A thought I had regarding terrorism

[BlancoNino]

I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

 

[ntdz]

It's more like a mosquito biting you, what are you going to do, let them keep biting you and annoying you, or are you going to do something about it?

 

[sandorski]

You misunderstand the point. It is not to give Terorists a pass, it's to know why the Terrorists exist in the first place.

 

[Rainsford]

It IS worth thinking about, but it's still a stupid analogy. The problem is that your use of the term "the terrorists" is too open vague and you're using it in a way that does not reflect the thoughts of the "anti-war" people very well. Actually, the real problems is that you are grouping people who don't like us into one monolithic group and suggesting that we can only deal with them as such, that we can't deal differently with different members of the group.

You are either misunderstanding or making a straw man argument out of the opinions of the "anti-war" people, so in case it's the former, let me help you out. For a lot of people, there are really two main groups of people we need to be concerned with, the actual terrorists running around doing terrorist things (group 1), and the people that simply don't like us but who are NOT terrorists, although they might become terrorists at some future point in time (group 2). The problem with the "kick his ass" solution is that it does nothing to prevent people in group 2 from moving into group 1. Your analogy (and indeed, the entire thought process of a large percentage of Americans) does not distinguish between those two groups, while "anti-war" folks seem to suggest a two pronged approach, defeat the group 1 people that pose an immediate threat, but ALSO step back and figure out why there are so many people in group 2 in order to avoid an ever growing group 1 set of terrorists.

To use a WWII analogy, it would have been like defeating the German army and then not doing anything to "make nice" with the rest of the German people at the end of the war. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what happened following WWI, something that is widely regarded as the main reason for WWII...European leaders did not realize that the situation was more complicated than simply defeating a monolithic group of soldiers and then be done with it. Obviously the analogy doesn't quite hold since the idea of more diplomatic approaches is being proposed DURING the conflict, but the terrorists are different than a nation state, the approach of attacking on two fronts wouldn't work with a country, but it CAN work with a group of people that depend on popular support and do not have as much actual power...stealing their base of support right out from under them, you might say.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

One must first separate the loathing disgust over how our leadership has handled this from the recognition that we need to do something about it. An ineffective President and military leadership does not mean that the struggle should not be made to defeat our enemy. It merely means we need to change our leadership ? in full (Congress/Senate included) in order to have a chance at taking actions that are more effective.

So while I agree 100% with the idea that we need to hit them and hit them hard, I would also be the first to say that our actions in Iraq have been a giant blunder, and that it has placed us in a pretty bad position now that I recognize Iran?s nuclear ambitions are far more advanced than Iraq?s left over Chemicals.

Then when the only alternative option on the ballot box is for isolationism and retreat from engaging the enemy, instead of devising a more effective combat strategy, I can only shake my head. It is a cruel fate that we?re locked into a system of two options ? neither being a good choice IMO.

 

[bamacre]

That's funny because most of what I hear from the anti-war crowd is "why the hell are we in Iraq?"

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Poor analogy; not stupid.

When did Iraq attack us?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre
That's funny because most of what I hear from the anti-war crowd is "why the hell are we in Iraq?"

Try listening more.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Those are terrible analogies, and no anti-war person is asking that question. Maybe you misunderstand them. The muslim world is against us because of the things we did and continue to do.. meddle and interfere with their affairs for our own gain.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Poor analogy; not stupid.

When did Iraq attack us?

That is not a requirement.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Those are terrible analogies, and no anti-war person is asking that question. Maybe you misunderstand them. The muslim world is against us because of the things we did and continue to do.. meddle and interfere with their affairs for our own gain.

Then how come terrorists from Central or South America haven't attacked us in the same manner?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Those are terrible analogies, and no anti-war person is asking that question. Maybe you misunderstand them. The muslim world is against us because of the things we did and continue to do.. meddle and interfere with their affairs for our own gain.

That's not quite the only reason. If you look into the history of Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Said Kutb in Egypt, you'll see more.

Our intefering in ME affairs only gives them more ammo in supporting their agenda. Much like their terror attacks give PNAC more ammo in supporting their agenda.

PNAC and Al Qaeda have a very similar history, and quite similar agendas. PNAC has been more successful, of course, but Iraq is proving to be a bigger test than they bargained for, at least it appears so.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Those are terrible analogies, and no anti-war person is asking that question. Maybe you misunderstand them. The muslim world is against us because of the things we did and continue to do.. meddle and interfere with their affairs for our own gain.

Then how come terrorists from Central or South America haven't attacked us in the same manner?

Lack of support, intelligence, resources. They also lack the ability of using religion as a tool to garner support, unlike Bush and bin Laden/al-Zawahiri.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's more like a mosquito biting you, what are you going to do, let them keep biting you and annoying you, or are you going to do something about it?

Conservatives would say because we aren't wearing enough off and should be destroying the mosquito nests. Liberals would say because we are meddling in mosquito territory without respecting them.

Both would be wrong. Mosquito's bite us because they need blood to lay eggs.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's more like a mosquito biting you, what are you going to do, let them keep biting you and annoying you, or are you going to do something about it?

Conservatives would say because we aren't wearing enough off and should be destroying the mosquito nests. Liberals would say because we are meddling in mosquito territory without respecting them.

Both would be wrong. Mosquito's bite us because they need blood to lay eggs.

We're not looking at it from the mosquito's point of view, we're looking at it from ours.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's more like a mosquito biting you, what are you going to do, let them keep biting you and annoying you, or are you going to do something about it?

Conservatives would say because we aren't wearing enough off and should be destroying the mosquito nests. Liberals would say because we are meddling in mosquito territory without respecting them.

Both would be wrong. Mosquito's bite us because they need blood to lay eggs.

We're not looking at it from the mosquito's point of view, we're looking at it from ours.

 

[ProfJohn]

First you have to understand that there are two groups of anti-war people.

1. This is the anti-Iraq war people, like Murtha and the other Democrats who want us out of Iraq.

2. Then there is the anti-any-war people. These people are against any type of war or action, like Cindy Shehan and friends.

Now group 1 can make the arguement that the Iraq war was a bad idea, that it's the wrong war etc. You may not agree with them, but at least they make some sense, and this group thinks Afganistan was a good idea.

Now group 2 are the crazies you speak of. They are more interested in blaming the US and our actions for terrorism. They are the ones who think that if we just talk to the terrorists and try to understand them then terror will go away. They believe that there is no reason to ever use force. If you ask them they will say that 9-11 is our fault because of our actions around the world.

It is group 2 that thinks we should be talking to the terrorist, or to the Iranian president etc.
They are the ones who can not understand that the terrorists hate us and blame us for all the ills in the muslim world, or want to kill us because we are not an islamic country.
Luckily group 2 is such a small group that they hardly matter, except to the press who will cover any story that can create ratings.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

Anti-war? Which war? Who is pro-war? Call them what they are, the majority of Americans. They are anti-lie-to-get-into-war-for-an-endless-occupation.

Yes, liberals like to think, solve problems. Do you just address the symptoms or look at the cause. How do doctors handle illnesses? Know thy enemy is the point. If we can make it much harder to recruit, fund and train terrorist we can really win the "war". Do you think the best course of action is whack-a-mole? Just kill them and hope they don't show up again?

I had a good analogy.

No you did not, you had a really poor one that you put little thought into, but it may be "good" with the Hannity crowd.

Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

That is dumb, you either know this and this is a troll thread or you think you are clever, in which case please go back to OT and discuss which flavor jellybean is best.

If someone threatens me or my family and it's within my means to protect them then I would, as would anyone - hence it's a dumb analogy. How does this pertain to terrorist? Some idiot in a $hithole makes a threatening comment from Pakistan, do we nuke them? Two seconds of thought would have shown how lousy your analogy was.

How about this: Ten terrorist are in a mosque hiding with 200 civilians. Do you drop bombs and kill them all? Why not tough guy?

I'll tell you why, you like many right wing pundits and GOP idiots talk in bumper stickers-eese. "Cut and Run", "Flip-flop", "Stay the course" etc. Sometimes life is more complicated than that.

So back to the mosque. You bomb it and kill ten terrorist. Now the families of those civilians join he extremist movement - an instant 1000 new terrorist. Arab countries see the mosque blown up and civilians killed -instant $1,000,000 in funding and world simpathy.

Did you make your "war on terror" problem worse or better? So if "simply kick his ass" isn't the best solution what is? How about finding out what is making young men 18-35 become terrorist? Who is teaching them, leading them, what forign policy are they reacting to? Abu Gareb? Occupation of Iraq? Bombing wedding parties? Torture at Gitmo? There could be countless things, why should we help them recruit? Do you love the terrorist?

Of course you and I want all the terrorist gone - but others may not. Since the fall of the Soviet Union our people in power and their military contractor lobbyist friends have been scared as hell of the "peace dividend". They need a perpetual bogeyman to spur spending. They now have one. What would the GOP and the military contractors have to gain if the war on terror was over? How would they win elections, they run on fear - do they have anything else to run on?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

Are there 10,000 McVeigh in America? If so maybe Clinton should have, but he seems to been a lone wacko, so why waste the investment in analyzing him?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Discuss? Your analogy practically screamed "gang bang me with no lube!".

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Right. We wouldn't want to actually think about what we are doing would we....
Are you arguing that the shoot and ask questions later solution is working? We are in far greater danger now than we were before Bush took office. Besides, nobody I know is saying what you claim they are saying. They're saying, "Where is Bin Laden? Why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan? Bush started an unneccessary war based on lies, has slowly eroded our rights, committed illegal acts of torture and illegal detentions around the World and the Republicans have aided and abetted him. They should all be thrown out of office. That's what I am saying and what everyone I know is saying.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's more like a mosquito biting you, what are you going to do, let them keep biting you and annoying you, or are you going to do something about it?

That's the conservative viewpoint. The liberal one is to kill the mosquito biting you, and then to sit down and try to figure out if there's a way to minimize the spawning of mosquitos in your yard, by perhaps seeking out and eliminating standing water and installing a bug zapper. If you're lucky, the conservatives might move past the "smack it" stage and start plotting to nuke the entire neighborhood with DDT.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Discuss? Your analogy practically screamed "gang bang me with no lube!".

No it didn't. It was an analogy I thought up. I am neutral. You made good points, but it's sad to see that you can't seem to pull away from flat-out insults. Loss of credibility. Oh, and just because you thought it was a bad analogy doesn't make me a right-winger.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh, and just because you thought it was a bad analogy doesn't make me a right-winger.

No, but your collective posting history does, not to mention your characture of "anti-war" people.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Todd33
How about this: Ten terrorist are in a mosque hiding with 200 civilians. Do you drop bombs and kill them all? Why not tough guy?

What were 200 "civilians" doing in a mosque with the terrorists?

So back to the mosque. You bomb it and kill ten terrorist. Now the families of those civilians join he extremist movement - an instant 1000 new terrorist. Arab countries see the mosque blown up and civilians killed -instant $1,000,000 in funding and world simpathy.

The West has already lost the propaganda war in the Muslim world -- whether you bomb them, or whether you capitulate and convert, they'll take advantage of it. Examples: Qana and the Fox Crew in Gaza; in the former Hezbolla really managed to turn it into a circus, while in the latter, the Fox News guys were forced to convert, and what the Middle East saw is people who will not stand up for their beliefs, willing to do whatever is necessary in order to stay alive, i.e. weakness.

Mark Steyn's article "Why abduct us? We cede our values for free" is right on target:

It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.

So, what's the conclusion? Bomb the mosque and get the job done, since these guys have already demonstrated that they are not even gonna play by their own rules (Koran) which forbid fighting in the mosque.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I hear a lot of anti-war people say things along the lines of:

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

I had a good analogy. Lets say some loser on the street comes up and threatens you with a knife and is going to try to kill you. Do you say to yourself:

"What am I doing to make this guy want to kill me? How can I change myself so that I can make peace with this person, instead of fueling the fire?"

Or do you simply kick his ass?

Another scenario would be the McVeigh bombing. Did Clinton take a step back and say to the American people "We need to figure out what we're doing wrong that would make McVeigh want to bomb us"....?

I used to support the war, but now I am neutral on it. This is just a thought I had. It could be a stupid analogy... but I also think it's a good one that we should look at.

Discuss.

Iraq attacked us? Oh that's right, Saddam sent WMD our way.

 

[randym431]

"We need to step back and figure out why the terrorists hate us and are attacking us. What are we doing to piss them off?"

Who is saying this????
You're wrong. maybe once right after 9/11 2001 some said "why?", but no one is saying this. Not liberals, not anyone.

All I can imagine is you heard Rush or O Riley spewing this talking point as fact.

All liberals are saying is Bush and Cheney have no idea what they are doing. They have been wrong wrong wrong time and again. We need a different direction, and one that first of all is directed at Bin Laden. Something Bush Will not do.

Remember when Bush said "Bin Laden? He's just not that important to me".