It's not right to respond to terrorism by terrorizing other people. And furthermore, it's not going to help.

Question

It's not right to respond to terrorism by terrorizing other people. And furthermore, it's not going to help. Then you might say, "Yes, it's terrorizing people, but it's worth doing because it will end terrorism." But how much common sense does it take to know that you cannot end terrorism by indiscriminately dropping bombs?

Answer 1

I agree with you

but

you made a statement rather than asking a question

Answer 2

Statistically in the twentieth century between 45% and 90% of all casualties in war are civilian. Little has changed since that time, we spend a lot of money on percision ordanance but civilian deaths are still very high, often due to the urban nature of recent conflicts. So yes you are correct, the moral, ethical and logical question is how can we stop the killing and terrorizing both ours and theirs. and for those above what declaration of War? and it has been de facto shown that Iraq did not posses the weapons in question and had in fact disarmed as UNSCOM had stated in 1998 and afterward. see Kay report on Iraqi WMD.

Answer 3

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives actually believe that a few thousand Muslim conservatives are going to invade America and conquer us, a nation of 300 million people. Cowardly would be an understatement.
We terrorize the Middle East and 3rd world by pointing a gun at their heads and insisting that they 'privatize' their resources. Since the 80s, many middle east and African countries have rebelled, nationalizing or otherwise restricting foreign control of their oil and mineral resources. Govts. who succumb to Washington's pressure must deal with local or regional terrorists who oppose western control of their resources. Right now, the Iraqi govt. has the Bush gun to their head to 'privatize' 80% of their oil fields. That means multinational oil companies can buy the oil fields and sell oil to the highest bidders. Of course, China will probably outbid everybody to control those oil fields, if the Iraqi Congress privatizes them. Right now, the Iraqis are resisting the pressure to pass the oil bill.
Our govt. has many ways of terrorizing small countries. We should mind our own business. Interesting that a respondent mentions that he has been to many countries as a member of the navy and everybody hates us. Would it ever occur to him that people don't want the U.S. military in their country? Boggles the imagination that conservatives have become so empirialistic.

Answer 4

A declaration of war is not an act of terrorism because it is always prefaced by demands, conditions, negotiations, exact remedies and the chance for resolve.

We gave Saddam almost an entire decade (known as the Clinton years) to take corrective actions. The UN served him with 17 Violations that, also, related to him EXACTLY what was expected.

When was the last time a terrorist gave notice to the world of their intended suicide bombing on market square? On the WTC? The USS Cole? An US Embassy?

They represent no government, but relatively small individual factions and they have no justification for forcing their singular demands upon others in any country.

I wish people would stop condoning terrorism with such comparisons.

If Bush had wished to kill and terrorize the Iraqi people, he would have done exactly what you infer - defeated them by air and not sacrificed even one American life attempting to preserve their country and their lives.

Answer 5

Well I think you have a point somewhat. You cannot fight terrorism since its a tactic. Now you can fight those who use it.

Using force against those who use force against you is a perfectly rational response when done right. We are not indiscriminately dropping bombs on people. Look back at WWII dear and you will see that. Almost all the heavy weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq are precision weapons that go after specific targets not like the carpet bombing saw in WWII and Vietnam.

Answer 6

We are not "indiscriminately dropping bombs." All our attacks are aimed at the terrorists or insurgents or whatever they are called.

Indiscriminate bombing is what we did in WW2, when whole cities were fire or carpet bombed. What we do is find a location where the enemy is at and drop a bomb on that house or that car, or send in the troops to that location.

Answer 7

I'm not sure that's true.

You may not be old enough to remember much about the Cold War, but the threat of nuclear anihilation was not a pleasant thing to live under. Never the less, the best way to avoid actual nuclear anihilation was to force the other guy to live under the constant threat of it, while he did the same to you.

Unpleasant, morally questionable, but, there hasn't been a nuclear war.


It might be that a similar deterence strategy could be used to curb terrorism.

Answer 8

Short of wiping out every anti American crazy, you can not
stop terrorists from being.......Stop one group and another is born. Fighting terrorism is not like fighting a war!
We must realize this.

Answer 9

How do you stop a playground bully when your a kid? If you tell then it just gets worse when no one is looking...the only way to stop a bully is to out bully them, you must show them that you are tougher and meaner than they are so they will look for a weaker target...they gave us a black eye...and we made them bleed...things take time, have patience.

Answer 10

The way to end terrorism, is to play by the rules of the terrorist. When we stop being politically correct, and start treating the terrorists, as they treat others, they will stop.