terrorism threat??

[MichaelC]

I think we might be on the same page.

I imagine I'm in a real minority on this subject, as with many other subjects, when I say I believe that the term "terrorism" is used way too broadly.  When a person or group is labeled "terrorist", the term detracts from ones ability to understanding the causes behind certain actions (right or wrong) and their potential solutions.  

It's not so much the term, the label is usually well earned, it's more that we really aren't interested in problem solving at that point.  As a gov't, our only potential reactions to these types of actions are either violence or choosing to ignore for strategic purposes.  There's rarely any real effort put into solutions.

[shadows]

It is a thin line between the terrorist and the patriotic.   The edge of the razor is more easily defined.  We today to the world are the greatest terrorist since the days of the Romans who lined the roads to the city with crosses on which they executed their enemies.  We used nuclear devices on the women and children of Japan to show the enemy could not protect their families.  We are terrorizing the people of Iraq as we are killing their women and children to demoralize the citizens to turn in our defined terrorist.

We fought a civil war, not about slavery, but about the right to tax the slaves.  It was two years after the civil war had began (1862) before the slavery  issue was brought up.  Lincoln's wife was a southerner from a plantation destroyed.   Remember our Alamo shrine?  It was a church built by Mexico.

We terrorize the world with our nuclear threats but the only ones that fear us are the small countries the are trying to develop them.   Those countries that have developed them  also know of the retaliation time cycle where we cannot hide quick enough.

Being not a religionist person I can begin to see some things were foretold as one seeks to worship in the future that is not open to us as we use our noble justification for justification of our faults.  It is all foretold when we look in the mirror.      

[LilMikey]

America will always be under a threat of terrorism.

We (our government) have always known that there were groups who were plotting to attack us on our shores, it was the attack on 9-11 which really seared the idea into the public consciousness.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

America will always be under a threat of terrorism.

We (our government) have always known that there were groups who were plotting to attack us on our shores, it was the attack on 9-11 which really seared the idea into the public consciousness.

We'll always be under a threat of home-grown terrorism too.  

And if the terrorists did indeed "sear the idea into the public consciousness", then the terrorists already have a claim to victory.  The lesson of 9-11 should be far broader than "theysa out ta gets us.  Break out da guns."

Poor Jar Jar Binks impression IMO.

[LilMikey]

On this, and a few other forums, the most common response to almost any anti-terrorism tactic is "the terrorists can claim a victory."

No.

The terrorists can claim a victory because they were able to get past us and take down two great American landmarks and kill several thousand of our citizens.  And if we continue doing what we were doing before 9-11 (which was virtually nothing) they'll do it again.

Home-grown terrorists?  Sure there are, and more than likely they'll do something, too,  But if we do nothing, they will attack, too.

I must say I do not understand this attitude that we should do nothing, because if we do, the terrorists will win.

[MichaelC]

Why do you think they're called "terrorists"?  It has little to do with murder or destruction, and far more to do with "terrorizing", creating the fear of murder or destruction.  Just like when those nutballs were sending envelopes full of flour during the anthrax scare, that is a terrorist act.  Flour doesn't kill anyone, under the conditions of the time, flour was used to terrorize.

The short term victory is partially in knocking down buildings or mass murder, but it's far more that we know quite well that it will happen again.  And we fear it, either because we know that no matter what we do we'll always be vulnerable to some degree.  Instead of limiting those vulnerabilities, our gov't chose to invade and keep it's own people terrorized by the threat of "it will happen here again."  That's exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.  So yes, they're still winning.  Al Qaeda knew quite well that they'd never win tactically.  That was never the point.  All they wanted was to be in it, and make us pay in treasure and blood.

You're analysis is way too simple.  "They're out to get us, they're evil, get em."  There are ways to win, that route just makes them multiply.  "Al Qaeda" in all it's various forms is probably quite content to have us invade any country in the Middle East.  It's the greatest recruiting tool they have.

[LilMikey]

That's kind of like saying that when a bank hires an off-duty cop, spends millions of dollars on video surveillance equipment, then the bank robbers have won.

Or when major retailers have those "item detectors" at the exits which occasionally go off, making an innocent customer wait while someone goes through their purchasers then the shoplifters have won.

When the buildings came down, you can bet the people within the terrorist rings rejoiced because they knew they indeed won.  But I have a feeling that none of them party when they see us taking a defensive stance.  I don't think even they consider that a win.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

That's kind of like saying that when a bank hires an off-duty cop, spends millions of dollars on video surveillance equipment, then the bank robbers have won.

Or when major retailers have those "item detectors" at the exits which occasionally go off, making an innocent customer wait while someone goes through their purchasers then the shoplifters have won.

When the buildings came down, you can bet the people within the terrorist rings rejoiced because they knew they indeed won.  But I have a feeling that none of them party when they see us taking a defensive stance.  I don't think even they consider that a win.

You choose some interesting examples.  What you describe is risk management.  Bankers put in cameras hire guards to deter bank robbers.  They also work with law enforcement in a coordinated strategy.  They do what they need to do in order to reduce the risk to the point where their customers feel that they, and their money, are safe.  

Banks don't declare "War on bank robbers".  First, everybody knows that is a bunch of meaningless, rhetorical garbage.  Second, even if it were a real strategy (and I don't believe that it is), it would be a really bad one.  Who is the enemy?  As long as they continue to keep the money in banks, there will always be someone new who will wave a gun around to get at it.

Everybody knows that somewhere, someplace, a bank will be robbed today.  Yet, we don't live in fear of banking.  Banks don't sensationalize the problem and blow it out of proportion.  They don't try to scare you to death, either.  Its not in their interest to do so.

Its not in America's interest to scare everyone, so why is that the message we hear from Bush and Co.?  Because fear is good politics.  Why are we "warring" on terror, when it makes more sense to police it?  Because declaring "war" sounds tougher than "protecting the innocent".  Regardless of how it sounds, its bad policy.  Somehow, these idiots let the rhetoric drive the policy.

I wish they would declare "war" on closing up our ports and points of entry.  I wish they would declare "war" on finding allies in other countries to spy on and arrest these terrorist creeps.  You get it yet?  This tough-talking, fear-baiting, rhetoric is no way to run a country.  

Like the bank, we need workmanlike strategies to reduce our vulnerabilities, identify and find the bad guys, and bring them to justice.  We need America to feel confident and secure, not scared.  Then we can get back to business.  If we can do that, then the tersts will NEVER win.

[LilMikey]

quote:
Like the bank, we need workmanlike strategies to reduce our vulnerabilities, identify and find the bad guys, and bring them to justice.  We need America to feel confident and secure, not scared.  Then we can get back to business.  If we can do that, then the tersts will NEVER win.

Interesting choice of words.  "We need America to feel confident and secure. . ."  Personally, I'd rather be secure.  We must go for much more than feelings.

[Chicken Little]

^ That's fine.  Then let's hear your plan to end bank robberies.  How long is it going to take to win your war on bank robbers?


In the meantime, since bank patrons cannot BE 100% secure when they go to a bank, does that mean they should stop using banks altogether?

[LilMikey]

Exactly my point - you should never let your guard down.  When you do, the robbers/muggers/burglars/terrorists win.

[RecycleMichael]

Don't let your friends pollute the earth. If you do, the terra-ists win.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

Exactly my point - you should never let your guard down.  When you do, the robbers/muggers/burglars/terrorists win.

We're not guarded.  Port security has huge holes.   We've barely tried at all to secure our borders.  You're point doesn't even speak about "security" against terrorism.  You've avoided it.  Banks do, what our gov't does not do.

Banks do not try to scare you.  Banks do not round up and kill those who could potentially be criminals, or all people that somebody pointed out as possibly being a criminal, or their relatives.  Banks do not bomb suspected targets, create collateral damage and collateral fatalities.  Banks do not purposefully spawn new criminals.  

Our gov't does all those things under the rhetorical flag of "strike em there so they won't strike here."  Invading a country does not prevent them from coming here.  Like all terrorism, it's just a matter of time.  We can reduce those possibilities by actually working on security at home.  Until now, we have avoided security.

[LilMikey]

Yeah . . . thanks to the special interest groups, our hands are tied to do that which is necessary.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by LilMikey

Yeah . . . thanks to the special interest groups, our hands are tied to do that which is necessary.

This should have been completed about the time we began the invasion of Afghanistan 5+ years ago.  Up until recently, the GOP could have passed anything they agreed upon.  They didn't agree.  Congress and Bush were at odds with each other the entire time on immigration/border security.  Primarily corporations on one side, weird little Neocon factions on the other.  Token participation by immigrant rights groups (the fall guy).

I'm relatively certain that at least immigration laws and border security will finally be strengthened in the near future.  If points of entry are controlled, it will give a big assist to intelligence and law enforcement.