living With Terrorism

[mprep]

Terrorism is a huge issue affecting the lives of millions and killing thousands every month, but there's hardly any terrorism in Europe or in the U.S. whereas terrorism attacks happen daily in Irak, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan...

Britons don't know nor imagine what terrorism really is. Maybe, they're just lucky.

Maybe you're on to something.

[1714958006]

1714958006

[1714958006]

1714958006

[pac1]

thanks to everyone who has commented, i think your all pretty much right we don't live with the terror in the uk that it plaguing a lot of the world
>Elwar
 i am proud to say yes i did support and continue to support our troops, regardless of whether or not its a just a right cause, it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country. These people put their lives on the line everyday not just abroad but at home as well in the sad case of Lee Rigby
Also its worth mentioning that its not just british forces that deserve respect and admiration, the forces from all over the world work tirelessly for their countries.
Patriots or Terrorists ? someone said earlier in this post it depends on which side of the argument you are looking from.

[hawkeye]

Also its worth mentioning that its not just british forces that deserve respect and admiration, the forces from all over the world work tirelessly for their countries.

Maybe they do work tirelessly.  Too bad they are misguided.   And that doesn't deserve respect nor admiration.  Regardless of how much the TV pundits tell us to "support the troops".  Pity, maybe...

If they were defending from invaders that would be one thing.  But that's not what's happening.

[myrkul]

it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country.

"Just following orders," eh?

[pac1]

it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country.

"Just following orders," eh?

isnt that what they are programmed to do once enlisted.

[TeeBone]

it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country.

"Just following orders," eh?

isnt that what they are programmed to do once enlisted.

I thought the silly following orders defense was finally put to rest at the nuremberg trials.

in fact, i blame the police and military members more then the slavemasters. you get one of these presidents/dictators in a back alley somewhere, you'll see them squealing like the cowards they are, they are nothing but rats. the system can only perpetrate their crimes because they've got an army of idiots ready to die for their psychotic leader.

[justusranvier]

We've been living with terrorism ever since the first human picked up a rock and threatened to murder anyone who refused to obey and pay tribute.

What's being called a "war on terrorism" is a turf war between rival terrorist gangs. Right now the North American and European gangs have the upper hand due to having larger domestic economies to plunder in order to fuel their aggression, but the Muslim terrorists make more efficient use of the resources they have so they've managed to avoid being wiped out so far.

[ewitte]

it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country.

"Just following orders," eh?

isnt that what they are programmed to do once enlisted.

 If your the one that pulled the trigger killing countless innocents and you knew this your still able to be held liable.  "Following orders" didn't work very well for a lot of Nazi soldiers. 

[ewitte]

We've been living with terrorism ever since the first human picked up a rock and threatened to murder anyone who refused to obey and pay tribute.

What's being called a "war on terrorism" is a turf war between rival terrorist gangs. Right now the North American and European gangs have the upper hand due to having larger domestic economies to plunder in order to fuel their aggression, but the Muslim terrorists make more efficient use of the resources they have so they've managed to avoid being wiped out so far.

Or so most believe. 

[mprep]

We've been living with terrorism ever since the first human picked up a rock and threatened to murder anyone who refused to obey and pay tribute.

What's being called a "war on terrorism" is a turf war between rival terrorist gangs. Right now the North American and European gangs have the upper hand due to having larger domestic economies to plunder in order to fuel their aggression, but the Muslim terrorists make more efficient use of the resources they have so they've managed to avoid being wiped out so far.

Or so most believe. 

Only some, not most.

[Elwar]

We all follow orders our whole lives. The first time you are told not to do something that a free man would do, and you change your actions to do so...you have just followed orders to stifle freedom. Even if it is only your own.

I'm not a soldier so I cannot speak for them, I do this solely for the money. I wish the US citizens would vote me out of a job but they just keep wanting to give me more money so who am I to disagree. But the response a soldier always gives is not that they are fighting for their country but for their buddy next to them. They get plopped into bad situations by idiots and have to fight to protect themselves and their buddies.

The US has not been attacked since Pearl Harbor and that was after we forced Japan's hand. Just think of the decades of prosperity we would have if we only attacked those countries that attacked or threatened to attack us? If you're paranoid, pour that military spending into research...we could've had sharks with lasers by now...nobody would mess with us.

Afghanis do not even know how to use a toilet, only 20% can read at a basic level...there was no scenario where Afghanistan was going to take over the US.

[ewitte]

Or so most believe. 

Only some, not most.
[/quote]

Should have cut out the part I was talking about.  I'm talking about living with terrorism since man existed.

[justusranvier]

I'm talking about living with terrorism since man existed.

There's no way to create objective and universal definition of "terrorism" that will include the people and groups commonly associated with the term without also snagging governments into the same category.

[solex]

I'm talking about living with terrorism since man existed.

There's no way to create objective and universal definition of "terrorism" that will include the people and groups commonly associated with the term without also snagging governments into the same category.

Living with the threat of terrorism is a complete walk in the park compared to living with the threat of nuclear annihilation which was a major concern in the 1970s and 1980s, and has not completely gone away.

[nimda]

it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country.

"Just following orders," eh?

isnt that what they are programmed to do once enlisted.

Heard of the Nuremberg Trials?

[justusranvier]

Living with the threat of terrorism is a complete walk in the park compared to living with the threat of nuclear annihilation which was a major concern in the 1970s and 1980s, and has not completely gone away.

Another interesting thought experiment is to calculate the average risk a human living on this planet faces of being murdered by Al-Qaeda vs their risk of being murdered by the US government.

[stochastic]

Who cares about terrorism. There are more people killed from lightning strikes than from terrorist attacks.

It is not about how many people are killed.  States survive and propagate based on their ability to have stability so that they can effectively trade with other nations so a critical percentage¹ of their population prospers.  If on 9-11 people decided to fly planes into Happy Chef Restaurant in Kadoka, SD then no one would give a damn.  Flying a plane into the World Trade Center in New York City stopped market trading for days and shut down civilian United States air traffic.  Imagine if people were blowing themselves up on buses, bridges, or police stations in every major US city at least once a month.  It would shut down any ability for people to go out and make transactions and other nations would be able to take that opportunity to take over that wealth generating ability.

This is why the United States is pivoting its naval units to Asia to counter China's naval rise and oversee that international trade routes are not disturbed.

Obama knows he cannot keep his base and perpetuate the War on Terrorism (WOT) that Bush started.  Bush thought this included massive military invasions and nation building.  It might have worked but Bush underestimated the resources needed for this to happen.  During that time a lot of people mentioned the success World War 2 (WW2) and the nation building after that.  The difference between WW2 and the WOT is that the United States was involved in total war, the complete mobilization of its resources to defeat the Axis Powers.  This was not the case during the WOT.  People went along with their daily lives and let the volunteer army try to achieve nation building.  Obviously they failed.

Obama's strategy, and it is a very smart one politically, is to think of terrorist cells as cancer and to surgically remove that cancer through annihilation and/or fear.  Annihilation comes from drone or special operation strikes.  Fear comes from people that see that the United States military can't be everywhere at the same time but can be anywhere it wants to go.  For this to work the national security industry must collect as much data as possible and strike any overseas target that may have any evidence of wanting to attack American interests.

The American people will only allow this level of surveillance if they don't feel safe, and if the goal of the government is to create stability so that enough people are happy that they don't overthrow the government then the government is stuck in a difficult situation.  If the people don't feel safe then they will be unhappy and overthrow the government and if they do feel safe then they won't allow this level of surveillance and then the government cannot execute their surgical military operations.

¹ I believe this critical percentage is related to the percent of unhappiness and the ease of access to efficient weapons and or voter turnout (democracies can overthrow their governments in elections, that is why they are more stable long term).

[semaforo]

More people have been killed by toasters than terrorism. I say we declare war on toasters worldwide.

[FCTaiChi]

Yes, Stochastic, we bomb them they bomb us.  Good plan.  This has been happening for a long time, and this 'Axis of Evil' you talk about has been attacked by what they see as "Evil Western Forces" for thousands of years.  This seems like an intractable situation.  If people stopped listening to power and followed their own interest this would never happen. 

War should be that I can not stop myself from arming myself and seeking out my enemy, because I personally have a reason that compels me.  Go to war for anything less and you are a mercenary.

[stochastic]

Yes, Stochastic, we bomb them they bomb us.  Good plan.  This has been happening for a long time, and this 'Axis of Evil' you talk about has been attacked by what they see as "Evil Western Forces" for thousands of years.  This seems like an intractable situation.  If people stopped listening to power and followed their own interest this would never happen. 

War should be that I can not stop myself from arming myself and seeking out my enemy, because I personally have a reason that compels me.  Go to war for anything less and you are a mercenary.

Please reread what I wrote.  I never mentioned an Axis of Evil.  I mentioned the Axis Powers which were Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War 2.  I was not justifying war, I am explaining why governments are concerned with terrorism over other things that may cause more deaths than terrorism.