HOW TO TACKLE TERRORISM

S

sidewinder

Active member
The biggest issue in this world right now is terrorism.every country be it Asian or
European.every single day there is bomb blast is one or the other part of the world.so i would like to know what you chap's feel and think on how to wipe out terrorism.
i feel some countries are actually using it as tool to engage and it is there long term propaganda. these terrorist are actually dividing this world in two blocks.one with them and other against them.is war the only option?.or can we really solve this issue through composite dialog.do u guys think we need to have
a common anti-terrorism forces of consisting all the nation who are against terrorism,and then we can pressurize the nation who are supporting terrorism.if we really need to curb terrorism we need to give up our selfish politics.every other nation has to came forward and make itself count against this common cause.lets not recognize ourself through nationality but through humanity. come on guys we need everybody.
 
Then convince the powers to be to let the military , cops, general public to kill the the bastards on site.
 
Without a proper definition, just about anyone can be labelled a terrorist. Which is why this is being such a problem.
Not much talk about the guy who flew into the IRS building being a terrorist the last time I checked. Why is that?
I think we just need to drop the word "terrorist" and terminology that is far more specific.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Without a proper definition, just about anyone can be labelled a terrorist. Which is why this is being such a problem.
Not much talk about the guy who flew into the IRS building being a terrorist the last time I checked. Why is that?
I think we just need to drop the word "terrorist" and terminology that is far more specific.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I dont think that IRS guy was a terrorist. He was just a nut seeking attention who blamed all his (many) personal misfortunes on the IRS, the City of Austin, various politicans of both parties, and whatever.

To be a terrorist, IMHO one as to press an agenda through fear of violence but not necessary violence itself. Joe Stack (IRS guy) just went off the deep end.

The Mafia operates like terrorists do. They actually prefer NOT to use violence when it can be avoided (violence is bad for business), but rather the fear of violence.

The radical end of the abortion debate is another example, they use fear and intimidation tactics against abortion patients and providers but relatively little violence. That in my opinion IS terrorism.

Scaring a bunch of people at a time is easier than killing them, less risky too.
 
Mmarsh, I was actually making a reference to the Ft. Hood shooting. If that was terrorism, as many state, so should this.
You should see that in the goodbye letter the guy wrote, it does in fact state that he wants Americans to wake up and overthrow the present government.
A guy angry at the American government engaging in what is more or less a suicide bombing with a note encouraging the American populace to wake up and revolt against the American government... just add "Muslim" in that and you'd have "terrorist" plastered everywhere.
Do I REALLY think this was a terrorist act? No. I don't. But you can tell that regarding the words we use, it gets very very iffy.
 
I see both of you having reason here:

The T-word is over used from my POV, and without differentiation.

Insurgents are insurgents, Freedom Fighters (for their country) are Freedom Fighters - and you would be one of them if it was yours-, pirates are pirates, criminals are criminals, and whackos are whackos. We would not employ so many different words if the ppl we describe with them would not be different.

Differences are in: a) Ideology, b) Procedure, c) Motive, d) Goal and e) Association

"Terrorist" has a very close definition, and if you want to use it in broader sense, plz say so, or we will all be misunderstanding ourselves all the time and discussion would be moot.

Personally I would really appreciate if ppl got their nomenclature spot on.

Rattler
 
03USMC said:
Then convince the powers to be to let the military , cops, general public to kill the the bastards on site.
Click to expand...
And that statement, while I can understand the hatred for terrorists, really is no different than the detective that was looking for a reason to kill people that exercise their Constitutional rights.

If you give anyone any reason they feel just, and you give them carte blache, they will carry out their own personal grievances.

Maybe that doesn't bother you, but seeing that I know there are people that would love to see me dead, you bet it bothers me.
 
Unless there is a good definition as to what constitutes being a terrorist, it is far too easy to plaster that label on just about anyone.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Unless there is a good definition as to what constitutes being a terrorist, it is far too easy to plaster that label on just about anyone.
Click to expand...

Hmmm said:
Precisely.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of people jumping on the terror band wagon happened here, on this Forum, under the following Topic:

Topic: Plane attack prompts debate over terrorism label (AP)


http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/plane-attack-prompts-debate-over-t81815.html

People just rushing to be the first to proclaim the attack Terrorism.
 
Last edited:
According to the usual understandings we have on the word "terrorism" this incident very well could have been labelled "terrorism." I really don't see why it couldn't.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
You can see how these folks have even labelled suicide attacks against US military personnel on duty as terrorism. Which makes Kamikaze pilots... terrorists? Or the French Resistance terrorists?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
According to the usual understandings we have on the word "terrorism" this incident very well could have been labelled "terrorism." I really don't see why it couldn't.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
You can see how these folks have even labelled suicide attacks against US military personnel on duty as terrorism. Which makes Kamikaze pilots... terrorists? Or the French Resistance terrorists?
Click to expand...

It is probably not accurate to use "we" in describing your labeling the attack as terrorism.
As your earlier statement indicates:
"Unless there is a good definition as to what constitutes being a terrorist, it is far too easy to plaster that label on just about anyone."

Even from your linked article classifying acts as terrorism, there would be disagreement.
I was present around when the "Iranian Students" took over the embassy and do not remember it as being classified as a Terrorist attack.
The general feeling at the time was the "students" were undercover military "staging" the take over.
quoted from article:
"1979 Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration."

Even the article says "radical students", it does not say terrorists.
 
terrorism is an act of violence,but every violent act is not a terrorist act.in the whole world there are countries where they have never seen any terrorist act.but at the same time there are nations who are fighting terrorism day and night.right now when i am writing this reply ,in kashmir today we lost an army captain along with two soldiers.there are many organizations breeding terrorism so that they can achieve their motive.
 
Cherry picking again are you?
Scroll down to 2008.

Chukpike said:
It is probably not accurate to use "we" in describing your labeling the attack as terrorism.
As your earlier statement indicates:
"Unless there is a good definition as to what constitutes being a terrorist, it is far too easy to plaster that label on just about anyone."

Even from your linked article classifying acts as terrorism, there would be disagreement.
I was present around when the "Iranian Students" took over the embassy and do not remember it as being classified as a Terrorist attack.
The general feeling at the time was the "students" were undercover military "staging" the take over.
quoted from article:
"1979 Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration."

Even the article says "radical students", it does not say terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Cherry picking again are you?
Scroll down to 2008.
Click to expand...

Whatever. What does 2008 have to do with the students in the US Embassy in 1979? Plaster to hold the terrorist label?

I think the source you quoted shows very well the overuse of the term Terrorism.

It takes something that happened 30 years ago and relabels it Terrorism. Even though when it occurred it was not referred to as such.

It amplifies your statement:
"Unless there is a good definition as to what constitutes being a terrorist, it is far too easy to plaster that label on just about anyone." quote 13Th_redneck

Terrorism is just the current catch all term.
 
Basically we need a world wide clear definition of a terrorist. once we have that let 03's post become real.
 
Or go the other way and drop the term altogether and use terms that are far more precise.
Eskimos have far more words for snow than we have. Why? Because they have to deal with a lot more snow than we normally have to.
So why shouldn't we have more words for different kinds of bad guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top