What is Terrorism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:
Are terrorists just terrorists?
[/quote]Yes[quote]

When should a state negotiate with terrorists?
[/quote]Never[quote]

How far can a state legitimately go to attack terrorists?
[/quote]Until they are exterminated[quote]

Can a democratically elected government be written off as just terrorists? Under what circumstances? [/quote]

If they are a terrorist organization, what has changed if they are “elected” by a sympathizing local population? Terrorists are terrorists…

What are terrorists? A terrorist group is one that plans a generally “low tech” surprise attacks on civilian populations at markets, on buses or as people go about their daily lives, often employing suicide bombers. These attacks are designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties and invoke fear and “terror” in the population they’ve decided to “jihad”.

They are not legitimate, nor do they deserved to be given the benefit of the doubt. The only proper way to deal with terrorists is to kill all of them before they indiscriminately kill us. (“us” being defined as rational human beings who don’t blow up people because they have a different religion than “us”)
[/quote]

Suicide terrorism is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Yes, because religious terrorism of the Islamic flavor is the only kind that exists or has ever existed.

Killing alone does not constitute effective counterterrorism. In fact, such a myopic approach will often exacerbate terrorism.

22

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

That is bullshit. Clinton didn’t kill bin Laden when he had the chances (plural) because didn’t have the balls to deal with the consequences. It’s easier to blow it off and let someone else deal with it, is the Democrat way.

That is why he did nothing to stop the North Korean nuclear program. It’s typical behavior for Democrats. Just like how Obama is doing nothing to stop the Iranian program.

Clinton had chances to kill Bin Laden where he didn’t have to kill lots of people. But just for the sake of argument lets say he would have had to kill three hundred people in Kandahar. When Bin laden attacked two American embassies in Africa he killed 224 people and wounded 4000. So even if what Clinton says is true the killing would not have been out of proportion to what Bin Laden already had done.

23

What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?

24

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?

25

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

That is bullshit. Clinton didn’t kill bin Laden when he had the chances (plural) because didn’t have the balls to deal with the consequences. It’s easier to blow it off and let someone else deal with it, is the Democrat way.

That is why he did nothing to stop the North Korean nuclear program. It’s typical behavior for Democrats. Just like how Obama is doing nothing to stop the Iranian program.

Clinton had chances to kill Bin Laden where he didn’t have to kill lots of people. But just for the sake of argument lets say he would have had to kill three hundred people in Kandahar. When Bin laden attacked two American embassies in Africa he killed 224 people and wounded 4000. So even if what Clinton says is true the killing would not have been out of proportion to what Bin Laden already had done.

[/quote]

The DPRK broke the Agreed Framework established in 1994 and withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and went on to become a nuclear weapons state in 2006. Is the Bush administration to blame?

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

26

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

That is bullshit. Clinton didn’t kill bin Laden when he had the chances (plural) because didn’t have the balls to deal with the consequences. It’s easier to blow it off and let someone else deal with it, is the Democrat way.

That is why he did nothing to stop the North Korean nuclear program. It’s typical behavior for Democrats. Just like how Obama is doing nothing to stop the Iranian program.

Clinton had chances to kill Bin Laden where he didn’t have to kill lots of people. But just for the sake of argument lets say he would have had to kill three hundred people in Kandahar. When Bin laden attacked two American embassies in Africa he killed 224 people and wounded 4000. So even if what Clinton says is true the killing would not have been out of proportion to what Bin Laden already had done.

[/quote]

The DPRK broke the Agreed Framework established in 1994 and withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and went on to become a nuclear weapons state in 2006. Is the Bush administration to blame?

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks. [/quote]

I agree with Bismarck. The Obama administration was able to rally world support and consensus to impose what is literally the most severe sanctions regime in world history. No other administration was able to do this. Tehran was forced to the bargaining table, which could potentially eliminate the need for a costly military campaign. As tough as IRI leaders try to appear in front of the camera, the reality is they are all scarred shitless about the longevity of the Islamic Republic and constantly obsess over the prospect of being bombed. Any increased regional influence is due to wars from the previous administration that wiped out two of their largest nemeses, and also the relative ease of exerting soft power in the Middle East.

As far as what terrorism is, I think of it like porn (you know it when you see it).

27

[quote]Bismark wrote:

. . . Along with American foreign policy and economic interests, not that there is anything wrong with that. The American phenomenon of treating every uniformed service member as a “hero” and champion of democracy is naive to say the least.
[/quote]

You won’t catch me disagreeing with you on that. I personally believe that it is a swing of the pendulum in reaction to how a lot of the Vietnam vets were treated when they came home (“baby killer” etc.). Of course it allows a lot of political “heartstrings” play, but…

Given one or the other I would definitely have to choose this swing over that–even given the dissolution of the draft leading to an all volunteer army, nobody coming back from deployment deserves to be called those kinds of filthy things. Naive most probably, but much more civil than the other extreme.

28

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Bombing facilities is an effective option. Invasion could be a very easy and effective option as well. When we had the army in Iraq we could have easily pushed across Iran.

29

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?[/quote]

Germany, Japan, Iraq.

30

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

That is bullshit. Clinton didn’t kill bin Laden when he had the chances (plural) because didn’t have the balls to deal with the consequences. It’s easier to blow it off and let someone else deal with it, is the Democrat way.

That is why he did nothing to stop the North Korean nuclear program. It’s typical behavior for Democrats. Just like how Obama is doing nothing to stop the Iranian program.

Clinton had chances to kill Bin Laden where he didn’t have to kill lots of people. But just for the sake of argument lets say he would have had to kill three hundred people in Kandahar. When Bin laden attacked two American embassies in Africa he killed 224 people and wounded 4000. So even if what Clinton says is true the killing would not have been out of proportion to what Bin Laden already had done.

[/quote]

The DPRK broke the Agreed Framework established in 1994 and withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and went on to become a nuclear weapons state in 2006. Is the Bush administration to blame?

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks. [/quote]

No Bush is not to blame. Clinton had the opportunity to invade the North and stop them. But instead of doing that he let Jimmy Carter go there and negotiate a deal whereby the NK’s agreed to shut down their reactor that was producing plutonium which is one of the transuranic elements that can be used as fuel for a bomb.

Clinton and Carter then lied and played this off as crisis avoided because we’ve stopped them from making plutonium. But the agreement contained a loophole because it didn’t say they couldn’t enrich uranium which is also a bomb fuel. So they quietly went about enriching uranium. When they were eventually caught they had enough for several bombs. That is when they left the NPT.

Which brings back to my previous point about Democrats doing the bare minimum possible to avoid dealing with a problem on their watch and pass it on to their successor. There is no way allowing uranium enrichment was merely an oversight either. When Jimmy Carter was in the navy he was a nuclear propulsion specialist, he knows how to operate a nuclear reactor.

The Iranians haven’t been stopped. By now they must have enough fuel for several weapons.

31

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?[/quote]

ever hear of something called a rhetorical question?

32

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Bombing facilities is an effective option. Invasion could be a very easy and effective option as well. When we had the army in Iraq we could have easily pushed across Iran. [/quote]

Bush wanted very badly to topple the Iranian regime, among others. If it was easy it would have definitely been done. That would have put America in three separate fronts.

Invasion is an effective option, but calling it easy is a leap. Iraq wasn’t easy and cost a lot of American lives and treasure. It was enough of a struggle to make Americans generally weary of any other potential military engagements this many years past the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Think back to the lead up of the Iraq invasion and how gung-ho most editorial boards (liberal and conservative) and politicians (Dems and Reps) were for going to war. Compare that to the past few years when potential conflicts came up and it’s obvious the response is dramatically different. That’s because invasions aren’t easy, even if they’re justified.

33

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?[/quote]

Germany, Japan, Iraq. [/quote]

The U.S. did not go to war with Germany and Japan to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons, and neither were on the cusp of becoming nuclear weapon states. There is no indication that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability prior to the Iraq War, or that it even had an active nuclear program. It was not a preemptive invasion, but a preventative one. Iraq was a war of choice that greatly injured American grand strategy.

34

Clinton could have toppled Saddam easily and set up some sort of power sharing arrangement and moderately stable government, but it probably wouldn’t have lasted long. The neocon clique were pushing for it all through the late 90’s. But the neocons were of course nincompoops who pushed an asinine “democracy building project” abroad and didn’t realise the changes brought about 911 and the second intifada. Clinton and Albright were typical liberals - essentially they supported the same failed “democracy building” framework but used soft power whereas the neocons preferred force.

The “democracy project” spans both parties, left and right and has been the main foreign policy theme for decades with a number of think tanks and front groups to push their agendas.

Reagan operated under this framework but he actually had some success because he backed the pro-Western anti-Communists in Eastern Europe. Carter was not part of the democracy building movement because his policy was guided by a kook(Zbigniew Brzezinski). Kissinger was the most skilled foreign policist in modern times even though I disagree with him on much. Kennedy was the last President who had a relatively wise foreign policy. Pre-LBJ America did not try to build democracies out of banana republics. They backed right-wing military juntas against Soviet backed Marxists.

As a side note, liberal democracy builders seem to keep leaving their diplomats to the mercy of the natives they’re trying to democratise:

According to several accounts, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Prudence Bushnell repeatedly asked Washington for additional security at the embassy in Nairobi, including in an April 1998 letter directly to Albright. Bushnell was ignored. In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke writes about an exchange with Albright several months after the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in August 1998. “What do you think will happen if you lose another embassy?” Clarke asked. “The Republicans in Congress will go after you.” “First of all, I didn’t lose these two embassies,” Albright shot back. “I inherited them in the shape they were.”

Benghazi = A “phoney scandal” concocted by Republicans.

East Africa Embassy Bombings = Bush I’s fault.

Go figure.

35

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Multilateral and comprehensive Economic sanctions have devastated the Iranian economy, and in conjunction with the specter of a concerted bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear facilities, forced Tehran to the bargaining table in the P5+1 nuclear talks.

[/quote]

To claim the sanctions on Iran have been successful is a specious argument. Turki bin Faisal correctly described Iran as a paper tiger with real claws. Yes, their economy has been harmed by sanctions but its hard power and nuclear program remain in tact. The nuclear negotiations are just a farce that Iran cynically uses to extract concessions and buy time. They recently admitted to manufacturing detonators for nuclear bombs and they’ve just been given a four month extension on negotiations. The sanctions have in no way achieved their objective. Quite the contrary.

36

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Bombing facilities is an effective option. Invasion could be a very easy and effective option as well. When we had the army in Iraq we could have easily pushed across Iran. [/quote]

Bush wanted very badly to topple the Iranian regime, among others. If it was easy it would have definitely been done. That would have put America in three separate fronts.

Invasion is an effective option, but calling it easy is a leap. Iraq wasn’t easy and cost a lot of American lives and treasure. It was enough of a struggle to make Americans generally weary of any other potential military engagements this many years past the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Think back to the lead up of the Iraq invasion and how gung-ho most editorial boards (liberal and conservative) and politicians (Dems and Reps) were for going to war. Compare that to the past few years when potential conflicts came up and it’s obvious the response is dramatically different. That’s because invasions aren’t easy, even if they’re justified.[/quote]

What stopped Bush was the 2006 mid term elections gave the gave the congress to the Democrats. I remember right after that seeing an interview with Nancy Pelosi where she said we are going to stop Bush from attacking Iran. She is a fucking idiot who had no solution of her own.

The initial invasion of Iraq was extremely easy and cost very few lives. What was costly was fighting for control of urban areas and the subsequent occupation.

The same thing happened to the Germans when they went into Stalingrad.If they had bypassed Stalingrad they could have rolled into the Caucuses and captured the oil fields. It was the urban combat that cost them.

As long as we stayed out of the cities and didn’t try to occupy anything more than would be necessary to secure supply lines, our army could have moved at will to any location in Iran worth looking into.

37

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?[/quote]

Germany, Japan, Iraq. [/quote]

The U.S. did not go to war with Germany and Japan to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons, and neither were on the cusp of becoming nuclear weapon states. There is no indication that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability prior to the Iraq War, or that it even had an active nuclear program. It was not a preemptive invasion, but a preventative one. Iraq was a war of choice that greatly injured American grand strategy.[/quote]

The question was “what countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them?”. The invasion of Germany most definitely stopped them from developing nuclear weapons. The reason why Germany was made the priority to defeat is because they could develop nuclear weapons. So I am right and you are wrong.

Besides that there were operations like the Telemark raid which were meant to stop the German nuclear program. There was a special group of Manhattan project scientists whose mission was to track the German program and to secure sites and scientists during the invasion. The Hiroshima bomb was made using intercepted Uranium that was intended for the Japanese to use.

Iraq was very much looking to reconstitute it’s weapons programs. Just because they weren’t far along the path that doesn’t change the fact that something needed to be done.

38

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too

39

…

“What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?”

=/=

“what countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them?”.

I really do not like it when people don’t actually respond to what is written. I honestly feel that people failing to deal with what the other people actually say/write in an honest manner is what causes most bullshit. So, please, actually take the time to see what I wrote instead of (wrongly) reconstituting it into your own words.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Bombing facilities is an effective option. Invasion could be a very easy and effective option as well. When we had the army in Iraq we could have easily pushed across Iran. [/quote]

Yes, the U.S. military can pretty much stomp on just about any other military right now, assuming that it is given free rein.

But what are you going to do after you conquered the land? Just leave? Stay there and get stuck like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Regarding an invasion of N. Korea- there’s a reason why no one has attempted that since the end of the Korean War-

  1. N. Korea has a fucking huge army. Regardless of technological differences, ~1.1 million active duty and ~9 million reserve is still 10 million men. The U.S. cannot beat that without a sizable mobilization of its own; something the U.S. hasn’t actually done since the end of the Vietnam War, and totally impracticable given the volunteer army of today.

  2. Back in the early 90s China was still a huge ally of N. Korea and not at all what China is today. Invading N. Korea would cause China to come to its defense.

  3. N. Korea has enough artillery leveled at the entire region of Seoul to demolish a good portion of it within minutes. Seoul is essentially the heart of S. Korea, and destroying Seoul means the S. Korean economy goes along with it. Plus millions of citizens.

As Bismark wrote, Obama has levied some rather tremendous economic sanctions against Iran. Whether economic sanctions are truly effective or not I don’t know; but I think one can reasonably say that Obama has done everything in his power outside of just invading and blowing everything up.

And I don’t think Obama can convince enough people in Congress, and the public in general, into backing such an undertaking, especially after the fatigue gained from the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In other words… Things are a lot more complex than being just “Oh Democrats are cowards!”

40

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.