Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Terror or Diplomacy?

  1. A Diplomatic Policy

  2. A War Policy

  3. Each will elevate the threat of an attack

  4. Or, Neither has an influence upon the chance of an attack

  1. Sep 18, 2004 #1
    What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?

    Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? If the person had just talked things through with you without out throwing that punch, do you think you would have become physical yourself?

    Is it psychological states and beliefs systems that increase the chance more that a person will physically act out upon you or the fact they were just hit by you? Which significanty is more relevant in increasing the threat of being hit?

    I have a poll question about whether diplomacy or war elevates the terror threat level in your opinion, based upon your experience and knowledge in life.

    What is more likely to elevate the chance of a terror attack upon America?
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2004 #2
    Neither a war policy or a diplomatic policy is a good policy. Effective foreign policy requires a combination of the two. This is also a very general question that any other blanket answer would be grossly wrong.

    We were not at war with Saudi Arabia, and we weren't in an active war in Iraq in the mid 90's. However, a major complaint of OBL is our bases in Saudi Arabia, used to implement internationally agreed on UN policy. We used sanctions, diplomacy, and were still attacked.

    Muslim Fundamentalism will thrive where there is not sovereignty and not wealth in Iraq. Neither of those would become a reality for the common Iraqi with our policy in Iraq before. And our bases in Saudi Arabia would still be antagonizing al aqueda.

    Looking for diplomacy to respond to terrorist attacks is a failed idea when the enemy is looking for a reality that doesn't involve your existence.. It didn't work any of the times we were attacked before.
  4. Sep 19, 2004 #3
    This was meant to point out how each policy in and of itself has an influence upon an attack uopn the American people. By pointing them out separately we, can see there individual value. Fusing them before hand, doesn't help understand the value of them together.

    You are the one blanketing. You're fusing peices together and trying pass them off with value, when the bundles consists of very different parts that have values in and of themselves.

    The rest of your comments are irrelevant on that point. Can you defeat me on the point that diplomacy lowers the threat and war increase the threat with out getting them confused, or not? Or are you so mad that you want to hit me cause you're wrong? :biggrin:
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2004
  5. Sep 19, 2004 #4
    Theyre less likely to attack when you do evrything they want. Thats what it boils down to. Pay the ransom and you can go.... untill next time.
  6. Sep 19, 2004 #5
    When I realized your intention was to 'win', I lost interest in continuing this thread. Adios.
  7. Sep 20, 2004 #6
    I sounds a bit like you are buying into the hollywood psychology of nutcase terrorists. That's what the president's team has tried to make Arabs appear as. Any Arab who has to use circumstantial means to defend themselves is labeled a crackpot. America is the one with road rage, mass murders, serial-killers, domestic terrorists, etc, not Arabia! That's why we understand crackpot, from our own people and Team Bush ties the psychological-emotional associations to Arabs. They've convinced the Americans that can be convinced because some American have real sloppy reasoning. It's not complicated, like Team Bush wants you to think. It's only complicated because they confuse things intentionally, and that makes it complicated to understand. But it's really very easy to understand if you think clearly about it. Put your self in Iraqi shoes, and ask yourself what you would think if your state was bombed for reasons the World said are BULL! (Democracy said no to the invasion of Iraq) You would want to defend yourself right? You don't have to think about that though, because it's not forced on you! But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources they would gladly trade for a fair enough capitalistic price! 911 happens all the time for them because of one ignorant presidential team called Team Bush. A clear indication of idiotic, inefficient, wasteful, entropic and criminal leadership. Stupidity can be very, very criminal. And our leaders have a real intelligence problem! Look how bad things are going on around the world. Look at the economy. What is good, was happening when Clinton was in office, but once these idiots got in power, the so-called "terrorism" and wars began and the economy has went to crap. The president is anti-science to boot. See what happens when religious, dogmatic, nutcases get there way? People kill each other and the economy worsens.
  8. Sep 20, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If the United States focuses on a purely diplomatic policy with the middle east, it's to my belief that these recent kidnappings of American and European citizens will continue to no end. However, if the US adopts a war policy, it'll encourage more resistance against us. As someone has said, a mixture of the two is the way to go.

    The United States has made quite a few mistakes in the last twenty years, and now we have to live with it and take the crap.
  9. Sep 20, 2004 #8
    Im glad you got that out of your system. Could you post something constructive now. Its getting tiresome hearing ppl complain about their own lies.
  10. Sep 20, 2004 #9
    In another thread I pointed out that you post nothing worthwhile, and I stand by my statement.
  11. Sep 21, 2004 #10
    I, said: But they are forced to think about death and terror every day exerted by the American military who is murdering there people and stealing their resources...

    Are you trying to refute my point without stating facts? Let me inform you, using the nothing principle for an argument asserts nothing.

    Now, lets get these guys who lack a little upstairs who will do as they're told back home where they act civilly. The problem is, people don't want to say it like it is. Always using the butt kiss grammar to win points but getting us deeper in trouble with those who incite fear to motivate: Bush.

    Please do notice, I don't mean anything personal, I'm debating the superior point, but that doesn't mean I think you personally are a bad guy for being less reasonable here. You just need a little light shed on your disorderly thinking implanted by Bush.
  12. Sep 21, 2004 #11
    I was merely indicating the destructive influence of the inferior Bush policy, I make no apologies it's destructive versus constructive. I will take you up on your request and say the constructive thing to do is significantly is: remove our troops from Iraq, use trade to composite for the damages to Iraq, and work on a diplomatic policy for similar circumstance in the future. There is nothing destructive about that unless that means removing the destructive influence in our top positions of government right now. But that would be done democratically, when intelligent opinion prevails. And Vote Kerry.
  13. Sep 21, 2004 #12
    Removing the troops from Iraq, what about the hundreds of thousands of iraqis that are risking their lifes helping the US and their new government? Should they be abandoned because a few thousand are fighting them? Do you choose the side of the carbombers that even the Iraqis despise, over the Iraqi police? What about the Kurds? Dont you think betraying them is gonna cause problems sometime later...
    And what about the ordinary Iraqis.. do they want another dictator or something like Iran? What about the oil?

    I think striving for the removal of US troops now isnt constructive, especially when you ally yourself with terrorist carbombers or choose to portay the US as the bigger evil. Remember everytime you hear about a carbomb going off killing Iraqi recruits, its the terrorists who create that mess. Its 50 or 60 Iraqi police who help the US that got killed. And then ask yourself what would these dead Iraqis think of you blaming it on the US.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  14. Sep 21, 2004 #13
    There is no point in even trying to get through to you. It is like trying to argue with someone who longs for the return of Pol Pot and thinks his victims deserved to die. Where does one even begin? You're as bad as Adam, but I think he made his outrageous statements just to piss people off. With you, I actually think you believe your own bull****, and so I'm not wasting my time. I would just soon try to convince my pit bull to like cats.
  15. Sep 21, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Only one and the other guy started it. But to apply that to the current situation implies that we started the terrorism thing. We didn't. To be a correct analogy, you have to ask: if someone punched you, do you think you could have stopped the fight by talking to the person? If you're unsure, ask the French. They know.

    The question is a little more complicated than you let on though. In the short term, appeasement works. Sign that treaty with Hitler and there will be no war today. Tomorrow may well be a different story...

    Same goes for individual hostage situations: If you storm a hijacked plane, odds are that some hostages will die in the crossfire. But if you give in to the demands of the hijackers, they (or someone else following their lead) will just hijack another plane. The Israeli no compromise attitude probably killed a few extra hostages in the '70s and '80s, but it entirely eliminated plane hijackings for demands by the '90s. Along a similar vein, kidnapping for ransom in the US is extremely rare these days because the FBI virtually always catches the kidnappers and virtually never gives in to their demands.

    edit: after now reading post #6, I shouldn't have bothered posting here. Omin, assuming you really believe the things you said, there is a severe disconnect between your perception and reality. Your attitude doesn't help, but what's wors is that much of what you are saying is just plain factually wrong.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  16. Sep 21, 2004 #15

    Hey, those Iraqis are supporting an invading army resposible for the murder of innocent civilians and theft of Iraqi resources. What in the land of logic are your thinking? Thats normal human behavior to rid yourself of the defecters! It's there own cowardice and stupidity. The true Iraqi spirit will never give in to this stupidity! I like how you call those who defend Iraq terrorists, your brainwashing is oh so obvious. Your soundly like a bit of a Bush Nazi. It's okay to burn the innoncent out in the open, just not in an oven.

    BTW, the car bombs sound so bad, on naughty naughty, but what Bush did with airborne bombs and what the sanctions created over a million deaths! Learn to use your math when forming logic with your general terms in the debate.
  17. Sep 21, 2004 #16

    The war was started by Team Bush, it was not a response to anything founded or intelligent. It's the intellgence failure of 911 in exemplary self-defining action. It fits the general principle of terror, but with a far increased magnitude of murder! That's Team Bushes influence. The world said NO, everyone knows it, but Bush went ahead. Bush stepped on Democracy.

    There is no complication here. That's what propoganda ideals do to brains that can't apply the general rules of cooperation at a macro level. Murdering Iraqis without a basis and stealing there resources without a valid (even economic gain) is stupid and criminal. I speaking here of the most influential points in the matter: Human murder and resources aquired. Murder is proves the insanity of Bushes ideals and the energy gain along with the cost proves Bush is not an economist. Look at the price of fuel now. AS far as defense goes, we are more threatened with terror because of the criminal acts upon the Iraqis. Bush has weakened us on every front of the significant matters.

    As far as the Israeli situation, why don't you look at the state itself, rather than one tentative circumstance of highjackings. Israelis will never rid the defense of Arabs against their terrorist homecomming, without genecide with there undiplomatic attitude. THat's an established fact over the last fifty years. The circumstance proves there inability in terms of diplomacy with Arabs. Use that as a model for Iraq and you'll start seeing what we have in store with Iraq. The Israeli attitude will only bring bad economics and inferior diplomacy. We need to ignore there example as one to follow and remember it well as one to avoid. But look at the Israeli Bush go at the Iraqis, what a fool!

    I'm disconnected? Well then connect me up, if I'm so gone from reallity. I call a spade a spade and if you don't comprehend because psychological propaganda is more valueable in your mind than the fundamental logic that come out of daily civilized logic ( which is how we should respond), that's you. I'll debate any point I promoted. I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as you can point out it's not accurate enough. But I won't bow in faith like a nazi or present day republican or a christian or muslim to nonsense idiot doctrine!
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  18. Sep 21, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper


    From your posts, it appears that you are from the Middle East. Which country are you from? Also, have you been living in the Middle East during the time the U.S. has occupied Iraq? (I hope my questions are not impolite.)
  19. Sep 21, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    omin, there is an unwritten rule on the net that the first person to draw a comparison to the Nazis automatically loses the argument. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, start being reasonable. A good place to start is by dropping the assertion that we're stealing Iraq's oil. It just plain isn't true. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.
  20. Sep 21, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We were at peace with Afghanistan when they attacked (all the times they attacked). If we had remained at peace, we would have continued to be attacked. Because we went to war, we will be attacked. But with war, the enemies ability to attack is decreased, so the future attacks will be less severe than they would have been, had we remained at "peace". The only negotiation tyhe terrorists would accept is total compliance with their demands. And their only demand is that everyone not like them must die. This is an unnacceptable condition, IMHO.
  21. Sep 21, 2004 #20
    We even helped the Mujahadeen in their fight for freedom. As soon as they gain it, they attack us anyway. Maybe we should have supplied the Russians with weapons instead. At least they are less likely to stab us in the back (or cut off our heads).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook