Do terrorists win even when they lose?

[StepUp]

Just as the title asks, is there a clear winner and a clear loser in yestereday's arrests? Certainly it was great the plot was identified, but whenever something is foiled, do terrorists still win? I can't get news from the rest of the world on television news now. The average Americans fear that had perhaps subsided is once again in full swing again. Airlines stocked dropped as much as 5% with certain companies. Longer queues at airports means trips that once may have made sense to fly perhaps now will be taken by car. Will that increase the cost of oil in even further?

I'm just curious what eveyone thinks the blowback of foiled terror plots are as they pertain to everyday living for the western world.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: StepUp
I'm just curious what eveyone thinks the blowback of foiled terror plots are as they pertain to everyday living for the western world.

Whatever it is, it is inconsequential when compared to what would have occured if the plot had succeeded.

My answer is, no, they definitely didn't gain anything of worth from this. The failure makes their operations even more diffcult to plan and execute too, because they now have to worry about "leaks", "plants", compromised methods of communication, and waste resources on trying to address those concerns, among others. It can't help the morale of their ilk either, knowing they not only might not get to paradise, but end up in a interrogation chamber instead.

As far as every day life in the West, most have AADD, and this won't hold them long before slipping back into a state of semi-catatonia while eating a pseudo-burger and freedom fries, while trying to phone in and vote for who should front supernova

 

[yllus]

Nah, a failure is a failure. Hell, even a success is a failure. They obviously can't kill all of us, meaning that they can't realize their end goal - abolition of current governance and the installation of authoritarian worldwide law disguised as Sharia.

It's an interesting angle to play, disguising their political grab for power as a struggle of religions. But the vast majority of us unreligious folk aren't too keen for a Taliban-styled life either, meaning that about 95% of the world will, when our hand is finally forced, come together and indiscriminately wipe out the sections of the population who oppose our shared ideology.

 

[Pacemaker]

The terrorists lose as long as you keep your morals and don't throw them out the window fighting them. In other words if we shred the constitution in order to fight them, then yes they have won.

 

[anthrax]

I don't think there is a winner.

The big problem is why the hell would some people want to blow themselves up on airliners and take hundreds of lives with them.. Just saying coz they hate USA, UK , freedom and democracy is a very simplistic answer and doesn't come close to addressing the root causes of the problem.



I don't see how even if the "airline plot" suceeded. I don't see how it will affect oil prices. Infact, demand will drop for oil, as the demand for airtravel will drop. = less plane flights = less jet fuel burnt.

 

[anthrax]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
The terrorists lose as long as you keep your morals and don't throw them out the window fighting them. In other words if we shred the constitution in order to fight them, then yes they have won.

Yeah, haven't the US thrown all the morals out the window when it comes the policy in the middle east?

Proping up unpopular and repressive regimes which have very poor records on human rights, unerversal suffereage , forcefully invading a soverigen state on the pretext of "WMD".

In the past, US have actually supported Iran before the 1979 revolution, then supported Iraq and Saddam , and in 2003 , the US decided to get rid of him as well.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: anthrax
I don't think there is a winner.

The big problem is why the hell would some people want to blow themselves up on airliners and take hundreds of lives with them.. Just saying coz they hate USA, UK , freedom and democracy is a very simplistic answer and doesn't come close to addressing the root causes of the problem.

I don't see how even if the "airline plot" suceeded. I don't see how it will affect oil prices. Infact, demand will drop for oil, as the demand for airtravel will drop. = less plane flights = less jet fuel burnt.

Eh, it's the same reason trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives were frittered away on the capitalism vs. communism fight that ended just recently. It's ideology versus ideology, and it's seemingly impossible for more than one to flourish at the same time.

Why did communist spies exist in the West when they grew up happily in affluent American, Canadian and British families? Studying those figures we've found that many of them felt alienated and sent signals suggesting as much: Alcoholism, prolific adultery, gambling addictions, etc. The key was the alienation which led them to be open to the ideas espoused by communist leaders - today, extremist leaders. They find it something to believe in, helped along by the fact that the current system sure as hell isn't working for them (it isn't "fair").

Root causes...well, education and greater affluence will basically do it on their own for the majority of people. Then you have people who will seek out another way just because they're wired differently: See Kim Philby for an example. In the end you probably can't do much with these people then put them in a deep, dark hole for the rest of their days.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: StepUp
Just as the title asks, is there a clear winner and a clear loser in yestereday's arrests? Certainly it was great the plot was identified, but whenever something is foiled, do terrorists still win? I can't get news from the rest of the world on television news now. The average Americans fear that had perhaps subsided is once again in full swing again. Airlines stocked dropped as much as 5% with certain companies. Longer queues at airports means trips that once may have made sense to fly perhaps now will be taken by car. Will that increase the cost of oil in even further?

I'm just curious what eveyone thinks the blowback of foiled terror plots are as they pertain to everyday living for the western world.

Republicans absolutely LOVE IT. Perfect to instill FEAR and TERROR back into the American sheeple before they make a "mistake" and vote the "real" terrorists out come November.

"VOTE REPUBLICAN OR THOSE TERRISTS HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET ARE GONNA KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[anthrax]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: StepUp
Just as the title asks, is there a clear winner and a clear loser in yestereday's arrests? Certainly it was great the plot was identified, but whenever something is foiled, do terrorists still win? I can't get news from the rest of the world on television news now. The average Americans fear that had perhaps subsided is once again in full swing again. Airlines stocked dropped as much as 5% with certain companies. Longer queues at airports means trips that once may have made sense to fly perhaps now will be taken by car. Will that increase the cost of oil in even further?

I'm just curious what eveyone thinks the blowback of foiled terror plots are as they pertain to everyday living for the western world.

Republicans absolutely LOVE IT. Perfect to instill FEAR and TERROR back into the American sheeple before they make a "mistake" and vote the "real" terrorists out come November.

"VOTE REPUBLICAN OR THOSE TERRISTS HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET ARE GONNA KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I don't think the democrats are doing themselves a favor on this strong anti-war platform. All this BS talk about a time table for retreat and defeat in Iraq is just going to make the middle east a mess. The US have broke iraq and they should bloody well fix it.

 

[dullard]

Stocks, no. That is not a winnable test for terrorism. Short term, stock prices are affected, but mid to long term, a single terrorist plot has no impact. Even the Sept 11th attacks have been erased from the stock market (it is right back struggling at the level it was struggling with before the attacks).

Fear, yes. Terrorism wins that way. That is the definition of terrorism! They want to instill fear in society or governments. Even a failed plot like this one instills fear. Heck even false rumors of a terrorist plot creates fear.

Yllus, the goal of terrorism is not to "kill all of us" nor is it "abolition of current governance". Those are genocide and revolution, respectively. Don't confuse those topics with terrorism. Terrorism is simply to terrorise a group of people and/or governments.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: anthrax
I don't think the democrats are doing themselves a favor on this strong anti-war platform. All this BS talk about a time table for retreat and defeat in Iraq is just going to make the middle east a mess. The US have broke iraq and they should bloody well fix it.

What if it is unfixable? What if there are fundamental problems with the way the middle east is currently set up that a war in Iraq or Iran won't fix? Should we continue spending billions, killing many people (on both sides), and creating immense hate for Western civilization (possibly enough hate to create a new Bin Laden) for an unfixable situation? Not all problems are fixable. And not all fixable problems are fixed by war.

The USSR broke Afghanistan and after years of struggle (exactly like our years of struggle in Iraq) the result was the Taliban. A new Taliban is what we will end up creating in Iraq if we stay the course.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: anthrax

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
The terrorists lose as long as you keep your morals and don't throw them out the window fighting them. In other words if we shred the constitution in order to fight them, then yes they have won.

Yeah, haven't the US thrown all the morals out the window when it comes the policy in the middle east?

Proping up unpopular and repressive regimes which have very poor records on human rights, unerversal suffereage , forcefully invading a soverigen state on the pretext of "WMD".

In the past, US have actually supported Iran before the 1979 revolution, then supported Iraq and Saddam , and in 2003 , the US decided to get rid of him as well.

Never said that.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yllus, the goal of terrorism is not to "kill all of us" nor is it "abolition of current governance". Those are genocide and revolution, respectively. Don't confuse those topics with terrorism. Terrorism is simply to terrorise a group of people and/or governments.

That's probably the most illogical thing you've ever written. The reason a group utilizes terrorism is to terrorize? Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

There are political goals here, and they don't stop at the dissembly of a Jewish state in the Middle East, or the removal of all Westerners from it. The central end goal, in this case, is the abolition of our morally degenerate society in favour of an Islamically-minded one.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure Iraq is "broken". Apparently it is part of their way of life to blow things up and cut off heads and blow up children.

They seem to want us to believe they are very scary and dangerous, personally I think they are pathetic.


If there are Iraqis who don't like this lifestyle, I suggest they get off their asses and get rid of the bad actors. I don't see any real point in the US trying to do it for them, it won't work.

 

[anthrax]

It surely is fixable. Saddam managed to keep his country under control for soo many years. The US, the worlds sole remaining super power can control country that saddam can do.

Iraq is a bloody mess right now and if the US leave now Iraq will fall into civil war and become a mess.. If the US doesn't fix Iraq. Then Iraq's next door neighbour would sure go in and fix the problem that US couldn't fix.

Lets just look at the geopolictical consequences if Iraq get fixed by the Iran instead of the US. Iran could mass tanks on the Suadi Arabian Border and US propped repressive regime in Suadi Arabia isn't exactly stable.
Iran could easily lob nuff missles into Command Control and Communciations facitlies of the Suadi Regime and the whole the pro US regmie there will fall. Whoops, there goes most the world oil production and oil reserves.

If Iran control Iraq , I don't see how the US will be able to able to wage a effective campaign in the middle east. The 5th fleet will be shredded the second they enter the arbain guld. Israel will be showered daily with missles, Turkey will showred with scud missles as well. US influence in the persian gulf goes down the drain as well...so does a vast supply of energy.

 

[Matts0344]

"VOTE REPUBLICAN OR THOSE TERRISTS HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET ARE GONNA KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You don't think the Democrats like this too?

"VOTE DEMOCRAT!!! SEE WHAT INVADING IRAQ DID!!!! IT JUST MADE THINGS WORSE!!NOW THERE ARE EVEN MORE TERROROROROISSTS!"

 

[anthrax]

The way Iran will fix Iraq will be simple. Simply prop up a group which is sypathetic to there interest. Supply them with the equipment, tools, money, training... This group with its new resources will persuade the other in Iraqi to cooperate with their cause. Bring relative stability and unity to Iraq, pacify the lawlessness and banditory .. Then start a systematic and orderly reconstruction of infrastructure.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: yllus
That's probably the most illogical thing you've ever written. The reason a group utilizes terrorism is to terrorize? Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

Coercion is far, far different from these two statements: "kill all of us" and "abolition of current governance".

Your posts are usually intelligent. I assume you can thus tell the difference between those ideas.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: yllus
That's probably the most illogical thing you've ever written. The reason a group utilizes terrorism is to terrorize? Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

Coercion is far, far different from these two statements: "kill all of us" and "abolition of current governance".

Your posts are usually intelligent. I assume you can thus tell the difference between those ideas.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment.

You're still stopping halfway for a reason unknown to me. Coercion - to fall back on the dictionary again, "to restrain or dominate by force / to compel to an act or choice / to achieve by force or threat" - to achieve what? When a group like Al Qaeda states that they would love to kill all disbelievers, it's not idle verse they're spouting. As I said, they realize the logistics behind that are impossible, but perhaps coercing us into accepting the form of government they find acceptable may not be. What is the alternative view you have?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: yllus
Thanks for the back-handed compliment.

You're still stopping halfway for a reason unknown to me. Coercion - to fall back on the dictionary again, "to restrain or dominate by force / to compel to an act or choice / to achieve by force or threat" - to achieve what? When a group like Al Qaeda states that they would love to kill all disbelievers, it's not idle verse they're spouting. As I said, they realize the logistics behind that are impossible, but perhaps coercing us into accepting the form of government they find acceptable may not be. What is the alternative view you have?

You are welcome, I am the king of the back-handed compliments.

You answered your own question. They know the logistics are impossible. They are just sane enough to realize that they cannot achieve a revolution or genocide. Thus, they resort to fear. Fear is something they can reasonably generate. A few terrorists may want to kill everyone or to overthrow a government, but none of them actually attempt either of those goals.

I simply feel there is a fundmental difference between (a) destroying your opponent and (b) using a tactic in an attempt to get your opponent to change. There are different labels for each type of person, so we should use them properly.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: yllus
Thanks for the back-handed compliment.

You're still stopping halfway for a reason unknown to me. Coercion - to fall back on the dictionary again, "to restrain or dominate by force / to compel to an act or choice / to achieve by force or threat" - to achieve what? When a group like Al Qaeda states that they would love to kill all disbelievers, it's not idle verse they're spouting. As I said, they realize the logistics behind that are impossible, but perhaps coercing us into accepting the form of government they find acceptable may not be. What is the alternative view you have?

You are welcome, I am the king of the back-handed compliments.

You answered your own question. They know the logistics are impossible. They are just sane enough to realize that they cannot achieve a revolution or genocide. Thus, they resort to fear. Fear is something they can reasonably generate. A few terrorists may want to kill everyone or to overthrow a government, but none of them actually attempt either of those goals.

I simply feel there is a fundmental difference between (a) destroying your opponent and (b) using a tactic in an attempt to get your opponent to change. There are different labels for each type of person, so we should use them properly.

We all agree that genocide is impossible. I tend to think that the second option, revolution, is not.

Let's say that Western nations tire of intermittent terrorist activity and decide to honour Al Qaeda sub-goal #1: The removal of our forces from the Middle East. Why would they ask this? This isn't demanded because A-Q would then cheer, disarm and supervise fair democratic elections throughout the region - we'd see the emergence of the Taliban Reloaded: Bigger, Badder, and With Worse Dialogue!

So you have an extremist-governed pan-Middle Eastern state with nuclear capabilities and control of an enormous chunk of the world's oil supplies. Akin to North Korea but worse, we don't dare attack them now, but that government would have no such qualms in doing the reverse. Then begins step two of the plan, with the new united ME state acting as the launchpad for operations Afghanistan once was. But with much better access to capital, equipment and human assets. The West now either risks a very messy and possibly nuclear war, or accedes to even more demands. Giving in to the revolution in ever-increasing increments is now actually being considered by the enemies of A-Q.

I wrote a lot above, but it's really not very far-fetched and is as simple as 1 -> 2 -> 3. Is it a sign of overdone paranoia that I can see it actually happening?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: yllus
I wrote a lot above, but it's really not very far-fetched and is as simple as 1 -> 2 -> 3. Is it a sign of overdone paranoia that I can see it actually happening?

That is exactly what I see happening IF WE STAY. History has shown that the Taliban is the direct consequence of staying the course. Lets try a different option and maybe we'll get a different outcome. Either way, it'll be far cheaper.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: yllusThe central end goal, in this case, is the abolition of our morally degenerate society in favour of an Islamically-minded one.

What an utterly laughable notion, since al Qaeda numerous times has stated nothing even close to the notion of worldwide domination. You make them sound like The Borg :laugh:

They want us out of the Middle East, politically and militarily. What is so hard to understand about that? If you would have done a single lick of research on Osama and his motives for starting al Qaeda, it was because he was disenchanted with the corruption throughout the Saudi government, and was tired of the US keeping the corrupt in power in order to secure their oil supplies.

And yes, US support of Israel is also another key factor in their reasons for committing terrorism.

What do you think terrorists would gain by flying into Arkansas and converting every last Nascar fan into a Muslim?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: yllus
So you have an extremist-governed pan-Middle Eastern state with nuclear capabilities and control of an enormous chunk of the world's oil supplies.

Of course, without the righteousness of the good 'ole USA to guide them, terrar is the only thing they know :roll:

At least you finally admitted what our war is about.

 

[bamacre]

The roots of Al Qeada, as we know it, and especially including Ayman al-Zawahiri,, have a VERY long list of failures. Starting with Egypt, and ending with whomever, they have failed time and time again.

Their strategy of murdering innocent civilians in order to make them fear and thus go against their own government backfires every time. The innocent civilians only end up more strongly supporting their said governments, no matter how corrupt. They allow their enemy to play the victim. If only they could implement a strategy based more on someone like Gandhi, they could garner more support. But their objectives are not based on love nor freedom, they are based on hatred and intolerance.