[JoeBialek]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.

There are many different contradictory interpretations of terrorism, the orthodox (original) definition of terrorism was the use of violence by civilian(s) in order to achieve a political goal.

In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

I think Machiavelli would not do anything besides advice "the prince", however the philosophy of Machiavelli was indifference to moral considerations, use of deceit in all political public relations, and "smashing the enemy before he knows that you are hostile to him and smashing him once and for all so that he can not think and act on avenging the betrayal" (I don't have the exact quote, but I can search for it if you want).

These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize

Why only the middle east, why do all Joes have a brutal mentality, whether its Joe (Joseph) Stalin or any other "average joe". There are terrorists within U.S.A., like the KKK (Ku Klux Klan), Aryan Nation, and there are terrorists in the neighborhood of U.S.A. like the FARC in Columbia, the Shining Path (Maoists) in Peru, and even terrorist organizations in Mexico (Indigenous terrorism-using freedom-fighters). And don't forget Cuba is listed as a state-sponser of terrorism (terrorist state) by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).

[GandalfTheGrey]

"smashing the enemy before he knows that you are hostile to him and smashing him once and for all so that he can not think and act on avenging the betrayal"

Yes that would work. In order to accomplish this, every human being on earth will have to be eliminated. It is the only way to be sure. Otherwise, by killing one group, another group will rise up in response (to protect themselves, or avenge the destruction of the other group). Violence begets violence, and thus the only trully fullproof way of destroying terrorism through violence is to wipe out the entire human race.

So we can either do that, or we can learn that violence is not the solution, and there are other ways of dealing with the problem: Address the issues that cause terrorism, stop people from wanting to join terrorist organisations, eliminate the appeal of the terrorist leaders. Support of terrorists from the general population is how terrorism survives. Cut off the terrorists from the masses and you solve the problem.

[Eggie]

The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth.

I agree with you on the fact that you donot support Bush, but you cant remove the troops from Iraq now. Now that Hussien is dead there is no leader, if the U.S. was to pull out now there would be a large power fight within the country. This would make the U.S. intervention even worse then it already is especially with Vietnam and Korea in its past. 3 strikes your out, the U.S. either needs to 'fix' the problem it went in there to or else any U.S. involvment in future wars etc. will be frowned upon.

As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed.

What?! You cant kill a POW... then they kill your POW's and it just becomes a whole mess (the Nick Berg and the abusings...). People dont like it when people(usually relitives) die (thus the reason you want the U.S. to leave Iraq). If you killed every prisoner you would just make more enemies... more prisoners more killing etc.

At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions.

I think this would deffinatly make them MORE upset, I beilve hollywood makes alot of movies like this, Famous actor kills all the 'bad guys' because they killed his family... he dies in the end. Sounds kind of like a suicide bomber (except sometimes they do it to provide money for their family). Killing isnt the solution to killing, it just makes mor killing. I cant remembers whos sig it is but they said it best, "bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity".

The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

Not everyone here is American. And i think the only thing that americans can really do is vote in a differnt president or stay the cousre depeding on how "just" they think the war on Iraq is.

[skeptik]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.

You want to define? All right. Terrorism is defined in the U.S. Code as:

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that [A] involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and [B] appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

So...what does that tell us? It tells us that those assholes who struck a horrendously devastating blow to the United States on 9/11 are TERRORISTS, plain and simple.

...and?

It tells us that (awaiting barrage of condemnation here) that the United States is, BY FUCKING MILES, the leading terrorist state in the world.

Now, you can't change anything by sitting around and blaming the United States for everything. I mean, it is pretty uncontroversial that the United States is the FREEST country in the world (one of the only ones to have freedom of speech written in to the constitution. We don't even officially have that in England).

...a couple of points I want to pick up on though.

"...the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical)."

Would you kindly point out which kind of military tactics are "ethical" (give me a break).

Suicide bombing is not the tactic of the "non-ethical", it's a tactic of the weak. The reason the Western armies don't employ such a tactic is cause they have hi-tech military equipment to carry out the desired task. There is also , to be fair, a tinge of culture involved. There does seem to be a certain amount of "honour" associated with turning one's self into an explosive, which, I suppose, derives itself from a very fucked up version of Islam. But this is really just an ideological tactic to get the younger generation brainwashed enough to carry out these tasks. The reason we don't do it is because whenever a soldier dies, Gee Dubbaya's approval ratings go down.

I think the worst thing about the current administration is that it did swindle a lot of good people into believing that Iraq was a serious and current threat. Now that it turns out that that was bullshit, (and even more revealing, that the administration pretty much new it) a lot of people (at least the one's I've talked to) are feeling that America is giving off a very bad image when it comes to foreign affairs.

The one major flaw in this "war on terror" is that stepping up an offensive against a diverse and dynamic enemy simply fans the flames. Our major fuck up is linked with this idea that "we cannot deal with terrorists". This basically precludes any kind of understanding over WHAT IT IS the terrorists are fighting for (and if you thinks it's just to turn the world into one giant Taliban-run Afghanistan, you'd better get your head out of the sand). In fact, bin Laden has, in the past, made it pretty clear what it is that pisses him off so much. Certain things that annoy him the most are the same things that annoy a lot of people in the Middle East. Bin Laden and his cronies have caused massive devastation to the poor and oppressed in the region (well, Afghanistan) and are in fact fairly despised by most people in the Middle East with an IQ of over 6. The fact is, he is, literally, the only guy in that region who is protesting about things that concerns pretty much every other Arab alive (a part from the billionaires), namely, US domination in the region and (consequently) Israel and it's policies (all supported by the US).

Certain questions must be addressed in a particular order if we are to make sense of our future. The first, I think, should be, "what would you like to see being done in the world?" If you are satisfied with the US being the world’s police force, defying and implementing global laws as it sees fit, then I guess you're on GWB’s ticket.

If you want to live in a world where the people of Iraq, Palestine, Cuba or East Timor have the same opportunities to watch their kids grow up, then we must make a stand. Once you know which world you would like, the next question is, WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?

[Garibaldi]

I think a similar tactic to both Gandalf and JoeBialek is necessary. Obviously, not taken to such an extreme, but we need to address the motivation of terrorists and alleviate anger towards us at the same time as acting "unethically" to terrorists. While we don't need to kill POW's or go gung-ho like Bialek suggests, we need to use detective measures against terrorists. Upon finding a terrorist, treat him like a criminal, not like a soldier. I think that'swhat we tend to forget, terrorists are not enemy soldiers, but criminals.

[lester1/2jr]

There is no such place as "Palestine". those people are of Jordanian and Egyptian ancestry.

If the muslim countries would take some of their oil trillions and have a regular government there wouldn't be any terorrism or problems period. But they won't because the people have mental problems due to their bizarre religios beleifs.

[skeptik]

There is no such place as "Palestine". those people are of Jordanian and Egyptian ancestry.

I'm sure the boys at the League of Nations archives would disagree about Palestine having never existed. Who cares about ethnic origins? If a billion wondering gypsies settled in America, what good would it be to say, "Well, those people are of English origin"?

The Balfour Declaration quickly put the Palestinian situation into dark territory. After wide spread conflict in the country the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181). Ever since then, Israel (with vigorous US support, as well as from other powerful nations) has succeeded in pushing further and further into the initially proposed Palestinian territories, which is a basic and flagrant violation of various UN Resolutions.

[Garibaldi]

Skeptic, Leger, I think we should wait until Prof. Megalommatis gets in here. He actually knows the true ethnicity of the palestinians, although for all intesive purposes they are their own people now.

And the only possible solution is a one-state solution wish ensures the right of return. The only possible peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is to settle it over civil debate. That can not happen in a two-state arrangement.

[skeptik]

He actually knows the true ethnicity of the palestinians

And I'm sure he does. Their ethnicity, however, (or origin thereof) is still irrelevant to the point.

And the only possible solution is a one-state solution wish ensures the right of return. The only possible peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is to settle it over civil debate. That can not happen in a two-state arrangement.

I doubt very much (assuming that your one-state "solution" would be predominantly - and I imagine exclusively - run by the Israelis) that this will yield a civil end to the matter.

[Garibaldi]

And I'm sure he does. Their ethnicity, however, (or origin thereof) is still irrelevant to the point.

I do believe I stated that they're percieved as a people now, didn't I?

And the only possible solution is a one-state solution wish ensures the right of return. The only possible peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is to settle it over civil debate. That can not happen in a two-state arrangement.

I doubt very much (assuming that your one-state "solution" would be predominantly - and I imagine exclusively - run by the Israelis) that this will yield a civil end to the matter.

No, the one-state solution would not be run exclusivly or predominatly by the Israeli's. Remember, I stated that it requires giving the right of return. Palestinians would hold equal and possibly more numbers than the Israeli's, but the Israeli's holdoing enough that they have to be considered. By encompassing them in a state where they can civily argue an issue, instead of two states where there's no fair judge, they're much more likely to argue civily and thus come up with a peacefyl, passive solution.