We all know that we are now fighting a force of militas witch attacked or consipered with the enemy on 9-11-01. So the question is should we continue our war on terroism?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
should we continue the war on terror?
- Thread starter republican
- Start date
- Status
I would have to say yes becuase if we quit now then that tells our enemies that they have defeted us and it gives them more time to plan more attacks on us and othe countires.
Upvote
0
Yes we and the world are and will always be split on the decision of terroism on this world.
Upvote
0
The "war on terror" is pretty much a creation of America: having meaning in context of American culture, and to Americans; and pretty much no meaning in other settings.
Living with the "war on terror" is like living with a powerful schizophrenic neighbour: who you know is not quite all there; but who is so powerful as to not be containable.
The schizophrenic can knit whatever data presents, into their favoured schema of explanation: such that everything is somewhat tied into the worlds in which other people occur, but where every element of schizophrenic vision sits uncomfortabaly with all else.
Perhaps all you can hope, is that your neighbour will tire and go to sleep, before they see fit to wreck the whole neighbourhood.
Living with the "war on terror" is like living with a powerful schizophrenic neighbour: who you know is not quite all there; but who is so powerful as to not be containable.
The schizophrenic can knit whatever data presents, into their favoured schema of explanation: such that everything is somewhat tied into the worlds in which other people occur, but where every element of schizophrenic vision sits uncomfortabaly with all else.
Perhaps all you can hope, is that your neighbour will tire and go to sleep, before they see fit to wreck the whole neighbourhood.
Upvote
0
well the al-qaida and back in ww1 when the japs said they woken the dragon. Well here is everyones messege they haven and still livin.
Upvote
0
I think what he is saying is that. In some of our minds terroism can have its own different meaning and ways. But terroism to me is murder towards civilians to strike fear into them. But their is a difference between casulites dying in a war and causlites dying during peace.
Upvote
0
That could be the immediate upshot of what I'm saying.Paula said:
If the term "terrorism" and more crucially "terrorists" and "war on terror", were not embedded in extant ideologies: they they would just be words like any other; but they are so embedded, and that means that their use in serious dialogue has to be abandoned.
That there are actions and people whom the world has to deal with, for the good of all: I do not deny.
But, what these actions and people are, very much changes with the frames of reference we bring to their address.
Upvote
0
feral
Dostoyevsky was right
I think perhaps we ought to start a war on terror. Currently, we have a war on a sovereign nation which did not pose a threat to us and was not connected to terrorist groups. We are also allies with the countries which funded terrorism and in fact where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. That doesn't strike me as any way to defeat terrorism. But anyway, how do you fight something as abstract as terrorism? By terrorizing people with bombs? Any war on terror needs to use education, understanding and open dialogue as it's weapons, not bombs.
Upvote
0
ACougar
U.S. Army Retired
- Feb 7, 2003
- 16,795
- 1,295
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Terrorism is organized crime in my opinion. It has a political motive and it's goal is blackmail people with fear. It's not new, it's not war and it's not a valid reason to violate the constitution.
Upvote
0
Terrorism is a tactic... much like a cavalry charge is a tactic. You wouldn't declare war on cavalry charges would you?
The idea of a war against terror is silly. as soon as it was mentioned, most of the world started to tune out. And when Bush said 'you are with us or against us' that finishd off the job.
Terroism is the last resort of desparate people. But it is an effective tactic which at the very least is self perpetuating and self sustaining. Once groups become established, they cannot be defeated, any more than organized crime can be defeated (The Mafia, Triads and many other organized crime cultures have their origins in terrorism). You just cannot keep killing them until you have killed them all, even conventional wars are seldom won this way.
You have to defeat them as you would a conventional army, and that is to either break their will to continue, or make it logistically impossible to continue.
Experience shows us that only time will break their will. either they will get sick of it and go home, or find they are making a good living out of fear and intimidation and that the 'war' part is getting in the way of business.
Terrorists need very little resources and it is near impossible to cut them off from weapons. The only way to cut them off is to cut them off from their supporters, by making their supporters support you instead.
Basically, you have to try and turn their people (the people who they claim to be fighting for) into your friends.
Now, if you can describe 'making friends' as 'war on terror', then yes, we should continue.
My own opinion is that the best we can hope for is management and containment of terrorism. This is a job for policemen not soldiers.
The idea of a war against terror is silly. as soon as it was mentioned, most of the world started to tune out. And when Bush said 'you are with us or against us' that finishd off the job.
Terroism is the last resort of desparate people. But it is an effective tactic which at the very least is self perpetuating and self sustaining. Once groups become established, they cannot be defeated, any more than organized crime can be defeated (The Mafia, Triads and many other organized crime cultures have their origins in terrorism). You just cannot keep killing them until you have killed them all, even conventional wars are seldom won this way.
You have to defeat them as you would a conventional army, and that is to either break their will to continue, or make it logistically impossible to continue.
Experience shows us that only time will break their will. either they will get sick of it and go home, or find they are making a good living out of fear and intimidation and that the 'war' part is getting in the way of business.
Terrorists need very little resources and it is near impossible to cut them off from weapons. The only way to cut them off is to cut them off from their supporters, by making their supporters support you instead.
Basically, you have to try and turn their people (the people who they claim to be fighting for) into your friends.
Now, if you can describe 'making friends' as 'war on terror', then yes, we should continue.
My own opinion is that the best we can hope for is management and containment of terrorism. This is a job for policemen not soldiers.
Upvote
0
M
Mimi
Guest
Yes, but metaphorically. You can not solve violence with violence. I should have voted no...but heck I don't think terrorism is the answer to problems and it is a violent act...like war....
Now I even confused myself
Now I even confused myself
Upvote
0
How do you spot a terrorist?. They are the ones who attack your country unprovoked and kill civilians in the name of some cultral belief system which they claim is universal.
Go get them tiger!.
Go get them tiger!.
Upvote
0
- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,455
- 1,303
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
We should start looking for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda again, after Bush dropped the project to invade Iraq.
Upvote
0
when america brings its troops back to homeeeeee...al the problems will be resolved by themselves...
Upvote
0
Garnet2727
Illogical, irrational, reprobate
republican said:We all know that we are now fighting a force of militas witch attacked or consipered with the enemy on 9-11-01. So the question is should we continue our war on terroism?
We're in a war with Saudi Arabia?
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
IMHO, the question shouldn't be "should we keep fighting the war on terror?"
Duh. Terror bad. Next question.
I think the question should rather be...
"Should we keep fighting the war on terror the way we've been fighting it so far?"
So far, we've been fighting with all the efficiency of killing cockroaches with a shotgun: A lot of noise and mess, very few hard results, and a whole lot of holes for more to come crawling in.
Duh. Terror bad. Next question.
I think the question should rather be...
"Should we keep fighting the war on terror the way we've been fighting it so far?"
So far, we've been fighting with all the efficiency of killing cockroaches with a shotgun: A lot of noise and mess, very few hard results, and a whole lot of holes for more to come crawling in.
Upvote
0
N
no_worries
Guest
Now that we've started it we should finish it... Especially in Iraq, things are very unstable and if we leave then it's very possible that someone will come to power that will make Saddam look like a baby puppy. Until we're done fixing all the mess we've made we should continue the war on terror.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
