BF2S Forums "President Bush has increased terrorism"

m3thod wrote:

Your rational is IMO wrong.  I'm not being asshole about it.

I am not rationalizing anything.  If some mentions Ideology and Chomsky in the same sentence.....

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

no...this stateless enemy we face today has gained popular support among their own communities.  Bush is doing his best to limit the actions and spread of terrorism. 

terrorism and unconventional warfare are the tactics of the future.  i contend that conventional conflict has declined while such terrorism increases.  the opposition to America and its allies is fighting the best way it can, and since they cannot match our conventional forces, they have adopted new tactics.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Well excuse me.  But I thought you were talking about ideology in the second paragraph.

Yes, I was. You might want to take a look around, because last time I checked the Nazi ideology still exists, still has many followers and those followers still engage in violent acts, terrorist acts. Nazi Germany itself was defeated as a military power but the ideas of the Nazi party are still with us. However I don't see us bombing or occupying Idaho.

I don't care about the Nazi's.  You or Chom is saying we cannot defeat ideology.  And he/you is/are correct.  My point is, unless you do something about it, bad things happen.  Just like when Clinton sent us to Bosnia.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I am not rationalizing anything.  If some mentions Ideology and Chomsky in the same sentence.....

....you have a reflexive reaction that causes you to make illogical comparisons? "ZOMG, he said Chomsky, librul terrorist appeaser!"? Please take responsibility for your own faulty thought processes, don't palm them off on me.

Ugh.  When Chom speaks of current issues, he often brings up the past right?  That is what I was doing.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

I don't really know a whole lot of Chomsky's work, but I do recall what he said about "draining the swamp". Force is not going to fix this. As much as some people might like to, you can't kill an idea or an ideology, the only thing you can fight that with is better ideas and ideologies. Fight the violent when they attack, yes, but realize that their leaders are not on the battlefield but within the body of society as a whole like a malignancy. You don't treat a tumor with a shotgun blast and you don't excise a malignancy and then turn the patient out on the street without another thought. Careful surgery and aftercare is what's called for here, not casual brutality and abandonment.

Is that how they should have stopped Hitler in 1939-40?

There is a major difference between Hitler and our enemies in Iraq.

Hitler was a conventional force.

Insurgencies must be dealt with in very different ways.

Hitler was a man, not a force.

Noam Chomsky is an asshole. . .

redhawk454 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Is that how they should have stopped Hitler in 1939-40?

There is a major difference between Hitler and our enemies in Iraq.

Hitler was a conventional force.

Insurgencies must be dealt with in very different ways.

Hitler was a man, not a force.

You know what I meant...  He represented a conventional force.

Either way, insurgencies represent a minority of the people, so we can use that to our advantage in dealing with them through economics.  When the people are no longer desperate, they won't succumb to terrorism.

The kicker is that we don't really have any way to maintain order in Iraq right now, so we have to leave, let Iran feel the brunt of the battle, and when the dust settles, we can implement trade policies that lead to a more positive view of the West.

redhawk454 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I think it fits there.

Different time.  Different era.  Different mindset.  Different people.  Different weapons.  Different strategy.  Different food.  Different chicks.

Not applicable.

Y-Y-Y-Ya D-D-D-Dig?

I think you have developed a sstudder.

what the FAAARRRK is that?!! ^^

Since did when did a word in the English langauge start with a double 'S'?!

Schools in!

Free English Lesson from m3th

Stutter.

Hurricane wrote:

m3thod wrote:

what the FAAARRRK is that?!! ^^

Since did when did a word in the English langauge start with a double 'S'?!

School's in!

Free English Lesson from m3th

Stutter.

Damn you Hurricane.  A thousand dicks in your ass!!!

usmarine2007 wrote:

Ugh.  When Chom speaks of current issues, he often brings up the past right?  That is what I was doing.

Like I all ready said, I haven't really read a whole lot of his work. I've found what I have read to be a bit dry and tedious, which prevents me from seeking out more. That aside, I'm fairly certain that when he speaks of current issues and brings up past issues as a comparison, he uses comparisons that actually make sense and doesn't compare two things that are only tangentally related to each other ie. terrorist ideology and Nazi ideology. Besides the fact, that's not why you brought up Hitler in the first place. You were trying to make it look like I had a singular idea for how to deal with external violent forces no matter what they were. You fail because you skipped right over what I said after the mention of Chomsky's name got your panties in a twist.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Fight the violent when they attack, yes, but realize that their leaders are not on the battlefield but within the body of society as a whole like a malignancy.

Hitler's military was a recognized force on the battlefield. They wore uniforms, had air and armored and naval power, had supply lines and troop movements and factories that mass-produced their armaments. You don't stop a tank by offering it a job, you don't cripple production of war materiel by opening a hospital next door to the factory that produces artillery shells. Military force needs to be met with military force on the battlefield and that's how Hitler's war machine was defeated. The problem we face in terrorism is not a massive war machine but a random collection of combatants that cannot be easily recognized separate from the civilian population. In the face of military force, they scatter and then reform after the military force has moved on; they remain mostly intact while the civilians they hid amongst are the ones harmed. Their leaders are not going to take pity on us and decide to start making their recruits wear uniforms and march in formation where we can see them. Why is it so difficult to use the military to defend while reaching out to the people the terrorist leaders would ordinarily recruit? Why does it have to be this false dichotomy of either military force or complete surrender?

usmarine2007 wrote:

Hitler ideology is the same as the terrorists isn't it?  Kill Jews and people who do not fit your mold and follow what you say to the letter.  Sounds the same to me.

To me it seems like you wanted to fight fire by just talking to it.

P.S. I am not going to quote everything you say since it takes up too much room.

Sure, they're the same if you pare them down to the barest elements and stop just short of reducing it to "Hate, kill". You're reducing that to the absurdly simple just like you're trying to reduce the solutions to terrorism to "we either fight them full-on or we surrender". Ironically you end up sounding an awful lot like "there is no co-existing with infidels, only jihad".

And I don't want to fight fire by talking to it, I want to fight fire by denying it what it needs to keep burning. Fire can't burn without fuel to consume, terrorists can't create terror without a pool of people so miserable they'd rather blow themselves up than keep living or so full of rage they'd saw someone's head off with a knife. You seem to want to fight fire by punching it until it gives up.

usmarine2007 wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

And I don't want to fight fire by talking to it, I want to fight fire by denying it what it needs to keep burning.

Hey, I am all for disposing of bibles and the qur'an.

In all honesty, I wish it was that simple.

Religion too often seems like a disease of the mind.

BN wrote:

Parker wrote:

so let me ask everyone a question. what would you have the united states do to make peace with these fucking animals, but still protect ourselves?

1. Find out what they want, why they are doing this.
2. Stop doing whatever it is that is pissing them off.

We have stirred up the hornets nest and now we are getting stung.

Divide Iraq into 5 regions. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurdish, Arab & anyone else who has a beef. Put them in their respective corners and anyone who crosses the lines gets a spanked bottom

What happens when the Arabs that are a mix of both Sunni and Shia....do they go to purgatory

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-02-22 20:40:11)