Debate suggestion.

Ok for school debating I have to attack the thesis 'America should stop their war against terrorism'. Got some argument suggestion for me?

Thanks in advance.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

8. Bush put pressure etc

His <b>allies</b> are already on his side.

Northern Ireland told the British the foolishness of taking it easy on terrorists. Funnily enough when the army really did get tough (Bloody Sunday) they got chopped off at the ankles.

Terrorists are cowards who hide behind civilians and kill other civilians.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">My System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

1.) Assuming 'War Against Terrorism' includes Iraq and North Korea, you could give examples of how the policy of appeasement utterly failed in taming Hitler in the 1930s. Force is often the only means to "solve" people like Hussein.

2.) The fact of the matter is that these terrorists represent a clear and present danger to this nation. Regardless of <b>why</b> they happened, NO ONE can deny that they are murderers, and what they are doing is wrong. Attacking terrorism does not rule out the possibility of changing Middle East policy to prevent future outbreaks of terrorism. (Although I doubt the US will do this) The United States should get rid of terrorists FIRST, *then* worry about how to heal the rift with the Arab world.

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>

Afghanistan has not been 'saved' to a great extent-things there are almost as bad as they were except with even less stability.They have a puppet in power who means nothing to them.There are also reports of acid attacks by former Taliban supporters on women exercising their new right to go without the burkha.

Yes, but not everything the US does is good either.In the same way as not everything done by a Middle Eastern country is bad.
People need to learn the double standards about the word 'terrorism' which i think i underlined earlier with the help of camieabz.


no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]

it's gonna be slightly propagandist though.things are definitely getting better but they aren't so good as the media would have you believe.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]

i don't think it will be an accurate representation of the majority of the people though.if it's for a music channel then, by definition, they will be looking for people who have access to music.Since music was outlawed until very recently, only the better off of the population are going to have some kind of music by now coz it's gonna take a while to filter into the country.
To be fair though, you can only achieve so much in Afghanistan as history has proven.For hundreds of years there have been problems there.Even in the 1700s the British were involved.It will never be a very stable or cohesive country because it's so tribal-there's no real national identity (though that can be a good thing).

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]

A while ago, a National Geographic photographer tracked down the Afghan woman that made him famous. You might remember her; she was the one with the piercing green eyes. She is a member of one of the most war-like tribes in all of Afghanistan and was in a refugee camp when her picture was first taken.
The photographer, when he found her again after so many years, asked her what she thought about the whole Taliban/US thing.
He asked if she wanted the US to send soldiers to fight the Taliban.
She said no.
He asked if she wanted the US to send weapons for them to use against the Taliban.
She said no.
He asked if she wanted the US to send money.
She said no.
He asked if she wanted the US to send food.
She said no.
He asked if she wanted the US to send medicine.
She said no.
He asked her what she wanted the US to do for them.
She said send teachers.

Flame not, lest ye be phlegmed.

Have a look at this page if it will load. It has some interesting information that may help you with your debate.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottop [...] Background to the crisis

Jules

I don't like the word terrorists because of the way it is used today. If you look at what the word terror means, in this context the US would be the biggest example of terrorists. Today it mainly means someone against whom usa (or a couple of other countries) want to take military or otherwise forceful action.

Also if you carefully look at history you'd see without some of the violent groups, things wouldn't have happened the way they did. I mean Malcolm X played no small part.

Plus, quoting yourself: "You can't change people (or people's minds) with violence". Does that not apply to the american forces?

<b><font color=red>I'm a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up.</font color=red></b>

Afghanistan won't change overnight. Many of their "values" that we find so offensive are not so much a government thing as they are a cultural thing.

Their culture still degrades and abuses women, for example. I think it is pretty damned primitive; however, one government or another won't change that.

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>

you still don't get it do you.learn to form your own opinions irrespective of what the media want you to believe.

Wrong.The US was attacked by an organisation called Al Quaeda who may or may not exist and who were affiliated in some way with the Taliban.Much of it is conjecture and the fact is we don't know much about who they were/are. whenever anyone farts now it is attributed to Al Quaeda.

Bollocks again.If a government as a whole uses terror tactics it is acting as a terrorist or a group of terrorists-cf. 'The Terror'- a period of post Revolutionary French government.


no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]

It may just seem like semantics but such points are very important.Mislabelling things can be very incendiary in politics-just look at the problems caused by Bush calling the 'war on terrorism' a 'crusade' and the vagueries surrounding the use of the phrase 'Islamic terrorism'.

On this point i can agree with you.

No.But i am saying that they are all perpetrating acts of terror to a greater or lesser extent and so they can be put under the same broad umbrella.Once under that umbrella you can identify the likes of Al Qaeda or the 'Real IRA' (much more bloodthirsty nowadays than the official IRA) as being more terror orientated than, say, our respective governments.
You must not forget that little in war is done 'inadvertantly'.Governments are fully aware of potential civilian casualties but they often decide that the benefit to them is worth the sacrifice.

I have already explained to you the uses/users of terror tactics in government but i will do so again if you wish.
Ok.So we start with the old precedent of 'The Terror' in post-Revolution France of the 1790s.Then we skip over to today where we have, as i explained earlier, the likes of the Bush administration (and my own UK Blairite government of course) along with the Israeli government past and present.Just so you don't think i am picking on the Westernised governments, there are also the likes of Robert Mugabe's Zanu PF government in Zimbabwe.In the East we have also had Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the past.etc. etc. etc.The list goes on and on.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ad_rach on 02/03/03 11:00 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

While i accept the existence of Al Qaeda, the point i was making is that they are impossible to quantify (granted that was one thing in which i did not make myself entirely clear).There is a lot of mythology about them created by the media and one cannot decide what is true and what isn't.Too often do we hear any attack of any kind lumped under the name Al Qaeda when they will have had nothing to do with it.They have become like the boogieman.

That is what i was saying to camieabz when he was suggesting that non-terrorists do not resort to violence.The point is that such casualties are not 'inadvertant', they are entirely expected and 'budgeted' for,so to speak.

Read my last post-the whole umbrella thing.I am on neither side, i just recognise the double-standards surrounding the concept of terrorism.You can't call one side terrorists without realising that the same traits show themselves in the other, even if it is to a lesser extent.
I am British but i do recognise our propensity towards terror tactics, Blair being the faithful lapdog of Bush.
Britain and the US both also have a history laced with 'mass murder and torture'.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]

These are the people whom I'd put under the label "Terrorists" (in no particular order):

Certain factions within Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade (not Al Aqsa, thats mosque for heavens sake), Al Qaeda et al. Then there would be The top few individuals of the US government (incl. you know who), Parts of the Russian Government (incl. Mr Putin), Saddam Hussain and his relatives that are still alive. etc. etc.

Who is not a terrorist? The Taliban. They were a government with crappy laws. But they were a government that had more supporters within the Afghanistani population than the current one. If all the foreign Peace Keepers were to leave, there would be a coup within a minute and a half.


<b><font color=red>I'm a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up.</font color=red></b>

The Taliban were a gov't that supported terrorists though. Personally, I'm still pissed off at them for destroying every statue in the country, including those huge Buddhas.

How can people support a gov't that gave them no rights and destroyed their culture?

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Introducing the NVIDIA GeForceFX: The first Videocard designed exclusively for deaf people!</A></font color=red>

Does anyone know how much civilian cassulties there where in the Afghanistan war?
If it is a rather 'low' number of a couple of hundreds one could say (how cruel it sounds) that the war against terrorism had less victims then the terrorist attacks in the last years had.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

Ok... this thread is going the wrong way.

It is not a discussion whether the war against Iraq is good or bad... that isn't the thesis the one I'm going to debate with choose (although she links it with the war against terrorism which isn't completely true).

It is a discussion of arguments to support the war against terrorism (unfortaintly... I could have made up several arguments against it).

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

This is exactly what I am trying to say, there were not THIS many casualties, for a mission to free up almost an entire country. I remember the daily area covering the US military had progressed in, and I simply have to say that I expected much more deaths than that. Again I fail to see why some can't even put it in their thick skulls that the intervention in Afghanistan WAS for the GOOD, it freed a friggin country up damn it, period. I'm not implying about the aftermath, JUST the freeing up.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

Arguements to support a war against terrorism? OH BOY! hmmm....

Well let me think here....


1.) By confronting terrorism, we are reducing the resources available to groups like al quaeda and al aqsa(sp?).

2.) For the short term, we expose ourselves to greater risk of terroristic incidents, but through desensitization, and continued anti-terrorist efforts, terrorism is less effective, and eventually fades out of usefulness.

3.) By information dissemination we are making citizens more aware of what is going on around them, making note that the person they just passed on the street may be a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer (Playing on the paranoia aspect), and that as people, we can do something to help overcome terrorism.


Sorry, but I really have my own views of this whole ordeal, but these are about the best I can think of right now....I hope they work.



This post is guaranteed fresh for up to 7 days after the date printed on the box.

LOL, I saw something about a female teacher teaching kids in Iraq how to use guns. She said her whole family would be armed against an attack. Someone asked "what should a soldier do if confronted by a child with a gun"?

LOL, SHOOT THE BASTARD, his death will be on the heads of the people responsible for putting it there. A lion has no higher level of maturity than a child, yet you would shoot one if it attacked, no?

Soldiers do their best not to shoot unarmed people. It's a tragedy when truely inocent people are caught in the line of fire. But if soldiers excercising due caution still kill an inocent person by accident, that death is also on the head of whoever caused the war.

Now, I don't like Bush and I'm not up for war. But I still see Sadam as the greater of two evils. Muslims see Bush as the greater of two evils. In the end, you have to ask yourself "who started it" and "who poses the larger threat to civilians". I personally think that Sadam is not an ideal target for the "war on terrorism" since most of his atrocities were comitted within his own country. I do think we need to find a way to stop the money flow from his regime to terrorist and their families, but I think this can be mostly accomplised without war. As for his "weapons of mass destruction" he'd have a hard time launching anything with it hidden from inspectors under the desert floor!

You see, the ultimate decision as to what constitutes terrorism is this: who's the target? If civilians are the target, it's terrorism. If military personell are the target, it's war. In war, non targets die, but as long as they are not the target, their deaths are caused by mistakes, not acts of terrorism.

<font color=blue>There are no stupid questions, only stupid people doling out faulty information based upon rumors, myths, and poor logic!</font color=blue>

Sir! That's the spirit! Apathy! Denial!

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Introducing the NVIDIA GeForceFX: The first Videocard designed exclusively for deaf people!</A></font color=red>

No that is the one I'm going to debate against... but as a rule she has to send me her information and then I can serach additional information too. There isn't mentioned anywhere that the war against Iraq is because of the war against terrorism. It is stated as a war to get rid of dicatator Saddam and his possible WMD which he could use at Israel... but one of the big unnamed arguements for the war from the USA's site is the oil.

Anyway if she's against preventing terrorism I can ask her if she thinks it is alright to let extreme Muslim groups with hate against the Western society grow while they tend towards terrorism (they are already here in Europe... not that big though).

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

Well the debate was today and I got 7.5 out of 10 (better to say out of 8 because our teacher never gives higher then an 8)... WooHoooooooooo!

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

We're also gonna have a debate for oral communication evaluation this year. Man am I nervous to see how it is...
Should be this month in fact, and we have not even started training for it.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.