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

According to you, going after leaders is both racist and ineffective. The only time you have talked about successfully getting rid of al-Qaeda is when you say that in Egypt they "did what they wanted to" and then "moved on." Are you saying that we should just let them do the same throughout the rest of the world? Are you really saying that instead of going after leadership and terrorist cells, we should let them have their way and hope they "move on?" I'm sorry but this is rediculous. If you think the world will sit on its hands as terrorists impose their will on democratic countries in hopes they will "move on," then you also believe terrorism has won.

Al-Qaedas ideologies, posted many times before, are not met until America is defeated and Muslim extremist governments are in place in at least the middle east, maybe abroad. If the only way to get rid of al Qaeda is to die trying to prevent this, then I'm all for it. There is no way that I, or the rest of the democratized world will allow al Qaeda to "do what they want to," instead of trying to remove the threat. I'm sorry that you lived in a country that fell to the wishes of terrorists, but I guarantee that will not happen in America, and hopefully not western Europe.

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.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

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!!!

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

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.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

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

excelent way of putting it

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

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.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on Mar-19-2004 at 18:08

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.

___________________

www.djdukes.com
<---Latest Set--->

Last edited by dukes on Mar-19-2004 at 18:43

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.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

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...

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'