Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

 

2006-09-12 05:45:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6553
I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-12 06:41:36)

2006-09-12 05:46:52
d3v1ldr1v3r13
Satan's disciple on Earth.
+160|6683|Hell's prison
I dont think a war on terror victory can be achieved, we live in a hostile world, and as long as everyone has different and possibly hostile views on right and wrong, there will always be terrorism.  I dont think there will ever be an end.
2006-09-12 05:50:23
ELITE-UK
Scratching my back
+170|6472|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND
ni i dont think so....personally i think that all asians apart from chinese and japanese should be banned from the western world, it might be harsh but it might work, we dont need them so we should shut them off for good!!!!
2006-09-12 05:50:58
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6520|...

it's a polical farce. No good no evil ... just sides.
2006-09-12 05:52:40
thanks_champ
Member
+19|6520
These are the questions every single person should be asking themselves. Plus one for you.
2006-09-12 05:52:59
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6755|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are the terrorists?

Flame on.
1-Yes, but not with tanks and Patriot missiles. 
2-Peace?
3-If victory means to end the bombings from both sides, then yes.
4-May be.
5-Solving the Middle East countries issues, including Israel leaving from Palestine territories.  The western countries should end their support to Israel, so the "terrorists" have no motivation to bomb them.
6-Until the western countries stop giving support to Israel.
7-All the countries, parties or groups that use violence to change things in a government or country.  To mention a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, to mention a terrorist country, Israel.  There are more, but today these are the finest examples.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-09-12 09:25:51)

2006-09-12 05:57:20
Miller
IT'S MILLER TIME!
+271|6753|United States of America

CameronPoe wrote:

1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all? Yes.
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take? A long long ime the way people are handling it.
1)Yes it can, the problem is we aren't allowing the military to do anything it needs to in order to achieve victory.
2)Victory will not be a surrendering like it was from Japan, and Germany... this isn't a formal war, the victory will also not be formal.
3)Yes.
4) No, it is dealing with a threat that has been given to us after 9/11.  If they hadn't attacked the WTC's, we wouldn't be at war right now.  Blame Osama for causing a chain reaction, not Bush.
5)Like Japan, having to kill anyone willing to die for their "belief".  The only difference is that there is no uniformed enemy to kill, which means, mistakes will be made and civilians will die, it always happens in war.
6) A long long ime the way people are handling it.

Last edited by Miller (2006-09-12 05:58:54)

2006-09-12 06:12:29
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6663|NT, like Mick Dundee

Terrorism is an idea. You can't kill an idea unless you control peoples minds. To do that you essentially have two choices:-

a) Become a police state and try to control everybody (1984, Stalin's vision of the U.S.S.R and many other examples abound...)

b) See option a.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2006-09-12 06:35:38
the_hitman_kills
Agent 47 wannabe
+32|6463|Inside my APC
there is probably a few definitions of Terrorism, mine would be where a group of people indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to incite fear and terror in the rest of the population in an attempt to secure their own goals or agenda.

technically i see the bombing of London, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist attacks during WWII. Hiroshima and Nagasaki effects still being felt today.
2006-09-12 06:40:21
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6755|Argentina

the_hitman_kills wrote:

there is probably a few definitions of Terrorism, mine would be where a group of people indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to incite fear and terror in the rest of the population in an attempt to secure their own goals or agenda.

technically i see the bombing of London, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist attacks during WWII. Hiroshima and Nagasaki effects still being felt today.
Well, according to your description, you missed Israel acts.
2006-09-12 06:43:50
the_hitman_kills
Agent 47 wannabe
+32|6463|Inside my APC

sergeriver wrote:

the_hitman_kills wrote:

there is probably a few definitions of Terrorism, mine would be where a group of people indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to incite fear and terror in the rest of the population in an attempt to secure their own goals or agenda.

technically i see the bombing of London, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist attacks during WWII. Hiroshima and Nagasaki effects still being felt today.
Well, according to your description, you missed Israel acts.
just thinking about WWII and how both the US and UK have committed questionable attacks.

Isreal would meet all my requirements for a terrorist group.
2006-09-12 06:45:07
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6740|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
2006-09-12 06:50:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6553

IG-Calibre wrote:

Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
Yes I must admit I groaned when I saw those articles. Hurrah! - Afghanistan is free, its markets are now open, welcome Starbucks, welcome McDonalds! Coca Cola - the pinnacle of economic achievement...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-12 06:51:35)

2006-09-12 06:52:22
the_hitman_kills
Agent 47 wannabe
+32|6463|Inside my APC

IG-Calibre wrote:

Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
Im a Pepsi man myself.
2006-09-12 06:52:57
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6755|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
Yes I must admit I groaned when I saw those articles. Hurrah! - Afghanistan is free, its markets are now open, welcome Starbucks, welcome McDonalds! Coca Cola - the pinnacle of economic achievement...
Why shouldn't afghans get a decent food from McDonalds?
2006-09-12 06:54:01
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6755|Argentina

the_hitman_kills wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
Im a Pepsi man myself.
Coke ftw.
2006-09-12 06:55:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

If you are talking about this war coming to an end as Victory then no it can't be achieved . But Victories are being achieved every day. Iraq taking control of it's own military is a victory. Perhaps one day stability in that region would be a victory http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Se … ug29r1.pdf . Preventing further attacks on our homeland is a victory. (None since 9/11) . Disrupting terrorist training camps and financing is a victory. Al-queda is on the run, they no longer can relax in countries such as Afghanistan. That is a Victory. Sitting back and pretending we are safe is not.  If we just went about our bussiness as if there werent people who had a religous desire to kill us at any cost is a failure. A failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Some people thought that there was no way of acheiving a victory during the Cold War.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-09-12 07:02:53
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6443|Australia.
decent food from McDonalds?
lol
2006-09-12 07:04:29
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6734|Salt Lake City

The war against terror will only end when those in countries where terrorists are allowed to operate have had enough, and take it upon themselves to take down these terrorist groups.
2006-09-12 07:06:07
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6540|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.
Good job asking the same question seven different ways.

Let me spin this question back to you: What is not clear about the policy/message?

Is don't train terrorists or harbor terrorists or ELSE not clear?
2006-09-12 07:07:29
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6755|Argentina

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.
Good job asking the same question seven different ways.

Let me spin this question back to you: What is not clear about the policy/message?

Is don't train terrorists or harbor terrorists or ELSE not clear?
You should know, you trained Osama.
2006-09-12 07:14:43
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6443|Australia.

Miller wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all? Yes.
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take? A long long ime the way people are handling it.
1)Yes it can, the problem is we aren't allowing the military to do anything it needs to in order to achieve victory.
2)Victory will not be a surrendering like it was from Japan, and Germany... this isn't a formal war, the victory will also not be formal.
3)Yes.
4) No, it is dealing with a threat that has been given to us after 9/11.  If they hadn't attacked the WTC's, we wouldn't be at war right now.  Blame Osama for causing a chain reaction, not Bush.
5)Like Japan, having to kill anyone willing to die for their "belief".  The only difference is that there is no uniformed enemy to kill, which means, mistakes will be made and civilians will die, it always happens in war.
6) A long long ime the way people are handling it.
1) So what can the military do, will you be happy once every single arab is dead?
2) see 1
3)no
4) you can sit around and claim "they started it" till the cows come home. We must have pissed em off somehow for them to want to do that to you
5) So in that vein, youre saying it was ok for them to kill alot of civillians in the WTC attacks? an act of war is an act of war, doesnt matter if one side doesnt know they're fighting yet. Who holds expensive rememberance services for the iraqi children that have been killed over the last 4 years?
6) Long after we have gone, nobody is really happy unless theyre fighting.
2006-09-12 07:25:24
[JUK]semerkhet
Member
+3|6629

ELITE-UK wrote:

ni i dont think so....personally i think that all asians apart from chinese and japanese should be banned from the western world, it might be harsh but it might work, we dont need them so we should shut them off for good!!!!
Its exactly this sort of thinking that is the problem with the planet, blaming the actions of problems caused by a few individual people on whole coutries.  oh, as u say you're UK, what about the Ghurkas, a regiment in our army that is recruited from Nepal, which is one of the "asian countries" you would ban.

Also, to be really pedantic, the east/west divide on a map goes through London, so does this mean that most of europe actually belongs with the "eastern world", and should also get banned from the "western world".

in case no one has noticed, but keep travelling east and you'll end up back in the west, and vice versa.

Anyway, the "war on terror". not going to end until every last human being on the planet is dead, due to our own nature, we will always fear the people who hate us, and hate them back, therefore anything they do will constitute causing terror amongst those terrified by them.  No partiular group or individual will ever back down from their individual beliefs, and will always fight those who they see as a threat in some form, whether its attacking them directly (i.e killing them in the hope to wipe out or convert through fear) or will shut out anyone who even vaguely fits the description (i.e america treating non-american citizens as second class people).

each side will keep retaliating, and no one has the guts to step back and say "enougth", they always want the last say in things, and because of this, there will always be a war between people who have contradictory views, whether it be verbal and/or physical.
2006-09-12 07:28:17
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6443|Australia.
yeah i agree +1

its all just a diversion to keep us from seeing how they screw us, their own citizens over really.
2006-09-12 07:28:45
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6540|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

You should know, you trained Osama.
Ironic that you bring up Osama - you have a parallel thread which indirectly says "US should spend its taxes on domestic issues".  We left Afghanistan out in the cold after the Soviet conflict...by not funding foreign aid we pissed him off.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard