding grounds for more terrorists"


So...lemmy get this straight...a crazy man....very wealthy by the way....in his own country...who kills his own people and gasses inncocent civilians.....and makes threatsto us all the time...and has POTENTIAL for WMD is not a threat worth confronting?? And By the way...dont give me the bullshit line...there were no weapons in Iraq because it was that same liberal democratic crap that held up the invasion to find the WMD in the first place...we only announced we were coming in for months while debating with you guys if we should go in....tell me a "crazy man" with larges sums of money on hand....and manpower isnt a threat....How easy is it to hide anything that may be found...over the corse of 6-9 months of debaing Bullshit with the UN. This is the thinking that got us to 9/11...that same "oh..it could never happen" attitude. Also...being that the us intercepted a shipment of Uranium from Russia bound for Iraq...I bring up the question...what the hell does Iraq want ith Uranium?? There no Al Qaeda/Iraq connection? Al Qaeda is world wide....former members have been tracked down in North Koria(which by the way...those guys aren't too amusing either)...as well as russia...not to mention..common sense...Bin Laden and Sadam...both rich men with means to harm the US...your right..there could NEVER be anything going on there. Also, I couldnt help but notice all your sources there are Public media....I guess you thing your getting the same info our CIA and FBI is getting eh?? They're telling the truth on EVERYTHING eh? Yeah...msnbc know everything our TOP SECRETE forces, FBI, CIA, Congress, House, and the president know...right buddy..ok. Just ask yourself...do ya really thing they would go public with Every bit of intel they have? Guess your getting the full storie right?? oh, wait...thats where Mr. moore comes in...he'll get all the dirt on everything...If only we all listend to them. Believe me bud....we dont know the half of it....there IS a reason we're over there......and the first person that says oil should come fill there gas tank here in Orlando at 2.65/gal......where all this oil where getting???

 

[georges]

I will have to agree with guy's posts.

 

[LetoII]

"kill 'em all" "kill their families" "kill their friends" ???

do you guys realize you sound like the terrorists you despise so much ?
and do you honestly believe that would change anything for the better ?
how did WE react on the killing of innocent civilians ? did we back off ? in the contrary ! we struck back, harder than ever ! what makes you think they will react any differently ?

no, my dear friends, killing their families would do nothing but prove, that we're not a bit better than our enemies. it would raise even more hatred among the nations where terrorists are recruited, and we would lose our dignity and lower ourselves to a level that reminds me of my own country's darkest hour some sixty years ago.
how can violence and cruelty possibly solve a problem, without triggering the next one ? have you learned nothing from history ?!

 

[georges]

"kill 'em all" "kill their families" "kill their friends" ???

do you guys realize you sound like the terrorists you despise so much ?
and do you honestly believe that would change anything for the better ?
how did WE react on the killing of innocent civilians ? did we back off ? in the contrary ! we struck back, harder than ever ! what makes you think they will react any differently ?

no, my dear friends, killing their families would do nothing but prove, that we're not a bit better than our enemies. it would raise even more hatred among the nations where terrorists are recruited, and we would lose our dignity and lower ourselves to a level that reminds me of my own country's darkest hour some sixty years ago.
how can violence and cruelty possibly solve a problem, without triggering the next one ? have you learned nothing from history ?!

Yes and how some people can go and bomb themsleves and kill innocents? How can some people believe in talks like those that speak that bastard of Ben Laden ?
In most of the cases, the terrorists are supported by family, morally, financially and by other means. Maybe sending the terrorist's family in jail can be the solution. But I hardly doubt it will give something over the long run.
Would you believe a terrorist? I never because he is unpredictable. He can stab you in the back if you don't fire the first.

 

[LetoII]

Yes and how some people can go and bomb themsleves and kill innocents? How can some people believe in talks like those that speak that bastard of Ben Laden ?
In most of the cases, the terrorists are supported by family, morally, financially and by other means. Maybe sending the terrorist's family in jail can be the solution. But I hardly doubt it will give something over the long run.

and that gives you the right to kill innocents, too ? is that what you're trying to tell me ?!
neither arresting their families nor killing them will stop any terrorist from doing what he does. in fact, that would be just another good reason to continue their war. is that what you want, georges ? giving the terrorists even more justification to fight the west ?
the USA already have a horrible reputation in the middle east, which is exactly the reason why so many people joined terrorist organizations in the first place. now YOU say, that if we catch those families (women and children, too, right ?! we're talking families here), put them on the wall and execute them, that would change the situation for the better ??? sorry, georges, but that's just way beyond common sense !
that kind of action would certainly get us in hot water, not only concerning the response of the terrorists, but also concerning the reaction of the rest of the world. how would that look, for christ's sake ? a freedom-loving democracy slaughtering families for a most arguable psychological effect to weaken the terrorists ??? the NAZIS have done shit like this, you know ! think about what you're proposing here ! seriously, think about it !

Would you believe a terrorist? I never because he is unpredictable. He can stab you in the back if you don't fire the first.

what's your point ? who said a terrorist should be trusted ? i sure didn't ! no idea what you're trying to tell me here.
btw, the issue of unpredictability also applies to your "family plan", since it's unpredictable how the individual terrorist would react if you killed his family.

 

[om3ga]

Sadly, Mcrocket, the nuke Mecca idea is something some right-wing radical Congressman in the US has proposed http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/. I'd like to pretend that this short sighted policy of pre-emption put for by President Bush is an anomoly, but I no longer can. You know any policy based upon the argument that, "he was going to hit me first," does not pass the test in my book.

God help us all if "nuke Mecca" is considered policy.
I worry that we are forgetting the old saying that "an eye for an eye will leave us all blind."
Clarity of vision is required; any blind retribution will play into the hands of those who want this type of response.

 

[georges]

1)and that gives you the right to kill innocents, too ? is that what you're trying to tell me ?!
neither arresting their families nor killing them will stop any terrorist from doing what he does. in fact, that would be just another good reason to continue their war. is that what you want, georges ? giving the terrorists even more justification to fight the west ?
the USA already have a horrible reputation in the middle east, which is exactly the reason why so many people joined terrorist organizations in the first place. now YOU say, that if we catch those families (women and children, too, right ?! we're talking families here), put them on the wall and execute them, that would change the situation for the better ??? sorry, georges, but that's just way beyond common sense !
that kind of action would certainly get us in hot water, not only concerning the response of the terrorists, but also concerning the reaction of the rest of the world. how would that look, for christ's sake ? a freedom-loving democracy slaughtering families for a most arguable psychological effect to weaken the terrorists ??? the NAZIS have done shit like this, you know ! think about what you're proposing here ! seriously, think about it !



what's your point ? who said a terrorist should be trusted ? i sure didn't ! no idea what you're trying to tell me here.
btw, the issue of unpredictability also applies to your "family plan", since it's unpredictable how the individual terrorist would react if you killed his family.

1)I said send the terrorist's family in Jail not execute her. How can you be so sure that the terrorist's family doesn't back up the terrorist? Do you think everyone in a terrorist family is innocent (excluding women and children)?
Ther are and were many people who wer anti american before the Iraq war. They prefer foreign personalities like Chirac who had a pro arab ass licking policy and had blind eyes on what happened in Irak. He was also the same guy who sold weapons to Saddam in the 70's.
People who are or were anti american, don't like to see America trying to keep peace and make the world better. They don't like the way America bheaves. But have you ever seen some countires like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia and Yemen respecting human rights? I haven't. And the leaders of the countries I mentionned are untrustworthy leaders who are also antiamerican people and for them USA is horrible.
In midlle eastern countries like Jordania, EAU, Kuweit and Israel, USA is an ally.
Maybe you have a tendancy to forget what happned the 11th september where more than 3000 persons died including fathers, mothers etc and etc. Saddam, Kahdaffi, Khomeny and syrian information service were slaughtering million of innocents and on that you say nothing? You didn't also talk about what happened in Munich in 1972 were Jewish athletes were killed just because they were Jewish. Thanksfully the Mossad killed all of the murderers. Do you also remember the hi jacking in 1975 where colonel Jeonathan Nathaniahu died because he saved Jews and non Jewish people from terrorists? Think about it.
2) even if his family is not arrested, a terrorist is always a terrorist, by definition he is an unpredictable person and he needs to die.

 

[LetoII]

1)I said send the terrorist's family in Jail not execute her.

you DID say "kill them, kill their families, kill their friends". that was your first post in this thread. have a good look.

How can you be so sure that the terrorist's family doesn't back up the terrorist? Do you think everyone in a terrorist family is innocent (excluding women and children)?

i can't be sure. just like you can't be sure that they ARE supporting them. that's exactly why i stated that the measures you favor would be an affront to human rights.

People who are or were anti american, don't like to see America trying to keep peace and make the world better.

the emphasis is placed on "trying", georges ! they've failed miserably. which is quite plain to me , since they've CAUSED a great deal of the trouble in the middle east. they've caused it by violence and now they wanna solve it by violence. sure, that makes sense !

But have you ever seen some countires like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia and Yemen respecting human rights? I haven't.

aah, and there goes your justification again, right ? if they have the right to pull shit like this, so do we ! just like back in the kindergarten. "he hit me first", or better yet "he was gonna hit me, so i hit him first". so as long as you have a bad guy you can point your finger on, you can perform the same atrocities with a clear conscience, or what?!

Maybe you have a tendancy to forget what happned the 11th september where more than 3000 persons died including fathers, mothers etc and etc. Saddam, Kahdaffi, Khomeny and syrian information service were slaughtering million of innocents and on that you say nothing? You didn't also talk about what happened in Munich in 1972 were Jewish athletes were killed just because they were Jewish. Thanksfully the Mossad killed all of the murderers. Do you also remember the hi jacking in 1975 where colonel Jeonathan Nathaniahu died because he saved Jews and non Jewish people from terrorists? Think about it.

i haven't forgotten any of these events, but i also haven't forgotten about the bloodshed that WE have brought to other countries. this is not a contest, georges. the measures we take define us as human beings, and if we comitted the same crimes as the terrorists, namely killing civilians (no matter whether you portray them as innocent or not), what would that make us ?! right, not a bit different than them !

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Perhaps the wrong question was asked to begin with. Instead of "How does the west WIN the war on terror?" maybe it should be asked "How does the west END the war on terror". I think the west is "winning" the war on terror, my country's world leaders are getting what they want - Re election just 7 months ago. Enough said, in their eyes that's the only win that matters.

Now ending the war on terror, as I and a few others have said, will require a monumental, impractical, disgustingly huge act of violence. But it's not necessary, terrorism is not a big enough deal to necessitate such acts. China, North Korea, Tom Cruise...now that's the real stuff us Americans should be worried about. They pose a legitimate threat to our national security, a couple of limp dicks with an air plane or a back pack are merely nuisances.

EPIC - I do not mind negative rep but could you please at least provide a little basis/reason for it?

 

[georges]

1)you DID say "kill them, kill their families, kill their friends". that was your first post in this thread. have a good look.

2)i can't be sure. just like you can't be sure that they ARE supporting them. that's exactly why i stated that the measures you favor would be an affront to human rights.

3)the emphasis is placed on "trying", georges ! they've failed miserably. which is quite plain to me , since they've CAUSED a great deal of the trouble in the middle east. they've caused it by violence and now they wanna solve it by violence. sure, that makes sense !

4)aah, and there goes your justification again, right ? if they have the right to pull shit like this, so do we ! just like back in the kindergarten. "he hit me first", or better yet "he was gonna hit me, so i hit him first". so as long as you have a bad guy you can point your finger on, you can perform the same atrocities with a clear conscience, or what?!

5)i haven't forgotten any of these events, but i also haven't forgotten about the bloodshed that WE have brought to other countries. this is not a contest, georges. the measures we take define us as human beings, and if we comitted the same crimes as the terrorists, namely killing civilians (no matter whether you portray them as innocent or not), what would that make us ?! right, not a bit different than them !

1) Yes I remember.Take ben laden's example. His family has loads of money. This money is send to terrorists for encouraging terrorism and enrolling young people in that shit. Ben Laden's Friends: Al Zarquawi, Mollah Omar and probably many other scumbags like this. They are threat and they kill and behead western people, right? So if the friends of a terrorist are terrorists it is better to kill them. And in most of the cases of terrorists whatever the organization they are belonging OLP, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Djihad, all the friends of a terrorist are generally terrorists, terrorists are a threat and they need to be killed. Remember how was killed Check Ahmed Yassine. By a laser guided missile.

2) It is easy to check if one helps or not terrorists: spying phone conversations, emails, opening letters, see on which bank account is going the bank transfers and to who really belongs this account. CIA is doing that with the ECHELON network in Europe for emails and phone conversations in case if you didn't know.

3) because for you doing nothing or not even try to solve was or is probably better? These people were and are governed by fanatics or/and untrustworthy people. You know better than me than talks are worthless with dictators or fanatics. So how could and can other countries stay passive? Did you remember peace talks between Egypt and Israel? It was done by an American president, not by another one.
What has caused most trouble in the middle East, is the incapacity of some countries to face terrorism or solve it by themselves Palestine and Lebanon and other not respecting their neighboors which is the case of Syria and probably Iran. It is always easy to put the blame on America, too easy

4) The countries I quoted in my previous post are considerated as rogue states for many reasons. Did you see what happened in London and Sharm El Sheikh? That could happen in another country as well. It is always good to keep an eye behind your back. Those countries are unpredictable. And you know better than me that their political leaders are untrustworthy, so maybe for you is it better to wait and have again other bad surprises but certainly not for me. Be ready to fight is what I say.

5) the man is a wolf for the man. we live in a shitty period and the 20th century was not the greatest period, that is true.
Killing terrorists and their allies is a necessity.

 

[Anonymous2]

i haven't forgotten any of these events, but i also haven't forgotten about the bloodshed that WE have brought to other countries. this is not a contest, georges. the measures we take define us as human beings, and if we comitted the same crimes as the terrorists, namely killing civilians (no matter whether you portray them as innocent or not), what would that make us ?! right, not a bit different than them !

What is the bloodshed you're referring to? I truly want to know so I don't misunderstand you. Are you talking about the Iraq war? Because frankly I don't see any other event You Might be referring to.

What I'd like to know -since you apparently are against military action of any kind to solve this problem- is: How would you approach this thing? Peace talks? Economical measures? Targeted actions such as kidnapping terrorist leaders?

 

[Johan]

Killing terrorists and their allies is a necessity.

Ok, so USA should start bombing Riyad immediately 'cause th Saudi Royal Family supports terrorism from NY To London, including Bagdad, Kabul, Casablanca, etc...

But this is impossible : They will never attack the ones who supllies them with precious Oil.

btw : Arabia is, unofficialy but truly, a terrorim suporting courntry. USA and Arabia are allied. So USA are kinda supportinbg terrorism, by buying oil with money that goes into some terrorist friendly Sultans & Emirs...

 

[LetoII]

i'm not gonna waste anymore time on this, georges. killing people is NOT a way to make the world a safer place - let alone a peaceful one. if you can't accept that wisdom (shared by all peaceful and reasonable people around the world), i truly feel sorry for you, and i see no further reason to continue this discussion.

throughout mankind's history hundreds of millions of people have died because of hatred and violence. if we fail to learn our lesson from that, they've died for nothing at all. it is never "necessary" to kill a human being, georges. you always have a choice, you know. that's about the saddest comment i ever heard from you.

 

[LetoII]

What is the bloodshed you're referring to? I truly want to know so I don't misunderstand you. Are you talking about the Iraq war? Because frankly I don't see any other event you might be referring to.

i'm talking about both gulf wars, Iran, Afghanistan and even Chile. there are a few more events which had been triggered by the US government only - not speaking about the rest of the western democracies - but the ones that i've mentioned are well known to the world.

What I'd like to know -since you apparently are against military action of any kind to solve this problem- is: How would you approach this thing? Peace talks? Economical measures? Targeted actions such as kidnapping terrorist leaders?

Economical measures would indeed be a start. if we helped those countries where terrorists derive from, we would show our good will, work against the prejudices they have towards western societies, raise their standard of living and eventually, but this will take it's time, take away the terrorist's justification to fight against us.
sounds utopian, you might say. but to me it sounds even more unrealistic if people really believe we could wipe out the terrorists to the very last man. we haven't even managed to scratch their surface yet, despite all the efforts. we cannot win this war ! but we can approach the issue from inside, trying to negate the original reason for terrorism. and that is IMO exactly where we should start.

 

[LetoII]

Ok, so USA should start bombing Riyad immediately 'cause th Saudi Royal Family supports terrorism from NY To London, including Bagdad, Kabul, Casablanca, etc...

But this is impossible : They will never attack the ones who supllies them with precious Oil.

btw : Arabia is, unofficialy but truly, a terrorim suporting courntry. USA and Arabia are allied. So USA are kinda supportinbg terrorism, by buying oil with money that goes into some terrorist friendly Sultans & Emirs...

exactly ! very good post, Johan !

 

[Peter Gazinya]

In one breath you refer to all the bloodshed at the hands of the U.S. by saying:

i'm talking about both gulf wars, Iran, Afghanistan and even Chile

So US involvement in "both gulf wars", etc. has been an exercise in bloodshed so severe as to warrant and justify terrorist attacks on our country. Yet, in the very next sentence you advocate that same involvement as a means to peace and understanding:

Economical measures would indeed be a start. if we helped those countries where terrorists derive from, we would show our good will, work against the prejudices they have towards western societies, raise their standard of living and eventually, but this will take it's time, take away the terrorist's justification to fight against us.

That sounds to me like EXACTLY what the U.S. is doing in Iraq right now. And not only is it Utopian and unrealistic, it is a colossal waste of human life and money. But right or wrong, it IS an attempt by the US to make good on a promise to bring a better life to Iraq. But what does it get us? Other than "fall in line" support from republicans it gets us worldwide grief and tremendous resistance to our efforts from both inside and outside our country. But at least we've got one supporter, Leto II.

 

[LetoII]

In one breath you refer to all the bloodshed at the hands of the U.S. by saying:

So US involvement in "both gulf wars", etc. has been an exercise in bloodshed so severe as to warrant and justify terrorist attacks on our country. Yet, in the very next sentence you advocate that same involvement as a means to peace and understanding: That sounds to me like EXACTLY what the U.S. is doing in Iraq right now. And not only is it Utopian and unrealistic, it is a colossal waste of human life and money. But right or wrong, it IS an attempt by the US to make good on a promise to bring a better life to Iraq. But what does it get us? Other than "fall in line" support from republicans it gets us worldwide grief and tremendous resistance to our efforts from both inside and outside our country. But at least we've got one supporter, Leto II.

aah, sarcasm is such a beautiful thing, isn't it, Peter ?! too bad you missed the target entirely, dude, cause i'm not talking about economical help that is offered along with the occupation of military forces !!! so i DON'T "advocate that same involvement as a means to peace and understanding" because that's not what the US has done so far imo. that wasn't "offering help", dude ! that was an invasion, and now they're forcing their political standards into an entirely different culture. YOU might consider that "economical help" or "development aid", i sure don't ! military forces have absolutely nothing to do with either of these terms, so don't accuse me for making contradictory statements.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

THAT WASN'T OFFERING HELP!!!!???? Removing a tyrannical butcher of millions is not offering help??? The US did not invade Iraq, we removed it's leader. The word "invasion" to me means we've stormed in with the intent of taking over the country, that is not what happened. Please accept my apology for mischaracterizing your words. I misread your statement but not entirely.

Developmental aid will certainly require some hands on training and personal attention from people with a talent for assimilating themselves in other cultures and still imparting some western ideas to them. So if we're not to enter these countries by military means, what security do you propose we provide for the people that go there to help? No matter how good their intentions, I think their lives will certainly be at risk as the enter a land where hatred toward Americans has been ingrained in them since birth, for over 1000 years according to some posts in this thread. Surely you don't suggest just sending money without any human resources? We throw money at problems here in the US everyday and that doesn't help at all.

We cannot send people from our country to dangerous foreign lands without security and who in the US is charged with the duty of National Security? The military is. So if we're not going to offer military assistance, no cultural reform programs, no educational training, no medical assistance, no religous alternatives - then what are we offering?

Just money? I don't think it'll work dude. Not only does it sound utopian, it sounds alot like a bribe. And it's easy to hate someone even while they're handing you money. For example, ever had a boss?

 

[Anonymous2]

Peter's post warrants a Standing O from me. Too bad I can't rep you right now.

A few more things I want to add to that current line of discussion: It's not like there are no economical aids flowing into these countries from the West. That's the poorer Muslim countries, like those in Africa. We sure all agree you cannot encounter terrorism from Saudi Arabia with economical aid. Secondly, the perpretators responsible for the most gruesome events (i.e. 9/11) have been living in Western countries for a long time, plotting their actions. I'll once again emphasize my point: To these people, politics don't really matter. They have been ideologically schooled, call it brainwashed or whatever by people who only want murder and terror against the US and its Western allies for reasons of a weird mixture of religious and biased and constructed ideas.

Thirdly, one thing I read today about two youngsters (underage boys) who were beheaded in Iran today because they were accused of having had homosexual contacts with one another. That is after they were publicly whipped 250+ times of course. It's things like these (and the list goes on right up to forced marriages in Turkey, the general abuse of women in Arab countries and so on) that were common in Afghanistan and Iraq before the US intervened. Don't you think it's worth taking action just to put an end to that kind of medieval ideas?

 

[websurfer]

1. give them porn and tell freeones to send all of the terrorists some freeones shirts - that would keep their minds off war.
2. instead of killing each other challenge them to a game of scrabble until they go crazy with our weird words and terribe spellings.
3. send them tons of big macs and whoppers and french fries (in the guise of peace offering) then let them die of obesity

(hope no one finds offense with this humour, just giving you a break from the hot debates u guys are having) :tongue: