TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- #2?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

I think he more saying that the reson there are no terroists in Egypt is that it suited their needs. Rather than it was an effective policy on the part of the Egyptian goverment. A view I kinda half agree with.
he wasn't suggesting them moving on what a good thing quite the oposite.

My dad(he's not Egyptian he had a travel company) was in Egypt back in the 80's and even then it was filled with terroists. One of his guides told him and and his party "Soon they'll be terroist attacks against the US and Britain too, there's a huge amount of people against them and you. Here and in the rest of the middle east." They laughed it off. But it happened. Perhaps Egypt has been effective in slighly supressing operations there but it has certainly not won. It still exports a hell of alot of terriosts, so how exactly does that make us any safer? Answer it doesn't probebly makes us worse as they'll be more disenchanted young men.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Unless we can match that will - that willingness to do anything, anything, in order to achieve our goals, then we will not win the war against terrorism. Morality has no place in this theater of combat. They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we. Terrorism will stop only when each and every terrorist or would-be terrorist is either dead or so utterly horrified at even the thought of resistance that they do not consider revenge an option. It pains me to say it but there is no other solution, and the longer we procrastinate in a futile attempt to find a solution which we find morally acceptable, the greater the inevitable sacrifice will be - and the greater risk that the terrorists will obtain more devastating weaponry.

look at the eye for an eye politics in effect in Israel towards palestinians terrorists and their families....

have done nothing but worsen things.









....


Let's try and kill every fly!!!

Personally I don't think Arbiter's solution is the most cost effective (between reducing attacks while preserving civil liberties) solution at this point. I think what will need to be done is some sort of global compromise on civil liberties and unheard of increased cooperation between most nations. I think technology will be key in overcoming their ability to operate freely. National ID systems, that use biometric data is an inevitablity in my opinion. Furthermore I think countries need to establish a worldwide slush fund who's sole purpose is to establish a world-wide interpol of sorts that has unprecedented access to information and combat terrorism. I think that there is going to be a lot of attacks before the structural changes are implemented but it can be done. THe only worrisom scenario is if terrorists up the ante so to speak by conducting a nuclear weapons attack ... in that event Arbiter's scenario just might play out.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Let's try and kill every fly!!!

excelent way of putting it

quote:

Deejiuana, I would like to know what you think should be done in light of the terrorist situation.

Listen, Americans are right in a way: they cannot sit there and be threatened day by day. They should do something, but it's that something that was done which was wrong.
In a simple way, there is no "answer" to terrorism. ETA in Spain was never "beaten" same as the Corsican freedom terrorist group (cant remember their name) eventhough those terrorist groups are smaller and are on a smaller scale.
But there is something which you should realize:
1-When the US went in Iraq, this was the first mistake done. A lot of arabs saw this as a Western invasion. A reason for arabs to support, encourage and believe in those terrorist attacks.
2-When the US says it is going there because of Iraq's WMD and doesnt find anything, this is another reason why a lot of arabs would do what i said before: support, encourage and believe in (if not join) the terrorists.
3-It's when people like Ousama, Al Zwahiri, Saddam and others are killed or captured, that A LOT OF ARABS would join terrorist cells and avenge the killed or captured ones.

In other words, the US should try and look at what they're doing through Arabic eyes - if they did, the would avoid this hatred and the terrorist activities i believe.

Why has the situation in Israel been critical for now 2 years? Because everytime a side does something, the other side has to respond in an even more violent way. This is what the US is doing in its "war on terrorism".

NeoPhono, u may want to be sorry that i lived in Syria, but i am thankfull i did. I got to see the other version of the story. I got to see what we Arabs really think, are like and why the Arabs are acting the way they are. I have a "somehow complete" image of the story, unlike most people who base their ideas, images and views according to what news or other people say. And one more thing: Syria fell to the wishes of terrorism? Hmmm....i wonder how!? lol...

quote:

Originally posted by Deejiuana One more thing: So to fight terrorism, we have to wipe out all the terrorists and the terrorists wanna-bes? In other words exterminate an entire race. Race? yes, race, why? Well, when the US captures Saddam, Al Zwahiri, Ousama bin Laden and kills Saddam's sons, and all other arabic/muslim leaders, how do you think Arabs' reactions are? Oh, Yay, they killed them, we're now free? Uhmm, not really, A LOT OF ARABS (n i permit myself to say this because i lived in the country, talked and still talk to arabs about it) are seeing all these as attacks against their own people. So, this is going to create a sort of hatred which is the reason why you would go on killing those people? just because the US thought it was "fighting terrorism"? I dunno, but there's something weird about this "wipe out"

The will of the Arab people is strong, but I do not believe for one moment that every single one of them is a supporter of the terrorist philosophy.

We must be prepared to kill as many Arabs - and indeed as many people of any race or nationality - as is necessary to destroy the very ideology of terrorism.

Why? It's simple. Over a long enough timeline, the continued existence of terrorism as a force in the world will kill more people and cause more damage than any policy we could undertake in the present.

I am not eager to see any innocent person die, but I realize that in the long run, more innocent people will die if we do not take a stand now. A stand which states that the slightest terrorist provocation will bring an immediate and brutal retaliation, totally out of proportion to the terrorrist attack. Very quickly such a policy will turn the Arabs who wish to survive against the Arabs who wish to exact revenge, and indeed all the people who wish to survive against the terrorists in their midst. As these two groups of people become more ideologically seperated, it will become easier to infiltrate terrorist organizations and destroy them with far greater precision.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Excelent idea.......... ehh perhaps not. "They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we." your seriously sugesting killing inoccent people?

Yes, I am seriously suggesting killing innocent people. This is because I firmly believe that if we do not kill innocent people, then more innocent people will inevitably die as a result of our inaction.

Hence, I believe it is not an option to "not kill innocent people." We do so either way. Just because we kill them actively in one scenario and merely allow them to be killed by someone else in the other does not make us any less responsible for the outcome of our decision.

quote:

Firstly terroist attacks apart from the major operations which require the infastructre I alluded to earler are actaually not that effective more people dies from car crashes.

They have not been, but that is not evidence that they can not be. It is a fairly trivial matter to create large amounts of potent explosives from substances which are widely available. It would not be difficult to smuggle such explosives into areas where crowds are gathered. It would not be difficult to kill hundreds of people as the result of a few months of planning by a single individual operating outside of any infrastructure at all.

We are actually somewhat blessed by the fact that most terrorist organizations are actually quite bad at what they do. I suppose the degree of stupidity required to think terrorism is a good idea is the primary cause of that reality.

quote:

And for your inocent killing policy to bear any fruit you'd need to kill the whole middle east. How do you think they are going to react to you randomly killing off their brother and sisters?

Again, you make the ludicrous assumption that every single one of these individuals will fight to the death. It won't happen. Killing innocents in direct retaliation to terrorist activity will drive a stake between those who are innocent and do not want to die and the terrorists. The people of a village will not tolerate a terrorist cell in their midst if they know that if that terrorist cell acts, each and every one of them will be slain.

quote:

And by making that statement your saying that a weastern life if far more value than a middle eastern life. Which is just plain wrong.

That's a straw man. I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that fewer innocent deaths in the short run is prefereable to more innocent deaths in the long run. Whether those lives are middle eastern or western is completely inconsequential.

quote:

Please get a bit of perspective yes 9/11 was a disaster as was Madrid but these attacks relyed upon extensive infastructure. Take that away and these kind of huge attacks are not possible. Small operations in other countries yes but the national style attacks are not. Also apart from 9/11 and Madrid Al Q has been ineffectual in attacking most of the west really. And as said before these attacks did require a hell of alot of infastructure not lots of "would be terriorists" half the middle east is full of "would be terroists" and to be honest the US has quite a few itself. You cannot eliminate every terroist you just have to eliminate the ablity to construct large cordinated attacks.

If the enemy was merely Al Qaeda, I might agree with you. But Al Qaeda is not the be-all end-all of terrorism. The terrorists haven't begun to scratch the surface of the types of attacks that they could carry out, with or without infrastructure (and it's important to note that the destruction of the infrastructure of a single terrorist organization has no effect on other terrorist organizations).

We need to take advantage of the fact that they haven't yet realized their potential and utterly destroy them before they do. If we do not, the consequences will be even worse than the act of destroying them. We don't have time to waste picking away at the infrastructure of a single terrorist organization among hundreds or thousands. This is not a practical solution to the problem of the existence of the terrorist ideology, and, if the existence of the terrorist ideology is allowed to persist, then sooner or later it will be responsible for more deaths than it would have taken to eradicate it here and now.

quote:

look at the eye for an eye politics in effect in Israel towards palestinians terrorists and their families.... have done nothing but worsen things.

Israel's "responses" pale in comparison to what will be required to defeat terrorism. It will not be pleasant, but there is no superior alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Again, you make the ludicrous assumption that every single one of these individuals will fight to the death. It won't happen. Killing innocents in direct retaliation to terrorist activity will drive a stake between those who are innocent and do not want to die and the terrorists. The people of a village will not tolerate a terrorist cell in their midst if they know that if that terrorist cell acts, each and every one of them will be slain.

Look you can't do that you simply can't. What your taking about is as ineffective as it is obsene. Your completely off your head. Seriously. You need a morality injection. You seriously think these terroist cells are known to the locals??? The are blowing up the locals you absolute idiot. I don't normally use that type of language in an arguement but what your proposing is unbelivable.

EDIT: So a terroist cells in New York, and you don't know where it is...... have same locals hanging from the traffic lights and the cell will give up??? Your an utter nutter.

I must agree with the morality injection because u do need one. If you really think that u should eliminate an entire race because of the risk that they might one day join some terrorist activities then oh boy, am outta here....seriously. Anyway, this isnt really surprising, i've heard this bs before...lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Very quickly such a policy will turn the Arabs who wish to survive against the Arabs who wish to exact revenge, and indeed all the people who wish to survive against the terrorists in their midst.

not true history has shown that upon being attacked people defend themselfs in the most instinctual way...attack back. in past wars even the greatest war leaders have found problems killing people on there home ground.

quote:

Hence, I believe it is not an option to "not kill innocent people." We do so either way. Just because we kill them actively in one scenario and merely allow them to be killed by someone else in the other does not make us any less responsible for the outcome of our decision.

i think you are a tad blured here too..
there is a differance between alouing them to be killed as you put it and what we actualy do which is try to prevent them being killed without further loss of life. to alou them to be killed would mean we actualy take no active part in atempting to prevent this happening. what we do is use intelegance and other methods to prevent the deaths of inocents while sticking to the western ideology of not killing neadlessly.

quote:

They have not been, but that is not evidence that they can not be. It is a fairly trivial matter to create large amounts of potent explosives from substances which are widely available. It would not be difficult to smuggle such explosives into areas where crowds are gathered. It would not be difficult to kill hundreds of people as the result of a few months of planning by a single individual operating outside of any infrastructure at all.

again slightly simplistic way of putting it...
you are corect it is not hard to create bombs and run round blowing stuff up. what is hard is being able to run around and blow things up if you are known to be in the terrorist steriotype. this is easy to see as if you were to look into how many terrorist attacks have been prevented compaired to how many have taken place you will find that its only a small percentage of atempts that are successful.
yes these terrorist types can be found. they DO all fit into a sterio type if they did not then security forces and intelegance services would not be having the success they are.

quote:

We are actually somewhat blessed by the fact that most terrorist organizations are actually quite bad at what they do.

like i said above we are more blessed that our governments are pretty good at prevention.

quote:

Killing innocents in direct retaliation to terrorist activity will drive a stake between those who are innocent and do not want to die and the terrorists. The people of a village will not tolerate a terrorist cell in their midst if they know that if that terrorist cell acts, each and every one of them will be slain.

again as i said earlier they will be far more likely to attack back than join our side.

quote:

If the enemy was merely Al Qaeda, I might agree with you. But Al Qaeda is not the be-all end-all of terrorism. The terrorists haven't begun to scratch the surface of the types of attacks that they could carry out, with or without infrastructure (and it's important to note that the destruction of the infrastructure of a single terrorist organization has no effect on other terrorist organizations).

of course al qaeda is not the be all and end all but right now they are acheaving far more than any other terrorist organisation. hence this makes them the greatest threat and so they take priority over any others.

Arbiter you take a very logical and cold stance which in the real world does not work...

sorry.

It must be fun thinking these ideas out in your basement in hickville.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Arbiter you take a very logical and cold stance which in the real world does not work... sorry. It must be fun thinking these ideas out in your basement in hickville.

well Arbiter is taking a very logical stance. either innocents die now or later. none of you are providing any reason to critique that beyond gut instinct - which applies in the real world, but thats not the major issue.

innocents WILL die, but going halfway around the world to kill them is likely to insense people more than killing innocents in your own country. this is why i think his 'cold' argument doesnt work.

the US is killing innocent foreigners - and simply imprisoning suspected domestic citizens without rights. is killing one and denying the rights to another different? maybe maybe not, but it implies 'special' treatment and the fact of the matter is i believe that the treatment of suspects in Guantanamo is more likely to fuel more problems, as the government is truly oppressing its *own* people. we arent bombing and killing terror cells within the US - just crippling them.

besides, where are the heads of these cells located? in oppressive, chaotic regimes within the Mid East? no- they coordinate from the free, Western nations. its always been that way...

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Look you can't do that you simply can't. What your taking about is as ineffective as it is obsene. Your completely off your head. Seriously. You need a morality injection. You seriously think these terroist cells are known to the locals??? The are blowing up the locals you absolute idiot. I don't normally use that type of language in an arguement but what your proposing is unbelivable. EDIT: So a terroist cells in New York, and you don't know where it is...... have same locals hanging from the traffic lights and the cell will give up??? Your an utter nutter.

Terrorists don't materialize out of thin air, they have to recruit new members. And that means they have to maintain some degree of contact with the community in which they exist. Do you seriously believe that a terrorist cell can exist within a community completely unbeknownst to any member of that community outside the terrorist cell itself? That's what the terrorists would like us to believe, I'm sure. But it's clearly beyond the realm of the possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Deejiuana I must agree with the morality injection because u do need one. If you really think that u should eliminate an entire race because of the risk that they might one day join some terrorist activities then oh boy, am outta here....seriously. Anyway, this isnt really surprising, i've heard this bs before...lol.

I never claimed we should eliminate an entire race. I grow weary of your attempts to straw man my argument.

quote:

Originally posted by dukes not true history has shown that upon being attacked people defend themselfs in the most instinctual way...attack back. in past wars even the greatest war leaders have found problems killing people on there home ground.

Nonsense, history is littered with examples of people being brutalized into submission. Are the Native Americans attacking all the European invaders currently residing in North America? Hardly.

Even the Arabs themselves were crushed and battered to the point where they could no longer resist by the Mongols. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that every populated area on this planet has been completely and utterly dominated by a superior military force at one point in time or another.

quote:

i think you are a tad blured here too.. there is a differance between alouing them to be killed as you put it and what we actualy do which is try to prevent them being killed without further loss of life. to alou them to be killed would mean we actualy take no active part in atempting to prevent this happening. what we do is use intelegance and other methods to prevent the deaths of inocents while sticking to the western ideology of not killing neadlessly.

If I believed that there were any "active part[s] in attempting to prevent this [from] happening" that we could take that would be effective other than the strategy I am proposing, I would agree with you. However, it is my belief upon considering the available evidence that no other methodology will prevent the deaths of innocents to a greater extent than short-term brutality. I fully support the western ideology of not killing needlessly - but it is with the deepest regret that I can not view killing in this situation as needless.

If any of you would like to propose a realistic alternative to my proposal which would actually put a stop to, rather than just minimizing, terrorism, I'd love to hear it.

quote:

again slightly simplistic way of putting it... you are corect it is not hard to create bombs and run round blowing stuff up. what is hard is being able to run around and blow things up if you are known to be in the terrorist steriotype. this is easy to see as if you were to look into how many terrorist attacks have been prevented compaired to how many have taken place you will find that its only a small percentage of atempts that are successful. yes these terrorist types can be found. they DO all fit into a sterio type if they did not then security forces and intelegance services would not be having the success they are.

It might be more difficult if you fit the terrorist stereotype, but that's really beside the point. The longer terrorism is allowed to exist in the world as an ideology, the more likely other groups will begin to adapt it. Already, it is not a practice exclusive to Arabs or any other ethnic or racial group. The longer we put off taking decisive action, the greater the foothold terrorism will gain in the politics of the times, and the more damage we will have to cause in order to remove it, not to mention the more innocents who will needlessly die in the meantime.

quote:

like i said above we are more blessed that our governments are pretty good at prevention.

Yes, but will they be able to maintain the same degree of success if white or hispanic organizations start using terrorism to advance their cause? You said yourself that "if they did not [fit into a stereotype] then security forces and intelligences services would not be having the success they are," so clearly the answer is no. If we do not eliminate terrorism, it will only become more common - do you not realize this?

quote:

again as i said earlier they will be far more likely to attack back than join our side.

They will quickly realize that "to attack back" is futile and will only increase the intensity of their suffering. There are many people with strong convictions, but many more who will do anything to stay alive. What you're suggesting - that somehow each and every terrorist or "person of the same ethnicity of a terrorist" will somehow band together to protect themselves - is not substantiated by history. History consistently shows that people will resist when provoked, but that sooner or later they will break. These people are no different.

quote:

of course al qaeda is not the be all and end all but right now they are acheaving far more than any other terrorist organisation. hence this makes them the greatest threat and so they take priority over any others.

I agree that they should take priority at this time. But slowly chipping away at their infrastructure is not going to have a significant effect to prevent the perpetuation of the terrorist ideology. It is not an effective way to eliminate terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek Arbiter you take a very logical and cold stance which in the real world does not work... sorry. It must be fun thinking these ideas out in your basement in hickville.

No need to apologize, ahlamalek, but I can't say that it is fun.

Believe me, I would like nothing else than to have a different stance with regards to this issue. Unfortunately, unlike many people, who seem to believe whatever they want to believe, my personality forces me to believe whatever appears to follow logically from the evidence at hand. Nothing would please me more than to be able to believe that there were a more peaceful resolution to the problems of terrorism. However, if there is one, I cannot see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Again, you make the ludicrous assumption that every single one of these individuals will fight to the death. It won't happen. Killing innocents in direct retaliation to terrorist activity will drive a stake between those who are innocent and do not want to die and the terrorists. The people of a village will not tolerate a terrorist cell in their midst if they know that if that terrorist cell acts, each and every one of them will be slain.

Uhmm.... Hard to believe thats your opinion..! There are enough examples where this is not the case! Think of the Nazis in WWII where often 100 civilians were killed because Partisans killed ONE single german soldier!
Or another 'nice' example: Vietnam. USA lost at the end because even most of the south vietnamese opposed the US soldiers cause they killed many vietnamese (2,000.000!!!! and you no one can tell me that they all were soldiers from the north) without differing.
If you would do what you've suggested peopple would run to masses to the opposition!


Considering the capture of bin Laden or other leaders: the way sleeping cells are working is to wait. And it is NOT so important who the leader is...! Because they are fighting for a special purpose (!) and not for a special person! Terrosism can not be so easily explained with a leader and if this person dies people go home and lose their interest.
If a Leader is captured there is even the bigger danger that the cells could run totaly out of control!

I hate to break it to you, Arbiter, but have you ever considered that, well, killing innocent people will turn their friends and families into more terrorists? If the US forces killed my innocent family to aid their fight against a few nearby terrorists, well, I'd most likely be packing a dynamite pack around my waist and driving into the nearest US target of choice. Seriously, what would make you better than a terrorist then? They kill innocents for their goals, and so would you. Why would anybody in the world support that policy? Innocents can die both from terrorists and from antiterrorists. So why should innocents support the antiterrorists? Yes, if they kill off all the terrorists, they will be safe. Well, guess what, the vice-versa scenario is also there. If the terrorists achieve their goals, they won't kill any more innocents either. There's no way you'd get any popular support by that policy in your own country, let alone all the others. By saying that innocents are legitimate target for antiterrorists, you basically admit that they're the legitimate target for terrorists as well. That causes you to loose any moral high ground and to become equal to terrorists. Or in the way your beloved Nietsche has put it, when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks back at you. He who fights monsters should look that he himself doesn't become a monster.

Nietsche was also a criminal. Altruism is a crime against humanity.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I hate to break it to you, Arbiter, but have you ever considered that, well, killing innocent people will turn their friends and families into more terrorists? If the US forces killed my innocent family to aid their fight against a few nearby terrorists, well, I'd most likely be packing a dynamite pack around my waist and driving into the nearest US target of choice. Seriously, what would make you better than a terrorist then? They kill innocents for their goals, and so would you. Why would anybody in the world support that policy? Innocents can die both from terrorists and from antiterrorists. So why should innocents support the antiterrorists? Yes, if they kill off all the terrorists, they will be safe. Well, guess what, the vice-versa scenario is also there. If the terrorists achieve their goals, they won't kill any more innocents either. There's no way you'd get any popular support by that policy in your own country, let alone all the others. By saying that innocents are legitimate target for antiterrorists, you basically admit that they're the legitimate target for terrorists as well. That causes you to loose any moral high ground and to become equal to terrorists. Or in the way your beloved Nietsche has put it, when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks back at you. He who fights monsters should look that he himself doesn't become a monster.

killing innocent people not only revolts their families and friends but people over here who aren't even arabic/muslim/whatever!!! People start hating their own governement...

remember all those huge demonstrations all over the world??? Imagine if the war in Irak was more brtual... civil unrest could follow in some countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It might be more difficult if you fit the terrorist stereotype, but that's really beside the point. The longer terrorism is allowed to exist in the world as an ideology, the more likely other groups will begin to adapt it. Already, it is not a practice exclusive to Arabs or any other ethnic or racial group. The longer we put off taking decisive action, the greater the foothold terrorism will gain in the politics of the times, and the more damage we will have to cause in order to remove it, not to mention the more innocents who will needlessly die in the meantime.

cheak out where i am from....uk right? we have terorists in our country called the IRA. us brits have delt with them for years and understand far better than most other countries (including usa) how terrorists work. if you think we have not felt the efects of terrorism here in the uk you are sorely mistakin. weve had it hapening on our doorstep for the pats 30 odd years! we have came to realise to look like a threat you become a target. a passive aproach has worked far better than to waid in all gung ho like what you think is acceptable. an example can be seen in the way the british troops have been in northern ireland and basra! we have been far more successfull there than the americans have anywhere else. we also have had alot of success in kosivo.

anyway the point i will make regarding the quoted statment is that if the steriotype of the terorist changes we can look for a diferant steriotype!


at the end of the day the people in charge of our coutries are far smarter than you and have information that you do not. if your idea was the best then they would be doing it right now.

so to sum up your idea is wildly wrong!

It seems now that the existance of a "high value target" there is rather questionable.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.