BubberMiley's Terrorist Solution

[cybercoma]

Time and again you say that the West CREATES terrorism. I would like you to do two things, 1) prove that the west started terrorism and 2) give us a solution.

[BubberMiley]

I would like you to do one thing: provide a quote where I ever said the west causes terrorism.

I think you're thinking of my position that the west responds to terrorism exactly how terrorists want them to respond. Your inability to grasp the distinction between those two points says a lot about your grasp of the issues in general.

Way to go.

[Hicksey]

I would like you to do one thing: provide a quote where I ever said the west causes terrorism.

I think you're thinking of my position that the west responds to terrorism exactly how terrorists want them to respond. Your inability to grasp the distinction between those two points says a lot about your grasp of the issues in general.

Way to go.

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

[Riverwind]

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away.

Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen.

Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction.

We have to do society's equivalent of looking terrorists in the eye and showing them that we are not only not afraid of them but think that they are completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse.

[Who's Doing What?]

Use snipers instead of guided missiles.

OR JUST NUKE THE WHOLE LOT.

[BubberMiley]

Since cybercoma has dedicated a thread to my opinions, I feel compelled to respond further.

I think the jihadists see this battle as a war for the hearts and minds of the billion or so moderate muslims in the world. I don't think you can win that war carpet bombing muslim nations, especially ones that had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think one thing we all learned from 9/11 is that when innocents are killed, their compatriots get angry and vengeful. Therefore, everytime a missile kills a disproportionately high number of children, women, citizens, bitter anger and resentment take hold. I think this breeds more terror.

So it's not that I blame the west. Terrorists are the only ones truly responsible for terrorism. But I don't think it's wise to succumb to our baser instincts and kill whomever out of revenge. That's just playing the terrorists' game in a way that they are sure to win.

[jdobbin]

Since cybercoma has dedicated a thread to my opinions, I feel compelled to respond further.

Maybe you're his favourire poster. heh

[Hicksey]

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away.

Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen.

Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction.

We have to do society's equivalent of looking terrorists in the eye and showing them that we are not only not afraid of them but think that they are completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse.

Is it just me or is it disingenuous to tell me someone has crossed a line, but not define the line? Where should the line be drawn?

You think taking the battle from our country to theirs is crossing the lines? I don't. I'd rather it be fought there and not here.

We cannot just ignore them. It was that ignorance that gave them the idea that they would be able to escalate their attacks with impunity and not be punished.

[BubberMiley]

You think taking the battle from our country to theirs is crossing the lines? I don't. I'd rather it be fought there and not here.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. We haven't taken the battle to their country.

Besides, it's terribly naive to think that the battle has been moved. That would suggest we can be safe from further terrorism by bombing other people's neighbourhoods.

We cannot just ignore them. It was that ignorance that gave them the idea that they would be able to escalate their attacks with impunity and not be punished.

I'm not saying we should ignore them, but that we should focus on the terrorists specifically and not people who were not even involved.

And responding exactly how they want us to respond is not punishing them--it's rewarding them. I'm opposed to making them think their acts of violence were a complete success.

[Riverwind]

I'd rather it be fought there and not here.

This is a false dichotomy. Terrorism is not something that can be fought here or there. Terrorism is like organized crime and requires a police response - not a military one.

We cannot just ignore them.

Sure we can. The worst thing we can do to terrorists is ignore them - they are bullies that are desperate for attention. They want to create fear and paranoia. If we respond with disdain and contempt then they lose. If we respond with anger and fear - they win.

It was that ignorance that gave them the idea that they would be able to escalate their attacks with impunity and not be punished.

How do you punish a bunch of wackos scattered around the world? If they setup specific bases like they did in Afghanistan then it could be worthwhile to go in and take out those bases (with or without the permission of the host gov't). However, we cannot 'punish' these terrorists by deposing gov'ts and plunging entire societies in chaos. Such over-reactions only help the terrorists by increasing the hostility Islamic people feel towards the west.

[jbg]

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away.

And we were supposed to react to outrages like September 11, Bali, the London Subway and Madrid Train attacks how?

Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen.

Yes, making my 73 year old Jewish mother shed her nail clipper before taking a Delta flight from West Palm to LaGuardia goes a long way to stopping terror.

Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction.

When Saddam paid families of suicide bombers $25,000 (later raised to $50,000) to blow up pizza parlours in Israel, an over-reaction?

Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse.

Oh yes. There were no terror attacks under Clinton? WTC I? USS Cole?

[cybercoma]

Ok, so you don't think we should respond to terrorists the way the United States, UK and Canada have thus far. How should the terrorist threat be dealt with?

And to the person who said if we stop over-reacting to terrorists they'll stop attacking us...please explain how before September 11th we were over-reacting. How over the top was the response to the first WTC bombing? How about the embassy bombings? How about the USS Cole? Call me crazy but, the little to no response route stopped working just after 9am on September 11, 2001.

[gerryhatrick]

Time and again you say that the West CREATES terrorism. I would like you to do two things, 1) prove that the west started terrorism and 2) give us a solution.

If you're going to start a topic calling someone out, the least you could do is proof read it and ask yourself if it makes sense.

You accuse BM of saying "the West CREATES terrorism", and then ask him to prove that "the West started terrorism".

Are you wanting to know if "the West" has created any terrorism? The answer to that is obviously yes, but if you're retort will be that there was terrorism before Bush went into Iraq I won't bother.

Bush is the biggest Al Q recruiter that ever lived. He's been a boon to that organization. It's membership has quadrupled during his tenure.

[geoffrey]

You think taking the battle from our country to theirs is crossing the lines? I don't. I'd rather it be fought there and not here.

This kind of statement is completely grounded in fiction. Taking the fight to them, though sometimes necessary, doesn't change the risk at home.

We cannot just ignore them. It was that ignorance that gave them the idea that they would be able to escalate their attacks with impunity and not be punished.

Nope, that's not true. It's their radical Islamic ideals that make them believe they are rewarded for killing civilians. That's the attitude that needs to change, not our ignorance. Bombing them doesn't change those ideals.

Ok, so you don't think we should respond to terrorists the way the United States, UK and Canada have thus far. How should the terrorist threat be dealt with?

The reconstruction/anti-Taliban force in Afghanistan is a good example of how to deal with terrorists. Iraq is not.

[Riverwind]

Ok, so you don't think we should respond to terrorists the way the United States, UK and Canada have thus far. How should the terrorist threat be dealt with?

The same way we currently deal with organized crime - with good police work and international collaboration. Incidently, it was good old fashion police work that led to the arrest of the liquid explosive bombers in England.

How over the top was the response to the first WTC bombing? How about the embassy bombings? How about the USS Cole? Call me crazy but, the little to no response route stopped working just after 9am on September 11, 2001.

9/11 happened because the authorities got complacent and ignored warnings because no one believed it could happen. All the US needed to do after 9/11 was take out the Al'Queda training camps in Afghanistan and fix the communication problems within the FBI and CIA.

The invasion of Iraq was perhaps the dumbest thing they could have possibly done and led directly to Madrid and London bombings. In other words, the evidence to date suggests that the over-reaction has led to more terrorism - not less.

[jbg]

]9/11 happened because the authorities got complacent and ignored warnings because no one believed it could happen. All the US needed to do after 9/11 was take out the Al'Queda training camps in Afghanistan and fix the communication problems within the FBI and CIA.

Let's get one thing clear. The Muslim advance through France during the Middle Ages, and the advance to the gates of Vienna, stopped, during the mid-1600's, were not caused by being "complacent and ignor(ing) warnings". Islam has been in an expansion mode since its founding, invariably at the point of a sword. Their goal, clearly, is not to leave us alone, and "live and let live".

Under current technology, "Muslim expansion" is no longer a broad, frontal, land-base attack easily repelled by organized, conventional defenses. It is seeking to destabilize Western societies, so they give up heart and either accomodate Muslim demands or, at best, either convert or accept dhimmitude. Planes crashing into buildings are not predictable, normal negotiating tools.

The invasion of Iraq was perhaps the dumbest thing they could have possibly done and led directly to Madrid and London bombings. In other words, the evidence to date suggests that the over-reaction has led to more terrorism - not less.

What was different about the Madrid bombings, post Iraq, from September 11?

[Wilber]

What was different about the Madrid bombings, post Iraq, from September 11?

Both Spain and Britain were part of the invasion of Iraq and that made them primary targets. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal error in judgment. The terrorists were not originating there. There were no WMD's. It is like saying the Ottoman Turks are besieging Vienna. They are Muslims. Indonesians are also Muslins so lets invade Indonesia.

[jbg]

Indonesians are also Muslins so lets invade Indonesia.

Given their jocular response to the Bali slaughter, maybe not a bad idea.

[Wilber]

Indonesians are also Muslins so lets invade Indonesia.

Given their jocular response to the Bali slaughter, maybe not a bad idea.

What jocular response? We invade Indonesia because terrorists blow up people in Indonesia? What kind of logic is that? Indonesia arrested and charged quite a few people related to the bombing.

[Leafless]

This is a false dichotomy. Terrorism is not something that can be fought here or there. Terrorism is like organized crime and requires a police response - not a military one.

Oh yeah sure, somebody CALL THE COPS!

We'll send a team of detectives over to Iraq tomorrow.

Dysfunctional terrorist countries have more to worry about than something they can do nothing about, like waking up tomorrow.

I think their digging a trench all around Baghdad in an effort to keep terrorist out but maybe the cops can help with digging.

[Riverwind]

The Muslim advance through France during the Middle Ages, and the advance to the gates of Vienna, stopped, during the mid-1600's, were not caused by being "complacent and ignor(ing) warnings".

Irrelevant history today. Christians were no different at the time. Look up the Crusades and the story of the Cathars.

It is seeking to destabilize Western societies, so they give up heart and either accommodate Muslim demands or, at best, either convert or accept dhimmitude.

Rubbish. Such talk is as rational as saying the US gov't staged 9/11. Muslims are like every other human - they want peace and security and control over their own destiny. It is unfortunate that many Muslims have irrational jealousy towards wealthy western countries, however, there is no real desire to convert the world to Islam. The 9/11 attacks had one objective: destabilize the House of Saud and trigger a Islamic revolution there. The Americans were simply convenient scapegoats used to further one side in a battle between Muslims. Unfortunately, the Americans turned what was simply a power struggle among Muslims into a West vs. Islam conflict by invading Iraq.

What was different about the Madrid bombings, post Iraq, from September 11?

Spain was a target for the bombs because of its participation in the Iraq war. If there was no Iraq war or Spain if choose to stay out then those bombings would not have happened. The same is true of the London subway bombings. The Iraq war has increased terrorism in Western countries - prior to the Iraq war all terrorist attacks happened within Muslim countries and were simply part of a violant conflict between Muslims that had nothing to do with the West. 9/11 was an exception and would have remained an exception if the US had not responded so irrationally.

[geoffrey]

Spain was a target for the bombs because of its participation in the Iraq war. If there was no Iraq war or Spain if choose to stay out then those bombings would not have happened. The same is true of the London subway bombings. The Iraq war has increased terrorism in Western countries - prior to the Iraq war all terrorist attacks happened within Muslim countries and were simply part of a violant conflict between Muslims that had nothing to do with the West. 9/11 was an exception and would have remained an exception if the US had not responded so irrationally.

Why did al-Qaeda defend Iraq?

[Wilber]

Spain was a target for the bombs because of its participation in the Iraq war. If there was no Iraq war or Spain if choose to stay out then those bombings would not have happened. The same is true of the London subway bombings. The Iraq war has increased terrorism in Western countries - prior to the Iraq war all terrorist attacks happened within Muslim countries and were simply part of a violant conflict between Muslims that had nothing to do with the West. 9/11 was an exception and would have remained an exception if the US had not responded so irrationally.

Why did al-Qaeda defend Iraq?

Al Qaeda is not defending Iraq, it is competing for power in Iraq.

[geoffrey]

Why did al-Qaeda defend Iraq?

Al Qaeda is not defending Iraq, it is competing for power in Iraq.

When it attacked Madrid it was competing for power in Iraq? How so?

[Wilber]

Why did al-Qaeda defend Iraq?

Al Qaeda is not defending Iraq, it is competing for power in Iraq.

When it attacked Madrid it was competing for power in Iraq? How so?

Why are Al Queda and other insurgents in Iraq killing scores more Iraqis than non Iraqis? Is that defending Iraq? How so?