Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

how do you stop terrorism?

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:00:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems the current course is to kill every potential terrorist. Anyone think our current course is a plausible solution?
I believe current course creates more problems than it solves. I'm a firm believer we should 'give in' to terrorist demands, namely stop killing middle eastern civilians and withdraw from the middle east.
Anyone see us killing our way to victory in a war on terror?
Better yet do you think we really even want to end the war? That is we always need an enemy, always need to be at war with someone, who better than the ever illusive terrorist.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:09:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You cannot stop terrorism. It is a method of political action. It will always exist.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:11:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:09:47 AM, segijohe wrote:
You cannot stop terrorism. It is a method of political action. It will always exist.

Sorry semantic nazi , 'Islamic extremist terrorists'
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

Stopping terrorist or sub-state organizations can be accomplished through (A) crushing them with overwhelming force like the Israelis did in Gaza or (B) undermining their base of support through economic, political, or cultural manipulation.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:13:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:11:56 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:47 AM, segijohe wrote:
You cannot stop terrorism. It is a method of political action. It will always exist.

Sorry semantic nazi , 'Islamic extremist terrorists'

You educate people.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 7:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

This would cause a lot of problems in the Middle East by emboldening Kurd secessionists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. If we assume that these various states will live independently without further incident then it'd be okay. But a free Kurdistan would be anything but demure when it came to other Kurdish populations in bordering countries. You'd probably end up with many small wars similar to the ethnic southern Caucasian conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, just on a much more widespread and geopolitically volatile scale.

Stopping terrorist or sub-state organizations can be accomplished through (A) crushing them with overwhelming force like the Israelis did in Gaza or (B) undermining their base of support through economic, political, or cultural manipulation.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 7:52:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You stop being afraid of it. You're more likely to be killed by a falling vending machine than by a terrorist attack. Terrorism derives all of its power from irrational fear of mass proportions. For example, a failed underwear bombing can inflict enormous economic damage by the long-term costs of additional security and the maintenance of an expanding surveillance state. Bin Laden was probably thrilled to see us invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This sort of behavior, which has been significantly more damaging to the US in the long run compared to 9/11, is the entire goal of terrorism: flash the crimson cloth until your enemy charges, then deftly move aside as they slam into the wall, causing more damage to themselves than you ever could have yourself. To make a somewhat gauche pun, terrorism gets more bang for its buck precisely because people give the 'bang' undue consideration.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:37:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:13:52 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:11:56 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:09:47 AM, segijohe wrote:
You cannot stop terrorism. It is a method of political action. It will always exist.

Sorry semantic nazi , 'Islamic extremist terrorists'

You educate people.

Educate who?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:10:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly, and yes, both ways, simultaneously. Otherwise, either approach taken without the other in mind will fail.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:15:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Do you believe America has already lost control of post-occupation Iraq? If you do, why?

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

I think the problem with splitting up Iraq along such lines from a realist perspective is that you'd essentially be giving Iran a lot more power for the reasons you've already cited - Iraq is largely Shiite already.

Stopping terrorist or sub-state organizations can be accomplished through (A) crushing them with overwhelming force like the Israelis did in Gaza or (B) undermining their base of support through economic, political, or cultural manipulation.

I argue that it must be both, not either/or. If you cannot do both, then 1) crushing them with overwhelming force will fuel their base of support, or 2) undermining the base will lead to more people being killed by actual terrorists...which would then foment more intolerance of any ideologies associated with the terrorists amongst the victim populations.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:21:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 7:52:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You stop being afraid of it. You're more likely to be killed by a falling vending machine than by a terrorist attack. Terrorism derives all of its power from irrational fear of mass proportions. For example, a failed underwear bombing can inflict enormous economic damage by the long-term costs of additional security and the maintenance of an expanding surveillance state. Bin Laden was probably thrilled to see us invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This sort of behavior, which has been significantly more damaging to the US in the long run compared to 9/11, is the entire goal of terrorism: flash the crimson cloth until your enemy charges, then deftly move aside as they slam into the wall, causing more damage to themselves than you ever could have yourself. To make a somewhat gauche pun, terrorism gets more bang for its buck precisely because people give the 'bang' undue consideration.

Are you advocating that the government turn a blind eye to such threats? That surveillance programs that circumvent the 4th amendment are wholly unwarranted? That the nation could ditch the Patriot Act and magically become a safer place?

I will quote Gandhi here:

"[WWII's] "mad slaughter" so depressed him by late May that [Gandhi] wrote that Hitler and Mussolini should be invited to "take what they want" of Great Britain, and "If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them...you will allow yourself man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered.""

http://books.google.com...

Gandhi is human and thus imperfect. I think Gandhi was wholly mistaken here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:41:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 7:35:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

This would cause a lot of problems in the Middle East by emboldening Kurd secessionists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. If we assume that these various states will live independently without further incident then it'd be okay. But a free Kurdistan would be anything but demure when it came to other Kurdish populations in bordering countries. You'd probably end up with many small wars similar to the ethnic southern Caucasian conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, just on a much more widespread and geopolitically volatile scale.

From a realist perspective, this would be exactly what America wants. Otherwise, why divide up the Middle East in the first place, if not to facilitate "divide and conquer"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:42:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:10:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly, and yes, both ways, simultaneously. Otherwise, either approach taken without the other in mind will fail.

So status quo
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:03:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:00:40 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It seems the current course is to kill every potential terrorist. Anyone think our current course is a plausible solution?
I believe current course creates more problems than it solves. I'm a firm believer we should 'give in' to terrorist demands, namely stop killing middle eastern civilians and withdraw from the middle east.
Anyone see us killing our way to victory in a war on terror?
Better yet do you think we really even want to end the war? That is we always need an enemy, always need to be at war with someone, who better than the ever illusive terrorist.

I'll post a response to this later today, but for now I'm off to social obligations. This requires a lengthy response, though... not a mere ten word answer... because it's complicated.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:42:39 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:10:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly, and yes, both ways, simultaneously. Otherwise, either approach taken without the other in mind will fail.

So status quo

I think the severity of our efforts can be toned down a bit, but otherwise yes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:34:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To stop terrorism, one must discover the true reason for their actons. Then change it, or change their minds.

Of course, by changing ourselves, you may create new terrorists.
Also, change may not want to be made by a nation (IRS a la OK city bombing), or by individuals (some people are hedonistic), or as a society (Muslims are said to hate us for lauding Hollywood and accepting gays), or by politicians (foreign policy, like with Isreal). Keeping in mind that the point of terrorism is generally to influence by fear, and by not changing, we create more terrorists (or at least more attempts).
My work here is, finally, done.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:58:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:09:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:42:39 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:10:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly, and yes, both ways, simultaneously. Otherwise, either approach taken without the other in mind will fail.

So status quo

I think the severity of our efforts can be toned down a bit, but otherwise yes.

The severity of killing people? You think there's a less severe way to kill thousands of potential terrorists all over the globe?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:00:40 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It seems the current course is to kill every potential terrorist. Anyone think our current course is a plausible solution?
The current course seems to target high-level operatives and terrorist leaders, not "every potential terrorist"
I believe current course creates more problems than it solves. I'm a firm believer we should 'give in' to terrorist demands, namely stop killing middle eastern civilians and withdraw from the middle east.
Those aren't the terrorist demands. They may be part of their propaganda efforts, but their ideology is much more radical.
Anyone see us killing our way to victory in a war on terror?
Better yet do you think we really even want to end the war? That is we always need an enemy, always need to be at war with someone, who better than the ever illusive terrorist.
Why do we always need an enemy? This is unsubstantiated.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:41:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 7:35:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

This would cause a lot of problems in the Middle East by emboldening Kurd secessionists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. If we assume that these various states will live independently without further incident then it'd be okay. But a free Kurdistan would be anything but demure when it came to other Kurdish populations in bordering countries. You'd probably end up with many small wars similar to the ethnic southern Caucasian conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, just on a much more widespread and geopolitically volatile scale.

From a realist perspective, this would be exactly what America wants. Otherwise, why divide up the Middle East in the first place, if not to facilitate "divide and conquer"?

Turkey is our ally, and this would enrage them, due to their longstanding problems with Kurdish separatists. Iran would be drawn into the conflict, on the same side as Turkey, as would Syria. It would tear up the Kurdish area itself, but would diplomatically lead to closer ties between Turkey and Iran while simultaneously leading to huge fallout between Ankara and Washington. We would also take some of the blame for worsening the situation in Syria. The conflict, in other words, would unify enemies against a common foe, and against us for putting them in that situation to begin with. It'd be a second Israel, uniting the region against the West.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 7:52:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You stop being afraid of it. You're more likely to be killed by a falling vending machine than by a terrorist attack. Terrorism derives all of its power from irrational fear of mass proportions. For example, a failed underwear bombing can inflict enormous economic damage by the long-term costs of additional security and the maintenance of an expanding surveillance state. Bin Laden was probably thrilled to see us invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This sort of behavior, which has been significantly more damaging to the US in the long run compared to 9/11, is the entire goal of terrorism: flash the crimson cloth until your enemy charges, then deftly move aside as they slam into the wall, causing more damage to themselves than you ever could have yourself. To make a somewhat gauche pun, terrorism gets more bang for its buck precisely because people give the 'bang' undue consideration.

Are you advocating that the government turn a blind eye to such threats? That surveillance programs that circumvent the 4th amendment are wholly unwarranted? That the nation could ditch the Patriot Act and magically become a safer place?

I will quote Gandhi here:

"[WWII's] "mad slaughter" so depressed him by late May that [Gandhi] wrote that Hitler and Mussolini should be invited to "take what they want" of Great Britain, and "If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them...you will allow yourself man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered.""

http://books.google.com...

Gandhi is human and thus imperfect. I think Gandhi was wholly mistaken here.

Terrorists aren't Fascists. They aren't out for military domination. They don't have the resources to accomplish that goal. They use our own fears and emotions to manipulate into doing irrational things that are self-injuring. They have the power to to affect us only because they prey on those emotions. I'm not saying that no countermeasures are warranted, but the measures which we have adopted cause much more harm than the attacks which they are meant to prevent. The minute we pass that threshold, we've provided the terrorists with the only power over us that they will ever have. And the further down that road that we travel, the more power we give them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:22:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:58:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:09:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:42:39 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:10:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:10:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

So both ways? If it was as simple as killing each terrorist this wouldn't be an issue.

Exactly, and yes, both ways, simultaneously. Otherwise, either approach taken without the other in mind will fail.

So status quo

I think the severity of our efforts can be toned down a bit, but otherwise yes.

The severity of killing people? You think there's a less severe way to kill thousands of potential terrorists all over the globe?

Yes. You kill less people. You spend less money. You take away fewer rights from your citizenry.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:28:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Terrorists are out for military domination, though. Or it's the lie around which they build their legacies anyway. If you cared about the world besides yourself, you'd acknowledge this, but if you don't, then you're personally justified in your ignoring it I guess. The size of the threat is irrelevant looking at it from a humanitarian pov.

I don't know how you stop terrorism. I'm thinking togetherness. Definitely not a war on terror anyway, especially not one so hypocritical as you guys are waging. You want the world to be shocked and appalled at such happenings, not thinking they're just a part of life, or worse still, an interesting part of life.

Remember the fallen, and mourn for them. Show the rest of the world that you're just like they are. Don't deify the murderers, blow them up for all the world to see. This is what they want. It's feeding them.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:55:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:41:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 7:35:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:12:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/27/2013 2:03:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I believe killing existing terrorists that have dedicated their lives to ending our own is justifiable.

However, I also believe that we should do everything possible to prevent the formation of terrorists sentiments in people who are as of yet neutrally or positively aligned with us.

In this sense, I consider the Iraq War to be an abysmal failure, as we invaded a secular country with little history of Islamic extremism and potentially turned it into something that would make Iran look like secular government.

Yeah, because it happened to be under Saddam's toe. The Shiites are in democratic (ho ho!) control and have basically incorporated Iraq into the Iranian empire. So yeah, Bush broke the balance of power in the Middle East which is a very unRealist thing to do.

Didn't Kissinger suggest splitting Iraq up along ethnoreligious lines? That seems to be an obvious solution, but these thing rarely are quite that straightforward. Was that scenario ever considered by the Bush/Obama administrations?

This would cause a lot of problems in the Middle East by emboldening Kurd secessionists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. If we assume that these various states will live independently without further incident then it'd be okay. But a free Kurdistan would be anything but demure when it came to other Kurdish populations in bordering countries. You'd probably end up with many small wars similar to the ethnic southern Caucasian conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, just on a much more widespread and geopolitically volatile scale.

From a realist perspective, this would be exactly what America wants. Otherwise, why divide up the Middle East in the first place, if not to facilitate "divide and conquer"?

Turkey is our ally, and this would enrage them, due to their longstanding problems with Kurdish separatists. Iran would be drawn into the conflict, on the same side as Turkey, as would Syria. It would tear up the Kurdish area itself, but would diplomatically lead to closer ties between Turkey and Iran while simultaneously leading to huge fallout between Ankara and Washington. We would also take some of the blame for worsening the situation in Syria. The conflict, in other words, would unify enemies against a common foe, and against us for putting them in that situation to begin with. It'd be a second Israel, uniting the region against the West.

I am not familiar with the makeup of Kurdish populations in Middle Eastern countries.

My point was specific that artificial boundaries causing unwarranted conflict plays to the interests of countries left out of the conflict. India/Pakistan is archetypal of this, IMHO. Obviously if Turkey is sucked into a Kurdish conflict, and we would rather Turkey not, then such delineations should not occur.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:00:40 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It seems the current course is to kill every potential terrorist. Anyone think our current course is a plausible solution?
I believe current course creates more problems than it solves. I'm a firm believer we should 'give in' to terrorist demands, namely stop killing middle eastern civilians and withdraw from the middle east.
Anyone see us killing our way to victory in a war on terror?
Better yet do you think we really even want to end the war? That is we always need an enemy, always need to be at war with someone, who better than the ever illusive terrorist.

Do you believe that if we pull out of the middle east, that the "terrorists" will not target us anymore?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:01:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 7:52:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You stop being afraid of it. You're more likely to be killed by a falling vending machine than by a terrorist attack. Terrorism derives all of its power from irrational fear of mass proportions. For example, a failed underwear bombing can inflict enormous economic damage by the long-term costs of additional security and the maintenance of an expanding surveillance state. Bin Laden was probably thrilled to see us invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This sort of behavior, which has been significantly more damaging to the US in the long run compared to 9/11, is the entire goal of terrorism: flash the crimson cloth until your enemy charges, then deftly move aside as they slam into the wall, causing more damage to themselves than you ever could have yourself. To make a somewhat gauche pun, terrorism gets more bang for its buck precisely because people give the 'bang' undue consideration.

Are you advocating that the government turn a blind eye to such threats? That surveillance programs that circumvent the 4th amendment are wholly unwarranted? That the nation could ditch the Patriot Act and magically become a safer place?

I will quote Gandhi here:

"[WWII's] "mad slaughter" so depressed him by late May that [Gandhi] wrote that Hitler and Mussolini should be invited to "take what they want" of Great Britain, and "If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them...you will allow yourself man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered.""

http://books.google.com...

Gandhi is human and thus imperfect. I think Gandhi was wholly mistaken here.

Terrorists aren't Fascists. They aren't out for military domination. They don't have the resources to accomplish that goal. They use our own fears and emotions to manipulate into doing irrational things that are self-injuring. They have the power to to affect us only because they prey on those emotions. I'm not saying that no countermeasures are warranted, but the measures which we have adopted cause much more harm than the attacks which they are meant to prevent. The minute we pass that threshold, we've provided the terrorists with the only power over us that they will ever have. And the further down that road that we travel, the more power we give them.

If what you are saying is that we should reciprocate by allocating resources commensurate with the threat, of course I agree with you. However, that is very different from "stop being afraid of it," which is an absolutist position. You continue to have justifiable fears, and you meet these fears with a justifiable response.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?