Is violence the best way to solve terrorism, or does it merely perpetuate it?

Answer 1

Well let me put it to you this way............

Your the richest, best looking, most popular kid in school. And every day you walk with your friends to find your locker vandalized. Your car keyed. Your friends threatened. And notes on bulletin boards threatening you unless you stop being such a major influence at school.

Then one day on an otherwise normal September morning, several of these kids who hate you jump you as you walk to class. One kicks you in the stomach, one hits your over the head with a book bag, and the other stomps on your face as you lay there in shock. What are you going to do?

A. Ignore them as you've ignored everything else?
B. Tell the teacher and hope she can reason with them?
C. Blame your friends for not doing enough to warn you?
D. Deal with the problem and fight back once and for all?

BOTTOM LINE: there have been over 27 individual terrorist attacks, hijackings, bombings, and kidnappings against our country over the last 25 years that have left over 6000 Americans dead and countless tens of thousands injured. Terrorist and muslim extremists have been at war with the United States for over 25 years! Only after 911 did we realize this and decide to fight back against them!

Answer 2

The current state of Israel was founded in part by terrorism, Nazi Germany was partly based on state sponsored internal terror and the same could be said for Stalin's version of Russia. Two of these have collapsed, the other is in virtually a perpetual state of war against the terrorists it has in part created. Nazi Germany was overcome by violence, but in doing so it aided in the creation of superpower, who seems to be... fighting terrorism. Modern Russia is also still beset with terrorists.

Mahatma Gandhi's India, despite many problems and even terrorism problems of its own seems to be developing into a democratic power with increasing wealth, peace and prosperity. Perhaps the little man's non-violence will eventually succeed while violence will continue to promote more violence.

Answer 3

Here we go again with more navel gazing and moral equivocal balderdash. Why don't you take your question to them? It just couldn't be that that would be so much more difficult, or, dangerous now could it? The world is a dangerous place and there really are people in it that will kill you just because of where you were born. You are a target. Get used to it before you start with the "can't we all just get along" stuff. Make a choice. Do you really want to give legitimacy to unrelenting and unrepentant murderers who wish nothing more than to see you and all of you kind in the grave? Or, do you have the strength of commitment to stand up for that which you say you cherish and defend not only your life, but the lives of your brothers, your way of life , and even the way in which you choose to live? You take THAT question to them. Ask them when their thirst for violence will be quenched.

Answer 4

Violence is the best way to make money from terrorism.

As long as Congress is willing to dump money into Iraq that will never be accounted for the multi-national covert operations "paintball battlefield" will be Iraq and maybe moving into Iran.

The only differences is that when you get hit you don't always get up, civilians are fair game if they are on the field, anything goes, the weapons are more expensive and every nation has to use the same color paintball "blood red".

VP Cheney has had "Contractors" working in Iran for years despite it being illegal. Perhaps they are playing some part in all the turmoil.

Answer 5

Violence creates more terrorists than it eliminates. It hurts huge number of Innocent people, some of which will then become terrorists. There are more terrorists now, than on 9/11, and the reasons are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the US actions and inaction in the middle east and elsewhere.

Answer 6

For those of you who say there are more terrorists now than before 9/11 it is because we are not killing them fast enough. We are fighting a war on two fronts, the terrorists who want to kill us and the Democratic Party and the lib media who are making us fight with one arm tied behind our back The same lack of support the military received in the Vietnam War they are experiencing now. We pulled out of Nam and millions died. Harry Reid and his ilk would have the same thing happen in Iraq. He'll find a way to blame Bush.

Answer 7

Terrorism has been around long before we started to fight back. I believe we are finally giving them back a little of their own. Saying that it perpetuates it is only buying into their latest excuse, which is just cow dung.

Answer 8

We are not fighting back nearly enough. We should take the gloves off and get just as brutal and uncivilized as these animals are and perhaps they will start to get the message. The problem is the pacifists and liberals who blame America first who boo hoo every little thing the military does to defend their very righys to whine like the babies.

Answer 9

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER X
Concerning The Way In Which The Strength Of All Principalities Ought To Be Measured
IT IS necessary to consider another point in examining the character of these principalities: that is, whether a prince has such power that, in case of need, he can support himself with his own resources, or whether he has always need of the assistance of others. And to make this quite clear I say that I consider those are able to support themselves by their own resources who can, either by abundance of men or money, raise a sufficient army to join battle against any one who comes to attack them; and I consider those always to have need of others who cannot show themselves against the enemy in the field, but are forced to defend themselves by sheltering behind walls. The first case has been discussed, but we will speak of it again should it recur. In the second case one can say nothing except to encourage such princes to provision and fortify their towns, and not on any account to defend the country. And whoever shall fortify his town well, and shall have managed the other concerns of his subjects in the way stated above, and to be often repeated, will never be attacked without great caution, for men are always adverse to enterprises where difficulties can be seen, and it will be seen not to be an easy thing to attack one who has his town well fortified, and is not hated by his people.

The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that every one thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them.

Therefore, a prince who has a strong city, and had not made himself odious, will not be attacked, or if any one should attack he will only be driven off with disgrace; again, because that affairs of this world are so changeable, it is almost impossible to keep an army a whole year in the field without being interfered with. And whoever should reply: If the people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget their prince; to this I answer that a powerful and courageous prince will overcome all such difficulties by giving at one time hope to his subjects that the evil will not be for long, at another time fear of the cruelty of the enemy, then preserving himself adroitly from those subjects who seem to him to be too bold.

Further, the enemy would naturally on his arrival at once burn and ruin the country at the time when the spirits of the people are still hot and ready for the defence; and, therefore, so much the less ought the prince to hesitate; because after a time, when spirits have cooled, the damage is already done, the ills are incurred, and there is no longer any remedy; and therefore they are so much the more ready to unite with their prince, he appearing to be under obligations to them now that their houses have been burnt and their possessions ruined in his defence. For it is the nature of men to be bound by the benefits they confer as much as by those they receive. Therefore, if everything is well considered, it wilt not be difficult for a wise prince to keep the minds of his citizens steadfast from first to last, when he does not fail to support and defend them.

Answer 10

Do you have a better solution when the people that are the terrorist value death over life? If you have a convincing argument for your solution, I'm sure the conservatives will listen.