cease fire, how long will it last?

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Military actions and tighter security might help prevent terrorist attacks in the homeland but in doing so we expose our troops to the danger. Their tactics are much different from ours since they don't value their lives at all and consider it an honor to sacrifice themselves and take a few soldiers with them. Terrorist groups existed for a long time but the US only started hunting them down after 9/11.

[Arta]

As mentioned, a war on terrorism is futile.

Name a single example of a terrorist movement that has been overcome and eliminated by violent means. I dare you.

[Hazard]

Arta:
What do you mean by eliminated? Whiped out completely? None.
Name for me a diplomatic action that has completely whiped out ANYTHING. You won't be able to find one.

Well, Arta it has been over 3 years since an al-Qaeda attack on American soil... I'd say that movement has been overcome by overwhelming force and straight violence. What would you have us do, talk to the animals? Reason with the unreasonable? We should all just bow to Allah and give terrorists whatever they want for the sake of peace?

[quasi-modo]

-Vietnam was not a "war" as there was no actual declaration of war. Do you not consider Vietnam a war?

-Hamas characterizes themselves as soldiers of Allah and an actual military organization to defend the will of God. Even though they classify themselves as soldiers and a military organization, they aren't really one because they don't meet your own personal requirements?

Vietnam is a country, not a war nor was it ever a war.  I like how we can suddenly change when or when not our classifications matter.  That is so American to use and appropriate things to their liking (i.e. We say Hamas is a terrorist organization, but for sake of argument let's throw a curve ball and say they're a military organization by their own definition just because I want point in this debate.)  Also, I fail to see how your logic works out.  I came to the same conclusion Adron did.

That logic would dictate that there is no war going on in Iraq right now even though our troops fight insurgents every day.
"war on terror", it is a war but not against a country, but against groups.

[quasi-modo]

As mentioned, a war on terrorism is futile.

Name a single example of a terrorist movement that has been overcome and eliminated by violent means. I dare you.

Arta, they hate us, they hate our culture. Until we are dead or convirt to Islam this is not going to stop. Being nice to them is not going to solve the problem.

[dxoigmn]

Vietnam is a country, not a war nor was it ever a war.  I like how we can suddenly change when or when not our classifications matter.  That is so American to use and appropriate things to their liking (i.e. We say Hamas is a terrorist organization, but for sake of argument let's throw a curve ball and say they're a military organization by their own definition just because I want point in this debate.)  Also, I fail to see how your logic works out.  I came to the same conclusion Adron did.

That logic would dictate that there is no war going on in Iraq right now even though our troops fight insurgents every day.
"war on terror", it is a war but not against a country, but against groups.

What logic are you talking about?  Vietnam is a country.  I can find you a map online and show where it is if that is necessary.  There is no war in Iraq going on now.  A war is between states not some random guerillas running around with RPGs.  And if you want to extend this further, one could say there never was a war because congress never declared one.

Name a single example of a terrorist movement that has been overcome and eliminated by violent means. I dare you.

Arta, they hate us, they hate our culture. Until we are dead or convirt to Islam this is not going to stop. Being nice to them is not going to solve the problem.

You don't know that being nice to them won't solve anything and you have no proof to say otherwise.  Beside that, you're sidestepping the question.

[Arta]

How do you know that there would have been an attack without the war on terrorism? Islamic extremists were around for a long time before 9/11. In fact, I think 9/11 was a freak occurence.

The IRA were regularly blowing up parts of London before Blair opened up the possibility of diplomacy - something that the previous government had steadfastly refused to do on the grounds that you can't give in to terrorist demands - and now the IRA is practically dead. It's still there, don't get me wrong, but they haven't attacked London or Northern Ireland in a long time, and I doubt they will any time soon. Thus, they are irrelevant.

Also, as I have mentioned in previous conversations, I don't think violence is always inappropriate. I supported the war in Afghanistan. It's just this ongoing, neverending, ill-defined war on terrorism that I don't agree with. In Isreal's case, I think their actions are flawed because they're not working. Isreal needs to observe what is so, and do what works. They're doing an excellent job of observing what is so, but they're not doing what works by any stretch of the imagination...

[Hazard]

-Dxo, are you saying that guerrilas can't be an organized fighting force? The Viet Cong were a guerilla force "running around with RPG's" and they were still considered a military unit.

-A carefully planned and plotted attack nearly a decade in the works was a freak occurance? Explain that one to me.

[Arta]

It was not one of a series of attacks. It was not a member of a set of attacks. It was a single event, unconnected to other potential terrorist attacks on American soil. The fact that 9/11 occured does not automatically increase the probability of another terrorist attack. America is not more at risk following 9/11 than it was before 9/11.

[Hazard]

I argue that it is less. Terrorist factions have seen the imminent destruction that follows an attack on Americans.

[dxoigmn]

-Dxo, are you saying that guerrilas can't be an organized fighting force? The Viet Cong were a guerilla force "running around with RPG's" and they were still considered a military unit.

No, I am speaking specifically to what is going on in Iraq.

[Arta]

I argue that it is less. Terrorist factions have seen the imminent destruction that follows an attack on Americans.

Yeah, I'm sure they're quaking in their boots, considering that the sum total of America's response has been the failure to capture the only guy that really mattered (Bin Laden) and to attack an irrelevant country.

The only good thing was the removal of the Taliban, a government that really did sponsor terrorism and was horribly oppressive.

[Adron]

I argue that it is less. Terrorist factions have seen the imminent destruction that follows an attack on Americans.

I argue that it is somewhat less with Americas recent moves towards a police state. Terrorism was rare in the soviet union, when the secret police had everyone in their clutches.

[Hazard]

There are no secret police. Everything is being done in the public eye and everybody has to answer to somebody. Your conspiracy theory is wrong. The fact is, Adron and Arta aren't even qualified to speak on any of this because they don't know anything about American policy. I doubt either of you have any sort of experience in the field and have never studied American foreign policy with any sort of depth.

[dxoigmn]

The fact is, Adron and Arta aren't even qualified to speak on any of this because they don't know anything about American policy. I doubt either of you have any sort of experience in the field and have never studied American foreign policy with any sort of depth.

You're a 17 year old high schooler.  I don't think you've studied American foreign policy in depth other than what has been offered at your high school and maybe read a few books here and there.

Point is, I don't think you have any basis for trying to call people out.