War on terrorism - the wrong idea?
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i don't think mr. gorbachev was saying that "weapons and violence," is the wrong idea, just that it's not neccesarily the only idea.
but i do agree with him... there should be a world summit on the issue of terrorism and how to deal with it... but a meeting of that size and magnitude, would, of course, ineveitably become a target for the same thing they'd be discussing
but i do agree with him... there should be a world summit on the issue of terrorism and how to deal with it... but a meeting of that size and magnitude, would, of course, ineveitably become a target for the same thing they'd be discussing
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Headache in a Suitcase said:
but i do agree with him... there should be a world summit on the issue of terrorism and how to deal with it... but a meeting of that size and magnitude, would, of course, ineveitably become a target for the same thing they'd be discussing
Good idea, Headache. How on Earth would something like that be secured? Any of our military buffs have any ideas?
Could it be any more difficult than securing the recent G-8 summit in Georgia? Also, wasn't there a meeting that for secrurity reasons was held on a ship off the coast of Italy a couple of years ago?
More questions that answers, I know. But I think we've already had meetings that have required very high levels of security.
More questions that answers, I know. But I think we've already had meetings that have required very high levels of security.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Maybe they can just use instant messenger.
OP
OP
Klaus
Refugee
The United Nations seem like the perfect platform to me.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Security of a meeting is not an issue. If you really wanted security, the meeting would be held on an aircraft carrier offshore.
The issues is whether negotiations will achieve anything. Take a look at this thread. This isn't the voice of some crazy terrorist - it is an elected official representing millions.
I know we have an idealistic view of "negotiations" - that they should always be tried because they may lead to something. One persons attempt at peace is another persons regrouping for the next attack.
The issues is whether negotiations will achieve anything. Take a look at this thread. This isn't the voice of some crazy terrorist - it is an elected official representing millions.
I know we have an idealistic view of "negotiations" - that they should always be tried because they may lead to something. One persons attempt at peace is another persons regrouping for the next attack.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
As I have made abundantly clear the problem of Islamic Terrorism is nothing to do with nationalist struggles or legitimate grievances it is all about extermination of all who do not submit to their own version of Islam. These "root causes" which are frequently cited have little to do with terror and solving those problems would not end it. If one was to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with a two state solution does anybody doubt that the Arabs would give up terror? Hamas has made it abundantly clear that they will not stop until all Jews are driven into the sea, they want to bring about a second Holocaust. The Islamists on the other hand have grander views, which will be the total extermination of the infidel all over the world - I do not want to see them get the chance to embark on this because if they are given the means they will not hesitate to use them.
Al Qaeda will not stop, the Islamists will not stop - the only way to defeat them is not through negotiation or listening to their demands. It is by removing the political support they recieve. If we can bring the Muslim world forward, give people eductation, higher living standards and liberty then the support for somebody like Osama bin Laden will drop substantially.
We must work to foster peace between India and Pakistan with the goal of mutual nuclear disarment. Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, unfortunately the mullah's seem hell bent on it - I guess that we will see how that pans out.
In the long run peace can only be guaranteed through liberty. Those who suggest that it is not our place to interfere, that we should leave the status quo in place must acknowledge that it was this very situation that led to the problem in the first place and is perpetuating it. We may have to fight for it when necissary - but this alone may be a more attractive option than leaving the despots in charge.
Al Qaeda will not stop, the Islamists will not stop - the only way to defeat them is not through negotiation or listening to their demands. It is by removing the political support they recieve. If we can bring the Muslim world forward, give people eductation, higher living standards and liberty then the support for somebody like Osama bin Laden will drop substantially.
We must work to foster peace between India and Pakistan with the goal of mutual nuclear disarment. Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, unfortunately the mullah's seem hell bent on it - I guess that we will see how that pans out.
In the long run peace can only be guaranteed through liberty. Those who suggest that it is not our place to interfere, that we should leave the status quo in place must acknowledge that it was this very situation that led to the problem in the first place and is perpetuating it. We may have to fight for it when necissary - but this alone may be a more attractive option than leaving the despots in charge.
Similar threads
