[MaugleeRobins]

You could also look at past wars on terror and how unbelievably unsuccessful they have been. As long as you are fighting a concept and not a defined enemy you can't win. The reason being, you can't gauge success. We can say "We have defeated Iraq," and be correct. Some day, we may be able to say "We have defeated Al-Quaeda." But we will never be able to say "We have defeated terrorism." That's the issue I have with the WoT. We should have learned our lesson with the War on Drugs.

[gariharlj]

You could also look at past wars on terror and how unbelievably unsuccessful they have been. As long as you are fighting a concept and not a defined enemy you can't win. The reason being, you can't gauge success. We can say "We have defeated Iraq," and be correct. Some day, we may be able to say "We have defeated Al-Quaeda." But we will never be able to say "We have defeated terrorism." That's the issue I have with the WoT. We should have learned our lesson with the War on Drugs.

I completly agree - when we have done that then we have obtained utopia. As long as there is freedom of choice the battle between good and evil you might say we will have terroism -- the willful act of violating the natural instinc and order of civilized humanity.

[accotMask17]

I completly agree - when we have done that then we have obtained utopia. As long as there is freedom of choice the battle between good and evil you might say we will have terroism -- the willful act of violating the natural instinc and order of civilized humanity.

I know what you are saying, and I agree that we will never defeat "injustice" as you may call it. But...we have to be careful when grouping terrorism in with the rest. The reason being that terrorism is like facism; the word means absolutely nothing. While Sarah's definition of terrorism in her short essay is one small section of the USG's definition, in reality there is no real definition of terrorism. The UN's definition is 12 pages long, for example. This is because nobody can agree on what actually constitutes terrorism. If you go with the three sentence definition, then every government in the world is a terrorist organization. Generally, historically speaking, both sides in most conflicts call the enemy three things: facists, terrorists, and murderers. Who wins the conflict decides which one the history book records as the good guys.

That's what I mean when I say we can never defeat "terrorism."

[desmond001]

I know what you are saying, and I agree that we will never defeat "injustice" as you may call it. But...we have to be careful when grouping terrorism in with the rest. The reason being that terrorism is like facism; the word means absolutely nothing. While Sarah's definition of terrorism in her short essay is one small section of the USG's definition, in reality there is no real definition of terrorism. The UN's definition is 12 pages long, for example. This is because nobody can agree on what actually constitutes terrorism. If you go with the three sentence definition, then every government in the world is a terrorist organization. Generally, historically speaking, both sides in most conflicts call the enemy three things: facists, terrorists, and murderers. Who wins the conflict decides which one the history book records as the good guys.

That's what I mean when I say we can never defeat "terrorism."

Well i agree with you in priciple but sometimes I think we complicate the evident - terroism is simply the inflicting of terror. What ever spectrum that covers - I am sure the Nazi's were terrified when they saw the US headed their way - were they terroist? Well certainly not to the Jews that were locked up in the camps. They were the heros so that validates your point so there has to be more to the definition. I think maybe the catagory itself deserves its own word and definition as not to create confusion to the term. I was talking with BOO BOO today and the movie "Ghost in the darkness" The lions in this movie began hunting men. The interresting point to the movie was the fact that these two male lions were living and hunting together. It went agianst their natural law and instinct. It was more than one Lion deciding to be a man killer but two coming together on a common thought of unatural behavior. This is similar to the way i think terroism is. I keep going back to the original thought that I had - If we played the tape out and they were successful what would the picture look like for them?

[inownsuipsy]

In the military world; we just keep it to layman's terms. Terrorism is a form of attack that involves the civilian community regardless how its motivated or what principles it lies. Its purpose is to incite fear into the general public. Military organizations do not terrorize. No need to have a Master's thesis to realize that.

And its Ghost and the Darkness with Michael Douglas and Val Kilmer. Based on a true story. Excellent flick. In my DVD collection. They were killing man for sport but I dont know how that compares to a suicide bomber blowing himself up in the name of Allah or a radical group of terrorists slamming planes into the Twin Towers Hey Lions go bite that building!! The minds of animals (even those had unique thinking) shouldnt compare to the minds of terrorists. Just my humble opinion.

I am from NYC so I am passionate about 911 that hit my hometown.

Some posts are reminiscent of the show in Living Color when Damon Wayans was playing the intellect in the jail cell lol.

Anyway, I captured and detained individuals for terrorist acts but not necessarily were terrorists (by whatever definition). Some Iraqis were threatened and/or paid to carry out terrorist acts (plant a bomb) so they can pay for their farms and family. Simply coerced into their actions by some enemy (you might say terrorists) groups and were more than remorseful for their actions. Just the current climate fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since the face of combatants were changed and not listed under the Geneva Convention (meaning we were no longer fighting a uniformed army (enemy) in regards to the laws of war but civilians that started an insurgency; then we placed the label of terrorist on them.

Anyway, I will take shoe throwing anytime if radicals want to express their hate in that manner.

[Cinzomzm]

Anyway, I will take shoe throwing anytime if radicals want to express their hate in that manner.

I just hope I'm as nimble as Bush when my shoe throwing time comes. He was like Neo.

[SM9WI8oI]

I just hope I'm as nimble as Bush when my shoe throwing time comes. He was like Neo.

devil dog, check the pic on this last post lol

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/s...ifcombatvetnyc

[Automobill]

.

Terrorism has been in the history of man since the 17th century.

Terrorism has been in the history of man since (Genesis 21:9-12) around 2100 BC

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Genesis 21:9-12)

"The end of Israel is the goal of our struggle, and it allows for neither compromise nor mediation... We don't want peace. We want war, victory." (Yasser Arafat, 1972)

"The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, proclaims the establishment of the state of Palestine on our Palestinian land, with Jerusalem as its capital." (Yasser Arafat, 15 November 1988)

"To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country where this is possible." (Bin Laden, 1998)

Don't be fooled when others tell you terrorism started on September 11, 2001 it did not. It's no secret that the Arabs hate the Jews. Genesis 21:9-12 is the real starting point. If I were to propose a conclusion at the beginning of this article it would be this. The Philistines do not own the land. They have no rights to it.

You can read here about the formation and dispensing of the state of Israel. Don't be fooled by the liberal media and Arab sympathizers when they say the State of Israel is really called Philistine (it's Philistine by the way, not Palestine)

The US State Department rightly calls it Israel.

This article, next to my own, is great and does an excellent job of proving the lies of the Philistines.

How about do you remember this.

"Do you know the chant of the Islamic Jihad as they go throughout Israel? "We will push Israel into the sea, and then we will destroy America, the great Satan." That’s the chant of the radical Muslim fundamentalists. "We'll push Israel into the sea, and then we'll destroy America, the great Satan." There is a violent anti-American spirit within the realm of the Islamic Jihad,
"the fundamentalist Muslims."

Where Zionists repeatedly recalled the Arab threat "to throw the Jews into the sea," Morris quotes the fuller statement made during World War I by the Jaffa Muslim-Christian Association: "We will push the Zionists into the sea -- or they will send us back into the desert.

"You observed quite rightly that some Israelis point to the collapse of the negotiations to "prove" that the Palestinians really only want to " push Israel into the sea."

"However, Yasser Arafat began working against Israel before they even became a fledgling nation in 1948. Arafat’s goal has been and remains to "push the Israelis into the sea"

Let's not forget the 1979 hostage situation in Iran. The basic fact is that the Arabs have and will protect the Philistines. In other words, look out for them because they believe they (the Philistines) got the short end of the stick when they felt that "their land was taken from them." Again, as before the babies need to be quiet, shut up, and stop all terrorist activities. They need to accept the fact that Israel is a state, it's there for good, and that they are fortunate that Israel does not take more Arab land.

People would like to have us believe that the Philistines are called Palestinians they are not. They have changed their name because they do not want to be known as the philistines of old because they were always fighting and loosing to Israel. So they are really the Philistines of old not the Palestinians there is no such people or name.

It all stems from the fact that it goes back with Ishmael and Isaac. Almost the entire Middle East belongs to Israel. The bible is clear that Israel was to take all the land some were left and made to be a thorn in Israel's side. This war between the Philistines and Israel has gone on since Abraham, and will continue till the end of the age.

In 1948 the Philistines were the occupiers not the Israelis. They were upset that Britain gave the land to Israel, and by 1968 the Arab states gathered together to fight with Israel and take back the land it failed. From that time the Arabs were humiliated. From this point on it has always been to push Israel into the sea. The whole Arab world would like to destroy Israel because of the way they feel Israel has treated the Philistine crybabies. They hate America because of our foreign policy. All terrorist attacks are based on the hatred for Israel, and the "injustice of the philistine people" so called that they think. People don't fall for this non-sense!


,

[Imalaycle]

Well, after reading the "paper" and the responses..This is a college paper? Sure isn't very long. I also agree that the jabs at Bush jr/Sr are a little simplistic and shortsighted. All in all, it is an ok start but you need a lot of work. 1/3 of your paper is a definition. Keep in mind that just because the prof thinks something doesn't mean he/she is right and you have to agree in order to get an A. Yes the topic is very leading and asks you to provide evidence/opinion to support an opinion not a fact but, you can provide information from both sides in the body of your paper and provide your personal judgement of the facts in your conclusion and still warrent an A whether you agree or disagree.

[jokilewqs]

.
Michele, Shrike, TJ, VW, ring, MM, Machine, Crusty, SgtAllen3381,USMC8156,DAG48…bombsquadron6 dang… me forgets all em…you all hiding, chicken....
ok ok ok,
Sarah... when is paper due?
I can't believe with the great minds we have here on this board no one has posted.
Now, I make a idiot out of my self here... he he he
Tonight I do some study and try to post something that follows along with my thoughts.
have you received the below yet?
.

Why would I be hiding chicken?

[RorieSorNearop]

Yes this is the second part of my final.
It needs to be 2-3 pages and what I put up earlier is 2 1/2 in Word

[cQT6nmEc]

Ok, if I were grading..

In the beginning terror (makes no sense-remove the definition and you have your sentance as "in the beginning terror"), as defined by the US government as, "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." This definition of Terror was published in 1984 by the Congress, and fully covered what was considered terror within the United States for many years. But this definition changed in the minds of governmental officials when al-Qaeda became an international threat in 2001. (prove it. Where does it say that the definition changed? What is the new definition? You make a claim and provide no evidence to support your claim)

The war we have waged on terror in this century is a direct reaction to terrorist actions in the United States instituting a ‘new’ ideology of thinking from government officials. (so the war is a direct reaction to the terrorist actions instituting a new ideology of thinking in gov officials? and that ideology is....) The United States has changed its thoughts on terror to help give meaning to a now seven year old long war. (Changed to what? You keep saying the government changed it's definition and thoughts on terrorism but never say what it was changed to) Though terror was inflicted on the US the war is not waged on US soil, nor on the soil of the leaders of the terrorist cell. It is waged in a place where President Bush Sr. failed at capturing an old terrorist, and where his son decided he needed to finish the job. (did you forget that we are also fighting in Afghanistan? Or did I miss Bush Sr. failing there?) Bush Jr. uses the excuse of terror to wage war on a country that did not produce the terrorists who have acted against the US. (so then your solution is to wage war on any country that produced a member of Al Qaeda? That seems pretty unreasonable to me. We should attack outselves and our allies because of where the terrorists were born?)

The terror enacted on the US was, and could have been taken care of with a series of military strikes (impressive. you are a military strategist now. Where would those strikes have been and how can you guarantee that they would have ended terrorism forever?) but is now a drawn out war thanks to a new warped sense of the definition of terrorist. (again with a new defintition that you have yet to define) The US has the thinking that they are the ‘world police’. (this is nothing new and goes back to the beginning of the U.S. and manifest Destiney so surely this isn't the "new" ideology that you were referring to-look at who got us into more police actions Clinton; Somalia, Bosnia, etc... Bush; 2 wars but no police actions) We are not them, (we are not who?) we are simply the country that the terrorists aimed the biggest gun at and took pot shots at. These terrorists were not put there to bring down the US or to disrupt New York’s infrastructure, but to show their dislike of Western culture. (so now you are a member of Al Qaeda and know what their intentions were?) The essence of our culture as a whole infuriates the Terrorists and the culture is what they are striking against, not us, not our people, economy or building styles, but our culture. The non-traditional, non-religious culture perpetrated the worst in the United States. (what culture? Perpetrated the worst what?)

As per Mr. Rodenbeck’s review he states that “pulling the rug from under al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations by removing at least some of their causes for violence…” This as a whole is a foolish statement. Giving a terrorist organization money and weapons so it won’t attack makes about as much sense as giving a rapist women and children so they won’t attack the populous. Although bin Laden’s group started as ‘rag tag’ it has grown into one of the most complex and strongest terrorist organizations in history thanks to American money. (proof?) We, the US, are fighting against people we, at one time, were paying and arming. So this ‘rag tag’ group is no longer rag tag but a strong fighting force dedicated to the destruction of Western values and nothing we can give them will change their thirst for the next jihad. Terrorists of this kind use a kind of military training for their members. Thus changing their brain patterns, successfully making them forever a damaged people intent on destruction and murder. (so they should all be killed since there is no reforming them?) This theory of treatment is called Behavior Modification. During Behavior Modification undesirable behaviors are identified and corrected. This correction is through a series of training, belittling, and emotional impact. These corrections then seemingly create a ‘new person’ intent on terroristic thought and processes. (incorrect use of BM-if it were BM, your previous assertation that they are forever damaged is completely false since you could use BM to change them back to productive members of society)

Terrorism, although based on religion is not completely about religion. (incorrect. Not all terrorism is based on religion) Terrorist leaders use extreamist religion to further control and suck in more and more members. But Terrorism is simply criminal behavior exhibited on a large scale. Terrorists begin to believe, thanks to the religious extremism, that they have the right to violate natural law to expound their belief system.

As someone once stated “you can’t address the unreasonable with reason-that in its self is unreasonable.

Thanks for all your help Mel

[Tumarimmicdak]

.....

Why would I be hiding chicken?

:-P


....

[kilibry]

.

Well, after reading the "paper" and the responses..This is a college paper? Sure isn't very long. I also agree that the jabs at Bush jr/Sr are a little simplistic and shortsighted. All in all, it is an ok start but you need a lot of work. 1/3 of your paper is a definition. Keep in mind that just because the prof thinks something doesn't mean he/she is right and you have to agree in order to get an A. Yes the topic is very leading and asks you to provide evidence/opinion to support an opinion not a fact but, you can provide information from both sides in the body of your paper and provide your personal judgement of the facts in your conclusion and still warrent an A whether you agree or disagree.

If I might say, excellent observation and post!....... hawk

.

[feedcomnet]

Why thank you. If the author does agree with the prof, that is fine but college is supposed to expand your horizons not just teach you what you already know so do write a proper paper (esp an opinion one), you need to explore both sides and THEN and only then present your conclusions.

[oxinsnepe]

.

Why thank you. If the author does agree with the prof, that is fine but college is supposed to expand your horizons not just teach you what you already know so do write a proper paper (esp an opinion one), you need to explore both sides and THEN and only then present your conclusions.

your welcome, and if she don't agree... well heck we just post something w/o proof, and get her going, maybe Sarah... just testing us....

.