Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Terrorism. I doubt anybody will argue at its definition. An act that is designed to cause terror. Well I find two problems with this, terrorism is decided by the point of view of the victim, and second people misinterpret this act. It is not an act that is designed to kill massive amounts of people. They could have caused a oil tanker to get rerouted to ram ashore, or blow it up. It might kill the crew and thousands of wildlife bu the effect would still be there. I'll bet the US's actions would have been the same. The most strategic place to committ terrorism is not always synonymous with a viable military target. And back to the point of view. A person could validly call a tanker blowing up a major act of terrorism that needs to be extraniously punished, because it forced us to change our lives. A person in Mozambique probably couldn't give two ****s about oil.
This is why I believe the terrorists have already made us change our lifestyle. We believe we need to be more secure, so we pay more for protection. Most people plan on two hours of waiting in line at airports, as opposed to the 15 minutes tops I remember from pre-9-11. For godskaes we made another cabinet member that is incharge of age old instatutions just like that. We've fought two wars and lost over 2000 men. While statistcally thats the least of any war we've had, it stil is not acceptable anymore. You can look at three ways. Statiscally, it took them 21 men and four planes, probably 200,000-300,000 worth of funding, and a good idea to directly kill 3000+ people and start wars that would kill 2000 US soldiers, and countless civilians (est 40,000). Statisically and militaristically, they won.
Socally. our country is divided in half about the war. While most support our troops, they don't support the war. I'd say that many believe that we need to find a graceful way to pul out of this as they seemed to have realized we didn't win. And this has narrowed down progress or at least hindered it since for a while everything was in regards 9/11 or Terrorism.
This explination has been made clear to me in my other thread. Exetremists are responsible for this. Extremists are the ones who blow themselves up for Allah. So in a sense, our war is on extremism. Which as has been pointed out gracfully by Xerxes, is a nessicary evil in any society, to balance out and set the norms. So we are fighting an immpossible battle here. Your thoughts.
Three Companies of the 26th Vinancium
143rd Airborne Badgers (99.9% done)
159th Corsair Rifles (35% done))
69th Armored Wall Busters (95% done)
Total 197 men, 12 tanks, 4 Heavy Artillery Pieces
There are two schools of thought on the current War of Terror, both have very good arguments and I can't decide which one I want to side with.
One school of thought is that it provides a power and benefit to those already in power, thus it has been manufactured and blown out of proportion for their benifit.
The other is that the threat is very real, there are cells and sleeper cells everywhere.
As I said, the arguments for both are very convincing. There is plenty of evidence that intelligence has gotten the threat level wrong, it is a lot less than believed. There are also plenty of theories that the threat is very real. Evidence usually shows that theories are wrong, but I guess I'm too attached to the idea that the theories might be true.
The problem I have with this "War on Terror" is that all the "new initiatives" and "security measures" and whathaveyou, by definition cause terror themselves because they remind everyone that people have died. I agree that there are problems with extremists of whichever belief system they follow, specifically going out and killing in order to cause more panic and fear than already exists; but I see the acceptance of the erosion of freedoms and personal liberties to be more terrifying than any extremist with a vest of C4. When it comes down to it, by constantly saying to everyone "Be alert, not alarmed" prevents people from living the life they had before. Fair enough there has been a number of attacks on Western Countries, but I wouldn't say that it's anything unusual when you consider how long this has been going on ( the crusades mean anything to anyone?). How much longer before you are not allowed to carry car keys because they could be used as a weapon? How long before car remote locking keyrings are banned because they could be used as triggers for bombs? It's all gotten out of hand.
Anything that causes a person to fear is technically a terrorist action, and so even pointing a finger at someone in a threatening manner could be taken as a a matter for national security.
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
"The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise"-Lenin
Every time you read this sig: a fairie dies!
Superlative, Marcus. Why arent you studying a doctorate? Any idiotic ****er can post a quote; that doesnt require any effort. I may yet have to take my modstick out of the virtual realm and batter you across the noggin if you insist on posting this kind of inane cack in Enhanced.
Terrorism, or the war on thereof, is something that I currently see as a tool so that the people in power stay there. Something that while things at home are collapsing due to bureacracy and people grabbing what they can, politicans can point to and blame for the real problems. I personally am not of the belief that terrorism is as widespread as is held to be by the powers that be; who are lying ****-eating rapist douchebags, frankly.
The front page of todays Independent has the See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil about the alledged torture flights (which due to my opinion, I would believe). Under speak no evil, the following:Lying. Bastards.Originally Posted by Front Page of UK Independent, Wed 14/12/05
A viewpoint shared by Simon Carr, who gives a scathing comment on the next page. Todays edition is worth shelling 65p on, if only for that.
I really should take over the world and impose myself as a benevolent dictator. Hmm... now thats an idea..
"It fits like clothes made out of wasps!"
Ask a silly question and you get a silly answer.
If I have to elaborate I will.
Terrorism will never overthrow a country. It didnt work for the IRA and it wont work for Al-Quaeda. Terrorist acts kill a tiny percentage of the population and they are designed to intimidate.
The July 7th Terrorist bombings although a trgedy killed less than 60 people out of 6 million who regularly use the underground or a bus. As a percentage thats 0.001% of all travelers. The next day I know people who didnt go in to work.
As for the Terrorism is a conspiracy to keep people in power. Come on, politicians are still human. That said a threat of invasion/terrorism is a useful leadership tool. Churchill greatly overstated the threat of invasion from Germany in operation Sea Lion in 1940/41. the threat was low but people needed something to focus on.
And on torture, I do think its wrong. But if t comes down to it I would rather see 1 psychopath tortured than 50 innocent people killed. Its not right but the lesser of 2 evils.
I think I may pop-out to get the Independant though.
Every time you read this sig: a fairie dies!
but really, what would be the point of ruling the world if you're going to be benevolent?Originally Posted by Phobos
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
I believe it is spawned from frustration, they are the little people getting run over. They cant defend themselves or declare war and expect to have a fighting chance.
their reasons are obvious;
* to get the world to turn their heads
* create a wave of fear
* paralyze/change our minds/ways
I dont like terrorism(how could one) but i do understand why its there.How you know its a psychopath?Originally Posted by Wings of Doom
must really suck to be innocent and get tortured... "sorry we just ****ed up some of your nervsystem or whatever, hope its alright... dont worry, your eyes should stop twitching within the year or so".
Last edited by danceman; December 14th, 2005 at 11:16.
""What's the matter? Don't ya like clowns? Don't we make ya laugh?" - Captain Spaulding.
This is a completely personal definition, I'm not claiming any sort of authority or "rightness" here.
Now that's out of the way, I've always thought of terrorism as guerilla warfare, which in addition may or not be practiced against civilian targets.
It is a method of war used not so much by cowards (as it's victims often state) but by people who are outgunned and could not possibly win in a conventional war, but are nonetheless committed to victory over their enemies. I think it is merely war not played by the rules; intelligent war if you will.
I'll back that but only if you promise to make me minister of offence...Originally Posted by Phobos
Anyway the problem with terrorism is that it is subjective. If you are a civillian sitting in your house and a British/Isreali/American/Whatever plane drops a bomb on your house killing your family then from that perspective the governments that have ordered it are terroists. If your sitting in a cafe/hotel etc. and a muslim/jewish/christian/other person comes in and blows it up killing people in it from your point of view those people and the people that back them are terrorists.
As per usual everything depends on your point of view "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" a cliche perhaps but most things are cliches because they are true.