BF2S Forums The War on Terror Curbing Terrorism Worldwide

Your point, Serge?

Mekstizzle wrote:

Algeria need to get out of Iraq

A "War on Terror" is not possible. You need to combat the sources of terrorism, not terrorism itself, because the latter is nigh impossible.

-konfusion

I oppose the bullshit premise of a global 'war on terror' because quite frankly it doesn't work when it comes to the Middle east and second or third world countries.

However I like to think of myself as objective on the whole and will admit that the situation in the North of Ireland, though already reaching endgame prior to 9/11 anyway, will never descend back into the chaos and bloodshed of the 70's and 80's because in the modern civilised world such tactics are just not acceptable anymore. This is largely thanks to the zero tolerance attitude introduced by the US post 9/11.

I only wish the US themselves didn't employ such contradictory tactics as part of their 'war on terror'.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your point, Serge?

My point is the whole argument Bush had with the War on Terror was curbing or ending terrorism and al-Qaeda or whoever did this are still doing it, just like it happened in Madrid or London. 
And pls don't tell me "there weren't more attacks on US soil", that's pure coincidence.

So there's a definite cause/effect relationship when it follows your opinion, but it's just coincidence otherwise?

I never said this happened coz of the War on Terror, I just said the WOT didn't help.  It was a waste of time for you guys.

KILLSWITCH wrote:

konfusion wrote:

A "War on Terror" is not possible. You need to combat the sources of terrorism, not terrorism itself, because the latter is nigh impossible.

-konfusion

Even by combating the sources of terrorism, you will never truly get rid of it.  Terrorism is like a Hyrda, you cut off one head and it simply grows another.

The source isn't the organization. The source is the general unhappiness of the people. If you can get people to disagree with terrorists, then it's more likely that someone will stand up to them, and it's less likely that someone will join them. The less people join, the less terrorism there is. You will never be able to stop terrorism, but bringing it down to an absolute minimum could be achieved with the options given above.

If terrorism's a Hydra, let's chop body off of the head instead of the other way around.

-konfusion

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your point, Serge?

we should do what terrorist tell us to.

That's what I said?  I'd expect much better from you.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you did say that the london and madrid bombs were the result of the governments of the UK and Spain not doing what the terrorists wanted them to do.

I never said that FFs.  I said they were the consequence of the UK and Spain going to Iraq.  Now, wtf has that to do with terrorism?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I think the idea of the war on terror is a bit a joke myself.  But, I always get the impression from you that a policy of appeasement is one you support more than any other.

Well, then you got it wrong.  I don't support appeasement, but I don't support starting a war over false evidence either.  If that's appeasement, well I'm an appeaser.  And I agree the WOT is the biggest joke of this administration, if not the biggest scandal.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the world is an unjust place.

QFT

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your point, Serge?

My point is the whole argument Bush had with the War on Terror was curbing or ending terrorism and al-Qaeda or whoever did this are still doing it, just like it happened in Madrid or London. 
And pls don't tell me "there weren't more attacks on US soil", that's pure coincidence.

Then why is the Algeria attack non-coincidental?

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your point, Serge?

My point is the whole argument Bush had with the War on Terror was curbing or ending terrorism and al-Qaeda or whoever did this are still doing it, just like it happened in Madrid or London. 
And pls don't tell me "there weren't more attacks on US soil", that's pure coincidence.

Then why is the Algeria attack non-coincidental?

Because it's easier to attack Algeria?