Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boiler
No, this doesn't work. We do not make any differenciations regarding terrorism. All they do is killing people. Their maliciousness is universal. It makes no sense to select a specific country just to murder people. If this would really be their goal, they would strike in countries where they can achieve that goal very easily. Please see below in my reply to startup's post what I mean.
|
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "selective" then. It seems to me that terrorists do choose which nation's civilians to kill. I think 9.11 had all the hallmarks of intelligent management: clear goals, in-depth and comprehensive planning, flawless execution. That doesn't speak to me of "mindless, evil creatures of the abyss with no other intention than murdering as many people as possible". They knew who they wanted to kill, though they still wanted to murder as many as possible.
Quote:
|
No, a war against terrorism must not have an overwhelming support...
|
What if it did? I understand your point. Today we like to declare "war" on everything. We like to get wrapped up in the belief that we're really doing something. Still, I would hope that when we declare "war" on something, we actually get more in touch with it than we were in the past.
But back to "what if it did?" What if EVERY country was as committed to taking assertive action against the terrorists within their own borders. Would war (sans quotes) really be necessary?
Quote:
|
I hope you are beginning to understand what I mean? I fear if we will continue this stategy and remain unsuccessful, e.g. we attack more countries but the rate of terrorist attacks all over the globe will still increase, we will loose the trust of the people.
|
Well, I think Afghanistan has been successful. You can't tell me that al Queda has AS EASY a time planning their attacks now as they had when the Taliban kept their diplomatic umbrella over them. And I don't see Iraq as related to the "War on Terror".
I don't agree with invasions (for all the reasons you stated) but I think at some point you're going to have to make the decision as to what to do with countries that don't want to play ball. If you have just one country that refuses to either take care of the terrorists within their own borders, or ask for help, then you have a nice little haven for terrorists. It becomes, like anything in a market economy, a bid for which third world despot can offer the most protection, and the greatest access to weapons and training ground at the lowest price.
Quote:
|
If you want to fight terrorism you have to eliminate the cause of it, not just the symptoms. Otherwise the cancer will return, stronger than ever.
|
This is what I have the hardest time understanding. What is the cause of terrorism? I don't think it's the easy stuff: remove infidels from the Holy Lands, stop meddling in foreign governments, etc.. Ignoring that there are very many different terrorist groups, I'll just concentrate on the ones closest to home: Islamic terrorists. There is a very real sociological and ideological difference between Jihadists and the rest of the civilized world. These people want a change in the entire religious, cultural, economic, and governmental rule of the world.
Aside from that, what if their demands are not acceptable to a civilised world? Would you accept the demands just to have peace? What's to stop us from having "SUV Terrorists", blowing up every person in an SUV because the automakers won't stop making them?