Topic awaiting preservation: Land of the Free? ][

OK continued from here:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000548.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

So, yea. We should definatly make people from countries with terrorist cells have ID's. But I agree that we should make all tourists have them. It seems sort of stupid to only pick certain people. I mean how about Ireland, what about their terrorist? I imagine all coutries, to some extent have terrorists.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

'You can control some of the people some of the time...but not all of the people all of the time'.

With that in mind...think about it.

The only guerilla (read - terrorist) war ever 'won' was from the British...and at a horrible price to the general populance.

Hit-and-run tactics...they don't really 'win' a war...but then, they are not really meant to. And any amount of security can be gotten around.

I beg to differ WS.

Guerilla Warfare has a winning record and is not the same as terrorism. Successful Guerilla Wars include: Vietnam, Afghanistan(against the Soviets), the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaraugua by the Sandinistas, The Spanish Civil War, and one that is close to my families heart...Cuba.

Guerilla warfare still involves engaging the enemy army, just not directly. Its main purpose is to defeat an enemy through the depletion of his resources. In Guerilla warfare its better to wound a soldier than kill him. Because it takes more resources to treat a wounded soldier then to bury a dead one. Civilians are not targeted as such, but are usually killed when they are near armies or resources (say blowing up a power plant). The object of Guerilla warfare is money.

You you are right however about terrorism, no one has ever been victorious using terror as weapon. In fact it usually increases an enemies resolve when civilians are targeted specifically. One could argue that the PLO may have won a war, but if they did the victory appears to be very pyrrhic.


-tiki, cell 478

<edit=tikiTs>


[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 10-08-2002).]

Yes, many Palestinians are starting to come out against the intifada, not because it's immoral, but because it isn't working.

Hmmm...tiki, I meant that no country (except Britian) has won a 'war' where the other side was using guerilla (re - terroristic) tactics. The main reason for this is, the terrorists 'hide' within the mainstream population...meaning that one has to basically 'wipe out' the mainstream population, to 'win'...which means, there normally isn't all that much left over...

As long as a few 'terrorsts' are left over...they wait, and 'build' their strength again...to 'win' (so to speak), one must eradicate all of them...and their ideas. An almost impossible task...with warfare.

That's what I meant.

Actually WS you are very wrong.

In the revolutionary war, we used hit and run tactics against britain and we won.... Not britain.

Now in the civil war, Mr. Lee, (Robert), general of the confederacy, happened to use hit and run tactics (guerilla) very well.

See the north had much more money, they had more technology, and weapons. And they also had african american soldiers, not to say the south didn't but the north had more.

The south had a great leader, and much better training. They had much more ambition which was in a subtle way an advantage. They also had a 'tit more men as well.

The disadvantages of the north came by long perioid of sustained inflation. They also were massively spread out which was harder to control.

The disadvantages of the south, were the oposite to the advantages of the north.

Nevertheless, the south didn't win, and they used guerilla warfare. So there was a 'war' where the other side used guerilla warfare and lost.

Why have ID's for tourists? Thats what passports are for. I went to brasil and my passport was my way into my 4 star hotel which was aptly named 'Breezes.' I still don't think that random checks based on ethnicity is any problem. Of course people (mainly that of the ethnicity) are going to get pissed and retaliate. But what does that tell you? They have something to hide. And if they don't well what the fuck are they complaining for.

When someone said "Why are you checking everyone of our ethnicity in the country? Why not some white man and his family?"

Well the answer to that is more than simple. If I were to answer I would simply say:

"Because the white man and his family and his family heritage have not caused much a threat to us. If you have nothing to hide than there shouldn't be a problem and bitching about it won't get you anywhere and it is only making it harder. When the white man and his family make a scene, their time will come and it will be total anarchy."

No problems here, racial profiling is just fine with me.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Hmmm...InSiDeR...I think you haven't read my last post...so...

As for the Civil war...well, that was a war, with both sides battling on battlefields. Granted, there were many 'dirty' little 'tactics' going on...but most of the actual battles were decided on the battlefield...and therefore, is not typical of a guerilla war...

My point being, that militarily, the US has very little chance of 'stamping' this thing out...alone. We need other measures, and allies, to handle this.

Like it or not, a political solution to the problem is probably better...and may be necessary. To isolate ourselves, build the border up (re - close it) is not a working solution...history has shown that it won't work. And sending our military all over the world, to 'hunt down' the terrorists, will most probably not 'secure' us...unless we get every last one of them. Now, the world is very large...and they have plenty of hiding places...and they can afford to wait...which we can't. Also, with every 'attack' on foreign soil, we 'stir up' potentially hostilities to us...esp. if it keeps happening, again and again. I don't think the world would be 'patient' with a US that is hell-bent on going into every country that may be harboring terrorists militarily...we already see problems with Iraq...what about a more 'benign' country like Malyasia...?

We also need to move towards 'changing' the mentality of those who view us (and western civilization) as the 'Great Satan'. Otherwise, the 'seeds' of today will 'sprout' tomorrow...and the cycle will continue.

And as for the 'white man', well, I believe McVey (sp?) proved that yes, even whites within Americas boarders are capable of terroristic acts against us. Don't forget about Oklahoma...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-08-2002).]

And what did we do about McVay? Anyone?

We executed him.

See it's repetetive from that of the ethnicity to be making such attacks onto this country.

If there were more 'white men' then we would have a problem. And we still have a domestic militia of white men who strongly dislike our government and have tried to overthrow and destroy it by bombing such places.

But they are more like a legend, only seen ever one thousand years sort of thing, or in this case decades. And they attack, I am sure the government will try their best to prosecute the ones who have a relation to the terrorists. And I'll bet that by doing these random searches, the government will learn more by doing so and in the proccess aprehend some suspected terrorists.

Once again, no problems here.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

the South lost cause their Navy lost and they didn't have the resources to keep fighting when the Northern Navy cut off supplies coming from France.