Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Or you could just blockade Japan and starve them out. But America didn't really want to wait that long...

I'm going to look at Strife's tactics later on, because he's about the only person that does present a blueprint for possibly ending the War on a military tactic. But, asking about how the US provoked 9/11? You could read Al-Qadiah's press releases, as well as the Fatwa that Osama bin Laden issued calling for a jihad against America, and be enlightened.

Well yeah, and now it's N.Korea time? Let's just hope that they don't have any nukes yet...

The DPRK had nukes since 2006. The best way to deal with them is to engage in diplomacy and give them bribes so as to ensure they don't cause any trouble. That's why the DPRK got off the Terror List after all, which is the main aim here.

[Virex]

Terrorist countries have problems dealing with other countries. Globalized economy and all that. It's the tactic of weak cowards.

It's not just terrorist countries we're dealing with though. Take for example the IRA, the ETA, or the Tamil Tigers. They fight for independence of a part of a country. But how would the world handle a country that's partialy terrorist and for a large part anti-terrorist. Hell we've got the same kind of problem in Pakistan now...

And then there's the country-independent movements like Al'Quaida, the RAF (might be a bit obsolete now) and various extremist left- and right-wing paramilitary organisations scatered all over the globe (I heard there were some trouble with a left-wing one in Italy recently, and right-wing extremists were probably important in the resent troubles in Glasgow, with the bulgarians getting pummeled. It's maybe not quite terrorism, but certanly it's not farr off.)

[Idiom]

To "win" the "war" against an idea, you must destroy all motivation for the people to use it so that they simply will not use it. You can't "win" against terrorism, but you can "win" against it's users.

The simplest and least destructive solution? Give them what they want. Really. That's the only reason anyone ever resorts to drastic measures. That's never going to happen, and the terrorists will keep on terrorizing in defiance to the end.

The current strategy is to smack the crap out of anyone even related to terrorism, which really isn't such a great idea on multiple levels. It's not accurate enough. Like lobbing miniature nukes at ants. Too big of a response to too small of a target, far too much collateral damage, too expensive for the results, swings too much support aways from the efforts and we burn ourselves out like we have been doing since the Vietnam war. We can't be "World Police" anymore. People are sick to their stomachs of it. 9/11 was enough to rally congress to initially approve for this sort of thing, but really we'd need a 9/11 every six months to keep the public support going. The sheer amount of resources we've thrown out there to stop dirty fighting, we're imploding. This is exactly what a number of terrorists are out there to do, and I think they're winning at this war of attrition. We can't keep up this tactic.

I remember soviet Russia. They had this whole quelling thing down. Any troublemakers and their extended families disappeared, end of story. Terrorism to trump terrorism. As per what we're founded on we don't have the option of resorting to this, and technically fire to end fire is stupid.

We can't afford to keep at this the old fashioned way of throwing money at it, nor can we resort to some dirty tactics ourselves... really I think the only sane thing left to do is try to solve the problems that created the terrorism in the first place. But good God, can you imagine how much actual effort our politicians would have to put in to solve public relations? We need magic like we haven't seen since Nixon/Kissinger.

EDIT:

What did we do to provoke 9/11, pray tell?

If I recall:
It dates back to WWII. We're partly responsible for Israel's creation as a nation, which is what ticked everyone off in the MidEast. Then as they have their wars over there, involving Israel, and we kept giving some support to Israel. At several points, we stepped in with full blown military actions. The end result is a generation of people who believed G. W. Bush Sr. was personally in that bomber blowing up their home and that while Israel is still of the devil, America is it's Imp. The Twin Towers were originally involved in a previous terrorist bombing, an old fashioned bomb-bombing down in the basement or something, but they were caught and arrested. One of the ringleaders swore that even though they were stopped, the towers would still fall. I remember one of them swore that. Almost a decade later and someone finally got around to it. Someone else around here who actually took some history classes should do a better job of telling this.

[Virex]

It dates back to WWII. We're partly responsible for Israel's creation as a nation, which is what ticked everyone off in the MidEast. Then as they have their wars over there, involving Israel, and we kept giving some support to Israel. At several points, we stepped in with full blown military actions. The end result is a generation of people who believed G. W. Bush Sr. was personally in that bomber blowing up their home and that while Israel is still of the devil, America is it's Imp. The Twin Towers were originally involved in a previous terrorist bombing, an old fashioned bomb-bombing down in the basement or something, but they were caught and arrested. One of the ringleaders swore that even though they were stopped, the towers would still fall. I remember one of them swore that. Almost a decade later and someone finally got around to it. Someone else around here who actually took some history classes should do a better job of telling this.

I'm not an expert on this matter, but I doubt that Israel is all that large a factor. Sure it comes about every other sentence, but I think it has become more of a personification for a lot of other problems.

Besides the troubles with Israel, there's the entire load of problems ascociated with a mighty country leaving it's colonies, though with a slight twist. Pretty much the whole arabian area came under controll of the french and british after the first world war and they left it againa fter the second. That's bound to give some trouble.

Then there's the Shaj of Persia, which would eventualy be overthrown in the Iranian revolution. This prompted the US to instal the less the favoured Sadam Hussein in Iraq.

There's also the point that after the Russians were expeled from Afghanistan by the militia with the help of the US, the US quickly dfropped support for Afghanistan altogheter if I recall correctly. This is also the conflict that made Al Quaida big, since it was one of the groups being supported by the US.

Then there's also the trouble with the Saudi's. Basicly, they're not liked at all in the Middle East, but they've got good connections with the US. Not quite a good way to gain popularity with the people...

[bjlong]

Idiom: I'd like to know what you advocate for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, since the Palestinians aren't willing to accept a two-state solution.

I'd also like to know how you'd determine which terrorist groups to support in the case of conflicting terrorist groups.

I'd also like to know why you think that we're losing a war of attrition, when, as I can see it, we've passed the peak in violence in Iraq, and civilian political interest is focused solely on the economy. I couldn't find any simple resources on casualties in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, I'd like to know what exactly you would do to "solve the problems that created terrorism in the first place." As I understand it, you'd have to be talking about specifically Islamic terrorism against the western world, rather than terrorism in general.

[Captain Hat]

Or you could just blockade Japan and starve them out. But America didn't really want to wait that long...

I'm going to look at Strife's tactics later on, because he's about the only person that does present a blueprint for possibly ending the War on a military tactic. But, asking about how the US provoked 9/11? You could read Al-Qadiah's press releases, as well as the Fatwa that Osama bin Laden issued calling for a jihad against America, and be enlightened.

Well yeah, and now it's N.Korea time? Let's just hope that they don't have any nukes yet...

The DPRK had nukes since 2006. The best way to deal with them is to engage in diplomacy and give them bribes so as to ensure they don't cause any trouble. That's why the DPRK got off the Terror List after all, which is the main aim here.

Give them bribes? This is the whole reason they're starting trouble in the first place, to freak the international community into sending in money to fund even greater tantrums. The only reason everyone puts up with this isn't because they could send nukes our way, it's what they can do to South Korea.

[Servant Corps]

Idiom: I'd like to know what you advocate for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, since the Palestinians aren't willing to accept a two-state solution.

Sure they do. Fatah currently support the two-state solution. Hamas offically doesn't, but it has stated that they will accept the two-state solution if such a solution gets approved by a referendum of Palestianians and are willing to make cease-fires with Israel in the meantime. And polls shows that both Israelis and Palestianians support the idea of the two-state solution.

It's all the minor issues, such as Jewish settlements, East Jersasulm, and the right of return, that keep the issue fermenting.

And, of course, the focus on Palestine means that there are less focus on other terrorists such as the nationalist PKK (Kurdish terrorists attacking Turkey), the Maoists in Nepal and India, Chrisitan rebels in India, abortion bombers in USA, etc. This is a War on Terrorism, not the War on Islamic Fundmentalists.

Give them bribes? This is the whole reason they're starting trouble in the first place, to freak the international community into sending in money to fund even greater tantrums.

But if the DPRK actually causes trouble, China and South Korea would be deveasted. Bribing the DPRK is the least bad of the options. At least it's more intellectually honest than "negogiating".

[Psyco Jelly]

All citizens of the world should be allowed to carry automatic weapons and trained in both close-quarters and ranged combat. If everyone has the skills of Max Fightmaster, no-one would ever attack anyone ever. Not even Max Fightmaster can take down himself and his friends.

Seriously, I have a Might Makes Right view on the world. Take what you want, but don't piss off people bigger than you. Meaning: Take stuff from people that let you, and trick them into letting you. The weak invented government to protect themselves from the strong.

Of course, the weak were pretty smart to do that, and smart = strong.

So either be badass, or get some friends.

[Idiom]

1)I'd like to know what you advocate for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, since the Palestinians aren't willing to accept a two-state solution.

2)I'd also like to know how you'd determine which terrorist groups to support in the case of conflicting terrorist groups.

3)I'd also like to know why you think that we're losing a war of attrition, when, as I can see it, we've passed the peak in violence in Iraq, and civilian political interest is focused solely on the economy. I couldn't find any simple resources on casualties in Afghanistan.

4)Furthermore, I'd like to know what exactly you would do to "solve the problems that created terrorism in the first place." As I understand it, you'd have to be talking about specifically Islamic terrorism against the western world, rather than terrorism in general.

Do I look like a politician to you? As a civilian it is my right to bitch about what government should and shouldn't do regardless of the quality of my opinions or ability to defend them. But I have time to kill, so:

1) We need to gas the whole region with some kind of relaxants. I support Israel keeping their holy land they were given back. That's it. The only thing I am certain of about Palestine is that I am amused they haven't been able to take the land back. As Servant Corps is apparently more on top of current events than I am, talk to him.

2)Depends on:
-Public perception of the groups. Which would gain voter support.
-Interests to us. Who controlling what territory/resources could benefit us?
Which of course could end with us supplying both sides (but the group that falls under the second query will win).

3)HUGE overbloated military spending that drained our surplus overseas right when a depression is overdue in response to a single attack that lead to the overthrowing of one dictator (how many to go now?) and terrible international relations... we really overreacted which is exactly what I think they wanted, horrible timing, but that was the last administration and can't be undone. Yes, civilians are concerned about economy right now. I'm renting out rooms because of it. Really, if they can keep the costs low enough, I don't care what we're doing overseas right now. We just can't do what we did again, and fortunately our new administration is not as insane and can understand that.

4) IE pressure from us for other nations to give into angry people's demands rather than us telling the angry people to shove it up their arse. Not necessarily the Mid East (would require us participating in genocide I think). More like us telling Britain to finally completely leave Northern Ireland already. Is this an acceptable solution or course of action that will ever be taken? Ha. I wish. But exactly that. Politics are fun when you can make a mockery. I know just enough to pretend that I know.

[Psyco Jelly]

Maybe the Islamic terrorists attacked the US to taunt us into attacking to make us look like an asshole in front of all the other countries.

[Captain Hat]

But if the DPRK actually causes trouble, China and South Korea would be devastated. Bribing the DPRK is the least bad of the options. At least it's more intellectually honest than "negogiating".

It's got to stop somewhere 

[florian]

Maybe the Islamic terrorists attacked the US to taunt us into attacking to make us look like an asshole in front of all the other countries.

Well, the US already looked like an asshole before invading Iraq. (Remember Vietnam? Agent Orange?)

[Muz]

To "win" the "war" against an idea, you must destroy all motivation for the people to use it so that they simply will not use it. You can't "win" against terrorism, but you can "win" against it's users.

The simplest and least destructive solution? Give them what they want. Really. That's the only reason anyone ever resorts to drastic measures. That's never going to happen, and the terrorists will keep on terrorizing in defiance to the end.

Giving them what they want promotes terrorism. It shows that the tactic works. Right now it doesn't really work, only in some rare cases.

But Malaysia did have a bad case of communist insurgency once. Instead of going down to the woods and hunting them (or bombing them), they decided to talk to commie supporters. And put all of them in walled villages. Communist guerrillas stopped receiving food and eventually.. the insurgency died. Diplomacy does work, people.

Maybe the Islamic terrorists attacked the US to taunt us into attacking to make us look like an asshole in front of all the other countries.

That makes sense, given America's tendencies. But recieved a royal ass kicking in Afghanistan. Then the USA decided to attack Iraq even though there were no terrorists there. That I didn't understand. Well, there are terrorists in Iraq now. Maybe they were just hidden.

[florian]

Maybe the Islamic terrorists attacked the US to taunt us into attacking to make us look like an asshole in front of all the other countries.

That makes sense, given America's tendencies. But recieved a royal ass kicking in Afghanistan. Then the USA decided to attack Iraq even though there were no terrorists there. That I didn't understand. Well, there are terrorists in Iraq now. Maybe they were just hidden.

Bush actually attacked Iraq because he tought that God Told Him SoŽ. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

[Captain Hat]

Doubtful, seems more like a person abusing religion to alter perceptions of people who might otherwise find his plan a little crazy.