Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare - Page 2

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 04:34

i think terrorism is a legitimate way to fight. the means of death and destruction are irrelevant.

just because many of you disagree with terrorism and dont understand it doesnt mean other people dont see the value in it. If i were an arab who hated america and i had no means to try and destroy america other than terrorism, id go to terrorism.

the other thing i see as BS is the whole "if we fight conventional, they too must fight conventional" warfare idea. Especially against america. There is no way you can win conventionally against america, so why even try? Terrorism how the weak try to be strong.

Finally i think that the idea that all forms of warfare are acceptable, as long as the people waging the war agree with it. Do americans think nuking enemy cities is acceptable? Do arabs think terrorism is acceptable?

the demise of the innocent and defenseless people is not something one considers when waging war.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:37

just because many of you disagree with thermal nuclear warfare and dont understand it doesnt mean other people dont see the value in it. If i were an american who hated arabs and i had no means to try and destroy arabs other than thermal nuclear warfare, id go to thermal nuclear warfare.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:41

the other thing i see as BS is the whole "if they fight with terrorism, we must stay nice" warfare idea. Especially against arabs. There is no way you can win conventionally against terrorists, so why even try? Nuclear warfare, how we keep them in line.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:41

Nothing wrong with arabs or any other group. It's all in the actions.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:42

the demise of the innocent and defenseless people is not something one considers when waging war.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:43

Nukes are the last resort. The 'never use' item in the inventory.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:44

We are not "one"

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 04:44

notyoueither, the problem is you ignored the idea i had about what is acceptable to the aggressor populace. nuclear warfare isnt acceptable to americans, but terrorism is acceptable to arabs.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:46

Relax, Lancer. My name is not Bush and I am nowhere near the button.

The drivel that gets spewed does deserve a good lampooning once in a while though.

Frankychan · May 1, 2003, 04:46

I don't think anyone understands nuclear warfare...but I do have some knowledge on it. I'm just saying that using 'atrocity-in-a-can' is not warfare, it's something beyond it.

I also think that fighting terrorism isn't conventional warfare, I support anti-terrorism acts SO LONG as they maintain the public's rights...or at least have good justification on why some rights are being infringed upon. I understand that some rights will probably be overlooked for the sake of fighting terrorism, but to do something under the guise of fighting terrorism is something that the public should take into responsibility to protest against.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:47

MRT, you are innocent, a legit target of terrorism.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:50

not, I don't recall President Bush using that button. Far as can tell, he's a good steward of it.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
notyoueither, the problem is you ignored the idea i had about what is acceptable to the aggressor populace. nuclear warfare isnt acceptable to americans, but terrorism is acceptable to arabs.

Right. Good that the Yanks aren't about to pull out the nukes.

Now what are we gonna do about the lower level forms of low lifes who think that blowing up a cafe with a homicide bomber for shits and giggles is a good idea to gain their political aims?

As Churchill said, now that we have established what you are, we are merely negotiating the price (or so it is said he said).

If targetting civvies is legitimate, then no one can trump what the US, the PRC or Russia could do. I thought we were trying to get past that.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 04:51

i know i am lancer. ive accepted that as a fact of life.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 04:56

Dont give in to terrorism, thats how you beat it. Try and prevent it. I just think its ridiculous to expect everyone to play the game the same way, and then acted horrified when someone doesnt.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 05:06

Horrified? Not horrified? Who cares as long as them and where they come from are squashed like the bugs they are.

Honestly. The only reason that terrorism has assumed the dimensions it has is that it has been tolerated for so long.

I suspect that once most any head of any government knows that the whiff of it in his back yard is the sure route to being deposed by invasion is the time it will very quickly lose any cache it has gained by tolerance to this point. My wild guess is that it would very likely pass from the world stage as a common pestilence.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:08

Imran, did I answer your question to your satisfaction or not?

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 05:09

Of course, the Yanks will have to learn not to ignore the tribulations of others.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:14

Do you ignore the tribulations of others?

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 05:19

No. I don't. I don't recall a lot of money from Halifax heading to the IRA either. Boston, OTOH...

Like I said, terrorism has been tolerated for far too long. Tolerated in some of the most unlikely places, if today is used as a guide.

The important bit is to end it. And to know that as long as it is tolerated in any one place against another, no one's towers are safe, because it is only a matter of time before someone who dislikes you learns the lessons that those who have gone before can reveal.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:22

Glad to hear it.

You don't leave the innocent behind.

Please see my thread on page 2, or perhaps page three, "The Garden Cafe"

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:24

Excuse me, correction. "Jagna Bohol's Garden Cafe"

At the least, please bump it up. thanks.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 05:28

nye, the thing i dont understand is how anyone can tolerate any violence period. and certain kinds of violence over another. does the victim and intent really change the fact of what happened?

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:30

Are the intent and the victims all that is involved?

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 05:32

that is what people find objectional to terrorism rather than conventional warfare.

The Mad Monk · May 1, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
nye, the thing i dont understand is how anyone can tolerate any violence period. and certain kinds of violence over another. does the victim and intent really change the fact of what happened?

We tolerate it because we must. It's all well and good to say 'killing is bad, let's just refuse to fight'.

Let me know when Kim Sung Il, Robert Mugave and the fine folks down in Burma agree.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 05:42

yes, i understand that mad monk. you cant just say "no war" and expect it to happen. the idea that i find ridiculous is that our conventional warfare is somehow more acceptable to other people than terrorism.

Im sure arabs would much rather we send terrorists to them, and we would rather have them send us a conventional army. but that isnt going to happen is it?

the thing im getting at is that terrorism is the only way for these people to fight against america, and you shouldnt act like a 5 year old girl that skinned her knee over it. deal with it...but try to do it without causing more terrorism.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:43

MM

It's brutality that can destroy so much in an instant. All peoples know so much brutality. I'd rather kill a brutal American, than an innocent anybody else, any day. That said, I'd rather fight for freedom alongside freedom loving Americans than do most anything else but love and look after my dear wife.

The Mad Monk · May 1, 2003, 05:43

We are dealing with it.

The Mad Monk · May 1, 2003, 05:45

Oh...

Quote:

US Report Says Terror Attacks Declined Sharply Last Year
David Gollust
Washington
30 Apr 2003, 21:21 UTC

The State Department, in its annual report on global terrorism, says the number of terror attacks declined sharply last year due to increased international cooperation and resolve. Seven countries - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan - were again listed as state sponsors of terrorism, though Iraq may soon come off the list.

The State Department says there were 199 terrorist attacks last year, a 44 percent drop from 2001 and the lowest figure in more than 30 years.

A total of 725 deaths were attributed to terrorism, a dramatic decline from the nearly 3,300 recorded the previous year, which included the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

The past year's most deadly single attack was the car bombing last September in a tourist area of Bali, Indonesia that killed more than 200 people.

Introducing the report at a news conference, Secretary of State Colin Powell said increased vigilance, international cooperation and U.N. financial sanctions created after the September 11 attacks are definitely making life more difficult for terrorist factions.

"It is harder for terrorists to hide and find safe-haven," he said. "It is harder for them to organize and sustain operations. Terrorist cells have been broken up, networks disrupted and plots foiled. The financial bloodlines of terrorist organizations have been severed. Since 9-11 more than $134 million of terrorist assets have been frozen. All around the world, countries have been tightening their border security and better safeguarding their critical infrastructures."

Mr. Powell said the liberation of Iraq by U.S. forces has freed the world from the "potentially-catastrophic combination" of a rogue regime, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorists.

He said he hoped Iraq, which is soon to be stricken from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism, can become an example of a "state transformed" a contributor, rather than a threat, to international peace and security.

Among the other countries listed as terrorism sponsors, the report said Iran is the "most active."

It said Iran's Revolutionary Guards and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in planning of, and support for, terrorist acts, while the country's leaders continue to verbally and materially support groups opposed to Middle East peace efforts.

Syria, which Mr. Powell will visit later this week, was cited for continuing to host offices of radical Palestinian factions. The State Department's anti-terrorism coordinator, Cofer Black, said U.S. officials can not accept Syria's argument that it permits only political activity by the radicals.

"We reject this distinction. Syria permits re-supply flights of Hezbollah through its territory," he said. "Syria rejected a U.S. request to close the Palestinian Islamic Jihad office. There are some good things. Syria quickly condemned the attacks of September 11 and has provided valuable information on al-Qaida that has helped save American lives. Nonetheless, we want to make absolutely clear to Syria that nothing short of full cooperation against all terrorist groups is acceptable."

Though Sudan also remained on the list of terrorist sponsors, Mr. Black said the United States is pleased with the Khartoum government's recent cooperation, saying it has, among other things, given U.S. investigators access to critical financial records and ratified international counter-terrorism agreements.

Libya was similarly given credit for positive efforts, though the report noted that Libya did not settle the issue of the 1988 bombing of Panam flight 103, including accepting responsibility for the attack and complying with U.N. requirements for permanently lifting sanctions.

Mr. Black said Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization is "on the run" with more than one-third of its leadership killed or captured, but he said it is still planning attacks and its threats must be regarded "with utmost seriousness."

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...FA4F78C43BD848