Progress against terrorism
-
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?
-
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.
<> Now you can go back to your killing. Next Pakistani!
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
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
When Mr. Prevost said Europe has been dealing with "terrorists" for a long time in the context of asking where the US help was during this time I assumed he meant that European governments had an organized, effective method of tracking down and prosecuting terrorists. This was the link I was looking for. Maybe I misunderstood his comment. 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
-
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? 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: 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
-
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
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 Teresa -
When Mr. Prevost said Europe has been dealing with "terrorists" for a long time in the context of asking where the US help was during this time I assumed he meant that European governments had an organized, effective method of tracking down and prosecuting terrorists. This was the link I was looking for. Maybe I misunderstood his comment. 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
There is since 1995 Europol, an organism which is dedicated to improve cooperation between the european police forces. However, the more efficient work is made with bi-national agreements, like the cooperation between Spain and France about ETA. About prosecutions, they aren't "europeanized" yet, and are still "national", AFAIK. For example, in France, terrorist cases are judged by dedicated courts, with specific rules.
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
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