What would be the worse thing to happen if the US lost the war on terrorism?

Originally posted by PVS
terrorism is created by war, not by people who 'hate freedom'. they are elevated to power through brute force from the power vacuum we leave behind everytime we play god of the world. we allowed osama and al qaeda to gain control of afghanistan. we did this by abandoning them, fueling general contempt and despair/hopelessness and thus allowing the general population to slip into a fanatical and panicked state. its the perfect disposition for crazed warlords to take power.

the way to win a war on terror is to kill their support. the way to do this is to stop bombing the shit out of civilians. you would be surprised how people would calm down after going a few months of not seeing leveled buildings and body parts littering the streets...people tend to be slightly content when not confronted with the everyday prospect of dieing in some random bombing.

like it or not, the more we attack the more they hate us, and the more they hate us the more terrorists are recruited. so its either we choose diplomacy or we choose genocide. however dirty they fight is inconsequential to that reality.

Actually I would think that terrorism is created by greed, and lack of regard for life. The two put together mean that someone who wants something that they can't get can try to intimidate someone else into it.

You also made a good argument not to pull out. We wouldn't want more people to think we'd abandoned them. I guess whatever course of action we set ourselves we need to see it to the end.

As far as how to win the war. I think you're dreaming. leaving would only give them time to regroup and plan another 9/11 type attack. The real way to win is to eradicate the ones that want us dead. If we weren't as ethical as we are, "bombing the shit out of civilians" might actually convince this elusive enemy that we mean business. It certainly sped up the surrender of the japanese after WWII. (not condoning killing innocents, just saying that the real way to hurt the enemy is to make it more costly to them to fight us than it is to leave us alone.)

The more we attack them the more they hate us? They already wanted us dead before we attacked, stopping the fighting now would just send us back to that (that's if your theory's correct). What we need to do is break their will to fight. Then we can go back to doing what the US does best - giving aid to all the people in the world who apparently hate us.

Apparently you're confused. Iraq was never involved in September 11th. GENOCIDE is not an acceptable solution. We seem to be doing a fiarly effecting job of taking civilians with us anyway. This war has already killed even as high as 100,000 Iraqis. The nukes were a totally unacceptable position on Japan. I'm ashamed that you call yourself an American. I'd be out there in the streets too if a foreign nation invaded mine.

The Iraqui people didn't give a sh*t about the US beforehand. There was no terrorism in Iraq. Now the Iraqui people want us out and Iraq is the center of the terrorist world. Hmmmm...maybe we're not making the situation better? PVS is correct. YOur strategy seems to break every moral law.

ANd what the US does best is reaching its long spindly fingers down the throats and into the oily pocetbooks of foreign nations. Perhaps, instead of continung to install brutal dictaors in the the Middle East (like Saddam Hussein and the Iranian Shaw) we should let democracy work its own tool. By the way, democracy is not installed by foreign nations, its built by the people, from the ground up.

The worst thing to happen would be that the US was destroyed and the world was cloaked into an age of communism and fear.

Of course thats not going to happen 😛

However my worst fear is the UN trying to take over the U.S.

Seriously for all the corruption in the US government, the UN doubles that.

Heck it was made to stop Genocide, yeah thats really going swell 🙄

The UN can't even enforce resolutions it passes so how could it ever take over any nation?

Originally posted by Osaka
The UN can't even enforce resolutions it passes so how could it ever take over any nation?

With Kofi Annan's secret magic powers 😛

There's a far more important war raging on right now...

vs

Choose a side! Take a stand!

LOL... the US cannot win the war on terrorism. terrorism is not a country. Terrorism has no official army. Terrorism is a word that descrobes somehting. there are differing uses of the term, the most common being: "Using terror (fear) to try to provoke others into changing". How can you stop extremists doing gthis? Can you just arrest or exceute someone who is extreme in their religion and potentially will commit what the US call "terrorism"? No. You cannot destroy terrorism. you cannot overthrow terrorism. you cannot have a war on terrorism. George Bush is wrong.

you are absolutely right.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There's a far more important war raging on right now...

vs

Choose a side! Take a stand!

Hmmm. Hard choice. In a war I'd perhaps go with the second one, it looks like she is doing the whole draw a finder across the throat thing symbolising "you're dead" - I bet she has Ninja minions.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
🙄

Stop acting like a little annoyed baby, and take responsibility for what you factually write. If you’re unable to debate in a mature manner just raise you hand. I have better things to do than debate with someone as apparently touchy as you.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Again, you say this AFTER the fact. Your argument tries flux from one thing to another. But we'll let this one rest. I can ask you the same thing if you're reading what I write or reading what you think I write. It's going nowhere let's set aside personal assumptions from here on...

What on Earth are you talking about? You act as if I change the actual content of my argument in the middle of it – what should be the point of that? Again – please show me where in this discussion I have equalled terrorists to freedom-fighters? If you are unable to do this, you should at the very least admit that you’ve misread my post and made wrong assumptions based on what you THOUGHT I wrote. I happen to know you will be unable to find the by you assumed comparison I should have made, since I have made no such comparison.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I could be wrong. Or I could be right. Maybe I'm neither. I may have the wrong or right impressions. I don't mind accepting my faults....Do you accept yours? The main point for me is that in order to keep one thing from turning into another is the definitions. For me an insurgent a terrorist and a freedom fighter are not the same.

As for your comment on stooping to patronizing I'll ask you the same next time you feel like calling me "dear":

Ah, yes – did you just notice how annoying it is to be patronized? Good, I hope you’ll abstain from doing so in the future then…

Did you read the link I provided for you reading pleasure? You argued that “insurgents” in Iraq were not labelled as terrorist. I provide you with a link to CNN were they are indeed being compared. “I don’t mind accepting my faults…” So, can we agree that insurgents in Iraq are also being labelled terrorists? I have no problem accepting that I have misread, misunderstood or got wrong facts…
Yes, the DEFINITIONS as such of a terrorist, an insurgent or a freedom-fighter or a rebel are not the same. We have never disagreed. But WHO decides what is what? That is my main-point and my issue.
Take Iraq. President Bush may call the insurgents terrorists, some Iraqis may call them freedom-fighters. The words may easily be abused in the world of politics to further and agenda. Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If I remenber correctly this tactic was used by terrorist networks in Sudan and Afghanistan (however, I will admit that I'm not 100% sure on where exactly they've used). They organize and conduct their opperations in mosques. I think western armies are aware of these tactics and would not take direct action. Again, that's what these people want. An attack on their holy places.

I do not doubt groups like the Taleban would resort to whatever tactics they can. They have shown no respect for other cultures religious sculptures. The Taleban are supposedly fundamentalist Muslims, so I just doubt they’d let their own scared places be destroyed.
Do not misunderstand me – but how do you KNOW exactly what “these people” (terrorists? Insurgents? Freedom fighters?) want.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh well TOO friggin bad if they're outnumber! The terrorist picked a fight with the Bigger dog. So if they get a big bite in the rump they simply ask for it. And yes they are still cowards for hidding in caves and using their own people to shield themselves from an attack.

So: Are the Muslim fundamentalists wrong simply because they chose to attack YOUR country? You seem to have COMPLETELY overlooked the point I was trying to make. In YOUR definition of terrorist is the word cowardly tactics. I ask, if you fight a 10 to 10000 war, and choose guerrilla warfare and tactics based on the fact that your number is smaller is that by definition COWARDLY?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm not the final authority and neither are YOU. Finally, we agree this is complicated issue...and I think is best to separated.

Have I claimed to be such? Do you think the conflicts and troubles in the Middle-east can be separated from the Israel/Palestine issue?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Those marines most likely will be put on trial for their crimes. When was the last time a terrorist or an insurgent was put on trial by their respective supporters for killing innocent bystanders? I mention the elections in Iraq because these people now have a right to protest and demand justice for the wrongs commit to them. Elections=Power to the people. They have a right to demand justice. And I feel that it should be given to them.

I fear you’re misreading my post again and missing my point. I have been debating that we do not seem to have clear definitions of what exactly makes a terrorists, and that different people may label an armed person differently. I then asked you if the civilian Iraqis who had civilian family members gunned down by marines may not VIEW these marines as terrorists (sin part of your definition of being a terrorist is targeting civilians).
You then write you can understand these civilians but that “they’re been giving the chance to elect their future leaders.” Somewhat perplexed I ask you what does elections in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who’ve had their civilian family members gunned down by marines?

I am not after the marines in question if that’s what you think. The history of war is full of well-trained soldiers who in frustration and being on the edge after months of war may “snap” and commit atrocities that no one would have thought them capable of. If I blame anyone it’s the American war-department, for not realising many soldiers need a break and need to go home and see their families. But that is another discussion.
You THEN go on an talk about whether or not the marines will go on trial and start mixing in trials against insurgents and terrorists.
Do you think the Iraqis who lost their family members will feel ANY better?

Originally posted by The Omega
Stop acting like a little annoyed baby, and take responsibility for what you factually write. If you’re unable to debate in a mature manner just raise you hand. I have better things to do than debate with someone as apparently touchy as you.

What, are you for real? what a clever way to call me things and then tell me to act in a mature manner. By now and after all this time in the forums you would think you knew how I post and direct my comments on a subject. But I guess that's just asking for too much. Please, if you have better things to do than debate with someone like me then just do it and don't bother to address me every time I enter a discussion. I also have better things to do but I don't throw that around...I'm don't consider myself such and important person like you do The Omega.

Originally posted by The Omega
Did you read the link I provided for you reading pleasure? You argued that “insurgents” in Iraq were not labelled as terrorist. I provide you with a link to CNN were they are indeed being compared. “I don’t mind accepting my faults…” So, can we agree that insurgents in Iraq are also being labelled terrorists? I have no problem accepting that I have misread, misunderstood or got wrong facts…
Yes, the DEFINITIONS as such of a terrorist, an insurgent or a freedom-fighter or a rebel are not the same. We have never disagreed. But WHO decides what is what? That is my main-point and my issue.
Take Iraq. President Bush may call the insurgents terrorists, some Iraqis may call them freedom-fighters. The words may easily be abused in the world of politics to further and agenda. Can we agree on that?

Yes, I read it! Am I arguing with you about the link? I'm arguing with you on the differences of "insurgents" and "terrorist". As I point out earlier there maybe connections between the two in Iraq. They're being label as terrorist because of that huge possibility that they have links or connections with terrorist groups. They fight the same objective. Why would anyone be surprise if they actually do find evidence of them about their links? That STILL doesn't mean that by definition an insurgent is a terrorist!

Originally posted by The Omega
I do not doubt groups like the Taleban would resort to whatever tactics they can. They have shown no respect for other cultures religious sculptures. The Taleban are supposedly fundamentalist Muslims, so I just doubt they’d let their own scared places be destroyed.
Do not misunderstand me – but how do you KNOW exactly what “these people” (terrorists? Insurgents? Freedom fighters?) want.

Good! we're going somewhere with this...you do not doubt the Taliban would resort to such tactics. If they're desperate enough or are in such danger...YES! I would think they'll destroy ANYTHING. These are terrorist, a terrorist is willing to kill and destroy.

Originally posted by The Omega
So: Are the Muslim fundamentalists wrong simply because they chose to attack YOUR country? You seem to have COMPLETELY overlooked the point I was trying to make. In YOUR definition of terrorist is the word cowardly tactics. I ask, if you fight a 10 to 10000 war, and choose guerrilla warfare and tactics based on the fact that your number is smaller is that by definition COWARDLY?

No, no, no, and nooo...again I'll point out that these people CHOSE to fight with the bigger dog. Don't you dare tell me that there are NO alternatives to fighting. Instead of taking other ways they decided to FIGHT. So if they're outnumber is their FAULT. They chose the option of a fight...if they use terrorist tactics then by all means they're COWARDS! Any terrorist is a friggin COWARD. Having a larger army does not make you a coward. The idealism of having an army is for protection from other enemies.

Originally posted by The Omega
Have I claimed to be such? Do you think the conflicts and troubles in the Middle-east can be separated from the Israel/Palestine issue?

At this point and time I don't even care if you claim it or not. For me is separate issue with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Originally posted by The Omega
I fear you’re misreading my post again and missing my point. I have been debating that we do not seem to have clear definitions of what exactly makes a terrorists, and that different people may label an armed person differently. I then asked you if the civilian Iraqis who had civilian family members gunned down by marines may not VIEW these marines as terrorists (sin part of your definition of being a terrorist is targeting civilians).
You then write you can understand these civilians but that “they’re been giving the chance to elect their future leaders.” Somewhat perplexed I ask you what does elections in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who’ve had their civilian family members gunned down by marines?

I will point out there is a process for Iraq to finally have saying in this matter. Giving them a government (i.e. things like elections and other stuff) will give a chance to these people to demand justice from their own leaders. By this I meant to say that the new leaders can NOW demand to the US to punish these marines. By all means I do not oppose to putting them on trial. A military court should be apply to this case.

Originally posted by The Omega
I am not after the marines in question if that’s what you think. The history of war is full of well-trained soldiers who in frustration and being on the edge after months of war may “snap” and commit atrocities that no one would have thought them capable of. If I blame anyone it’s the American war-department, for not realising many soldiers need a break and need to go home and see their families. But that is another discussion.

Good, if this is another discussion why even go any further with it? Heck why even try to continue it?

Originally posted by The Omega
You THEN go on an talk about whether or not the marines will go on trial and start mixing in trials against insurgents and terrorists.
Do you think the Iraqis who lost their family members will feel ANY better?

My point was that at least our government and military takes this cases in a serious matter. Putting them on trial is the best they can do. I wasn't mixing anything. I clearly asked you this:

When was the last time a terrorist or an insurgent was put on trial by their respective supporters for killing innocent bystanders?

Is that TOO complicated for you to answer or you just simply don't know?

On the families...again, I'll point out that putting these marines on trial will give these people a chance to see justice. It's pretty general that when a member of family is killed there is going to be a demand for justice. This again..I'll say is why we need to put them on trial.

Originally posted by HellMaster93
LOL... the US cannot win the war on terrorism. terrorism is not a country. Terrorism has no official army. Terrorism is a word that descrobes somehting. there are differing uses of the term, the most common being: "Using terror (fear) to try to provoke others into changing". How can you stop extremists doing gthis? Can you just arrest or exceute someone who is extreme in their religion and potentially will commit what the US call "terrorism"? No. You cannot destroy terrorism. you cannot overthrow terrorism. you cannot have a war on terrorism. George Bush is wrong.

Oh so we should just ignore everything thats happened like the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and 9/11 and the London Bombings right 🙄

Seriously thats what Spain did.. now Spain = France 😉

Clinton blatintly ignored the threat of terrorism and look where that got us...9/11 😐

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would be the worse thing to happen if the US lost the war on terrorism?

probably that now there might not actually be all this rascism and inequality with all the pakistanies etc.!!!

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. Hard choice. In a war I'd perhaps go with the second one, it looks like she is doing the whole draw a finder across the throat thing symbolising "you're dead" - I bet she has Ninja minions.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Clinton blatintly ignored the threat of terrorism and look where that got us...9/11 😐

IT WAS SNOWBALL!!!!!!!!

For a start, its not only the usa who are fighting terrorism, there are plenty of countries ( like us in Great Britain ) who want to eradicate the cowards who perpetuate their "war! on the west.
To answer the question though, I would have to say that if Terrorism is not defeated, and lets face it, we dont know if it ever can be , the whole world ( except of course those who follow the same "beliefs"as these yellow spined cowards) will be in state far worse than any past or future war, terrorists rule by fear (Taliban) and fear alone is a most potent weapon and so easy to instill. Unlike any disciplined Army, terrorists are free to roam the world, to cause mayhem and destruction wherever and whenever they want,they find eager impressionable young"martyrs" ( easily I concede)to strap powerful bombs to their bodies and.......well, you know the rest.
We must remain strong, with thousands of people like us, or the world will become theirs.Finally, I dread to think that if the usa,pulled out of this war (and it is a war) we would all be lost...God Bless America!

Originally posted by razorbill
For a start, its not only the usa who are fighting terrorism, there are plenty of countries ( like us in Great Britain ) who want to eradicate the cowards who perpetuate their "war! on the west.
To answer the question though, I would have to say that if Terrorism is not defeated, and lets face it, we dont know if it ever can be , the whole world ( except of course for those who follow the same "beliefs"as these cowards) will be in a
state far worse than any past or future war, terrorists rule by fear (Taliban) and fear alone is a most potent weapon and so easy to instill. Unlike any disciplined Army, terrorists are free to roam the world, to cause mayhem and destruction wherever and whenever they want,they find eager impressionable young"martyrs" ( easily I concede) to strap powerful awful bombs to their bodies and.......well, you know the rest.
We must remain strong, with thousands of people like us, or the world will become theirs.Finally, I dread to think that if the usa,pulled out of this war (and it is a war) we would all be lost...God Bless America!

If we lost the war on terror and the US got invaded, we still have our secret weapon...

CHUCK NORIS! 😎

Steven Segal>>>>>>>>>Chuck Norris.

Your all crazy