1. The military must find the terrorists and kill them (kill the ones that are planning to attack or have attacked, only)

2. Since terrorists use fear as a weapon (most common definition), we (citizens) should not make any changes to our daily lives as result of fear. No changes in secuirity, no extra vigilance of any kind on the part of civilians. The terrorists have not achieved their goals if nobody is afraid of them. Their goals are to make us change our lives.

3. Find long term solutions to decreasing hatred toward the usa and radicalism that lead to the creation of more terrorists.



Id say the current admin only roughly agrees with #1.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 3:47 AM. Reason : -]

9/28/2006 3:38:03 AM

Taken individually, they all sound stupid.

9/28/2006 4:31:36 AM

well, if you only do one of these, youd be fucked.

9/28/2006 4:34:28 AM

I don't think the citizens are cool with number two, just 'cause the average person probably would prefer the government to attempt to keep them safe... But it is true...

9/28/2006 5:02:34 AM

Quote :

" No changes in secuirity, no extra vigilance of any kind on the part of civilians. The terrorists have not achieved their goals if nobody is afraid of them. Their goals are to make us change our lives. "

I was with you until you said that. Are you fucking retarded. Not only are these guys terrorists, but they're mass murderers as well. Our response can't be to bend over and wait for the boot.

9/28/2006 7:43:16 AM

Quote :

"Our response can't be to bend over and wait for the boot."

Quote :

"The military must find the terrorists and kill them"

so.....can you read?

the idea that we're all suppose to be fucking paranoid crusaders out to sniff every turban wearing brownie for fertilizer is fucking WRONG

9/28/2006 7:50:25 AM

Well, strictly speaking if 1. is done completely, then we wouldn't have to do any of the other 2 because there would be no terrorists that make it far enough to attack us.

I thought this thread was about the real world though.

9/28/2006 7:51:44 AM

Well, if you see a terrorist doing something, in those rare cases of course you can be a hero. But thats distinct from being a paraniod insomniac on flights that watches the actions of everyone onboard.



[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 8:03 AM. Reason : h]

9/28/2006 8:02:04 AM

I agree with 1 & 3, but I disagree with you on point number 2.

Quote :

"Since terrorists use fear as a weapon (most common definition), we (citizens) should not make any changes to our daily lives as result of fear. No changes in secuirity, no extra vigilance of any kind on the part of civilians. The terrorists have not achieved their goals if nobody is afraid of them. Their goals are to make us change our lives."

Following a successful terrorist attack, there should always be a review of security procedures. If it turns out there was a failure in our safety network, then there should be adjustments to secure it. Not saying that we should have people running out and buying duct tape or spying on their neighbors, but it is stupid to not try and improve security in a reasonable fashion.

9/28/2006 8:03:31 AM

Quote :

"f it turns out there was a failure in our safety network, then there should be adjustments to secure it."

Then I should have been more clear. People involved in the 'safety network' arent included in the group i called citizens. I am talking about joe shmoe, no connection to any kind of formal secuity procedures.



i am suprised nobody has nailed me on number one for not include "and any country is known with certainty to harbors them". that should be there.


[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 8:11 AM. Reason : k]

9/28/2006 8:04:31 AM

Quote :

"2. Since terrorists use fear as a weapon (most common definition), we (citizens) should not make any changes to our daily lives as result of fear. No changes in secuirity, no extra vigilance of any kind on the part of civilians. The terrorists have not achieved their goals if nobody is afraid of them. Their goals are to make us change our lives."

So the terrorist's new plan would be to do increasingly violent things until they get the results they are looking for. And since we still have the same old security holes it would be that much easier.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 8:43 AM. Reason : -]

9/28/2006 8:42:56 AM

^ try reading the thread.

Quote :

"People involved in the 'safety network' arent included in the group i called citizens. I am talking about joe shmoe, no connection to any kind of formal secuity procedures."

9/28/2006 8:45:37 AM

being more aware =/ living in fear

9/28/2006 9:33:40 AM

Interesting observations from an unlikely source:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_GENERAL_ASSEMBLY_VATICAN?

SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-28-02-29-08

Quote :

"Vatican: Extremists Undermining Religion UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The Vatican's foreign minister said Wednesday that misunderstanding between cultures is breeding a "new barbarism" and expressed hope that reason and dialogue would stop those who use their faith as a pretext for attacks. In a speech on the closing day of the U.N. General Assembly's ministerial meeting, Giovanni Lajolo said extremists are far from devout and undermine the very religion they claim to defend. "Violent reactions are always a falsification of true religion," Lajolo said in a passage devoted to the pope's Sept. 12 speech at Regensburg University in Germany. Benedict XVI quoted words attributed to a 14th century Byzantine emperor: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Muslims angered by the remarks took to the streets in Indonesia, Turkey and Syria. Churches were attacked in the West Bank; an effigy of the pope was burned in Iraq; and a nun was shot dead in Somalia in an apparently related attack. Lajolo reiterated the Vatican's view that Benedict's remarks were misinterpreted. He said the pope has sought only to promote rational dialogue and understanding. Benedict has expressed regret for offending Muslims and said they did not reflect his personal views, but he has not offered a complete apology as some had sought. Lajolo suggested that the anger may also lie in the lack of understanding between religions, and a schism between reason and faith. "As the Pope affirmed, were reason to turn a deaf ear to the divine and relegate religion to the ambit of subcultures, it would automatically provoke violent reactions," Lajolo, who also serves as president of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State, told the assembly. "It falls to all interested parties - to civil society as well as to states - to promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance that will disarm extremists even before they can begin to corrupt others with their hatred of life and liberty," he said. Lajolo referred to the story of the Tower of Babel, saying the "confusion of tongues" in the Biblical city was a symbol of fracturing and hostilities in the contemporary world. "Human pride hampers the acknowledgment of one's neighbor and the recognition of his or her needs and even more makes people distrusting," he said. "Today, that same negative fundamental attitude has given rise to a new barbarism that threatens world peace," the Vatican minister said. Terrorists bent on "rejecting the best achievements of our civilization" are one example, Lajolo said. Major powers, in their attempt to make the world more fair, may also occasionally slide into believing that this can only be achieved by force, he said. "It can go so far as to regard the possession of nuclear weapons as an element of national pride," he said. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy."

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ...]

9/28/2006 11:44:46 AM

Quote :

"being more aware is the same thing as living in fear "

9/28/2006 1:18:44 PM

Quote :

"Josh8315: seriously though i am a troll"

9/28/2006 1:26:14 PM

I actually agree with Twista. Just because I am aware of the possibility a jihadist could drop a plane on my head, doesn't mean I fear it.

9/28/2006 1:27:44 PM

^

9/28/2006 1:29:44 PM

I agree with Twista on that point too. However, he seems to be implying that as a society we haven't grown more afraid of islamic terrorism. I think that's patently false.

9/28/2006 1:46:56 PM

Agreed.

9/28/2006 1:48:25 PM

its true...but we are aware of the danger now...there is nothing to be done about that...

1) no problem

2) "fingers in ears...fingers in ears...."...i, nor anyone i know lives in fear of terrorists. (some would say they live in fear of the big bad government now...but they are partisan hacks who carry no weight) If we are aware of certain dangers and dont try to protect ourselves from them, then we are just asking to get nailed. No extra security? give me a break

3) Finding "long term solutions to decrease the hatred towards america" is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. We should NOT go around whining "oh nooo they hate us!! what can we do different!!" ...we can work with them to resolve our differences and hopefully some compromises can be reached..

9/28/2006 2:05:54 PM

Quote :

"Id say the current admin only roughly agrees with #1."

they may agree with it but they are doing a half-ass job of doing it

9/28/2006 2:06:38 PM

9/28/2006 2:12:22 PM

Quote :

"3) Finding "long term solutions to decrease the hatred towards america" is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. "

Ummm....its the THIRD point. so its not possible to put less emphasis on it if its going to be on the list.

Quote :

"If we are aware of certain dangers and dont try to protect ourselves from them, then we are just asking to get nailed. No extra security? give me a break"

I never said that secuirity persons shouldnt adapt. Try reading.

Quote :

"Just because I am aware of the possibility a jihadist could drop a plane on my head, doesn't mean I fear it."

One doesnt NEED the other, the fact is that many people are indeed afraid of terrorism, and do think about it frequently. The media and bush admin only make the problem worse becuase it suits their interests.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : 243]

9/28/2006 3:53:13 PM

doesn't the US harbor cuban terrorists?? i guess it is alright to harbor terrorists when their target country is someone we do not like.

9/28/2006 4:07:03 PM

of course. terrorism is fine. we've supported terrorists before. we would do it again. as a general military rule though, you dont attack your own country.

9/28/2006 4:22:02 PM

Quote :

"the fact is that many people are indeed afraid of terrorism, and do think about it frequently. The media and bush admin only make the problem worse becuase it suits their interests. "

and global warming fearmongers spread around their own propaganda also

9/28/2006 4:34:43 PM

if by propaganda you mean peer-reviewed scientific findings

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 4:36 PM. Reason : 34]

9/28/2006 4:36:00 PM

by "terrorism propaganda" you mean what happened on 9/11

9/28/2006 4:45:54 PM

there is only one way to defeat such forces bent on trying to crush the west. we saw it work in ww2 with our military campaign and in the cold war with reagan's defense plan.

overwhelming force and military power.

9/28/2006 5:06:22 PM

dude

The day the search me fifty times before getting on a plane

because its hot outside

is the day you might come within the ballpark of having a point with what you just said.

9/28/2006 5:32:02 PM

^^ yea hows that going? we've a few hundred thousand troops in the middle east....their attacks were led by one man, bin laden.

so .... hes been captured, right?

9/28/2006 5:34:12 PM

Randy

The Cold War wasn't won by "overwhelming force and power."

9/28/2006 5:35:43 PM

Quote :

"and global warming fearmongers spread around their own propaganda also"

That's the dumbest statement I have read in a while.

Wow.

9/28/2006 5:37:02 PM

Quote :

"by "terrorism propaganda" you mean what happened on 9/11"

does bush use 911 in unrelated topics, does he use the towers to stage photo-ops?

no....we've never seen that

9/28/2006 5:38:48 PM

^^you must not read very often

either that, or you've watched thousands of people die on tv from global warming, like you've seen thousands of people die on tv (ie 9/11) from terrorism

9/29/2006 10:34:24 AM

Global warming could be the cause for floods killing hundreds of thousands or the systematic starvation of a population because they can't grow the crops they need to survive.

9/29/2006 10:41:59 AM

Quote :

"Global warming could be the cause "

Terrorism was the cause of 9/11

9/29/2006 10:50:26 AM

Yea, but what about all the other "terrorism propaganda" which is what I am speaking to? You know, the turrurist in Iraq?

9/29/2006 11:06:12 AM

9/29/2006 11:07:24 AM

so claiming Katrina is a clear result of global warming isnt "global wurrming propaganda"?

9/29/2006 11:08:27 AM

Answer my question first Mr. I Don't Know Why I Am Here

9/29/2006 11:16:29 AM

this question:

Quote :

"what about all the other "terrorism propaganda" which is what I am speaking to? You know, the turrurist in Iraq?"

what about the propaganda? what the fuck are you asking? formulate a concise question instead of just hopping up and down on my dick

9/29/2006 11:23:55 AM

the trolls pleads for clarity

9/29/2006 1:16:23 PM

when did you plead for clarity??

9/29/2006 1:24:17 PM

i dont refer to myself in the 3rd person

9/29/2006 1:26:56 PM

TGD, I wonder if anyone knows the context of that photograph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Van_Lem

Quote :

"Nguyen Van Lem was the real name of Captain Bay Lop (died 1 February 1968 in Saigon), a member of the Viet Cong who was summarily executed in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. The execution was captured on film by photojournalist Eddie Adams, and the momentous image became a symbol of highly escalated and often indiscriminate hostility to anti-war protestors. The execution was explained at the time as being the consequence of Lem's suspected guerrilla activity and war crimes, and otherwise due to a general "wartime mentality." On the second day of Tet, amid fierce street fighting, Lem was captured and brought to Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, then Chief of the Republic of Viet Nam National Police. Using his personal sidearm, General Loan summarily executed Lem in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams and NBC television cameraman Vo Suu. The photograph and footage were broadcast worldwide, galvanizing the anti-war movement; Adams won a 1969 Pulitzer Prize for his photograph. South Vietnamese sources said that Lem commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lem was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. (In some accounts, the deputy was a victim as well; in others, the number of murdered relatives were as few as six.) Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lem's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong and she did not see him after the Tet Offensive began. Shortly after the execution, a South Vietnamese official who had not been present said that Lem was only a political operative. Though military lawyers have yet to definitively decide whether Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war (Lem had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes), the rights of POW status were limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations. Those designated as guerrillas were subject only to the laws of the South Vietnamese government, which was often less willing to protect the human rights of its enemy when compared to other countries."

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM. Reason : interesting]

10/3/2006 8:29:15 PM

^

I did not know that.

10/4/2006 10:47:35 AM