I mean, terrorist is just a the new word for rebel. There will always be rebels, and the more that die, the more that are martyred. Whats the point of trying to kill them? But then again, what other way is there?
2006-08-14 06:55:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
What is terrorism?No diffinition so far.Each country call its enimy as a terrorist.Israel and US call Hezbollah as a terrorist but the fact is Hezbollah is fighting the Israeli occupation.Israel has been occupying Lebanese land(Shabba Farms)for more than 20 years. The same applied on Hamas.
The world is misled by some governments.
There is no terrorism,there are reactions against injustice.Just justice can end what so-called terrorism
2006-08-14 07:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by mohamed a 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Inaction didn't stop them. Appeasement didn't stop them. Cut and run didn't stop them.
War seems to be working pretty well, up to a point, but we're not really fully at war. We're limiting ourselves to a policy that won't work. If we wanted to be successful, we'd adopt the policies the French did in Algeria. They were pretty brutal, but they managed to eradicate the terrorist scum. We'll never go that far, so we're already ensuring that we'll never completely win.
However, what we have done is prevent those countries from being bases and supporters of international terrorism. The homegrown terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty busy now. And there are ones from Iran and Syrian rushing in to get their quick ticket to hell.
The problem is that there isn't enough of a unified voice of civilization against the terrorism. I feel that Bush and Blair and the other supporters are like Churchill in the 1930's. Their courage to take a stance and engage militarily is an affront to the rest of the world, who seek to follow the Chamberlainian course of peace-at-any-price appeasement and dishonor.
I do not see an end to the war, because I do not see an end to the extremist Muslims embracing of a violent hate-filled interpretation of Islam.
2006-08-14 14:24:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think an example must be set. An extreme and horrible example. A possible tactical nuclear strike against one of the middle east Countries would certainly make them think twice. Look, as horrible as it sounds, it was the only way to subdue Japan during WWII. If we hadn't dropped the bomb, it was estimated that the US would lose or have injured 1 million soldiers because they where all fanaticals. It was't their fault. Their military leaders at the time convinced them differently. After the bomb, we helped them rebuild, and we gave them aid for schools, hospitals, and everything else. Now Japan is one of the United States most trusted allies. So perhaps using a few nukes might in an awkward way just work.
2006-08-14 14:03:49 · answer #3 · answered by rab2344 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorist and Rebels do not mean the same thing - terrorist are killing machines - they are kind of like the Terminator - they will kill until they are killed - so the question you should really ask - how many of these killing machines do we let live?
2006-08-14 14:03:02 · answer #4 · answered by Gladiator 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a joke. This is a whole new type of warfare that can't be stopped by bullets and bombs. Until more people realize the underlying social and economic problems that fuel the terrorist, we have no real chance of defeating it.
2006-08-14 14:22:01 · answer #5 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an excellent question that few leaders want to debate. In the long run, are we not better of understanding the causes of terrorism and trying to forge better relations with the Arab world?
2006-08-14 14:20:57 · answer #6 · answered by boston857 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something's got to give over the long run. It's about:
face, credibility, prestige, and why not honor.
What are the odds that a great power will give up and walk away ?. Tha's you answer.
And don't invoke Vietnam.
Please.
Those lessons were learned and are now applied, as in avoidance of conscription, for one.
2006-08-14 14:03:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The distinction is what the credo of the terrorist/rebel is. If their only goal is your destruction, then you really have no choice. If they have goals that are consistent with your existence, then you can explore alternatives to war.
2006-08-14 14:01:33 · answer #8 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There will never be 0 terrorists. But you're right, war won't stop them. It will most likely make more. Only by stopping their ideas can we really stop terrorists.
2006-08-14 14:00:31 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No-- The tanks, planes and soldiers war -- e.g. stand up military fight is not gonna do it. That only breed more and the "rats" scurry in the underground.
The type of war that has to be fought is twofold--
-- Diplomatic -- Hearts and Minds
-- Intelligence -- infilitrating, underground, intelligence gathering and pin-point elimination of operatives kind of war.
2006-08-14 14:02:10 · answer #10 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋