Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

from whatIi understand, a terrorist is someone who opposes the goverment with force.

someone who oppose the goverment with force? that kinda sounds like a protester with a gun.

since we cannot get rid of a goverment.... we can only stop them from using force.

how can someone win a war on terrorism? the only practical way is creating something like a facism goverment.

from what I heard, the death count in iraq is over 10 000. This is just me but I think something like this might create a "few" more terrorists.

anyways....

ur opinions?

I consider myself a n00b and iIm not on here all that often and I've seen at least ten threads on this...I think people are getting tired of this now...

you cant win. you can try to keep it at a minimum...but its impossible to win.

Violence cannot stop violence.
Its impossible to stop death and violence. But you can always try to control it. Most of the times, terrorist have their reasons, but no one wants to hear them. I'm not with them, but invading a country and kill millions of people with the justification of stoping terrorism is even worse.

At 9/16/04 04:41 PM, Turro wrote: Violence cannot stop violence.
Its impossible to stop death and violence. But you can always try to control it. Most of the times, terrorist have their reasons, but no one wants to hear them. I'm not with them, but invading a country and kill millions of people with the justification of stoping terrorism is even worse.

thank you. you may be seated. haha. thats exactly my thoughts. for every one iraqi killed, there are 10 more that want revenge. its a vicious cycle.

At 9/16/04 04:35 PM, peedee wrote: you cant win. you can try to keep it at a minimum...but its impossible to win.

It's the guy with the fainting goats in the sig!! YES!

The way to defeat terrorism? It's a long and hard road. It can't be won overnight.

Step one is to go after their funds. We need to find their financers and freeze their accounts. They can't buy weapons/explosives without money. One of their main sources of funding are drugs, among various other criminal activities (Slave Trade/ Forced prostitution/ pirated DVD's)

The second step then is to remove regimes sympethetic to their cause. After all, democratic countries won't give them money/ weapons/ training.

The war against terror is a war of attrition. We go after their resources, and they won't be able to operate...

At 9/16/04 06:12 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: After all, democratic countries won't give them money/ weapons/ training.

Refresh my memory.. Weren't we aiding Iran with money and supplies in the eighties?

Oh, and.. who was that sole remaining superpower that funded the Taliban? I can't put my finger on it...

Democracies oppose the very nature that these islamo-fascists stand for and thus oppose them.

At 9/16/04 06:24 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: Democracies oppose the very nature that these islamo-fascists stand for and thus oppose them.

Why do we fund them then?

At 9/16/04 06:30 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 9/16/04 06:24 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: Democracies oppose the very nature that these islamo-fascists stand for and thus oppose them.

Why do we fund them then?

We don't fund terrorist organisations.

ur missing the point.
so what if you remove the funds.

a terrorist doesn't exactly attack someone because they can.
they could storm a school with a paintball gun filled with marbles.

you can't exactly remove all sources of funds without accidently screwing an innocent guy. suddenly u have created another terrorist.

there were soldiers that were stoned to death by kids.. by definition, they were terrorists. u can't remove terrorists by constantly pissing off people.

At 9/16/04 06:52 PM, guyinfront wrote: ur missing the point.
so what if you remove the funds.

Take away their money and they can't build large bombs. They can't buy RPG's and AK's. They can't purchae black marker Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They can't set up their training camps. They can't sustain sleeper cells all over the world.

Yeah, bad idea to take away their cash

At 9/16/04 04:22 PM, guyinfront wrote:

how can someone win a war on terrorism? the only practical way is creating something like a facism goverment.

terrorsm will always be around no matter what happens.

from what I heard, the death count in iraq is over 10 000. This is just me but I think something like this might create a "few" more terrorists.

how will it create a "few" more terrorists when we are fight against terrorists? im not saying we can just get rid of them tho.

At 9/16/04 07:19 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: Yeah, bad idea to take away their cash

You're missing the point. You can't just automatically label a person as a terrorist.

Even if you were to take away the funds from an organization, you still have the people within that organization. And if you attempt to "eliminate" the terrorist, you only create more of them. When a man loses his family in a stray bombing, you've created a terrorist. When a boy watches his brother get shot by military troops, you've created a terrorist. Terrorism's not a career, it's an ideology.

At 9/16/04 07:30 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

At 9/16/04 07:19 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote:

:Terrorism's not a career, it's an ideology.

This is why Terrorism is so hard to beat. They train in camps to kill us and they justify all of this because we don't believe what they believe.

Now, we can sit around and wonder why they don't like us and watch in horror as another Beslan or 9/11 or another embassy bombing occurs

Or we can take the fight to them. We can go on the offensive. We can take away their ability to attack us and we can rob them of the places they hide. We can take out their allies who also want to see Western Society destroyed.

"The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists. That work continues."
-President George W. Bush, October 13, 2001

"For states that support terror, it is not enough that the consequences be
costly-they must be devastating"
-George w. Bush at a speech at The Citadel, Dec 11, 2001.

"What our enemies have begun, we will finish,"
- President George W. Bush
in his address to the nation on September 11, 2002.

"But a good defense is not enough, and so we have also gone on the offense in the war on terror -- but the President's opponent, Senator Kerry, seems to object. He has even said that by using our strength, we are creating terrorists and placing ourselves in greater danger. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world we live in works. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. " -Dick Cheney

At 9/16/04 07:30 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

At 9/16/04 07:19 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: Yeah, bad idea to take away their cash

You're missing the point. You can't just automatically label a person as a terrorist.

Even if you were to take away the funds from an organization, you still have the people within that organization. And if you attempt to "eliminate" the terrorist, you only create more of them. When a man loses his family in a stray bombing, you've created a terrorist. When a boy watches his brother get shot by military troops, you've created a terrorist. Terrorism's not a career, it's an ideology.

I resent that you say we create terrorists. We may contribute to the problems, but we dont make em. They decide to become terrorists. And its not like every terrorists have a personal conenction to someone who we "killed." I mean we even helped Osama's skinny ass. Whats his motivation? Its called power. What "creates" terrorism is un-educated fools who are manipulated by evil leaders to serve them in the name of a religion or ideology. It is not solely our fault as you would make it seem for the terorrist problem. If I had to blame someone more, I would put the blame 90% on the terrorists, not us.

And if we create terrorists by killing people, how do you suggest we fight them? Take a generations worth of abuse sitting down and wait for their organizations to die out, cause we are not "creating" any more terrorists? Right...

At 9/16/04 08:02 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: Or we can take the fight to them. We can go on the offensive. We can take away their ability to attack us and we can rob them of the places they hide. We can take out their allies who also want to see Western Society destroyed.

You didn't understand a word I said. YOU CANNOT DESTROY AN IDEOLOGY. If you were to attempt to destroy the places they could hide, you would have to nuke the Earth itself. They can be anywhere, not just in the Middle East, and not all the money they gather is from "dummy companies" and such. Individuals often contribute much to their cause.

And a collection of witty quotes proves nothing.

At 9/16/04 08:17 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I resent that you say we create terrorists.

We may contribute to the problems, but we dont make em.
Contributing to the problem only helps make more of them.

They decide to become terrorists.

When something happens to you, who are you going to blame? The people who did it to you.

And its not like every terrorists have a personal conenction to someone who we "killed." I mean we even helped Osama's skinny ass. Whats his motivation? Its called power.

I never said that it was always personal. There are people in those organizations that honestly believe in what they're fighting for, and those that use it to further their agenda, just like in any organization. The government, religion, etc.

What "creates" terrorism is un-educated fools who are manipulated by evil leaders to serve them in the name of a religion or ideology.

And what if the leaders also believe in what they're fighting for? And what do you mean by "un-educated"? People that don't see it from our viewpoint?

It is not solely our fault as you would make it seem for the terorrist problem.

I never said it was. Don't put words into my mouth.

If I had to blame someone more, I would put the blame 90% on the terrorists, not us.

I would put the blame on what the circumstances were that drove a person to such a life. It's easy to say it's their own fault when we have no idea what life is like outside of one of the most powerful countries in the world. I admit, it's something I'm guilty of too. But we need to try to see the "why" along with the "who, what, where, and when".

And if we create terrorists by killing people, how do you suggest we fight them? Take a generations worth of abuse sitting down and wait for their organizations to die out, cause we are not "creating" any more terrorists? Right...

You're suggesting isolationism, and that will not either help nor hurt the problem. To figure out a way to fix it, we need to find out what the terrorists are fighting for. For example, the US-based eco-terrorist group ELF (Earth Liberation Front) wants the US to take better measures to respect the enviroment. Unlike the other enviromental groups, they are willing to do anything to accomplish their goals.

Try to see their motives. Obviously, ELF is fighting for better measures to conserve the enviroment, and as that is within our power, we can easily take better measures for enviromental protection. This will help to reduce their membership somewhat.

If you can take away the footsoldier's reason to fight, and at the same time give them no reason to fight back, then yes, they will eventually die out. The only ones that will be left are the ones that would fight no matter what, and there is no way to placate such people anyway. And while we will suffer some, it will be much worse over the long term if we fight back. Then they can just use our actions as an example of why were are evil and must be destroyed.

At 9/16/04 06:38 PM, Von_Klinkey wrote: We don't fund terrorist organisations.

We funded Osama in the 80's. We funded Iran in the 80's and into the 90's.

If Osama isn't a terrorist, who is?

If we can't use Iran as a good example of a state sponsoring terrorism, who else can we use?

Bingo.

A person who feels they must operate outside society is a strange and possibly sad individual. They may feel that there is nothing left for them or that they have no choice in what happens around them.

Some terrorists may come from similar situations. One must walk a mile in the other person's shoes before passing judgement on them. From there, it is your choice to think what you want about that other person. If they fit in the category of terrorist, then so be it. If they if in the category of people with nothing left to live for, then they are the "lost".

Nothing is black and white.

At 9/16/04 11:43 PM, Redwrath wrote: A person who feels they must operate outside society is a strange and possibly sad individual.

One must walk a mile in the other person's shoes before passing judgement on them.

*SIGH*

hypocrit.

At 9/16/04 04:22 PM, guyinfront wrote: from whatIi understand, a terrorist is someone who opposes the goverment with force.

You understand poorly, then. Terrorism is not a regime, it's a tactic. Terrorism singles out non-miliatary targets. If a group of guys are oppossing government agents, or foreign troops...they are not terrorists. If that same group is attacking crowded market places, or schools...then they are using terrorist tactics.

someone who oppose the goverment with force? that kinda sounds like a protester with a gun.

At 9/16/04 06:52 PM, guyinfront wrote:

there were soldiers that were stoned to death by kids.. by definition, they were terrorists.

No, the soldiers were not civilians, or innocents. They were an occupying force in a country. The kids, by definition, were not terrorists.

At 9/16/04 07:30 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

When a boy watches his brother get shot by military troops, you've created a terrorist.

Terrorism's not a career, it's an ideology.

No...you've created opposition. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a tactic.

terrorism is defined as - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
hmmmm sounds alot like what America are doing in Iraq and Afganistan...and yes, they have been found guilty of terrorism!
I ask you this now. How can a country who have been found guilty of terrorism..have a war against it?

when i said the death count was over 10 000, that was over 10 000 innocent people in iraq. there wasn't even 3000 people killed in the wtc.