USA vs Terrorists -

[Wolfman Von Jones]

You want to know the secret to stopping most terrorists? Give them a decent job, a clean home, proper utilities, medical care, etc. When you're comfortable most of the fight goes right out of you .

Nick

 

[Siren]

@siren: i had no intention of offending the medical profession, sorry if it came across that way. rest assured that i have the utmost respect for your kind.

i was just trying to say that events such as death, which are very traumatic if you look at them individually, tend to be considered differently if seen en masse/every day. of course there might be insensitive people and even sadists who take pleasure in seeing people die (maybe also causing their deaths), but i'd say that this is not the majority. soldiers are trained following a kill-or-be-killed mantra, and if they had to deal with death the way ordinary people do they would end up completely nuts after three days on the battlefield.

ah, now it sounds a whole lot better.

 

[Thanatos]

So I guess the cockroaches analogy is pretty good, they can (and will) kill many of them but there'll always be more willing to take their place and it's not like they can bring down the US or the west for that matter so can we call it a draw?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

If you answer this thread, the terrorists win.

 

[marduk1507]

@Nick: I wish you were right, but you are so wrong there.

 

[Magrathean]

You know, i used to be interested in this kind of stuff. I would answer to threads like this one on other forums and just keep arguing until the other guy realized they were wrong. I would criticize George W. Bush until i got tired and it was time to go to sleep. But then, after a while, i got bored. And i've been bored for about three years, if i recall correctly, and i've avoided this topic as much as possible.

Alas, i've seen this topic on the first page of DT's forum for too long, and i couldn't resist getting into one more argument about world politics.

So here goes. I've divided my two cents into several posts to make it easier to read, assimilate and quote. Hope Master Rahvin doesn't hate me for that.

 

[Magrathean]

First of all, the USA isn't fighting terrorism, let's get that straight. That's just what Bush says, his justification for fucking up the world some more. The real reason the USA went to the Middle East is that a) there's a lot of oil there and b) it's a nice strategic point for controlling the world (think about it, it's where Europe, Asia and Africa meet).

Eh it doesn't really matter. We're not fighting "terrorism" if you haven't figured that out yet.

Of course, you can't just go around saying "i feel like killing Saddam and establishing a puppet government which will let me pump out all the oil in Irak", so you have to make up a reason. First it was Afghanistan, now it's Irak. Seriously, do you really believe they were looking for Osama in Afghanistan and for weapons of mass destruction (wmd for short) in Irak?

Osama's family and Bush's family have dealings with each other, and there's talk going on that Osama is safely hidden in the USA (although i do not know how true that last statement is, but i'm inclined to believe it), so it's obvious that they weren't looking for him. Hell, supposedly the guy even sent a couple of videos of him saying how happy he was that the USA was scared shitless! Those would have been easy to track down, and Osama bin Laden isn't stupid, so he wouldn't have sent those out if he had really been hiding from the USA.

Now, if the USA were really fighting terrorism they'd have started by killing Bush. He's more of a terrorist than Osama or Saddam; he's created terror like few other men in history.

several main roads in and out of town - for instance - will remain closed to private transportation during the month of february because of the chance someone might try to bomb them. luckily, during the fourteen hours it will take me to get to my office every day, i'm gonna have plenty of time to come up with a way to bomb some other road.

See? they've instilled fear in the rest of the world. An absurd fear, might i add. And i don't know, to me encouraging civilian acquisition of weapons (i.e. allowing your local store to sell rifles and bullets and teaching parents that getting their kids a rifle for christmas is ok) is a form of terrorism. Domestic terrorism, sure, but terrorism all the same.

the US went to Iraq to find Weapons of Mass Destruction

The USA has more wmd than the rest of the world put together, let alone Irak, so why not start by dismantling them and then ask other countries to do so? "Because Irak/Saddam is a threat to the world", Bush says. Isn't Bush himself a threat to the world? He's killed loads of arabians already. Who's next? Latin America? I wouldn't be surprised.

I've heard my brother and father say a couple of times that the history of the USA has been one of fear: they've always been afraid of something. It just had to happen sooner or later that they decided to spread that fear to the rest of the world.

No, people, the american "war against terrorism" is one of the worst lies ever (in the sense that it's quite easy to see that it's a lie).

 

[Magrathean]

Now, supposing the USA were fighting terrorism: The USA would lose. It wouldn't even stand a chance.

First of all, the approach is completely fucked up. You don't kill every terrorist you can find; more will show up the next day. And eventually they'll wear you down. No, you educate people, you make them see that terrorism gets us nowhere. Not that i'm a peace&love-we'reallbrothers hippie, but that's the way to fight terrorism. An alternative was suggested by WVJ:

Give them a decent job, a clean home, proper utilities, medical care, etc. When you're comfortable most of the fight goes right out of you

Like they say: "kick the world, break your foot". This time around it's "kick terrorism, break your foot".

Second, fighting terrorism is like fighting guerrillas. You can't fight what you can't see. Terrorists are well-hidden, and they're everywhere in the world (there's no such thing as a "country that harbors terrorists", that's stupid; every country has terrorists, except maybe Luxembourg or Andorra, but if they had a larger population they'd have terrorists too). Again, kill a terrorist here and another one will appear somewhere else and strike at you from behind. Take down Washington or New York and the USA is defeated, but there's no important city or establishment you can take down that will bring down terrorism for good. That's the disadvantage of fighting against guerillas.

Third, the USA will crumble under its own internal pressure. It's a fact that international pressure can't even touch the USA, since they've wiped their asses with the United Nations and with world opinion, but internal discontent is something no country can withstand. I'm not saying there's going to be another civil war, but sooner or later nobody's going to support the american campaign against the world and riots are going to start everywhere. And all that "our boys were supposed to be home by xmas but they're still out there fighting" thing is going to take its toll on the USA.

Fourth,

I think that in the next couple of years George W. Bush will be awarded the Nobel Prize on chemistry for turning the dollar into shit.

I remember the days when the american dollar and the euro were worth almost the same (the exchange rate was something like $1.01=€1.00). Now the euro is worth so much more. Add

I find it quite ironic that these powers probably look to their actions in Iraq as securing energy sources to the future when the money spent on military actions would be better utilised in R&D into renewable energy sources. What they fail to realise is that not only would these methods be more environmentally friendly, but it would also reduce their dependance on nations who possess oil. A world economy not reliant on non-renewable sources of energy would also be less prone to crises....

and one can see that the american economy is going down the drain. Now, one of the great evils of capitalism (although on this single occasion it's a good thing, as the USA being the most powerful country in the world is a horrible thing) is that it's made the whole world dependent on economy, so the USA not only won't win its "war against terrorism" but it will also fall pretty soon. The only problem i have with this is that

I guess you don't shed a tear when you learn in advance that several thousand south american folks are going to lose their homes because of yet another economic crisis huh?

all of Latin America will also fall because their economy depends so heavily on the USA's.

Finally, the USA is alone. They had allies, such as Spain and the UK, but i'm willing to bet those countries are going to be more careful with whose side they're on since the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London. I once heard that "the USA has a lot of allies but no friends". I think there was even an american president who said that. It's true, and sooner than they think they'll run out of allies, and then there will be no one there to help them out. And no country, no matter how powerful, can win a war against an enemy as powerful as terrorism.

it's not like [terrorists] can bring down the US or the west for that matter so can we call it a draw?

Terrorists alone won't bring down the USA. The current world situation and all the chain reactions that can (and most likely will, i think) result from it and from terrorism will bring them down.

 

[Magrathean]

Now, about China:

While they are a rising power, i don't think they'll take over the world when the USA falls (which, i reckon, will happen somewhere in the next 50-150 years, so we might all live to see it). They do have some nice politics going on and some very intelligent population-control techniques (which will help prevent the extreme poverty that India, for instance, is facing), but Japan is way more powerful. I believe Japan will have control over the Pacific and the European Union will have control over the Atlantic (after all, brains win over brawn, and Europe is easily the place with the most brains; we can see that in the very concept of the European Union), and we will have a nice bipolar world again. The advantage of that will be that no power will be able to make a decision unchallenged, as the USA has done for decades, and so it won't be so easy to step on all other countries or take over the world. That's my forecast, and it's open to discussion.

 

[Magrathean]

Finally, a couple of things that have little or nothing to do with any of this but which i had to post:

All Ive read so far is that the whole area is still a construction site and that many things will be (if they will) finished after the olympics

and i thought such things happened only in Greece.

Oh, no, they also happen in Mexico.

soldiers are trained following a kill-or-be-killed mantra, and if they had to deal with death the way ordinary people do they would end up completely nuts after three days on the battlefield.

Even with that training they do return nuts. Just look at any 'Nam vet.

 

[rahvin]

See? they've instilled fear in the rest of the world. An absurd fear, might i add. And i don't know, to me encouraging civilian acquisition of weapons (i.e. allowing your local store to sell rifles and bullets and teaching parents that getting their kids a rifle for christmas is ok) is a form of terrorism. Domestic terrorism, sure, but terrorism all the same.

actually, the laws concerning the purchase and use of firearms are not at all lax in italy, but i guess you weren't referring to that specifically.
however, i have to say that this fear is far from absurd. it's the countermeasures that are ridiculous: shutting down buildings or closing roads doesn't do much against the threat of someone bombing the winter olympics (or any other event), because unless we're talking fireworks, i can make a bomb explode in the comfort of my home - which is about a half mile from one of the closed streets - and achieve more or less the same result. it's like saying "please, take your nuclear WMD's a couple of blocks away from here, we're trying to have a picnic".
also, such fear is not absurd because i'd gladly bomb the winter olympics if i had a chance.

 

[Magrathean]

actually, the laws concerning the purchase and use of firearms are not at all lax in italy, but i guess you weren't referring to that specifically.

I was referring to the laws concerning the purchase and use of firearms in the USA, but thanks for the info.

i have to say that this fear is far from absurd.

I don't agree. Of course there's a lot of terrorists out there, and of course you can get killed at any time for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it's not like terrorists are mindless assassins who kill people just for fun. As long as a country does nothing against another country, organization, religious group, belief, etc, that country is pretty much safe from terrorist attacks.

it's the countermeasures that are ridiculous: shutting down buildings or closing roads doesn't do much against the threat of someone bombing the winter olympics (or any other event), because unless we're talking fireworks, i can make a bomb explode in the comfort of my home - which is about a half mile from one of the closed streets - and achieve more or less the same result. it's like saying "please, take your nuclear WMD's a couple of blocks away from here, we're trying to have a picnic".

Agreed.

also, such fear is not absurd because i'd gladly bomb the winter olympics if i had a chance.

Why's that?

 

[rahvin]

I don't agree. Of course there's a lot of terrorists out there, and of course you can get killed at any time for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it's not like terrorists are mindless assassins who kill people just for fun. As long as a country does nothing against another country, organization, religious group, belief, etc, that country is pretty much safe from terrorist attacks.

but the perception of the offense and the reactions are what sets terrorism apart from, say, protesting throwing banana peels in the prime minister's face. most groups breeding terrorism nowadays perceive that something is being done against them on grounds that are unreasonable somewhere else - different religious worship or aggressive foreign politics, for instance - and they react by blowing up stuff that happens to contain people who, for the most part, are not even directly responsible for the perceived offense.

for a country to do nothing against any organism that is able to spawn a violent offspring, it would require complete passivity and abstinence from interaction with more or less anyone besides its own citizens. or, if you prefer the hic et nunc version, every country in the world is currently a perceived offender in the eyes of a group of potential terrorists and therefore a possible target. this is not paranoia, as i realize that terrorist attacks are still few and far-between and unable to bring a nation to its knees, but a mindset that transpires very clearly from the words of the leaders of said groups, and the kind of information/propaganda that said groups produce.

Why's that?

the above reasons about how it's screwing up this city would probably be enough. you have to add to this that i used to be a more misanthropic and negative individual than i am now, and i'm still instinctively annoyed by mass celebrations of any sort. you could say that i perceive an offense in their being the proverbial fig leaf covering the nasty bubbling cauldron of social issues, malcontent, and misery which is meant to be sedated and forgotten through the process of talking about something else for a whole month.

 

[Magrathean]

but the perception of the offense and the reactions are what sets terrorism apart from, say, protesting throwing banana peels in the prime minister's face. most groups breeding terrorism nowadays perceive that something is being done against them on grounds that are unreasonable somewhere else - different religious worship or aggressive foreign politics, for instance - and they react by blowing up stuff that happens to contain people who, for the most part, are not even directly responsible for the perceived offense.

for a country to do nothing against any organism that is able to spawn a violent offspring, it would require complete passivity and abstinence from interaction with more or less anyone besides its own citizens. or, if you prefer the hic et nunc version, every country in the world is currently a perceived offender in the eyes of a group of potential terrorists and therefore a possible target. this is not paranoia, as i realize that terrorist attacks are still few and far-between and unable to bring a nation to its knees, but a mindset that transpires very clearly from the words of the leaders of said groups, and the kind of information/propaganda that said groups produce.

Okay, perhaps you are right. There's no decision that can be made that suits every single person, or, to put it in other words, every single decision made is bound to annoy at least one group of persons. I hadn't thought about that. But the countermeasures against potential terrorist attacks are still greatly exaggerated, i believe.

the above reasons about how it's screwing up this city would probably be enough. you have to add to this that i used to be a more misanthropic and negative individual than i am now, and i'm still instinctively annoyed by mass celebrations of any sort. you could say that i perceive an offense in their being the proverbial fig leaf covering the nasty bubbling cauldron of social issues, malcontent, and misery which is meant to be sedated and forgotten through the process of talking about something else for a whole month.

Beautifully put, and understandable.

 

[Thanatos]

As long as a country does nothing against another country, organization, religious group, belief, etc, that country is pretty much safe from terrorist attacks.

Could be if some of those countries were not ruled by fundamentalists, if the USA hadn't spoiled the west's reputation by sticking it's nose everywhere and trying to rip them off, and if the UN hadn't forced Israel on them after WW2 then maybe we could all be safe from terrorist attacks, and then I don't know if it'd be ethic to ignore issues like how women are treated in most muslim countries (I'm not talking about using that as an excuse to try to gain control of oil reserves or to try to establish military posts).

 

[Magrathean]

Well, that bad reputation is bound to end with the (imminent, might i add) fall of the United States of America (which, by the way, is a terrible name, as every other country in America is also united, a bunch of states and in America). And i don't think the UN is going to live much longer (think League of Nations; it'll probably be dissolved out of lack of use / lack of power / lack of attention).

Anyway, you're right. The USA did fuck things up a lot; fundamentalists make the worst leaders, and Israel (with the USA behind them, please take note) is pretty screwed too (but then so is the entire Middle East).

 

[marduk1507]

Your perspective is too focused on the US. Why would you spend the whole day arguing about G.W.Bush and not about the things Ive mentioned before? Think about it. If one doesnt do anything, one doesnt break anything, thats what we say here. And yes, USA are doers and thus they break stuff and therefore get a whole lot of criticism and even hatred. The other countries just watch. Yeah, some EU countries have got involved, but it was merely symbolic, a drop in a sea. You are naive in your belief that country that isnt attacking anyone wont be attacked. Terrorists just dont give a shit, even about their own lives. Its not a guerilla warfare for a more-or-less just cause anymore.

 

[Thanatos]

what do you meant imminent? I don't see it happening in the next 15 years

 

[Magrathean]

marduk: Would you please list the things you've mentioned before so i might address them one by one? And if i'm too focused on the USA it's because this thread is about the USA. Of course there's other countries. In any case, i refuse to believe that terrorists will just blow themselves and a building up if their leader doesn't have a reason to blow that particular building up. Mostly it's symbolic reasons, like "capitalism sucks so let's blow up a bank" or "americans are assholes so let's kill a thousand of them", but there are still reasons.

Thanatos: Not 15, but surely 50-150, which in historic scale is still very little time. And they can't stop it.

 

[marduk1507]

Oh ok, since you are too lazy to read my only other post in this thread, here it is:

Heh, fucking typical. Too worried about terrorist prisons in Cuba, too worried about asses of those who simply dont give a fuck about any of you and would easily kill you in a second. YET not worried at all about what was going on in Iraq, what was going on in Afghanistan, in former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Chechnya, what is still going on in Iran, in China, in plenty of African countries etc. Yeah, its so fucking easy to find the nearest enemy, cause US are so huge and stick their nose everywhere. But please DO notice these things too. I dont give a fuck about people who would die to kill me, I give a fuck about those who are in prison for their attitudes and beliefs and who get killed for it too. Its fucking typical, that the only thing people are worried about regarding Cuba are the terrorist prisons. Castro is a fine chap, isnt he?

Its on page 1 of this 3-page thread.