It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Terrorism be Stopped?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I've been thinking a lot lately about how to end terrorism, or if it's even possible.

Most ideas I've seen center on "education". I don't believe this is a viable option,due to what I see as a basic premise, "you can't tell anybody anything". As an example, look around ATS. You see people trying to "educate" others on whatever the topic du jour is, be it politics, UFOs, or whatever. But you don't see people saying "By gum, you're right! I believe you now!" People stick to their own opinions, no matter how much "education" you throw at them. Thus, I believe "educating" the terrorists is a moot point, as they will believe what they believe, and no amount of "educating" or "evidence" can shake their beliefs.

The only two solutions I can come up with that would have a chance of working are both entirely unacceptable to my personal beliefs.

1) Locking ourselves away from the world. Using walls, fences, check points, armed guards, and a zero immigration policy, it might be possible to stem the flow of terrorists into a particular country. This, as far as the U.S. is concerned, would be the end of freedom as we know it. It would halt the influx of new, positive thinking as well as the negative aspects. It would clamp a lid on the great melting pot. Scientific and social thinking would eventually grind to a halt, as in a sealed system, entropy always increases. This is unacceptable to me, personally.

2) Kill 'em all. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it. Wipe out the entire region(s) from which terrorism comes from, and there will be no terrorists left to bother anybody. This is also entirely unacceptable to me, personally.

Even if either of these ideas were implemented, (God forbid), they would stand a good chance of pissing off enough people to ignite an entirely new wave of hatred towards the west, sparking whole new terrorist groups, so they probably wouldn't work,either.

So what else is there? I don't see the preferred method, education, making any impact at all, and the other possibilities would be worse then the terrorism they would be attempting to stop.

I suppose enforced education, a la Project Blue Beam/mind control/brainwashing type stuff would be a possible solution, but I also find this kind of technology to be unacceptable, as this would be the ultimate loss of freedom.

Is terrorism just the modern reality? Is it just something we have to live with as best we can? Or is there a possibility that I've missed (which wouldn't surprise me at all)?




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I have a better idea. Why not submit to their demands? You do understand what they want, yes?

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Get out of their countries, and get Israel out of Palestine. Stop supporting the dictators running Islamic nations like in Saudi Arabia.

That sounds far better than your other two suggestions, but then the Jews would start attacking us....



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
They won't stop with Israel out of the so-called Palestine area. They want an Islamic caliphate and are just using these reasons as an excuse to galvanize their followers.

I do agree with one thing though. Violence will not solve this problem. There is no way to be able to stop it when one side will continually retaliate against another. Changing the people to realize that this struggle is not worth is will be only solution. This will unfortunately take 2 or 3 generations to see that stop.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Get out of their countries, and get Israel out of Palestine. Stop supporting the dictators running Islamic nations like in Saudi Arabia.

Well, I'm all for that. We should never have been messing around over there in the first place. But do you really think that would stop it? I mean, the damage has been done, they're already pissed at us. Don't you think that this statement, from the link you supplied:

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged.

says right up front that the killing will continue until they feel they are "revenged" for the decades of grief they're pissed about?

That doesn't seem like an end to me, but it would be a good start.

Thanks for responding, build

edit:add quote


[edit on 7-7-2007 by subject x]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Everyone on this planet has their own beliefs, own personalities, own thoughts
and you can never satisfy everyone at the same time.
So if you satisfy USA, the Middle East you won't be able to.
People are unique individuals and thats what separates everyone
in terms of politics.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
They won't stop with Israel out of the so-called Palestine area. They want an Islamic caliphate and are just using these reasons as an excuse to galvanize their followers.

I don't claim to know what they're thinking, or what their true motives might be.
That does seem to be the direction they're leaning, though.

Originally posted by Equinox99
Everyone on this planet has their own beliefs, own personalities, own thoughts
and you can never satisfy everyone at the same time.
So if you satisfy USA, the Middle East you won't be able to.
People are unique individuals and thats what separates everyone
in terms of politics.

True, but does this mean there will always be enough differences to ensure that
terrorism is a never-ending condition of modern life? Can we never find a middle ground?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I highly doubt we will.
unless all the terrorists expunge themselves over time.
But it all depends on how many terrorists there actually are
in this world.
And how many young kids they brain wash.
So it's safe to say that no one will ever know the outcome thats in
store for us.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
So it's safe to say that no one will ever know the outcome thats in store for us.

Well, this is true for almost everything.
Pretty much impossible to refute.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by build319
They won't stop with Israel out of the so-called Palestine area. They want an Islamic caliphate and are just using these reasons as an excuse to galvanize their followers.


True, to a point. Yes, they do want an Islamic Caliphate, BUT (there is always a but!!!!), withdrawing Israel from Palestine would go a LONG way towards appeasing the Middle East. Alot of Middle Eastern Muslim's have wanted Israel out of Palestine/Gaza for a long time. And why wouldn't they??? Even though I'm not the greatest fan of Islam and the Middle East at the moment, I can see EXACTLY where they are coming from.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. One day you have your own land, you are living happily, and the next, the UN comes around and tells you "Oh, sorry, this is now going to be Jewish Land. Sorry about that, but if you don't like it, tough!!!!"

There are plenty of stories I can tell you on here about how arrogant and self serving the Israeli's are, and how they are complete and utter bastards, but there isn't enough space and unfortunately I don't have the time.


Anyways, time to get back on topic methinks.

Honestly, yes, I think that terrorism can be stopped, but it would take a LONG time to implement the changes needed. Education COULD work, but it would have to be to be implemented with other things such as a hearts and mind campaign, amongst other things.

A good book to read would be FIASCO. It is basically about the War on Terror from the events leading up to Sept. 11, to the the beginning of 2006 I think. One of the good points raised in the book is that the Coalition isn't doing enough in the Hearts and Minds department in order to quell the rebellion. That job is primarily given to the different Special Forces. And the regions that the Hearts and Minds programs were implemented started changing for the better, but of course since there aren't enough troops to pull it off (due to troop rotations), things slowly started eroding again.

So to be succint (which I should have tried to do from the start!), yes, Terrorism can be stopped, but it will take a LONG time, and there must be a multi-level plan in place for it to work, plus much patience.

I thank you for your time. Sorry if I bored people with this post!!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Most of the responses to this thread seem to indicate an underlying failure to appreciate exactly what the problem is that we face.

As soon as I read th thread title my first thought was "define terrorism" and I have to say that I'm a touch dismayed to find that responses so far indicate an even narrower definition is assumed by many than I had thought would be the case.

There is a great deal more to terrorism than Islamic extremism and there is a great deal more to stopping its effects that the so called "War On Terror". I have spent a large part of my life under some element of terrorist cloud resulting from problems in Ireland with Irish people and institutions treated with suspicion and sometimes fear long before Muslims became the bogeyman of choice. Even ignoring Islamic issues altogether in the leafy suburbs of the South of England I have been aware of the risks posed to me personally by Irish Republicans, Scottish Nationalists, Welsh Nationalists, Anarchists, Animal Rights Activists, Eco Warriors, Basque Separatists, Italian Red Brigades, Anti Zionists, Anti Globalists and even Cornish Nationalists for heaven's sake, (have I forgotten anyone?)

On this website I have read time and again the mantra of the gun lobby, "from my cold dead hand" and constant demands to stand and fight against the NWO or whichever supremacist group is the order of the day and what are those calls if not the opening salvo of a campaign of civil disobedience and where will that lead?

I believe that Terrorism is a situation where one group, usually a minority, will use violence, the threat of violence or the threat of the disruption of our cosy society to attempt to achieve their desires which could not otherwise be achieved. Terrorists learnt a long time ago that the more sophisticated our society becomes the easier it is to disrupt it by relatively simple measures and just how effective that can be. The cosier and more sophistated our societies become the more Terrorism we will face.

Let's also not get hung up on how terrible terrorism is. Would a freedom movement in Zimbabwe be so awful, would we be so appalled by Iraqi insurgents if they were fighting Saddam Hussein, were the early Zionists Terrorists, was the President of the Palestinian Authority a Terrorist, is the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland a Terrorist, and was Nelson Mandela a Terrorist?

No, we will not be able to stop Terrorism, the really interesting question is would the world be a better place without any Terrorism?

[edit on 10-7-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weapon X
True, to a point. Yes, they do want an Islamic Caliphate, BUT (there is always a but!!!!), withdrawing Israel from Palestine would go a LONG way towards appeasing the Middle East. Alot of Middle Eastern Muslim's have wanted Israel out of Palestine/Gaza for a long time. And why wouldn't they??? Even though I'm not the greatest fan of Islam and the Middle East at the moment, I can see EXACTLY where they are coming from.

I can see where they're coming from, too, Weapon X. However, that's no excuse for blowing up innocent people who have nothing to do with the situation.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. One day you have your own land, you are living happily, and the next, the UN comes around and tells you "Oh, sorry, this is now going to be Jewish Land. Sorry about that, but if you don't like it, tough!!!!"

Yep, that would piss me off for sure. I don't see how the UN got away with that. Who are they to decide who gets to live where? But again, no excuse for bombs.

Honestly, yes, I think that terrorism can be stopped, but it would take a LONG time to implement the changes needed. Education COULD work, but it would have to be to be implemented with other things such as a hearts and mind campaign, amongst other things.

What subject would you educate them in, though? If they don't realize it's wrong to blow up random people already, how would you educate them in this? As far as the "hearts and minds, an occupying force will never win the hearts and minds of the occupied area while they are still there. That's a losing battle, there.

So to be succint (which I should have tried to do from the start!), yes, Terrorism can be stopped, but it will take a LONG time, and there must be a multi-level plan in place for it to work, plus much patience.

I hope you're right. I'm not seeing it, though



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Most of the responses to this thread seem to indicate an underlying failure to appreciate exactly what the problem is that we face.

Interesting. I hadn't noticed this, myself. What brings you to this conclusion, timeless?

As soon as I read th thread title my first thought was "define terrorism" and I have to say that I'm a touch dismayed to find that responses so far indicate an even narrower definition is assumed by many than I had thought would be the case.

I would define terrorism as a situation in which a group A, in an attempt to get something from group B, use violent acts against group C, when group C has no control over whether group A gets what they want from group B.
Maybe not a Webster's definition, but that is how I see it.

There is a great deal more to terrorism than Islamic extremism and there is a great deal more to stopping its effects that the so called "War On Terror". I have spent a large part of my life under some element of terrorist cloud resulting from problems in Ireland with Irish people and institutions treated with suspicion and sometimes fear long before Muslims became the bogeyman of choice. Even ignoring Islamic issues altogether in the leafy suburbs of the South of England I have been aware of the risks posed to me personally by Irish Republicans, Scottish Nationalists, Welsh Nationalists, Anarchists, Animal Rights Activists, Eco Warriors, Basque Separatists, Italian Red Brigades, Anti Zionists, Anti Globalists and even Cornish Nationalists for heaven's sake, (have I forgotten anyone?)

This is all true. The underlying principal, however, is the same regardless of who is doing the terrorizing.
As middle-east based terrorism seems to be the most common, or at least most publicized, these days, it's only natural for folks to discuss terrorism from that viewpoint.

On this website I have read time and again the mantra of the gun lobby, "from my cold dead hand" and constant demands to stand and fight against the NWO or whichever supremacist group is the order of the day and what are those calls if not the opening salvo of a campaign of civil disobedience and where will that lead?

"Civil disobedience" is a long way from blowing up a shopping center, though. These "opening salvos" could easily lead to protests, grass roots organizations, and non-violent resolutions to said problems. Even the "cold dead hand" gun lobby wouldn't just start shooting random civilians. They would focus they're efforts on the ones trying to confiscate their guns. This is not the same as terrorism.

I believe that Terrorism is a situation where one group, usually a minority, will use violence, the threat of violence or the threat of the disruption of our cosy society to attempt to achieve their desires which could not otherwise be achieved.

Why could they not otherwise be achieved? There is always more then one solution to any social problem, and killing people who can't affect what the terrorists want is never a good one. Are their desires met by this killing? Generally not. It just galvanizes their opponents (which are not the people getting killed) to stand even more firmly against them.

Let's also not get hung up on how terrible terrorism is.

Why not? Terrorism is terrible.

Would a freedom movement in Zimbabwe be so awful, would we be so appalled by Iraqi insurgents if they were fighting Saddam Hussein, were the early Zionists Terrorists, was the President of the Palestinian Authority a Terrorist, is the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland a Terrorist, and was Nelson Mandela a Terrorist?

If they killed people who had nothing to do with the issues they were fighting for, they were.

No, we will not be able to stop Terrorism, the really interesting question is would the world be a better place without any Terrorism?

Of course the world would be a better place without terrorism. If the angry, disaffected people of the world sought out non-violent means to achieve their desires (like Mr Mandela) the world would be a vastly better place.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you that there will be no end to terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Weapon X
True, to a point. Yes, they do want an Islamic Caliphate, BUT (there is always a but!!!!), withdrawing Israel from Palestine would go a LONG way towards appeasing the Middle East. Alot of Middle Eastern Muslim's have wanted Israel out of Palestine/Gaza for a long time. And why wouldn't they??? Even though I'm not the greatest fan of Islam and the Middle East at the moment, I can see EXACTLY where they are coming from.

I can see where they're coming from, too, Weapon X. However, that's no excuse for blowing up innocent people who have nothing to do with the situation.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. One day you have your own land, you are living happily, and the next, the UN comes around and tells you "Oh, sorry, this is now going to be Jewish Land. Sorry about that, but if you don't like it, tough!!!!"

Yep, that would piss me off for sure. I don't see how the UN got away with that. Who are they to decide who gets to live where? But again, no excuse for bombs.

Honestly, yes, I think that terrorism can be stopped, but it would take a LONG time to implement the changes needed. Education COULD work, but it would have to be to be implemented with other things such as a hearts and mind campaign, amongst other things.

What subject would you educate them in, though? If they don't realize it's wrong to blow up random people already, how would you educate them in this? As far as the "hearts and minds, an occupying force will never win the hearts and minds of the occupied area while they are still there. That's a losing battle, there.

So to be succint (which I should have tried to do from the start!), yes, Terrorism can be stopped, but it will take a LONG time, and there must be a multi-level plan in place for it to work, plus much patience.

I hope you're right. I'm not seeing it, though


Sure, you are completely correct about it not being right to blow up innocent civilians, but for them, it's a means to an end. Think about it for a second. If you had next to nothing when it came to an Army or Air Force, what is the best way to take on a technologically superior force???? Guerilla Warfare. Just like is happening now in Iraq, the best way to take down a Superior Force is to use Guerilla tactics. I hate it as much as you do, but it has been proven effective over hundreds of years.

As per your comment about educating them, well, you said it yourself. If they don't know what's wrong with bombing innocent people, you educate them in WHY it is wrong. Because as you may or may not agree, these people are only reacting and doing what they have being taught from birth, by parents/relatives/friends/what they have grown up with. They know no better. So if they have a chance to see another way, maybe they will think "well, you know what, you are right, that is wrong!!!!". Maybe then they will spread the word around, and things could change for the better. But as I said, it will take a LONG time, it's not a band-aid solution.

And as per your comment regarding the hearts and minds campaign, well I say go and read the book FIASCO. Can't remember who wrote it, but its all about the current Iraqi War. At one point, it explains how the US and AUS Special Forces were doing a Hearts and Minds campaign (in the south I think) and it was actually working. But due to troop rotation, and heavy handed tactics by the replacement troops, it all started to fall apart again. I can tell you now, one of the first things taught in the classroom to SF Soldiers is "HEARTS AND MINDS, HEARTS AND MINDS, IT WILL ALWAYS DO BETTER THAN GUNS AND AMMO". And if you speak to any SF Soldiers, retired or active, they will tell you the same thing. It is easier to get people to stop trying to kill you if you treat them right than by "running and gunning" as I like to call it.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
First of all The USA must begin by being honest brokers of Peace in the Middle East. This means we do not take sides. This means we do not supply arms and weapons to one side while we attempt to chide others for doing the same thing to their side. This means if we allow for one or more countries to have Nucelar weapons capable of demolishing an entire region that we either deny them all or allow them all, regardless of how "responsible" we feel the other country is or how irresponsible another is. This means if we tell one side if you continue the violence we are going to freeze assets, place an embargo and generally run you into the ground while the other side continues to steal their land we will do the same thing to them. This means if we are going to go after any and all humanitarian funding that may possibly be used for terrorism, that we do the same for both sides when both are doing wrong. This means if we are helping russians to build houses in the middle east we should make sure that Palestinians who cannot even enter into their country are able to return (at least into Palestine proper) the same way a Russian may return home after 2000 years. This means that if an Israeli is entitled to compensation for a terrorist act a Palestinian is also entitled to compensation for wrongful death. This means that if the Israelis are not demolishing illegal Jewish homes they cannot demolish illegal Palestinian homes. This means if israel wishes to build a wall that they proclaim their borders and build the wall on or within their own borders and not into and through their neighbors land. We should urge India, Pakistan, and Israel to dismantle their nuclear arsenal and submit to oversight by IAEA. We should urge them to dismantle their Chem/Bio warfare programs. This means we should urge all sides to repatriate any and all Kidnapees,prisoners,political prisoners, prisoners of war or their remains across the board, regardless of the amount held on each side and each case to be re-reviewed and properly charged or released. Educators should be top priority for case review or release. Money earmarked for purchasing Israeli weapons aid should be earmarked for Palestinian rebuilding and re-opening of ports, schools, infrastructure and airports. Since Palestine must purchase its gasoline, electricity from Israel we should urge Israel to purchase its natural gas from palestine. Jewish settlers wishing to remain in palestine as Palestinian Citizens should have the right to stay, and likewise Palestinians in Israel as Israeli citizens.

If people in the Middle East see this they will not refuse to work with us. They will work with us and we would be justified in our actions and even aided when we needed help if there are problems. No one is going to trust a hypocrite, no one is going to aid a crooked cop.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Subject x,

I fear you have missed my point somewhat. I expressed concern about the initial responses to this thread because almost without exception they equated terrorism with Islamic fundamentalism and failed to consider any number of other terrorist activities. In terms of the definition of terrorism I was just resurrecting the old chestnut of when does someone stop being a freedom fighter or resistance member and start being a terrorist, a conundrum which is very difficult to resolve.

The point I made about the gun lobby in the US highlighted this problem. It has often been expressed through the "cold dead hand" cliché that some are apparently prepared to fight and die for their right to bear arms; to fight (presumably) against the law enforcement agencies. Now, you may consider such a law to be unconstitutional but what is violent resistance to a democratically passed law if not a form of terrorism?

The problem we have is that we like terrorism when it is in support of a cause we favour. Nelson Mandela did not use non-violent means to further his cause, he led the armed wing of the ANC and fully supported a guerrilla war and yet is seen as a folk hero in most of the West. Many on this site have expressed full support of the early Zionist terrorists who went onto lead "legitimate" Israeli governments and in the UK we now have a self confessed terrorist as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

It is with some of these people in mind that I say perhaps we do not want to eliminate terrorism but we sure as hell do have to define it.

It may be natural to talk about Middle East terrorism at the moment but we will never understand what motivates people to follow this path if we do not see beyond the issue of the day, particularly if it is one we are generally unsympathetic to.





[edit on 13-7-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Terrorism is no limited to only what we have been geared for the last few years or decades to a middle east conspiracy against the US.

If you have seen how the middle east has been invaded through centuries until modern times the word terrorist can be apply quite liberal across oceans.

Terrorism is in every single country and comes with different issues.

So do not even think that eliminating the middle east is going to stop terrorism at all.

Because you always going to find terrorist within any country domestic type as well.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The answer to that is No.
Order out of Chaos is a great means to control the masses when full control over us is enstilled into our daily livestyles I think then and only then will all this Terrorism nonsense stop.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weapon X
Sure, you are completely correct about it not being right to blow up innocent civilians, but for them, it's a means to an end. Think about it for a second. If you had next to nothing when it came to an Army or Air Force, what is the best way to take on a technologically superior force???? Guerilla Warfare. Just like is happening now in Iraq, the best way to take down a Superior Force is to use Guerilla tactics. I hate it as much as you do, but it has been proven effective over hundreds of years.

Guerilla warfare, if I understand it correctly, is when a small force attacks a larger force with hit-and-run, harassing tactics. Most of the people being killed by terror attacks are not part of said larger force. They are civilians who have nothing to do with the larger force. Where does this get them?

As per your comment about educating them, well, you said it yourself. If they don't know what's wrong with bombing innocent people, you educate them in WHY it is wrong. Because as you may or may not agree, these people are only reacting and doing what they have being taught from birth, by parents/relatives/friends/what they have grown up with. They know no better. So if they have a chance to see another way, maybe they will think "well, you know what, you are right, that is wrong!!!!". Maybe then they will spread the word around, and things could change for the better. But as I said, it will take a LONG time, it's not a band-aid solution.

Oh, stop it. If anyone doesn't realize that blowing up random passerby is just plain wrong, you're never going to be able to teach them otherwise. This knowledge is as basic as knowing how to eat. If this is what they have grown up seeing, as you say, that should just reinforce the wrongness of it.

And as per your comment regarding the hearts and minds campaign, well I say go and read the book FIASCO. Can't remember who wrote it, but its all about the current Iraqi War. At one point, it explains how the US and AUS Special Forces were doing a Hearts and Minds campaign (in the south I think) and it was actually working. But due to troop rotation, and heavy handed tactics by the replacement troops, it all started to fall apart again. I can tell you now, one of the first things taught in the classroom to SF Soldiers is "HEARTS AND MINDS, HEARTS AND MINDS, IT WILL ALWAYS DO BETTER THAN GUNS AND AMMO". And if you speak to any SF Soldiers, retired or active, they will tell you the same thing. It is easier to get people to stop trying to kill you if you treat them right than by "running and gunning" as I like to call it.

Fiasco was written by Thomas E. Ricks., of the Washington Post. Perhaps I'll read it.
But regardless of what Mr. Ricks' book might state, I still stand by my statement that you can never win the hearts and minds of a people whose country you're occupying.
Obviously whatever the troops are doing in that area isn't working, though they may have the best intentions. I know that if it were the other way around, Americans would never stop fighting back (hopefully against troops and not civilians, but you never know). I wouldn't expect Iraqis to behave any differently.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
First of all The USA must begin by being honest brokers of Peace in the Middle East. This means we do not take sides....................

If people in the Middle East see this they will not refuse to work with us. They will work with us and we would be justified in our actions and even aided when we needed help if there are problems. No one is going to trust a hypocrite, no one is going to aid a crooked cop.

Well, Pie Man, if we have to be messing around in their affairs at all, that would be the proper way to go about it. Even-handedness would probably see better results then favoritism. But from what I understand, these middle-east terrorists are angry over our very presence there. Of course, one could hardly blame them, the way we've treated them. If, however, we did start treating everyone over there the same, I really think they would keep killing just because we were there.
I would like to believe that you are right, and they would "work with us", but I kinda think it wouldn't change anything. The damage has been done.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
IMHO, the war on terror is about as useful as a war on murder. It's just impossible to secure ourselves from being at the wrong place at the wrong time if you are leading a normal life. Of course you can take measures to help prevent terrorism, but our government fails to realize you can't destroy an idea. There will always be some crazy people doing crazy things out there.

By amping up all the terror threats, the government in itself is comitting acts of terror. en.wikipedia.org... They fear monger us into doing what they want.

So to answer the OP's question if terrorism can be stopped, my answer is that it's highly unlikely, as I said you can't stop an idea. But a step in the right direction would be to stop invading other countries to start endless wars.

It brings a tear to my eye to say this, but sadly we are probobly closer to a police state then we think, and when they drop the hammer on us I'm sure most citizens will be all too willing to give up what little rights they have left.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join