clodia_risa (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
clodia_risa) wrote2005-03-08 03:41 pm
clodia_risa) wrote2005-03-08 03:41 pm
Terror and Security
Today, at the National Defense University, the President said that "terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050308-3.html)
I've been wondering about this. At first, it seems true - if we have the terrorist so much on the run, then they won't have the time or energy to come after us. But I've been thinking. Isn't their lack of security, or at least feeling as if they have no security the entire reason that the terrorists attacked and continue to attack the US/US forces? Don't they feel insecure due to the U.S., and so started this whole thing? And in Iraq, how successful have we been in stopping the insurgents, even as they feel more and more insecure? Wasn't the week of the elections fairly bloody, as "democracy" started to take flight (or whatnot)?
So, will making our enemies, the terrorist, more insecure cause them to stop these attacks, or will their fear make them continue?
EDIT:
The President continued: "When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide."
But isn't the tactics of the terrorist guerilla? They hit and run...so they're already running. And how much training does it take to set off a bomb?
I've been wondering about this. At first, it seems true - if we have the terrorist so much on the run, then they won't have the time or energy to come after us. But I've been thinking. Isn't their lack of security, or at least feeling as if they have no security the entire reason that the terrorists attacked and continue to attack the US/US forces? Don't they feel insecure due to the U.S., and so started this whole thing? And in Iraq, how successful have we been in stopping the insurgents, even as they feel more and more insecure? Wasn't the week of the elections fairly bloody, as "democracy" started to take flight (or whatnot)?
So, will making our enemies, the terrorist, more insecure cause them to stop these attacks, or will their fear make them continue?
EDIT:
The President continued: "When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide."
But isn't the tactics of the terrorist guerilla? They hit and run...so they're already running. And how much training does it take to set off a bomb?
no subject
Bush-supporter: Our attacking Iraq was good because we've scared the terrorists. They won't attack us because they know that we'll retaliate against their country.
Me and Alexis: Eh, no. Terrorists only get more pissed off at us when we attack their country. They're terrorists, they don't run on Earth-logic. They are not going to think rationally. Plus, usually they're attacking us because we've ALREADY destroyed or harmed their country. That's often why they become terrorists in the first place.
Also, the terrorists-are-in-Iraq was just used as an excuse to justify going after Saddam, but that's an entirely different story.
But, in conclusion, me and Alexis agreed that the whole let's-bomb-the-terrorists is not going to make them our friends. Even if we keep this generation of terrorists on the run until they die, they'll have children who will be brought up to hate us . . .
Also, terrorists can easily change their location to a place that isn't getting bombed. War creates chaos, which is never good for border control . . .