I guess this is a sort of poll...

[j2k4]

Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.

If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?

[Busyman™]

Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.

If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?

Terrorists..that's more like guerilla warfare, so terrorists are guerrillas.

Also what does your question have to do with the first paragraph.

I could just say kill them.

[j2k4]

Apart from the question of what constitutes a terrorist, or who might be a terrorist, I think we might all agree (a huge leap, I know) on what they do, from a tactical/strategic/methodological view; hiding behind/among civilians, homicide bombings, obscuring government affiliations...even something as basic as not wearing uniforms.

If you can agree that terrorists exist, what do you think ought to be done about them?

Terrorists..that's more like guerilla warfare, so terrorists are guerrillas.

Also what does your question have to do with the first paragraph.

I could just say kill them.

My definition of 'terrorist' may not be yours.

My terrorist is your 'insurgent', or the like.

My question applies only insofar as the respondent agrees that the type exists, whether or not he/she sees them in Iraq, or Lebanon, London, Madrid, or New York.

Anywhere at all, you see?

I guess I should (to clarify things a bit) disqualify any combatant wearing a uniform.

[vidcc]

I have to ask who doesn't believe that terrorist exist?

I understand that what defines a terrorist could be disputed, but that they may not exist...............

I don't think the uniform is all that relevant. Surely the situation and targets are what define the terrorist. Many acts of terror have been comitted by militia and regular military in uniform around the world.
A person not serving in the military and not in uniform but fighting an invading or occupying force in his / her own country (whoever that occupying force happens to be) is not a terrorist. I will however grant the terrorist tag for that person if they target civilians not connected with that occupation. Collateral damage can only be included if the same standard applies to everyone.



What to do with them?

I suggest that a foriegn policy that doesn't create terrorists may be a start.... But once they decide to commit acts of terror then they must be punished.
Punishing alone will not end terror tactics, we must address the cause, EVEN if we feel that the cause doesn't justify the act of terror.

[sear]

In my opinion a terrorist is someone that purposly targets civilians, not to be confused with accidential deaths caused by going after a military or strategic target. You could even expand that to people who use violence or the threat of violence to terrorise a civilian population.

As to the question of what to do about terrorists...well that is alot tougher. Each situation is prob unique but generaly I think the best bet is to hunt them down and A: kill them if they pose an immediate threat B: arrest and try them if they can be captured alive or C: if the situation allows use them to dismantle their network by either turning them or spying on them.

And yes terrorists do exist just ask the families or survivors of the WTC, the 2 Bali bombings or just yesterday the poor fuckers doing their shoping in a Baghdad market.

[GepperRankins]

In my opinion a terrorist is someone that purposly targets civilians, not to be confused with accidential deaths caused by going after a military or strategic target. You could even expand that to people who use violence or the threat of violence to terrorise a civilian population.

As to the question of what to do about terrorists...well that is alot tougher. Each situation is prob unique but generaly I think the best bet is to hunt them down and A: kill them if they pose an immediate threat B: arrest and try them if they can be captured alive or C: if the situation allows use them to dismantle their network by either turning them or spying on them.

And yes terrorists do exist just ask the families or survivors of the WTC, the 2 Bali bombings or just yesterday the poor fuckers doing their shoping in a Baghdad market.

agreed. why is j2 trying to confuse us


the one thing that makes a terrorist a terrorist is the targeting of civilians.

[j2k4]

Confused?

Why?

I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.

This is not difficult, The.

[vidcc]

Well it appears that the most effective way of preventing terrorist attacks, Shown yet again today, is an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.

Odd that Bush thought this was wrong in the run up to the election

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."

(audience booing noted)

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree.

official whitehouse transcript




All praise and thanks to those involved in thwarting the plot today

[GepperRankins]

Confused?

Why?

I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.

This is not difficult, The.

what does government affiliations have to do with anything?


anyway. this extremism and fanaticism is an idea. you can't kill an idea. there are a few mentals, but most terrorists are fighting for a just cause.


lets take isreal and the arab world. if isreal never went for a land grab or tried to create instability and stuff. maybe we could all live happily ever after.


yeah so. the causes of terrorism are ideas and perceptions of injustice. to fight terrorism you have to look at the root cause. bombing doesn't do shit but fuel the ideas behind terrorism.

[j2k4]

Well it appears that the most effective way of preventing terrorist attacks, Shown yet again today, is an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.

Odd that Bush thought this was wrong in the run up to the election

THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."

(audience booing noted)

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree.

official whitehouse transcript

In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)

Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.

What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.

Please stay on point.