Progress against terrorism
-
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
- a) a temporary decay, but more things that start to boil in the hidden b) David won against Goliath 2) part of the "rest of the world" is not convinced that Dubyas plan is such a clever idea. bombs breed terrorists, you know. You'll get cooperation for short-term benefits, but I'm deeply afraid of the long term results 3) a) hunt down real terrorists, not people that cheat at english tests b) let the nourishment for hate dry, don't try to bomb it away. This is a long term process. Won't happen overnite. Closing the gap could prove effective. c) Allowing 3rd world countries to build up self-sufficient economies could help a lot. d) Allowing 3rd world countries to have their own opinion when dealing with you might help you earn the respect you think you deserve. All overgeneralizations provided with pleasure.
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
Chris Losinger wrote: 1. no way to know. Terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since '69. (at least up until yesterday) Isn't this progress? Chris Losinger wrote: 2. they were/are helping. but i fear GWB's childish snubbing and "payback" of countries like France and Mexico could hurt the effort. "childish" isn't the word I would use. But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. I think its best that we let them know we are disappointed in their lack of effort to help us. I don't think we should threaten them with penalties (this time). Chris Losinger wrote: 3. I think past western influence in the region is a major hurdle although the US wasn't involved until the 40s. Allowing regimes like SA "go away" would create a power vacuum which we could not control. Unless we had boots on the ground in Riyad to control the situation, I doubt we would change our policy. Unfortunately, cheap oil is fundamental to our economic well-being. Until that fact changes, the Mid East will remain a bad place for westerners.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: Terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since '69 based on who's numbers? http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001112.html[^] Jason Henderson wrote: But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. that's utter BS (and Rush is an asshole for telling it to millions of people every day). for one thing, France is helping out in Afghanistan (Germany too), which was a justifiable war. Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think we should threaten them with penalties haven't we already done that? Jason Henderson wrote: Allowing regimes like SA "go away" would create a power vacuum which we could not control well, yeah. that's the point - the people over there don't want us to "control" them. Jason Henderson wrote: Until that fact changes, the Mid East will remain a bad place for westerners. they're bringing their anger to us, remember? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? I will agree some dent has been made but so what in the long run. So long as there are haves and have-nots the have-nots will find some way to blame the haves for their problems. It is all the easier if the haves were at fault for something. So I do not believe there ever will be a total victory until we reach Star Trek Utopia. Jason Henderson wrote: 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? At this time I would say most are paying lip service or nothing at all. My personal opinions this is 1/2 the US fault and 1/2 the fault of other western nations. Although I believe the war in Iraq was justifiable for the good of the Iraqi people the manner in which the US presented much of the justification only hurt. That is 1/2 and the other 1/2 those nations that were equally immature in playing there own diplomatic word games. The UN resolutions last fall should have never been agreed to. Jason Henderson wrote: 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? Well protection is only part of the solution. The major portion is doing a much better job at respecting other cultures and beliefs. Now to do this and stand for what we believe in, individual freedoms, etc. is not black and white. So always working with the international community is needed. However they also have their private agendas that are going to cause problems. Now back to our beliefs, this also means sacrificing our standard of living if need be so as to not being forced into working with regimes that violate those beliefs. Alternatively not just buying good from the cheapest source and ignoring what harm is done to the people who produced the goods. This line can go on in may variations, If you just stopped buying from a nation that had effectively slave labor, could easily mean they would only starve quicker. Well I am going in to many directions so I need to stop. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 1. no way to know. Terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since '69. (at least up until yesterday) Isn't this progress? Chris Losinger wrote: 2. they were/are helping. but i fear GWB's childish snubbing and "payback" of countries like France and Mexico could hurt the effort. "childish" isn't the word I would use. But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. I think its best that we let them know we are disappointed in their lack of effort to help us. I don't think we should threaten them with penalties (this time). Chris Losinger wrote: 3. I think past western influence in the region is a major hurdle although the US wasn't involved until the 40s. Allowing regimes like SA "go away" would create a power vacuum which we could not control. Unless we had boots on the ground in Riyad to control the situation, I doubt we would change our policy. Unfortunately, cheap oil is fundamental to our economic well-being. Until that fact changes, the Mid East will remain a bad place for westerners.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: "childish" isn't the word I would use. But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. I think its best that we let them know we are disappointed in their lack of effort to help us. I don't think we should threaten them with penalties (this time). Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Where was the US to help at the time?
-
Jason Henderson wrote: "childish" isn't the word I would use. But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. I think its best that we let them know we are disappointed in their lack of effort to help us. I don't think we should threaten them with penalties (this time). Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Where was the US to help at the time?
Michel Prévost wrote: Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Link? Michel Prévost wrote: Where was the US to help at the time? Did they ask for help? Mike Mullikin :beer:
"When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried other enemas..." Emo Phillips
-
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? So far things are pretty unsure. But we have to win. There is no other way. Jason Henderson wrote: 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? India itself has been a victim of terrorism for too long. Even today we lose at least 5 civilians + policemen/armymen daily to terrorism. Not to speak about the money, time and other resources that go into combating terrorism. :( What I meant by the above paragraph is that the US should stop thinking that it is the only target of terrorism. And please understand that we are dealing with it in our own way. Though of course co-operation with/from a powerful ally like the US would certainly help in dealing with it on a global scale, and even locally. Even a slight amount of US pressure on Pakistan, for example, does a lot in curbing cross border terrorism. Right now the situation is something like this: India: Grrrrrr!!! Pakistan: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! India: GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! ... And so on. US: Grr! Pakistan: Meow. Whimper. OK... Jason Henderson wrote: 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.) I agree that leaving them alone is not the answer. But killing them is not the answer either. Kill one of them, and ten others come from somewhere. The only way is to speak to them (yes, you read it right). OK, so maybe not OBL, but others like him, more low profile, less dangerous, and those with whom we have better chances of being able to talk. Understand what they want, at least pretend to, and more importantly, make them understand that we are not their enemies, and even if they have grievances, an amicable way to resolve them can always be found out. India has just started doing this, and so far the results have been encouraging. A lot of terrorists have surrendered, some even told the police about the weapon and terrorists hideouts. But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, are now so incensed they have ramped up the killings. Anyway, only time will tell whether this is effective or not. I hope it is. Hatred breeds more hatred. We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Michel Prévost wrote: Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Link? Michel Prévost wrote: Where was the US to help at the time? Did they ask for help? Mike Mullikin :beer:
"When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried other enemas..." Emo Phillips
Northern Ireland springs to mind. For a long time the IRA was receiving "support" (i.e. the funds to buy arms) from individuals in the US via Noraid. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't until the Clinton presidency that the US cracked down on that. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since '69 based on who's numbers? http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001112.html[^] Jason Henderson wrote: But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. that's utter BS (and Rush is an asshole for telling it to millions of people every day). for one thing, France is helping out in Afghanistan (Germany too), which was a justifiable war. Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think we should threaten them with penalties haven't we already done that? Jason Henderson wrote: Allowing regimes like SA "go away" would create a power vacuum which we could not control well, yeah. that's the point - the people over there don't want us to "control" them. Jason Henderson wrote: Until that fact changes, the Mid East will remain a bad place for westerners. they're bringing their anger to us, remember? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareIMHO: If there is to be any long term plan against terrorism the US must hurry up and invade Saudi, Syria, and Iran as well. Next the US must build schools for the peoples of the area and control the education system. Rational: In the mid to long term these areas are above the US's strategic Interests (oil) and the US will continue to put demands on these countries until the strategic assets have expired. This pressure will cause the citizens of these countries to continue to wish to turn to terrorism. I'm sure that after 9/11 there are literally thousands of young teenagers in the Middle East who wish to imitate what their "hero's" achieved. The Bush administartion may have curtailed terrorist activity against the US for now but it is going to return manyfold for a future Administration if action isn't taken now. If we consider that the war on terrorism has just begun it may be recorded oneday as the worlds longest war. Only drastic measures will bring any results. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use. It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Michel Prévost wrote: Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Link? Michel Prévost wrote: Where was the US to help at the time? Did they ask for help? Mike Mullikin :beer:
"When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried other enemas..." Emo Phillips
Mike Mullikin wrote: Did they ask for help? 1939 Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Warning Link to the minion's animation, do not use. It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
1. no, the war against terrorism is a joke 2. everybody is participating to this comedy in a form or another 3. changing people mentality, opening their eyes, things are not just black and white they have also gray nuances, identifying the causes and fight the cause not the effects. what i see from the current situation in the world are these: 1. war is peace. - saddam has WMD and he must be stopped, at least the intelligence said so and pretty convince Powell about it coz he was trying very hard to convince the UN security council about this and push them to agree with the military intervention in iraq. The UN security council didnt bought it tho so US violated the international law and went in Iraq to kick Saddam butt and take his WMD. - with surgical bombardment they hit alot of markets and with "surgical" cluster bombs (which were banned by geneva convention) they eliminated the cancer that poisoned Iraq and then they realized "oops the dog eat saddam WMD :~" but what the heck at least we free iraqi people. ok boys and gals work on this propagndistic (freedom war) idea and try to do a good job so the people to forget our reason why we attacked iraq in the 1rst place because saddam didnt had WMD after all. 2. freedom is slavery now the people of iraq are liberated from the dicattor that striped them of their freedom. now thanks to US and British troops Iraqi people are free as the wild cammels in the desert. No electricity, no water, no food well... cammels dont need electricity, they find their water, they find their food, how can u be more free than this. who needs a museum? who needs that old stuff anyway. the desert is enough for you beside u have alot of OIL u iraqi people could consider urself very ritch and free under beautiful ski of iraq and the dunes, hospitals pff.. wild free camels dont need hospitals... my fellow iraqi citizens, we are there to help u install a democratic regime and its members will be eleted by the iraqi people and with our aproval :)) 3. ignorance is strength in a democracy where people vote and the majority rulz, all u need to do is to make the majority dumber to be easier to lure them to think what u want to think and then make a fair vote. of course the majority will win, that dumb, blinded, hipnotized, easy controlable majority. who needs 100% smart people? the best is 49% smarties and 51% ignorants and we will have a democratic vote :) of course this is the right thing to do in a democracy no? IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!! B
-
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Perhaps should we first define, or at least agree, on a definition of the word "Terrorism". What's the difference between "terrorism" and "resistance", except a difference of point of view? For the "traditionnal" meaning of this word, it seems actually the number of terrorist networks is decreasing in Europe: No more "Red Brigades" in Italy or Germany, a peace process in Northern Ireland, ETA severly hit by police forces in Spain and France: the situation is evolving quiet good. Will we get totally rid of the threat one day? I don't think so. There will always be disgusted, hopeless or revenger people who will fall in extrem means. About international coopearation, I believe it works quiet well, whatever the "little disagreements" over the Iraq invasion. I hope our intelligence/police/security services are not stupid enough to fall in sterile quarrels. Police actions are palliatives to existing problems but aren't by themselve a solution. IMHO, the best way to reduce terrorism is prevention: reduce the poverty through the World (misery is a root for despair), enhance education (the solution) and ban violence from our acceptable behaviours.
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Michel Prévost wrote: Europe is dealing with terrorism since a long time. Link? Michel Prévost wrote: Where was the US to help at the time? Did they ask for help? Mike Mullikin :beer:
"When I wake up in the morning, I just can't get started until I've had that first, piping hot pot of coffee. Oh, I've tried other enemas..." Emo Phillips
Mike Mullikin wrote: Link? About the european terrorist organizations, search with google for: "Brigade Rosso", "Rote Armee Fraktion", "Action Directe", IRA, UVF, "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna" (ETA)... About some examples od terrorist attacks in Europe since the the 70's, search for the bombing in the "rue des rosiers" in Paris, the story of the terrorist "Carlos The Jackal", the bombing of the Piazza Fontana in Milano, the assassination of Aldo Moro, the bombings of PIRA in Regency Park and Hyde Park in London...
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
In light of the recent attacks[^] in Saudi Arabia, what are your views on the progress in the "war on terror?" 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.)
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
The fancy headline stuff sounds good, but unless you deal with why people are willing to sacrifice their lives you won't win. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi, so what is it about his life there that was a factor in who he became ? Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Northern Ireland springs to mind. For a long time the IRA was receiving "support" (i.e. the funds to buy arms) from individuals in the US via Noraid. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't until the Clinton presidency that the US cracked down on that. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Northern Ireland springs to mind. For a long time the IRA was receiving "support" (i.e. the funds to buy arms) from individuals in the US via Noraid. The age old problem of seperating terrorists from freedom fighters also pops up. With many Irish supporting their families what do you do. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: I'm pretty sure that it wasn't until the Clinton presidency that the US cracked down on that. Try Teddy Roosevelt as a start (or even earlier.) "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Link? About the european terrorist organizations, search with google for: "Brigade Rosso", "Rote Armee Fraktion", "Action Directe", IRA, UVF, "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna" (ETA)... About some examples od terrorist attacks in Europe since the the 70's, search for the bombing in the "rue des rosiers" in Paris, the story of the terrorist "Carlos The Jackal", the bombing of the Piazza Fontana in Milano, the assassination of Aldo Moro, the bombings of PIRA in Regency Park and Hyde Park in London...
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
I am not sure where I place them but I would not include paid assassins in the terrorists grouping. I think we will always have some arguments trying to separate freedom fighters from terrorists. I can clearly put those that blowup little children in an ice cream parlor as terrorists but attacking a military check point is totally different. For myself the issue is not has terrorist groups been dealt with (yes they have for hundreds of years,) but with the ease of travel it is no longer just a local issue as has existed in the past. So how do we really work together and sort out the above conflict. Who decides if they are fighting for freedom or just trying to force their groups will on others. It involves the statement "You are for us or against us." Which when taken in the right context is a valid statement. If you ignore terrorists in your nation that openly attack other nations you are effectively a supporter of that group by doing nothing. We as a world do not have a working solution to this. You mention Piazza Fontana, which from my quick search killed 16. 911 was how many thousands! Scale has changed and again it is no longer a local issue. Now on the counter side take India and Pakasitan. OK a few everyday but add that up. Is it local or not? I do not have answers. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Jason Henderson wrote: 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? So far things are pretty unsure. But we have to win. There is no other way. Jason Henderson wrote: 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? India itself has been a victim of terrorism for too long. Even today we lose at least 5 civilians + policemen/armymen daily to terrorism. Not to speak about the money, time and other resources that go into combating terrorism. :( What I meant by the above paragraph is that the US should stop thinking that it is the only target of terrorism. And please understand that we are dealing with it in our own way. Though of course co-operation with/from a powerful ally like the US would certainly help in dealing with it on a global scale, and even locally. Even a slight amount of US pressure on Pakistan, for example, does a lot in curbing cross border terrorism. Right now the situation is something like this: India: Grrrrrr!!! Pakistan: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! India: GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! ... And so on. US: Grr! Pakistan: Meow. Whimper. OK... Jason Henderson wrote: 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.) I agree that leaving them alone is not the answer. But killing them is not the answer either. Kill one of them, and ten others come from somewhere. The only way is to speak to them (yes, you read it right). OK, so maybe not OBL, but others like him, more low profile, less dangerous, and those with whom we have better chances of being able to talk. Understand what they want, at least pretend to, and more importantly, make them understand that we are not their enemies, and even if they have grievances, an amicable way to resolve them can always be found out. India has just started doing this, and so far the results have been encouraging. A lot of terrorists have surrendered, some even told the police about the weapon and terrorists hideouts. But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, are now so incensed they have ramped up the killings. Anyway, only time will tell whether this is effective or not. I hope it is. Hatred breeds more hatred. We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: India itself has been a victim of terrorism for too long. Terrorism in "your" India is something in which India is involved herself, and no one else. Blaming the other neighbours is a cheap tactic of Indian ruling party policies to win elections and to protect its own right wing extremists. Rohit Sinha wrote: And please understand that we are dealing with it in our own way. Yes i know what is India's way of dealing the situation, torture, rapes assaults by security forces on people demanding their right of self determination, and then hope that "terrorism" will end.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since '69 based on who's numbers? http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001112.html[^] Jason Henderson wrote: But, it could be said that with friends like France and Mexico, who needs enemies. that's utter BS (and Rush is an asshole for telling it to millions of people every day). for one thing, France is helping out in Afghanistan (Germany too), which was a justifiable war. Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think we should threaten them with penalties haven't we already done that? Jason Henderson wrote: Allowing regimes like SA "go away" would create a power vacuum which we could not control well, yeah. that's the point - the people over there don't want us to "control" them. Jason Henderson wrote: Until that fact changes, the Mid East will remain a bad place for westerners. they're bringing their anger to us, remember? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
I am not sure where I place them but I would not include paid assassins in the terrorists grouping. I think we will always have some arguments trying to separate freedom fighters from terrorists. I can clearly put those that blowup little children in an ice cream parlor as terrorists but attacking a military check point is totally different. For myself the issue is not has terrorist groups been dealt with (yes they have for hundreds of years,) but with the ease of travel it is no longer just a local issue as has existed in the past. So how do we really work together and sort out the above conflict. Who decides if they are fighting for freedom or just trying to force their groups will on others. It involves the statement "You are for us or against us." Which when taken in the right context is a valid statement. If you ignore terrorists in your nation that openly attack other nations you are effectively a supporter of that group by doing nothing. We as a world do not have a working solution to this. You mention Piazza Fontana, which from my quick search killed 16. 911 was how many thousands! Scale has changed and again it is no longer a local issue. Now on the counter side take India and Pakasitan. OK a few everyday but add that up. Is it local or not? I do not have answers. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I can clearly put those that blowup little children in an ice cream parlor as terrorists but attacking a military check point is totally different. Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It involves the statement "You are for us or against us." IMHO this statement is too much "Black and White". It could be perhaps more valuable by adding "You are for us or against us, at this time.": remember for example that Ben Laden was trained by the CIA. Treason is just a matter of date. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: 911 was how many thousands! Scale has changed and again it is no longer a local issue Do you believe the death of one as more acceptable than the deaths of thousands? I don't. Don't you think terrorism was in your opinion a "local issue" as long as the US weren't targeted?
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Jason Henderson wrote: 1) Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? So far things are pretty unsure. But we have to win. There is no other way. Jason Henderson wrote: 2) Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? India itself has been a victim of terrorism for too long. Even today we lose at least 5 civilians + policemen/armymen daily to terrorism. Not to speak about the money, time and other resources that go into combating terrorism. :( What I meant by the above paragraph is that the US should stop thinking that it is the only target of terrorism. And please understand that we are dealing with it in our own way. Though of course co-operation with/from a powerful ally like the US would certainly help in dealing with it on a global scale, and even locally. Even a slight amount of US pressure on Pakistan, for example, does a lot in curbing cross border terrorism. Right now the situation is something like this: India: Grrrrrr!!! Pakistan: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! India: GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! ... And so on. US: Grr! Pakistan: Meow. Whimper. OK... Jason Henderson wrote: 3) What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.) I agree that leaving them alone is not the answer. But killing them is not the answer either. Kill one of them, and ten others come from somewhere. The only way is to speak to them (yes, you read it right). OK, so maybe not OBL, but others like him, more low profile, less dangerous, and those with whom we have better chances of being able to talk. Understand what they want, at least pretend to, and more importantly, make them understand that we are not their enemies, and even if they have grievances, an amicable way to resolve them can always be found out. India has just started doing this, and so far the results have been encouraging. A lot of terrorists have surrendered, some even told the police about the weapon and terrorists hideouts. But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, are now so incensed they have ramped up the killings. Anyway, only time will tell whether this is effective or not. I hope it is. Hatred breeds more hatred. We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: What I meant by the above paragraph is that the US should stop thinking that it is the only target of terrorism. And please understand that we are dealing with it in our own way. Though of course co-operation with/from a powerful ally like the US would certainly help in dealing with it on a global scale, and even locally. Even a slight amount of US pressure on Pakistan, for example, does a lot in curbing cross border terrorism. I think if we're at war with terror, then we're at war with all terrorists. Hezbullah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Pakistani terrorists, Indian terrorists (if any), Al Queda, Chechnyian terrorists, etc. We need to take serious steps against all terror groups and not just AQ. Rohit Sinha wrote: But killing them is not the answer either. I doubt if you can reason with them. I think Yasser Arafat is a good example of this. Especially the ones willing to die for the cause. Isn't it kill or be killed in this situation? Rohit Sinha wrote: Anyway, only time will tell whether this is effective or not. I hope it is. Hatred breeds more hatred. We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone. Me either. In fact, terrorism in its current incarnation is a form of racism or maybe just an extreme prejudice against certain groups (Jews, westerners, Indians/Hindus, etc).
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
The fancy headline stuff sounds good, but unless you deal with why people are willing to sacrifice their lives you won't win. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi, so what is it about his life there that was a factor in who he became ? Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: but unless you deal with why people are willing to sacrifice their lives you won't win. What is your basis for believing we will "win" even if we do that? Your assumption is that the underlieing cause is some kind of noble, justified indignation that can ultimately be dealt with in a rational, diplomatic manner. What if the answer is that they simply want all women to wear sacks over their heads? That would be fine with me, but are you willing to go along with that to make them happy?