argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
All TopicsCurrent EventsGeneral Current Events

Arguments for and against

The United States needs to devise a better strategy for dealing with terrorists

Terrorists are not common criminals and usually aren't even citizens. neither are they neatly military combatants.

started by egorz13 on 1/28/10.

The United States needs to devise a better strategy for dealing with terrorists
For Against
 
arguesreason
I agree there is a need for a better strategy. It seems our model of dealing with terrorists is aimed at fighting the last terrorist attack. Some noted members of the intelligence community have said the 9-11 attacks were in part due to a lack of imagination. That all being written, with all honesty and humility I must admit I do not know how to improve the strategy.

by elwoodlaw (83.67) on 2/11/10.

30
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
A really important issue to discuss. Thanks for bringing it up.

Just to provoke discussion, what is wrong with this definition? I pieced it together just from all notions of 'terrorist' in public discourse?

"A member of a group unaffiliated with any U.N.-recognized government or army who uses direct assaults on civilians (instead of soldiers) to invoke fear for use as a weapon for political ends."

by Krista17 (78) on 2/20/10.

20
argumentsreasons

 
 
argumentsdebate
"At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."

Unfortunately, there is no end to the scope of terrorism or terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, who has been accused of arranging the death of 3,000 Americans, will find a violent death the instant he wanders between the cross hairs of any American military or alert American civilian. Slobodan Milošević, responsible for the death of 300,000 foreigners, was allowed a trial that persisted until he died of a heart attack.

My point is, terrorism is subjective. Generally, it's relegated to killing in the name of... whatever. As long as there is an unscheduled explosion, we can call it terrorism. Some might argue that the death of civilians constitutes terrorism, but try having that argument with anybody on Death Row. Government's monopoly on violence aside, non-terrorist civilian murder happens all the time; crimes of passion, organized crime, global genocide, serial killers, car accidents, what have you. None of these are pursued as acts of terrorism.

Should the United States deal with terrorism differently than we do any other form of murder or mass murder? I don't see why. Is there a particular action "terrorists" make that precludes them from the same rights we fight to protect for other murderers? The "terrorist" known as Timothy McVeigh was dead inside of six years. Charles Mason is still alive.

I don't know that the United States needs to wrap their heads around terrorism so much as crime in general, which is probably the most heady undertaking mankind has to face.


by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 2/15/10.

21
argumentargue

 
The United States needs to devise a better strategy for dealing with terrorists
 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues