# How Dangerous Is Terrorism?

• News
Entropy
Is terrorism really that big of a problem in America? Of course 9/11 was awful, but does it really prompt so much fuss? I mean how many offical terrorist attacks have happened in the US in the last decade? I can only remember two: 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. But I'm young and only recently started watching the news. I couldn't find any type of list on the internet so I thought we could discuss it here. I was going to make a poll but I forgot how.

So here are my questions:

1. How many offical terrorist attacks have there been on US soil?

2. Does this justicify how the media and the administation have reacted to terrorism?

Jonny_trigonometry
terrorism is definitely not as big of a deal as it's made out to be. It's somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the more it's talked about, the more it's thought about, and the more people think about it, the more ways they think terrorism can manifest, and then they get to the point where they start putting metal detectors in schools and adding more rules to fight the terrorists (homeland security, the patriot act), and making our lives more complicated and stressful, thus leading to more people freaking out and causing a terrorist attack.

in short, it's paranoia. Do you think a paranoid president which is supposed to lead by example is what we need right now?

americans are paying way too much money per day for an insurance policy against terrorism. the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is less than the risk of drowning in your bathtub filled with only an inch of water. Do you have an insurance plan for that? When you go out driving, you're at a far greater risk of dying than you ever would be from dying in a terrorist attack. The administration is very bad at risk assessment.

Last edited:
Jonny_trigonometry said:
americans are paying way too much money per day for an insurance policy against terrorism. the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is less than the risk of drowning in your bathtub filled with only an inch of water. Do you have an insurance plan for that? When you go out driving, you're at a far greater risk of dying than you ever would be from dying in a terrorist attack. The administration is very bad at risk assessment.
You have to consider more than just 'risk of dying'. There are the issue of widespread panic, demoralization, and the huge economic impacts. It's a very serious concern, even if it doesn't happen to kill you specifically.

Jonny_trigonometry said:
...start putting metal detectors in schools and adding more rules to fight the terrorists (homeland security, the patriot act), and making our lives more complicated and stressful, thus leading to more people freaking out and causing a terrorist attack.
? So terrorism is caused by, stressed-out people? Do you look at the screen when you're typing these things, or is it a stream-of-conscious thing?

Smurf
Entropy said:
1. How many offical terrorist attacks have there been on US soil?
How many? You mean like.. ever? Hmmm, what's 'US Soil'?

The answer is A LOT man! I mean.. haha.. funny story.. but a while back me and my mates dressed up in these british uniforms and rowed out to one of their big capital ships right... :rofl: DUDE! We set off sooooo much gunpowder the whole thing was up in da flame in under a minute yo!

Entropy
How many? You mean like.. ever? Hmmm, what's 'US Soil'?

Like in the last decade. "US soil" would mean on US land, specifically homeland, military bases/embassies don't count.

Gold Member
Entropy said:
Like in the last decade. "US soil" would mean on US land, specifically homeland, military bases/embassies don't count.

Well that's a rather odd statement. Is it not frightening when a frigate blows up? Is it not a danger? I mena we DO consider it an act of terrorism. If we considered it an act of war... oh man we would have been bombing countries left and right.

But let's see.. terrorism simply in the last decade? Why only the last decade?

Since its only right to include military adn embassies, we can include the kenyan embassies, the USS Cole, Oklahoma City, Atlanta bombing, WTC on 9/11, WTC in '93 (ok so 12 years...), Khobar towers, Tanzanian embassies...

I feel you might have your own agenda here because narrowing down the subject means your simply looking for something to agree with or to make a point with. I mean let's get real here. The last 10 years is the same as hte last 100 years and embassies are the same as downtown Chicago.

Jonny_trigonometry
rachmaninoff said:
You have to consider more than just 'risk of dying'. There are the issue of widespread panic, demoralization, and the huge economic impacts. It's a very serious concern, even if it doesn't happen to kill you specifically.

? So terrorism is caused by, stressed-out people? Do you look at the screen when you're typing these things, or is it a stream-of-conscious thing?

Well, if everyone wasn't afraid of terrorism then there wouldn't be widespread panic. If everybody is paranoid about it, then many people are afraid of it and there is widespread panic. How moral is it to kill over 100,000 people in an effort to stomp out terrorism? How much of an economic impact is there from spending hundreds of billions towards this effort?

I don't know what it's caused by. People freaking out? people going insane? what do you think?

Most of the time I'm in a specific mode of thought.

Gold Member
Jonny_trigonometry said:
Well, if everyone wasn't afraid of terrorism then there wouldn't be widespread panic. If everybody is paranoid about it, then many people are afraid of it and there is widespread panic. How moral is it to kill over 100,000 people in an effort to stomp out terrorism? How much of an economic impact is there from spending hundreds of billions towards this effort?

So are you saying that if everyone wasn't afraid of AIDS, it would cease to exist? The rest of what you say is just rhetoric.

Jonny_trigonometry
no, that's not the same thing.

AIDS is a syndrome caused by a virus. the equivalent connection would be:
everyone wouldn't have AIDS if HIV would cease to exist.

Terrorism is caused by fear is it not? hence the root word "terror"

ok, well it's not fully caused by fear. It's meant to convey fear into the enemy. Whould desire to make someone fearful would still exist even if the people weren't afraid of your antics? well I guess you've got a point. At least I've helped show that terrorism can't be stomped out.

Last edited:
Jonny_trigonometry
terrorism is an effect caused by many things. Some of them could be hatred, the desire to feel powerful, jealousy, envy, selfishness... what else?

Gold Member
Fear is caused by terrorism, you have it backwards. You don't fear say, Al Qaeda and THEN have them make a tower fall down. You fear them after they do it. Their actions create fear in the general public. The basis of people arguing that terrorism is only terrorism if you fear them is in general, a false basis. If we chose not to fear a terrorist, then these actions are now only correctly described as acts of war. Without the resulting fear, you simply reduce it down to gangland violence and what do you do with gangs? You find them, you arrest them or kill them if need-be.

Whether or not we can define it as terrorism, we must still fight it and we must protect ourselves against it and make the public aware that it exists

What just happened? I read a whole post by Pengwuino, and I entirely agreed with it!

Entropy
Well that's a rather odd statement. Is it not frightening when a frigate blows up? Is it not a danger? I mena we DO consider it an act of terrorism. If we considered it an act of war... oh man we would have been bombing countries left and right.

The point of this thread is to find out wheather or not American citizens are in any significate danger from terrorism to the point where a war against terror is warented. Attacks on military forces in foreign lands doesn't count in this discussion because military forces are intentially putting themselves in harms way.

Is it not frightening when a frigate blows up?

What? That's like asking if someone in Idaho is afraid of being attacked by Iraqi insurgents. If I'm not on the frigate or in the navy, then no, it's not that frightening.

But let's see.. terrorism simply in the last decade? Why only the last decade?
The last 10 years is the same as hte last 100 years and embassies are the same as downtown Chicago.

Because events let's say in 1941, during WWII don't really apply today. Do you think Nazi's sinking American supply ships has anything to do with today's world?

I'm trying to build some statistics on [Islamic] terror attacks that have happened in the recent pass so I can see if the war on terror is justified. Is America in any real danger!

Oklahoma City, Atlanta bombing, WTC on 9/11

Okay, so how many people died because of these? Maybe 6,000? The death of 6,000 innocent civilians over a 10 year period isn't enough to prompt a multi-billion dollar war that has no gaurantee of working.

Okay, so how many people died because of these? Maybe 6,000? The death of 6,000 innocent civilians over a 10 year period isn't enough to prompt a multi-billion dollar war that has no gaurantee of working.

You're talking to a species whose reaction to a single man's death was a war in which 15 million died.

Jonny_trigonometry
Pengwuino said:
Fear is caused by terrorism, you have it backwards. You don't fear say, Al Qaeda and THEN have them make a tower fall down. You fear them after they do it. Their actions create fear in the general public. The basis of people arguing that terrorism is only terrorism if you fear them is in general, a false basis. If we chose not to fear a terrorist, then these actions are now only correctly described as acts of war. Without the resulting fear, you simply reduce it down to gangland violence and what do you do with gangs? You find them, you arrest them or kill them if need-be.

Whether or not we can define it as terrorism, we must still fight it and we must protect ourselves against it and make the public aware that it exists

yes, I realized that as soon as I posted, but I would say that terrorism is partly caused by fear. If terrorism is caused by hate, and fear is complimentary with hate, then fear is partly to blame.

Are human beings estranged in essence? There are two different answers, yes or no.

If yes, then people view other people as strangers right off the bat, and therefore there is an element in every person to be feared. Also, if we are estranged, then we're all on our own, and we've got to look out for ourselves and love ourselves, we've got no room to love others when they get in the way of what we want for ourselves, a comfortable life.

If no, then people view other people as friends right off the bat, and therefore there is no element of fear in every person. Also, if we aren't estranged, then we're all here for each other, and we've got to look out for each other and love each other, we've got no room to hate others because we all want the same thing, a comfortable life.

I would say that the reality lies somewhere in the middle. on one side you have unity, hope, and love. On the other side you have estrangement, fear, and hate. So my point is fear and hate compliment each other, while love and hope also compliment each other.

How should we view other people? what's the good way to be? what should we strive for? loving others and hoping that they won't try to blow us up, or hating others and fearing that they will blow us up?

Jonny_trigonometry
rachmaninoff said:
You're talking to a species whose reaction to a single man's death was a war in which 15 million died.

this would be funny if it wasn't true. You're right on the money here Rachmaninoff.

Gold Member
Entropy said:
The point of this thread is to find out wheather or not American citizens are in any significate danger from terrorism to the point where a war against terror is warented. Attacks on military forces in foreign lands doesn't count in this discussion because military forces are intentially putting themselves in harms way.

But embassies are still fair game in thsi discussion

Entropy said:
Because events let's say in 1941, during WWII don't really apply today. Do you think Nazi's sinking American supply ships has anything to do with today's world?

Yes but airplanes going down in the 80's DO count. You must extend this statistic request (although I feel you already have an opinion and just want evidence to support it and will refuse contradictory information) out to at the very least into the 60's

Entropy said:
I'm trying to build some statistics on [Islamic] terror attacks that have happened in the recent pass so I can see if the war on terror is justified. Is America in any real danger!

Whoa islamic eh? For a second there, I thought terrorism could come from any religion for it to be worthy of. Also, acts of terror must also take into account their effects in the days, weeks, adn months after. As we see with 9/11, an entire industry tanked (airliners) because of it! We had a sudden halt to any plans on building any new skyscrappers in the US for a while... people were fearful of going to various events. Theres of course, reprecusions for the other attacks as well that I don't feel I need to waste space with.

Entropy said:
Okay, so how many people died because of these? Maybe 6,000? The death of 6,000 innocent civilians over a 10 year period isn't enough to prompt a multi-billion dollar war that has no gaurantee of working.

3,000 dead at Pearl Harbor... need I go on? The idea behind a war is not to match death for death and dollar for dollar or calculate some sort of investment opportunity out of it. We do it so a loss of life and destruction will not go on and to return back to a sense of normalcy. For example in WW2... Hitler invaded and all that bad stuff. Now, the allies could have thought about how many people would have to die or how much they would have to spend... but it woudl be rather pointless. You see, when someone commits a crime, we as humans tend to respond with overwhelming force. We do this create a principle on which we hope other people will follow. With Hitler, we fought back in a sense to preserve the principle that people simply cannot invade other nations simply because you don't like them. On a more local level, we throw people in jail for years for assaulting other people or robbing banks. Surely a few cuts and scrapes or a few $100,000 cannot be "worth" putting a man behind bars for a few year but the reason we do do it is because we want to show people that there actions will not be worth it in the end. I mean if we all felt like we were getting "equal odds" when we commit crimes, there'd be chaos! We've done this for as far as I can remember and as you can see, we do not live in chaos and it takes a one in a billion man to start a world war Gold Member Jonny_trigonometry said: How should we view other people? what's the good way to be? what should we strive for? loving others and hoping that they won't try to blow us up, or hating others and fearing that they will blow us up? We shoudl view people exactly how normal people view people; based on how they come off. What your failing to realize is that "good" is not always in line with "logical". When we come up to a group of people who want to and are willing to kill us, the "good" thing to do might be to go up and hug and kiss them. What comes off as logical however, is that we kill them because we already know they will and have killed us before. When Hitler invaded, the "good" thing might have been to run up and hug and kiss and blah blah blah. Logical however, is to fight back. It is very possible for us to eliminate, in particular, islamic terrorism. We have to kill those who try to kill us and to get a powerful force (ie their own religion) to help shy possible future terrorists away from following the violent path. Pengwuino said: Yes but airplanes going down in the 80's DO count. You must extend this statistic request (although I feel you already have an opinion and just want evidence to support it and will refuse contradictory information) out to at the very least into the 60's. Don't make assumptions about his motives. Now, why must he extend the request into the 60s? How are the terrorist attacks of the 1960s related to the modern-day War on Terror? Whoa islamic eh? For a second there, I thought terrorism could come from any religion for it to be worthy of. Also, acts of terror must also take into account their effects in the days, weeks, adn months after. As we see with 9/11, an entire industry tanked (airliners) because of it! We had a sudden halt to any plans on building any new skyscrappers in the US for a while... people were fearful of going to various events. Theres of course, reprecusions for the other attacks as well that I don't feel I need to waste space with. He wants Islamic terrorist attacks to "see if the war on terror is justified." Thus far, the War on Terror has been a War on Islamic Terror, right? Anyway, it's not the War on Terror anymore: it's the "Struggle Against Global Extremism" or something like that now. 3,000 dead at Pearl Harbor... need I go on? The idea behind a war is not to match death for death and dollar for dollar or calculate some sort of investment opportunity out of it. We do it so a loss of life and destruction will not go on and to return back to a sense of normalcy. For example in WW2... Hitler invaded and all that bad stuff. Now, the allies could have thought about how many people would have to die or how much they would have to spend... but it woudl be rather pointless. You see, when someone commits a crime, we as humans tend to respond with overwhelming force. We do this create a principle on which we hope other people will follow. Just out of curiosity, and perhaps on an unrelated tangent: would you consider the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism? With Hitler, we fought back in a sense to preserve the principle that people simply cannot invade other nations simply because you don't like them. This is undeniably the funniest thing I have ever seen you write. Not only are you implicitly comparing Bush to Hitler, but you've just categorically condemned the invasion of Iraq. Entropy But embassies are still fair game in thsi discussion You still fail to understand the point of this topic. Yes but airplanes going down in the 80's DO count. You must extend this statistic request (although I feel you already have an opinion and just want evidence to support it and will refuse contradictory information) out to at the very least into the 60's Yes, yes, yes. I was just throwing "decade" out there. It doesn't matter that you expand the time frame anyway. I'm trying to find out how many American civilians die over X amount of time due to terrorist attacks. Whoa islamic eh? For a second there, I thought terrorism could come from any religion for it to be worthy of. Cmon! Are you implying that the war on terror isn't primarily focused on Islamic fundementists? Or are you just saying that for the sake of disagreeing with me? some sort of investment opportunity out of it. Tell that to Locke Martin. We do it so a loss of life and destruction will not go on and to return back to a sense of normalcy Within what reason? How many American need to die before we go off and kill 100,000 innocent people for prove a principal? One? Ten? A hundred? You see, when someone commits a crime, we as humans tend to respond with overwhelming force. So, if I were to steal a stick of gum it would be within reason to start a globe-wide manhunt consuming millions of dollars so people will think twice before stealing? Because we need to prevent all crimes at all costs, no matter how disporportional the consequences are from the actual crime. With Hitler, we fought back in a sense to preserve the principle that people simply cannot invade other nations simply because you don't like them. Didn't we intern invade Germany because we didn't like the Nazis? You just contradicted yourself there. Not that I'm trying to down play the horrible things the Nazis did. Surely a few cuts and scrapes or a few$100,000 cannot be "worth" putting a man behind bars for a few year but the reason we do do it is because we want to show people that there actions will not be worth it in the end.

What's the point of throwing people in jail if it's not worth it in the end?! Why prevent bank robbery if you aren't saving money?! $100,000 is more than enough to keep someone in prison for a few years. Gold Member Archon said: Don't make assumptions about his motives. Now, why must he extend the request into the 60s? How are the terrorist attacks of the 1960s related to the modern-day War on Terror? .... your kidding right? These organizations are not exactly newly formed and combatting terrorism did not start on 9/11. Archon said: He wants Islamic terrorist attacks to "see if the war on terror is justified." Thus far, the War on Terror has been a War on Islamic Terror, right? Anyway, it's not the War on Terror anymore: it's the "Struggle Against Global Extremism" or something like that now. No... its simply a more public extension of activities being conducted by the US government against many of the same people we have been fighting for decades. Bin Laden didn't just pop up on our radar on 9/11... he's been around for decades and the world has had its eye on him for a long time. I remember... in 7th grade, we were watching footage or something where bin laden was brought up. Our teacher paused to his face and goes "This guy is considered by some, the greatest terrorist threat to the United States". This of course, was before 9/11... so as you can see, many of these people are old news so to speak. Archon said: Just out of curiosity, and perhaps on an unrelated tangent: would you consider the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism? Nope, it was a war. What was the atomic bomb? Just one big bomb. Worse acts of destruction had been done before it... just took longer (and was even worse at times! firebombings are, from most accounts, horrible things to live through as opposed to a quick and instant death for many people in the attacks). Archon said: This is undeniably the funniest thing I have ever seen you write. Not only are you implicitly comparing Bush to Hitler, but you've just categorically condemned the invasion of Iraq. Seeing as how Iraqi military units have consitently attacked US fighters patrolling the no-fly zone and Saddam has openly invaded other nations before... I don't see the humor... unless of course your not a fan of history. Entropy No... its simply a more public extension of activities being conducted by the US government against many of the same people we have been fighting for decades. Bin Laden didn't just pop up on our radar on 9/11... he's been around for decades and the world has had its eye on him for a long time. I remember... in 7th grade, we were watching footage or something where bin laden was brought up. Our teacher paused to his face and goes "This guy is considered by some, the greatest terrorist threat to the United States". This of course, was before 9/11... so as you can see, many of these people are old news so to speak. What's your point? Gold Member Entropy said: You still fail to understand the point of this topic. Its US soil... they are US citizens on civilian jobs.. Archon said: Yes, yes, yes. I was just throwing "decade" out there. It doesn't matter that you expand the time frame anyway. I'm trying to find out how many American civilians die over X amount of time due to terrorist attacks. Ok, gotcha Archon said: Cmon! Are you implying that the war on terror isn't primarily focused on Islamic fundementists? Or are you just saying that for the sake of disagreeing with me? It may be its primary focus but arent really calling a war on Islam or anything. I mean WWI was mainly with Germany but we don't call it "The great war with germany" Archon said: Tell that to Locke Martin. Unless you can prove Lockheed Martin instigated the war, this statement is pointless. Archon said: Within what reason? How many American need to die before we go off and kill 100,000 innocent people for prove a principal? One? Ten? A hundred? Millions have died for the assassination of 1 man. Do you REALLY want to try to put a # on principle? Japan was ready to lose every single Japanese citizen so that they wouldn't ever have to declare defeat. The Allies lost millions in Europe. At no point did anyone think "Ok, we are losing too many people, let's tell Germany they can have France" Archon said: So, if I were to steal a stick of gum it would be within reason to start a globe-wide manhunt consuming millions of dollars so people will think twice before stealing? Because we need to prevent all crimes at all costs, no matter how disporportional the consequences are from the actual crime. Well the problem is the world can live with mass gum stealing. When we start talking about say, bank robberies.. then yes, you will start consuming millions of dollars to stop you. We realize we can live with gum stealing. We also realize however, that we can not live with mass bank robbings. We also realize that we cannot live with mass terrorism. Archon said: Didn't we intern invade Germany because we didn't like the Nazis? You just contradicted yourself there. Not that I'm trying to down play the horrible things the Nazis did.. Ok there's a MAJOR difference in "not liking someone" and that certain someone bombing your towns and bringing tanks into your country destroying everything they see. Sure, in a sense, France didn't like Germany at that particular point but the overwhelming consensus was that you start firing your guns and launching your aircraft simply because those Germans are trying to end your life and destroy your country. Archon said: What's the point of throwing people in jail if it's not worth it in the end?! Why prevent bank robbery if you aren't saving money?!$100,000 is more than enough to keep someone in prison for a few years.

Because since I doubt your reading my posts, its not about something being "worth it". We do it because we must keep societies civilized. The Allies did not fight Hitler because they felt losing a few million people was "worth it". They did it because they had to bring things back to normalcy and show future generations that you cannot go on mass genocides or constantly invade France

Gold Member
Entropy said:

That its ignorant to point out a single campaign in a much larger, much longer war and demand to know if people think its "worth it".

Jonny_trigonometry
Pengwuino said:
We shoudl view people exactly how normal people view people; based on how they come off.

What your failing to realize is that "good" is not always in line with "logical". When we come up to a group of people who want to and are willing to kill us, the "good" thing to do might be to go up and hug and kiss them. What comes off as logical however, is that we kill them because we already know they will and have killed us before. When Hitler invaded, the "good" thing might have been to run up and hug and kiss and blah blah blah. Logical however, is to fight back.

It is very possible for us to eliminate, in particular, islamic terrorism. We have to kill those who try to kill us and to get a powerful force (ie their own religion) to help shy possible future terrorists away from following the violent path.

This sounds like the answer every average american would give. Whats different about Islamic terrorists and terrorists? Dont' you see that when we make this huge effort to invade their land and show them how we think they should live that a sizable praportion of the culture finds it to be offensive? Don't you see that those people are going to develop a greater hatred for us in our campaign than if we just turned the other cheek in the first place? We are the terrorists to them, they are just reacting, they aren't innitiating. This is how they see it.

You think it's possible to eleminate terrorism with force? We go over there and kill tens of thousands in an effort to eleminate terrorism? talk about hypocricy. Who's the terrorist?

Last edited:
Jonny_trigonometry
If anything, we need a new military branch, not a patriot act and homeland security. the new branch is made to hande things way more delecate and precise. It's kind of like the CIA and special ops combined but only centralized on terrorism, so we infiltrate terrorist cells, learn everything we can about all their plans, and botch them when they occur (such as if it's a bombing, we would make sure the bomb is a dud, and that we could also bring as many as possible to justice). It could also work on stealing their resources and sucking their funds dry in order to make them collapse. There are many different and more civilized ways to handle this situation.

It's only a big problem if we make it a big problem, which we have.

Last edited:
Gold Member
Jonny_trigonometry said:
This sounds like the answer every average american would give. Whats different about Islamic terrorists and terrorists? Dont' you see that when we make this huge effort to invade their land and show them how we think they should live that a sizable praportion of the culture finds it to be offensive? Don't you see that those people are going to develop a greater hatred for us in our campaign than if we just turned the other cheek in the first place? We are the terrorists to them, they are just reacting, they aren't innitiating. This is how they see it.

You think it's possible to eleminate terrorism with force? We go over there and kill tens of thousands in an effort to eleminate terrorism? talk about hypocricy. Who's the terrorist?

Completely incorrect. You are simply spouting what people want you to spout. We are NOT telling them how to live. We are allowing them for the first time in a long time, to decide HOW they want to live. I really doubt many Iraqies liked living under a dictator that has killed 300,000 of its population under his reign. The HUGE difference between us and them is that we came into kill an opressor and bring about wanted change while the terrorists attacked us simply to bring the downfall of a nation and to cause chaos.

Your obvious hatred of the US is starting to show. We go in and defend a nation from people who have made it their intention to kill anyone who likes hte US and we are the terrorists? You would have been laughed at if you were in france after D-Day and you called a British Para a "terrorist". What you fail to realize in the most horrible way possible is that we are not trying to kill Iraqies or Afghan citizens, we are trying to kill people who want to force other people to live in dictatorships or in fear for their own economic or ideological purposes.

outsider
Well,

I guess I will come out and join the party. I don't know how many acts of terrorism have taken place, but we can add Pearle Harbor to that list.

According to some people, we have terrorists in the form of FBI who are terrorizing their own citizens by racial profile. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be doing this as I believe that there is a reason to clean out any threats, but my point is that terrorism is also a matter of perspective.

I believe that the conflicts that the Bush Admin have started since the days of Sr. may have stirred up the world in a way that causes them to be paranoid. The Bush Admin has just transferred this way of thinking to the American public via relentless propoganda (ie. the news). Even though I sit quite lonely in my perspectives, I too am somewhat fearful of terrorist attacks. This is something we cannot ignore as we are simply guilty by association.

Gold Member
Jonny_trigonometry said:
If anything, we need a new military branch, not a patriot act and homeland security. the new branch is made to hande things way more delecate and precise. It's kind of like the CIA and special ops combined but only centralized on terrorism, so we infiltrate terrorist cells, learn everything we can about all their plans, and botch them when they occur (such as if it's a bombing, we would make sure the bomb is a dud, and that we could also bring as many as possible to justice). It could also work on stealing their resources and sucking their funds dry in order to make them collapse. There are many different and more civilized ways to handle this situation.

Complete narcissism. You are saying that as a single person with no knowledge about the real world, you know exactly how to stop global terrorism? You have already displayed that you have no clue as to how far terrorism extends. How could you even think that you know how to stop a problem rooted from a time you probably weren't even alive in that is in complete opposition to the methods used by people whos lives revolve around this.

Jonny_trigonometry
listen to how rediculous this sounds: "We must kill thousands and destroy innocent people's families, neighborhoods, businesses, and places of worship so that we can prevent the loss of life and destruction of people's families, businesses, and hopes of living in a terror free world". Is that not what we are trying to do?

Jonny_trigonometry
Pengwuino said:
Complete narcissism. You are saying that as a single person with no knowledge about the real world, you know exactly how to stop global terrorism? You have already displayed that you have no clue as to how far terrorism extends. How could you even think that you know how to stop a problem rooted from a time you probably weren't even alive in that is in complete opposition to the methods used by people whos lives revolve around this.

What makes you so sure of that? how are you not the narcissistic one? Did I strike a nerve?

I never said that I know how to stop terrorism did I? Nor did I say that I thought I knew how to stop it.
Like I said before, I don't believe terrorism can be stopped. I don't know why everyone is so headlong on this idea. No matter what happens, there will always be someone who feels like they want to strike fear into other people. Wether it be them or us. A campaing against terrorism is terrorism to those being campaigned against. I bet you're the type that thinks that you can kill off a belief.

Jonny_trigonometry
Pengwuino said:
Completely incorrect. You are simply spouting what people want you to spout. We are NOT telling them how to live. We are allowing them for the first time in a long time, to decide HOW they want to live. I really doubt many Iraqies liked living under a dictator that has killed 300,000 of its population under his reign. The HUGE difference between us and them is that we came into kill an opressor and bring about wanted change while the terrorists attacked us simply to bring the downfall of a nation and to cause chaos.

Your obvious hatred of the US is starting to show. We go in and defend a nation from people who have made it their intention to kill anyone who likes hte US and we are the terrorists? You would have been laughed at if you were in france after D-Day and you called a British Para a "terrorist". What you fail to realize in the most horrible way possible is that we are not trying to kill Iraqies or Afghan citizens, we are trying to kill people who want to force other people to live in dictatorships or in fear for their own economic or ideological purposes.

I don't fail to realize our intentions, but I also don't fail to realize our failures. I also recognize that many of the people in their culture find our failures to be offensive, and many of them thank us but want us out of there. Even If I did hate the US, which I don't (I hate the administration), can you justify that as being a bad thing? Are you just trying to make me look like a bad person because I'm trying to sympathize with the culture of the people in Iraq? Is it bad for me to try to understand why the terrorists don't like us?

Last edited:
Entropy
Japan was ready to lose every single Japanese citizen so that they wouldn't ever have to declare defeat.

Evidently not because they surrendered.

At no point did anyone think "Ok, we are losing too many people, let's tell Germany they can have France"

YES THEY DID! Germany did start taking land and the English said: "We aren't sure we want to start another world war, let's just let them have Czechoslovakia." They knew that Czechoslovakia wasn't worth starting another world war. It was only until they finally invaded Poland did the English declare war.

Well the problem is the world can live with mass gum stealing. When we start talking about say, bank robberies.. then yes, you will start consuming millions of dollars to stop you. We realize we can live with gum stealing. We also realize however, that we can not live with mass bank robbings. We also realize that we cannot live with mass terrorism.

Why do you call it mass terrorism? Is it really that massive? That is what I'm aiming at here. Maybe we can live with it. Hey, maybe if we leave the Middle East alone, maybe they won't want to kill us anymore and we won't have to worry so much about terrorism.

Ok there's a MAJOR difference in "not liking someone" and that certain someone bombing your towns and bringing tanks into your country destroying everything they see. Sure, in a sense, France didn't like Germany at that particular point but the overwhelming consensus was that you start firing your guns and launching your aircraft simply because those Germans are trying to end your life and destroy your country.

By your logic you're justifing the insurgency in Iraq.

The Allies did not fight Hitler because they felt losing a few million people was "worth it". They did it because they had to bring things back to normalcy and show future generations that you cannot go on mass genocides or constantly invade France

OMG. Re-read what you just wrote here and think about it. The allies fought because they thought it was "worth it" if they died and brought peace and normalcy to Europe. Just like Americans say "Freedom is worth fighting for." I don't understand what on Earth you are thinking here.

Last edited:
Entropy
We are NOT telling them how to live. We are allowing them for the first time in a long time, to decide HOW they want to live.

They have always had that ability. Iraqi civilians outnumber the military 100 to 1. Hell America did it in the Revolutionary War, why can't Iraq?

Complete narcissism. You are saying that as a single person with no knowledge about the real world, you know exactly how to stop global terrorism? You have already displayed that you have no clue as to how far terrorism extends. How could you even think that you know how to stop a problem rooted from a time you probably weren't even alive in that is in complete opposition to the methods used by people whos lives revolve around this.

And the United States government knows any better?

Jonny_trigonometry
Entropy said:
They have always had that ability. Iraqi civilians outnumber the military 100 to 1. Hell America did it in the Revolutionary War, why can't Iraq?

And the United States government knows any better?

Thanks Entropy. However, I'm not fully siding against P-dogg, I'm just trying to get him off his high horse.

sorry Pengwuino, I'm not the best at keeping to my argument, I admit that you're getting me to re-think many of my stances. I don't want you to think that you're on a really big high horse, but I think you're on a small one at least... I guess the same can be said about me too though.

Last edited: