Terrorism

Illuminatus · 10-20-2004, 09:54 AM

Ok, the discussion thread is pretty lame right now, so I'm going to try to jump start it. Here's an article I wrote the college paper, it's not very good, but it's worth taking a look at:

It’s Called Terrorism for a Reason

On September 11th, 2001, two planes driven by terrorists crashed into the twin towers of the world trade center. The towers were toppled, killing almost three thousand people. The USA declared war on terrorism and subsequently shattered the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, killing many leaders and driving the rest into hiding.
So why do we still live in fear?
All it takes for a politician to get the average American’s blood pumping is to mention terrorism. If the government issues an orange alert, citizens head for the hills. President Bush seems to think that the country is still in a state of national crisis, three years after the September eleventh attacks. Terrorism – only a minor concern to the average American before 9/11 – has become a ridiculously large issue. Yes, we should be vigilant, and yes, terrorism is a terrible thing, but that doesn’t mean it has to dominate every aspect of our lives.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons” Note that the use of violence is not the goal of terrorism, but the means. The goal is intimidation, terror and fear. Terrorists aren’t trying to kill people, though that may be a secondary objective; they want to strike fear into the hearts of people across the world.
And they have succeeded. Our nation’s borders are much harder to cross than they were pre-9/11, but the people they’re keeping out aren’t all terrorists. Some are immigrants, others tourists or visitors, turned back because of some security reason. Islam, formerly Cat Stevens a renowned musician and well-know peacenik, was detained in Maine and refused entry into the US on September the 22nd, because of the money he gives to Islamic charities. Any mention of bombs in an airport sends the security staff into a frenzy. Constitutional rights are being bent more and more often in the name of “security”. America is a changed nation.
This is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists were hoping for. Yes, they wanted to destroy the WTC, a symbol of American capitalism, but the one thing they could have wished for was to put the United States into this sort of state. The government seems to think that the way to defeat terrorism is with tanks and bombs, but that does nothing but further inflame the situation. Terrorism isn't any more of a threat than it was pre-9/11, yet we treat it like it's the most pressing matter in the world.We can’t let this attack rule our lives forever. We have to go one like before, live our lives without fear. Of course, we still need to be safe, and careful, but we can’t compromise our values and what makes us free because of what happened three years ago.
Terrorism is a dirty, underhanded tactic, and we are encouraging it by allowing it to take hold of our daily activities. Don’t give the terrorists that satisfaction. Go on as before, live your lives to the fullest. If you are afraid, don’t let it show. This is what will discourage further attacks, not missiles and threats.

There. A little heavy, and long, but take a look if you have time. I hope Zeth is here to spar with.

Elminster_Amaur · 10-20-2004, 10:26 AM

I don't think fear itself is necessarily a bad thing. Now, imobilizing fear, that is different. If you are so afraid of something that you can't do anything but look out for that thing, then yes, the terrorists have gotten to you. Fear itself is really something that should be embraced for it's strengthening abilities. If you can face your fears, even small ones, you are taking away bad power of fear, and growing as a person. If you go hide under your bed, you are allowing fear to control your life. I think it's fine that we are trying to secure our country from terrorists. The problem is that that is the only thing the executive branch seems to be focused on. The legislative branch tends to only look out for their pocketbooks, and the judicial can't do anything until someone brings a matter to court. The only branch that prodded the other two into doing things for the nation is obsessed with hunting down terrorists. I don't think anything will improve from it's current state until we've gone into another lull like the last. It'll happen again, but the terrorists always wait till the effects from their last attacks go away. So, in a way, the terrorists will always get what they want, unless we don't let their attacks phase us. If we do that, though, we'd have to go through a very, very rough period of attacks until they realize that they aren't accomplishing something. The amount of lives lost would be too great to count. So which is better, allowing the terrorists to do whatever they want, or give them what they want by changing our securities? I leave that for the rest of you to decide.

Sky Warrior Bob · 10-20-2004, 11:04 AM

Ih8, you're quite a bit off, if your premise begins with the fact that the USA trounced Al Queda. At best, all that happened was a disruption.

As for Terrorism itself, I think people should stop trying to see it as a giant nebulous entity, but as a methodology. Anyone, can resort to terrorism. Be it just some punk kids who put kool-aid in the gas tanks of cop cars, or Al Queda. The fact is, you have to take a hard look at who's committing the terrorism, not go after everyone. The problem is, if we do that, we're asking for trouble. Why actively go after Terrorist groups who don't give a rats ass about the United States, and are just regional terrorists?

Yes, I support helping cut down on terrorism world-wide, by attacking terrorism's support system & the root causes of terrorism. But that's a battle that is best waged by the legal system, and paper filing.

Sky Warrior Bob

DragonDaimyo · 10-20-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

Yes, I support helping cut down on terrorism world-wide, by attacking terrorism's support system & the root causes of terrorism. But that's a battle that is best waged by the legal system, and paper filing.

The legal system tried to combat terrorism under Clinton. As 9/11 rather painfully points out, it didn't work.

You also said that America had only disrupted Al Queda. In this, I am in complete agreement with you. Even though Al Queda has lost a crippling amount of people and terrorists in thier organization, they continue to get new recruits. This is inevitable, at least in the short term.

Elminster_Amaur, I completely agree with your point about how many lives would be lost in the event that we try to shrug off all terrorist attacks. However, it is more frightening when you combine that fact with two others. The first is the property damage that would result. Americans would lose billions, if not trillions of dollars rebuild ing from the terrorist attacks. The other terrifying prospect is that there are some terrorist groups that would not stop for any reason. They. Just. Want. To. Kill. Us. That's the only reason they have for doing what they do. And THAT is the scariest part of all.

adamark · 10-20-2004, 10:56 PM

I don't think that many people are as scared of terrorism as you claim they are.
I just don't see many people terribly affected by it. We continue to march forward, building our lives and families and not even keeping it in our mind that someone could destroy everything we've built in an instant.

Actually, I don't think people are scared of much at all. Crime is more likely to kill you than terrorism, I don't know of people scared of crime, just ready for it.

Sky Warrior Bob · 10-21-2004, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saiyaman1822

The legal system tried to combat terrorism under Clinton. As 9/11 rather painfully points out, it didn't work.

Under Clinton, the Millenium plot was stopped. 9/11 didn't happen under Clinton's watch, but Bush's. I'm not going to go as far as to blame 9/11 on Bush, but I will say that its a far cry from being Clinton's fault.

The CIA & FBI, from what I took from the 9/11 commission, aren't a perfectly oiled machine that works well without guidance. They're like mean, little petty children who need to be constantly kept in line. Without constant administrative guidance, they can wander off & do stupid things.

Clinton managed to make a crappy system semi work. Bush came into office assuming, as most did, that the system worked just fine on its own. Sadly, that's not the case.

Sky Warrior Bob

shiney · 10-21-2004, 05:55 AM

Unfortunately Bob is very correct, and there is also the matter of the warnings the administrations actually did hand over to Bush which weren't taken with the seriousness necessary. When they had to find a scapegoat, it was easier to blame the agencies (their need for restructing notwithstanding) because blaming or criticizing the man who may have been able to do something would undermine public and foreign confidence in the executive leader.

Though he managed to do that anyways on his own.

I'm aware that Bush shouldn't shoulder all the blame, but there is the matter of the memo, the ignored or shrugged aside warnings, his treatment of the situation in general. It's my opinion that the ball was dropped, and not just once.

Mini-fighter · 10-21-2004, 09:47 AM

Clinton was by far the greatest President in living memory. He embodied every stereotype and cliche of presidency, he had affairs and was honest about them, he admitted any mistakes that he rarely made, and he was Goddamn funny.

The general public can never accept that things happen because of a combination of unavoidable factors. Soon people will look back on this and think of how stupid we are being blaming everything on Bush and Saddam and bin laden, although they did contribute to the problem.

Dragonsbane · 10-21-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-fighter

Clinton was by far the greatest President in living memory. He embodied every stereotype and cliche of presidency, he had affairs and was honest about them, he admitted any mistakes that he rarely made, and he was Goddamn funny.

The general public can never accept that things happen because of a combination of unavoidable factors. Soon people will look back on this and think of how stupid we are being blaming everything on Bush and Saddam and bin laden, although they did contribute to the problem.

Since when has sleeping with interns been a cliche of the Presidency?

Also, Clinton lied under oath. The only reason he wasn't impeached was because it would cause instability. He may not have been a horrible president, but he was definitely not a great one.

Anyway, back on topic...

The terrorists that we should truly hate (or be afraid of...your choice) are those who want to kill us simply because of who we are. I believe a certain terrorist (Osama Bin Laden, or one of his lieutenants) was quoted as saying that he would not stop killing Americans until the entire nation had converted to Islam.

We are not dealing with people who understand our ideals of freedom, we are dealing with people who believe that we should be killed simply for how we were born, for the religion we were raised in, and for their stereotyped views of us as "decadent heathens". The fact that we are continually screwing with the Middle East has not helped. They blame us for everything from tearing apart their lands in the Cold War, to arming Israel and stealing (from their point of view) land from the Palestinians, and that is how they get so many of their recruits. They see us as demons incarnate, an unstoppable empire of ultimate evil, and it is THAT belief that we are truly fighting.

~Dragonsbane

Illuminatus · 10-21-2004, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

Ih8, you're quite a bit off, if your premise begins with the fact that the USA trounced Al Queda. At best, all that happened was a disruption. Sky Warrior Bob

If you mean to tell me that Al-Queda is as much of a threat as it was pre-9/11 then I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not saying they're down and out permanently, I know better than that, but with all the blind focus our government has on them, they're not likely to be able to do anything quite so sweeping as 9/11 for a while.

Quote:

They.just.want.to.kill.us.

Wrong. They may state goals of converting every American or destroying our nation, but those are only tactics designed to further terrify us.

As to what Adamark said, yes, many people have moved on since 9/11 and that's great, but there's still a large section of the populace that still lives in fear. How is it that Dick Cheney can say that if we elect Kerry, that we may well suffer another terrorist attack and it WORKS. People are voting for Bush because he says he can keep them safe. And you mean to tell me that no one is afraid of terrorism?

10-20-2004, 09:54 AM	#1
Illuminatus The Dread Pirate Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Where the wild things are Posts: 1,310	Terrorism Ok, the discussion thread is pretty lame right now, so I'm going to try to jump start it. Here's an article I wrote the college paper, it's not very good, but it's worth taking a look at: It’s Called Terrorism for a Reason On September 11th, 2001, two planes driven by terrorists crashed into the twin towers of the world trade center. The towers were toppled, killing almost three thousand people. The USA declared war on terrorism and subsequently shattered the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, killing many leaders and driving the rest into hiding. So why do we still live in fear? All it takes for a politician to get the average American’s blood pumping is to mention terrorism. If the government issues an orange alert, citizens head for the hills. President Bush seems to think that the country is still in a state of national crisis, three years after the September eleventh attacks. Terrorism – only a minor concern to the average American before 9/11 – has become a ridiculously large issue. Yes, we should be vigilant, and yes, terrorism is a terrible thing, but that doesn’t mean it has to dominate every aspect of our lives. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons” Note that the use of violence is not the goal of terrorism, but the means. The goal is intimidation, terror and fear. Terrorists aren’t trying to kill people, though that may be a secondary objective; they want to strike fear into the hearts of people across the world. And they have succeeded. Our nation’s borders are much harder to cross than they were pre-9/11, but the people they’re keeping out aren’t all terrorists. Some are immigrants, others tourists or visitors, turned back because of some security reason. Islam, formerly Cat Stevens a renowned musician and well-know peacenik, was detained in Maine and refused entry into the US on September the 22nd, because of the money he gives to Islamic charities. Any mention of bombs in an airport sends the security staff into a frenzy. Constitutional rights are being bent more and more often in the name of “security”. America is a changed nation. This is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists were hoping for. Yes, they wanted to destroy the WTC, a symbol of American capitalism, but the one thing they could have wished for was to put the United States into this sort of state. The government seems to think that the way to defeat terrorism is with tanks and bombs, but that does nothing but further inflame the situation. Terrorism isn't any more of a threat than it was pre-9/11, yet we treat it like it's the most pressing matter in the world.We can’t let this attack rule our lives forever. We have to go one like before, live our lives without fear. Of course, we still need to be safe, and careful, but we can’t compromise our values and what makes us free because of what happened three years ago. Terrorism is a dirty, underhanded tactic, and we are encouraging it by allowing it to take hold of our daily activities. Don’t give the terrorists that satisfaction. Go on as before, live your lives to the fullest. If you are afraid, don’t let it show. This is what will discourage further attacks, not missiles and threats. There. A little heavy, and long, but take a look if you have time. I hope Zeth is here to spar with. __________________ Man, n. An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be. His chief occupation is the extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada. -Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary

10-20-2004, 10:26 AM	#2
Elminster_Amaur Her hands were cold and small. Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: My Mind Posts: 2,049	I don't think fear itself is necessarily a bad thing. Now, imobilizing fear, that is different. If you are so afraid of something that you can't do anything but look out for that thing, then yes, the terrorists have gotten to you. Fear itself is really something that should be embraced for it's strengthening abilities. If you can face your fears, even small ones, you are taking away bad power of fear, and growing as a person. If you go hide under your bed, you are allowing fear to control your life. I think it's fine that we are trying to secure our country from terrorists. The problem is that that is the only thing the executive branch seems to be focused on. The legislative branch tends to only look out for their pocketbooks, and the judicial can't do anything until someone brings a matter to court. The only branch that prodded the other two into doing things for the nation is obsessed with hunting down terrorists. I don't think anything will improve from it's current state until we've gone into another lull like the last. It'll happen again, but the terrorists always wait till the effects from their last attacks go away. So, in a way, the terrorists will always get what they want, unless we don't let their attacks phase us. If we do that, though, we'd have to go through a very, very rough period of attacks until they realize that they aren't accomplishing something. The amount of lives lost would be too great to count. So which is better, allowing the terrorists to do whatever they want, or give them what they want by changing our securities? I leave that for the rest of you to decide. __________________ "It just rubs me the wrong way." -CJ, most likely about non-yaoi porn or something

10-20-2004, 11:04 AM	#3
Sky Warrior Bob bOB iZ brOkeN Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a nice place to visit... Posts: 3,755	Ih8, you're quite a bit off, if your premise begins with the fact that the USA trounced Al Queda. At best, all that happened was a disruption. As for Terrorism itself, I think people should stop trying to see it as a giant nebulous entity, but as a methodology. Anyone, can resort to terrorism. Be it just some punk kids who put kool-aid in the gas tanks of cop cars, or Al Queda. The fact is, you have to take a hard look at who's committing the terrorism, not go after everyone. The problem is, if we do that, we're asking for trouble. Why actively go after Terrorist groups who don't give a rats ass about the United States, and are just regional terrorists? Yes, I support helping cut down on terrorism world-wide, by attacking terrorism's support system & the root causes of terrorism. But that's a battle that is best waged by the legal system, and paper filing. Sky Warrior Bob __________________ :bmage: Because breakdancing is evil, and so am I, you will click on this link: The power of evil compels you... You are in error. No one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation. Yes I know the breakdancing BM link doesn't work, and I don't care.

10-21-2004, 05:55 AM	#7
shiney Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The land of fartz and buttz Posts: 8,266	Unfortunately Bob is very correct, and there is also the matter of the warnings the administrations actually did hand over to Bush which weren't taken with the seriousness necessary. When they had to find a scapegoat, it was easier to blame the agencies (their need for restructing notwithstanding) because blaming or criticizing the man who may have been able to do something would undermine public and foreign confidence in the executive leader. Though he managed to do that anyways on his own. I'm aware that Bush shouldn't shoulder all the blame, but there is the matter of the memo, the ignored or shrugged aside warnings, his treatment of the situation in general. It's my opinion that the ball was dropped, and not just once. __________________ boop

10-21-2004, 09:47 AM	#8
Mini-fighter Goomba Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14	Clinton was by far the greatest President in living memory. He embodied every stereotype and cliche of presidency, he had affairs and was honest about them, he admitted any mistakes that he rarely made, and he was Goddamn funny. The general public can never accept that things happen because of a combination of unavoidable factors. Soon people will look back on this and think of how stupid we are being blaming everything on Bush and Saddam and bin laden, although they did contribute to the problem. __________________ :fighter: Happy christmas Black mage! :bmage: What is it? :fighter: it's a ice staff and a fire staff chained together :bmage: Look! Magic isn't that simple! It takes skill! Intelligence! (twirls staff in anger causing fires and freezing of surroundings) (looks round) Aw! you shouldn't have!