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
Jason Henderson wrote: Are we winning or making a dent in terrorist efforts? Can we win? Very hard to answer the first part, but maybe, yes. For the second- yes, we can win. Jason Henderson wrote: Is the rest of the "civilized" world participating or are they just paying lip-service to the US? America will have to address other countries' concerns also. Not just in the case of Pakistan, but also in the case of Sri Lanka, and many others. You see, there are many complex factors; so it does NOT simply boil down to a case of "with us or against us". Unless the other countries' concerns are addressed by America, nobody is going to offer support. Jason Henderson wrote: What are your ideas on how to deal with terrorists? (Leave them alone is not an answer.) 1. Cut off sources of funding. 2. Hit back- HARD * 3. Discourage states providing a safe haven to terrorists. *- Avoid civilian casualties at ALL costs. Well, all this is just my 2 cents...
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
KaЯl wrote: Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? Look at the intended target. Also, a formal war between legitimate states precludes the use of sufficient force to defeat the enemy. If that means an a-bomb to destroy the japanese will to fight in WWII, then that's what you have a right to do. Civilians have been targets since the first wars of recorded history until only recently. The precision used in this war in IRaq was unprecidented and hopefully a template of future wars.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: If that means an a-bomb to destroy the japanese will to fight in WWII, then that's what you have a right to do I would tend to agree. I would also say that any war is terrorist by design. Jason Henderson wrote: The precision used in this war in IRaq was unprecidented and hopefully a template of future wars I would wait for some more independant sources than Fox News to agree on that point! ;P Is the number of civilians killed determined? :confused:
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: But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, Why is it that "terrorism" in India's context means only Pakistan? No, read it fully! You're 100% right about Pakistan, but.... But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Considering the fact that you live in WB, you should be knowing (and maybe even have experienced) this stuff. Hasn't Kaledia Zia (isn't that her name?) OPENLY declared her support to those terrorists? And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Agreed, they can be hardly called terrorists, but their intentions towards India are none the friendly. REMEMBER: Pakistan is our major PITA, but it is NOT THE ONLY ONE. Rohit Sinha wrote: We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone. I'm with you there.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
KaЯl wrote: 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? An intentional strike against civilians to induce a shocking affect that will get your message out. The military is always a valid target, IMO. But, if a military target is hit, then they have a right to defend themselves as well.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
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
KaЯl wrote: Do you believe the death of one as more acceptable than the deaths of thousands? I don't. I am greived at the loss of anyone. But I have to say yes when Thousands are hurt vs a few things do change. If nothing else than you have thousands calling on the government todo something vs a few. So it becomes an issue that is then dealt with. KaЯl wrote: Don't you think terrorism was in your opinion a "local issue" as long as the US weren't targeted? NO, The Murrah building in Oklahoma was a local issue, for example. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Jason Henderson wrote: An intentional strike against civilians to induce a shocking affect that will get your message out. Like the bombings of british, german or japanese cities during WW2?
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
Yes, but I believe there was a fundamental difference. Two or more States were at war, with heavy casualties. I think it was a "win by any means or our livelyhood is toast" situation. Terrorists today aren't in this situation. OBL is very rich, Islam is thriving, America is not oppressing them, and the Palestinians had a serious chance at statehood but they blew it.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, Why is it that "terrorism" in India's context means only Pakistan? No, read it fully! You're 100% right about Pakistan, but.... But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Considering the fact that you live in WB, you should be knowing (and maybe even have experienced) this stuff. Hasn't Kaledia Zia (isn't that her name?) OPENLY declared her support to those terrorists? And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Agreed, they can be hardly called terrorists, but their intentions towards India are none the friendly. REMEMBER: Pakistan is our major PITA, but it is NOT THE ONLY ONE. Rohit Sinha wrote: We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone. I'm with you there.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Those are different. I won't call them terrorists. They don't go about killing "innocent" people. True, they kill people too, but only if you do something to them, or are a government/military person. Like if you inform the police about them, etc. They are murderers, even mass murderers, but not terrorists. There is a difference. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Even they are different. And hey, they are not terrorists at all. They are just illegal immigrants who come here looking for work. They are very poor people who could not even get two meals a day in Bangladesh. True, some terrorists mingle with them to get inside, but the average Bangladeshi coming here is just a poor guy who wants to work for food or something. And please, don't call every PITA a terrorist. It'll only serve to take the credibility away from our position about the real terrorists. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Jason Henderson wrote: Indian terrorists (if any), OK, since you raised this, and I'm glad you did, I'll say a few things. India is facing this problem on multiple levels. There are terrorists from Pakistan and there are terrorists from (in) India (wait, please read the whole paragraph). Those who are in India are from Pakistan actually. Then there is the Pakistani propaganda, which would like everyone to believe that the terrorism happening in India is actually being caused by either by Indians themselves, or the Indian army and such (this is so ridiculous that I don't even respond when someone posts such stuff here or elsewhere). The situation is actually much more complex than it seems on the surface. The side supporting terrorism (Pakistan) is also the one spreading propaganda. And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, sometimes providing them intel, money, goods, transport, etc. But then you get some of this kind everywhere. Jason Henderson wrote: I doubt if you can reason with them. Yes, me too. But I feel that if we somehow keep this generation of terrorists talking, or even members of the groups the terrorists claim to represent, maybe, just maybe the next generation will have a less number of them. Maybe we can even "win back" some of the borderline cases, or even some who are not borderline, but not too far into the territory of the terrorist mindset. The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaI don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan. There is a bloody past between India and Pak. and I think that breeds hatred on both sides. Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? This is still no excuse for civilian targeting. Rohit Sinha wrote: The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill? I think the leaders are. To kill a snake you have cut off its head.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
KaЯl wrote: Do you believe the death of one as more acceptable than the deaths of thousands? I don't. I am greived at the loss of anyone. But I have to say yes when Thousands are hurt vs a few things do change. If nothing else than you have thousands calling on the government todo something vs a few. So it becomes an issue that is then dealt with. KaЯl wrote: Don't you think terrorism was in your opinion a "local issue" as long as the US weren't targeted? NO, The Murrah building in Oklahoma was a local issue, for example. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: But I have to say yes when Thousands are hurt vs a few things do change Probably true, and certainly sad. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: NO, The Murrah building in Oklahoma was a local issue, for example. Ah, ok. Issues are local when involving nationals only, aren't they? In the sample I gave local issues were exception . Most were related to the East-West confrontation or to the near/middle east crisis
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Indian terrorists (if any), OK, since you raised this, and I'm glad you did, I'll say a few things. India is facing this problem on multiple levels. There are terrorists from Pakistan and there are terrorists from (in) India (wait, please read the whole paragraph). Those who are in India are from Pakistan actually. Then there is the Pakistani propaganda, which would like everyone to believe that the terrorism happening in India is actually being caused by either by Indians themselves, or the Indian army and such (this is so ridiculous that I don't even respond when someone posts such stuff here or elsewhere). The situation is actually much more complex than it seems on the surface. The side supporting terrorism (Pakistan) is also the one spreading propaganda. And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, sometimes providing them intel, money, goods, transport, etc. But then you get some of this kind everywhere. Jason Henderson wrote: I doubt if you can reason with them. Yes, me too. But I feel that if we somehow keep this generation of terrorists talking, or even members of the groups the terrorists claim to represent, maybe, just maybe the next generation will have a less number of them. Maybe we can even "win back" some of the borderline cases, or even some who are not borderline, but not too far into the territory of the terrorist mindset. The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaI don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan. There is a bloody past between India and Pak. and I think that breeds hatred on both sides. Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? This is still no excuse for civilian targeting. Rohit Sinha wrote: The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill? I think the leaders are. To kill a snake you have to cut off its head.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, Why is it that "terrorism" in India's context means only Pakistan? No, read it fully! You're 100% right about Pakistan, but.... But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Considering the fact that you live in WB, you should be knowing (and maybe even have experienced) this stuff. Hasn't Kaledia Zia (isn't that her name?) OPENLY declared her support to those terrorists? And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Agreed, they can be hardly called terrorists, but their intentions towards India are none the friendly. REMEMBER: Pakistan is our major PITA, but it is NOT THE ONLY ONE. Rohit Sinha wrote: We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone. I'm with you there.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: Pakistan is our major PITA I disagree. The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me, IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. But since we are on the recieving end of terrorism, and it comes from Pakistan, we club all of them together and see them as our enemy number one. Not so. Of course, most Pakistanis also see us as their enemy number one, but just like with us, this is just a matter of perception. Get rid of the hate mongers and everything will be fine. It'll take some time, but it can be done. In fact, there are two missions in my life. Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. :-O (Read my sig) Mission number one is to get rich and live happily.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan. There is a bloody past between India and Pak. and I think that breeds hatred on both sides. Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? This is still no excuse for civilian targeting. Rohit Sinha wrote: The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill? I think the leaders are. To kill a snake you have cut off its head.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan Of course. And politicians in both the countries fan the hatred to win elections, which is so sad if you think about it. But at least India keeps its activities inside its own borders and we don't go about killing people. Yes, we have a bloody past. During the partition, riots broke out everywhere. But that's not the cause of the hatred. The real cause is the Kashmir issue. Everything stems from this. And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). And now they've started experimenting with terrorism for the past decade and a half. Actually, the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. Jason Henderson wrote: Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. The major reason being not my patriotism, but the fact that there have been no allegations from the Pakistani side about this. And besides, India has nothing to gain from this.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: But I have to say yes when Thousands are hurt vs a few things do change Probably true, and certainly sad. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: NO, The Murrah building in Oklahoma was a local issue, for example. Ah, ok. Issues are local when involving nationals only, aren't they? In the sample I gave local issues were exception . Most were related to the East-West confrontation or to the near/middle east crisis
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
KaЯl wrote: Issues are local when involving nationals only, aren't they? Almost. I would say many embassy attacks (and those you list) involved east-west but the operations were still generally within the confins of one nation, so I would say local. 911 was clearly a case that involved a long distance operation and enough people at once that it was noticed. This awareness changed the perception that individual nations could control what happens within their boarders. Seperate thread. KaЯl wrote: Probably true, and certainly sad. Agreed. :(( "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan Of course. And politicians in both the countries fan the hatred to win elections, which is so sad if you think about it. But at least India keeps its activities inside its own borders and we don't go about killing people. Yes, we have a bloody past. During the partition, riots broke out everywhere. But that's not the cause of the hatred. The real cause is the Kashmir issue. Everything stems from this. And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). And now they've started experimenting with terrorism for the past decade and a half. Actually, the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. Jason Henderson wrote: Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. The major reason being not my patriotism, but the fact that there have been no allegations from the Pakistani side about this. And besides, India has nothing to gain from this.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaIndian agencies are highly active in Pakistan (like vice versa). Daily India point out about the training camps and their locations which is not possible without intelligence (if they are right saying so). In 1965 Indian Airforce surprisingly attacked the secret Sargodha Airport in Pakistan which was not known to anyone else. RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. Rohit Sinha wrote: And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). When they lost tell me ? In 1948 they occupied your territory, so called "POK" today. In 1965 you were unable to occupy an inch of Pakistan territory, when 5000 common people of Lahore laid down their lives when they stand infront of your tanks having explovies accompained with their bodies. (what you called terrorism becsuse it is a suicidal way). In 1971, no no this time you attacked Pakistan, your army generals admit that, and were successful though Bangalis were even not ready to join "you". And yes in 1985, you invaded Siachen without informing China or Pakistan.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Indian terrorists (if any), OK, since you raised this, and I'm glad you did, I'll say a few things. India is facing this problem on multiple levels. There are terrorists from Pakistan and there are terrorists from (in) India (wait, please read the whole paragraph). Those who are in India are from Pakistan actually. Then there is the Pakistani propaganda, which would like everyone to believe that the terrorism happening in India is actually being caused by either by Indians themselves, or the Indian army and such (this is so ridiculous that I don't even respond when someone posts such stuff here or elsewhere). The situation is actually much more complex than it seems on the surface. The side supporting terrorism (Pakistan) is also the one spreading propaganda. And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, sometimes providing them intel, money, goods, transport, etc. But then you get some of this kind everywhere. Jason Henderson wrote: I doubt if you can reason with them. Yes, me too. But I feel that if we somehow keep this generation of terrorists talking, or even members of the groups the terrorists claim to represent, maybe, just maybe the next generation will have a less number of them. Maybe we can even "win back" some of the borderline cases, or even some who are not borderline, but not too far into the territory of the terrorist mindset. The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, Hmm, so you mean that only muslims can support terrorists and not Hindus or Christains? Atleast their is no other word than "muslim" in your above sentence. This is what a propagenda ignited by India after Sep 11 that all muslims are terrorists. FYI, there is a so called "terrorist list" provided to Pakistan by India in which several non-muslim names are included. And what propaganda are you talikng about...i've only provided you the link to Indian sites or the neutral sites and not any Pakistani site. Chaudhri Raheel Muzaffarabad, AJK.
-
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: Pakistan is our major PITA I disagree. The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me, IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. But since we are on the recieving end of terrorism, and it comes from Pakistan, we club all of them together and see them as our enemy number one. Not so. Of course, most Pakistanis also see us as their enemy number one, but just like with us, this is just a matter of perception. Get rid of the hate mongers and everything will be fine. It'll take some time, but it can be done. In fact, there are two missions in my life. Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. :-O (Read my sig) Mission number one is to get rich and live happily.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. Aren't there fundamentalists inside India, so dangerous that they can deny even the Supreme Court orders. There is no no separatist/fundamentalist involved or sponsored from Pakistan in the situation of Indian occupied Kashmir. The people involved are those who belong to what you called "POK" as your government frequently pointed their training camps are in what they called "POK". And yes, there is no cross border terrorism, firstly there is no common border in Kashmir and people can move freely from what you call "POK" to Indian occupied Kashmir, they do not require any passport, it is their own country. And the day is not far when Kashmiris will get rid from Indian occupation and have their own independent country.
-
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
I thought this deserved a second reply. KaЯl wrote: Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? I would not call this a terrorist action. It was not done with the intent to harm civilians. I believe any terrorists action must be with that intent. Now I am not sure how to address the bearable option. It is definitly not a desirable option. A great deal must be considered with how much effort was taken to minimize those involved, with out expecting the troops to risk excessive harm themselves. This does not have a clear boundary. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
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
Thanks. Unfortunately, I've only learned one thing from your post: you are ignorant. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
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
KaЯl wrote: 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? Um, yeah. I'm not buying that for a second. World War 2: Do you call them the "French Resistence" or the "French Terrorists"? 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. Yeah, I hear that worked really well in preventing Osama Bin Ladin (worth an estimated $800 million) from getting involved in terrorism. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Indian agencies are highly active in Pakistan (like vice versa). Daily India point out about the training camps and their locations which is not possible without intelligence (if they are right saying so). In 1965 Indian Airforce surprisingly attacked the secret Sargodha Airport in Pakistan which was not known to anyone else. RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. Rohit Sinha wrote: And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). When they lost tell me ? In 1948 they occupied your territory, so called "POK" today. In 1965 you were unable to occupy an inch of Pakistan territory, when 5000 common people of Lahore laid down their lives when they stand infront of your tanks having explovies accompained with their bodies. (what you called terrorism becsuse it is a suicidal way). In 1971, no no this time you attacked Pakistan, your army generals admit that, and were successful though Bangalis were even not ready to join "you". And yes in 1985, you invaded Siachen without informing China or Pakistan.
Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. You are confusing international intelligence with terrorism. Of course RAW must be there doing its stuff in Pakistan. Just like ISI is here in India. But to say that spies are terrorists is fooloishness and naivety on your part. Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: When they lost tell me ? Each time you guys invaded us, you lost. Except 1948 of course, but that was in the very beginning. We weren't prepared. But then you tried invading us in 1965 and lost. You tried again in 1971 and lost. Kept trying every now and then each time to be chased away like chicken into your holes back again. The Siachen incident that you mention happened the other way round. Pakistan was trying to get inside Indian territory. Despite several warnings, you didn't go back. Natutrally we didn't want another 1948 so we chased you back like the chicken you are, and reclaimed our territory.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa