Drekkan

How do you when a war on terror? Kill all the terrorists? Well, by killing them, you're killing brothers, fathers, sisters, even mothers; thus you're creating more resentment, and that breeds terrorists. Besides, as long as there's uneven distribution of power in the world, then there will be some groups that are stronger then others. And terrorist action is the recourse of the weak when fighting the strong.

So how do you win a war on terror? Furthermore, and this is the real question, how do you "declare war on terror"? I mean, you declare war on a country, not on a noun or abstract idea. Even if you accept the (rather idiotic) idea of declaring war on a noun, have you ever noticed how it never works? "War on drugs", "Were on homelessness", "War on Terror"; we still have lots of drugs, lots of homeless people, and more terror attacks then before the "war" began *thanks to revised stats, nice to know they lied the first time through, eh?*.

So come on, tell me, how can we win a "war" on a noun? Take it out of the dictionarry?

*Lauren

I'm going to give the flowery answer here, but you take away the conditions that foster terrosim. Walk up to a boy who's lived in a tent all his life, been told that its all "_____" fault, and he'll be more willing to commit terrorisim to get himself, and his family out of there. If you start to help these people, the ideas are going to gradually die off. How can you hate someone who's doing everything they can to help you?

SuperDeluxe

How do you win a war on terror?

Partly take away the reasons for terror injustice, inequality, tyranny.

I believe Iraq as a democratic country, will help decrease the terror. HOwever, Its Saudi Arabia that is the real cause of terror I believe.

*Lauren

The problem is, SD, you can't force democrcy on a people. They have to want it. Look at Germany in the 20s, democrcy was forced on them, and when the going got tough and someone offered an easy solution, it was taken. Even after WW2 the East Germans, didn't appear to want democrcy.

mh67511

I think "War on Terror" is just more of a metaphor. Kind of like we are waging a war against terrorists, as in we will go after then, hunt them down, etc.

I don't really know how you can win. I suppose we would win when these crazies stop killing innocent people, but I don't think that will ever happen until Christ returns.

I guess all we can do is try and eliminate terror cells, get rid of their funding, get rid of their contacts in the government, try and ruin their networks. Basically anything that would hinder their abilities which should cause less attacks.

dyxlecis gril

"these crazies." so uh.. the shrub?

migamoo

One man's "crazy" can be another man's genius. It's not right to label someone just because they have different views than you. You never know, you may be a "crazy" to them.

As for the topic? How does one win a war on terror? Who the hell knows. Don't you think if we knew we wouldn't be in a war right now?

Ashley

mh67511

How about "It's not right to KILL SOMEONE becuase they have different views than you."

And if not sending car bombs into crowded markets to kill people do not agree with my views makes me crazy, then I am glad to be crazy.

elisheva

I don't understand how someone can take this kind of moral equivalence seriously. Yes, sometimes it IS right to label people because of what they say or do. For example: if they preach hatred and murder - or actually do murder innocents. "Terrorist" is the right label for some people, even if it doesn't sound very nice and warm and loving.

migamoo

There is a difference between calling someone a "crazy" and someone a terrorist. Calling someone a "crazy" is pretty much saying that you think they are stupid and can't think right. I don't like that. I wasn't saying that you can't call someone that, I just don't like it and was voicing my opinion. Now as for calling someone a terrorist, you are saying that create terror in what they do. There is a huge difference. At least I think there is. And maybe I worded my response wrong and eluded to something else. I don't know.

Ashley

Citizen Sarah

Ahhh so all wars are wrong then? Because fundamentally thats all they are- two conflicting sides with different opinions.

The concept of "war on terror" is so laced with irony that I would find it hilirous if it wasn't so tragic. As my sig says war is terrisom innocent people die; yet they are so anomunus that we do not care, or, even worse we are brainwashed to believe that they somehow desrved it.
Violence breeds violence- and we see evidence for this everywhere in cycles of abuse on a large and small scale all over the world. There is no way that a "war on terrisom" can be justified as ultimatly it will just breed more "terrosits".

*Lauren

One man's way to stop World War 2 was another man's death. What do you think the atomic bomb did?

SuperDeluxe

spared about 20 million japanese lives..and more than 200-300,000 american lives.

Thats what the atom bomb did.

mh67511

You think a soldier killing an enemy soldier, or a missile fired at an enemy base is the same thing as terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into a skyscraper or sending a car bomb into a crowded market (which if often full of THEIR OWN PEOPLE)? I guess to each their own, but I think that is a pretty ridiculous view. But don't worry, I'm not going to stick a bomb in a car and drive it into your house. I can live with people having different views than me.

For the record, I want to know what the terrorists views ARE. I mean they spend so much time killing people that I don't even have the slightest idea as to what their point/goal/mission is. What do they want? Money? Cars? The destruction of all Wal-Marts? A wall seperating them from the west of the western world? The death of anyone who does not share their religions views? What in God's name do they want?

I for one would like to know how we are supposed to stop these people if we don't wage war against them. We have sat on our asses for long enough and we saw how much good that did us. I think it's about time we start being pro-active in our attack against terrorism.

Seriously, I can't think of any major action we took against terrorists before 9/11. Sure we did things here and there, but nothing large-scale or effective. That approach obviously did not work.

StellaSlight

Really? It spared Japanese lives?
So the American way of saving people's lives is to drop two bombs on the populations, kill one fourth of a million people, hit millions with the radiations, shock waves and thermal radiations?

You'll never make me believe that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was a compassionate decision towards the Japanese people, because he didn't care for the sorry asses of those 'Japs'. That he wanted to end the war quickly, fine. That he wanted to spare the Americans lives, fine. But he didn't want to spare the Japanese lives, not after dropping not one but two bombs.
The debate about the necessity of the bomb drops can go on and on. Was Japan too tired to carry the war on her side along against the allies or was it really sacrificing its last breathe to the battle? The bottom line is that we'll never know what would have happened if the bombs had not been dropped. But we know what it did, and the administration in place at that time knew it too (minus probably the effects on the future generations).

I'd suggest you a book called Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by William J. Schull. It is an excellent study because it covers 50 years from the moment the bombs exploded to 1995. You'll see that the atomic bomb DID NOT save lives, but it killed hundreds of thousands immediately and condemned the future generations to all sorts of difformity, genetic modifcation, diseases, abnormal pregnancies etc...