Letting the terrorists win...

[Unwardil]

I'm just questioning if people who say this know what it means.

Totally off topic of a response to another thread but it got me thinking, because I hear it all the time 'If we do X, we're letting the terrorists win'

About 95% of the time, that's bull. The terrorists don't want to make you live under a state that rapes your personal freedoms. They couldn't give a half-hearted crap about your personal rights. They're concerned with their own power or stupid religious beliefs or whatever, not with yours.

Terrorists DO win when say, a huge country declares war on a small one and that action insights outrage across a much broader area, rallying otherwise unrelated factions to their cause, but they don't win because you have to have clammy man hands on your thighs every time you want to take a plane anywhere. You personally lose, but the terrorists don't win.

I'll leave this thoughtlet at that for people to comment or not.

 

[borrofburi]

Don't the terrorists win whenever they cause... well... you know... terror?

And actually some would argue that the terrorists really do want our freedoms gone...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Don't the terrorists win whenever they cause... well... you know... terror?

And actually some would argue that the terrorists really do want our freedoms gone...

...and those people would be dumb. No terrorist leader, and very few terrorists in general, can be as stupid as George W. Bush.

 

[obsidianavenger]

meh, its just a rhetorical device. anything the speaker doesn't wish to have happen "lets the terrorists win".

also, pretty sure the imposition of sharia law would limit many freedoms.... and many have called for the imposition of sharia law in non-muslim countries... so there is a tiny grain of truth to that. just not in the way that bush meant it.

 

[BrainBlow]

When we say "they win", in the context of us losing our rights, it is that we lose our claim to be the good guys who stand for freedom and justice. And since the terrorists have openly loathed democracy, us losing our rights does indeed prove them right when they say democracy is an utterly flawed system.

 

[lrkun]

I'm just questioning if people who say this know what it means.

Totally off topic of a response to another thread but it got me thinking, because I hear it all the time 'If we do X, we're letting the terrorists win'

About 95% of the time, that's bull. The terrorists don't want to make you live under a state that rapes your personal freedoms. They couldn't give a half-hearted crap about your personal rights. They're concerned with their own power or stupid religious beliefs or whatever, not with yours.

Terrorists DO win when say, a huge country declares war on a small one and that action insights outrage across a much broader area, rallying otherwise unrelated factions to their cause, but they don't win because you have to have clammy man hands on your thighs every time you want to take a plane anywhere. You personally lose, but the terrorists don't win.

I'll leave this thoughtlet at that for people to comment or not.

Accordingly such argument is often used to justify the other party's action. Whether the terrorist wins is another matter in entirety for their reasons is often unknown and is shown only if it will make the terrorist look bad.

Not that I am taking the side of the terrorist, I still dislike killing and seeing people die. I just find such justification causes more misunderstanding than answers.

By analogy when the problem is about trash, the other party finds fault in the trash collecters, they don't address the issue of making the public throw their own trash on the garbage bin.

 

[televator]

At some points it seemed to me like not letting the terrorist win was letting the terrorists win.

 

[lrkun]

At some points it seemed to me like not letting the terrorist win was letting the terrorists win.

What do you mean?

 

[televator]

At some points it seemed to me like not letting the terrorist win was letting the terrorists win.

What do you mean?

Well that whole thing with the mosque a couple of blocks from ground zero. Obviously terrorist would love think that they've struck fear into the minds of Americans (that's kinda what terrorism is about), but instead of pondering that, people here went insane with anger and those who were indifferent or in support of the mosque were letting the terrorists win.

Then there was the war in Iraq. Not going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the relevant terror attacks at the time was letting the terrorists win.

 

[lrkun]

Well that whole thing with the mosque a couple of blocks from ground zero. Obviously terrorist would love think that they've struck fear into the minds of Americans (that's kinda what terrorism is about), but instead of pondering that, people here went insane with anger and those who were indifferent or in support of the mosque were letting the terrorists win.

Then there was the war in Iraq. Not going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the relevant terror attacks at the time was letting the terrorists win.

How are they letting the terrorist win? Do you mean terrorism in this sense no longer mean causing terror? or do you mean that terrorism is being used as an excuse to further a party's own interest?

 

[televator]

Well that whole thing with the mosque a couple of blocks from ground zero. Obviously terrorist would love think that they've struck fear into the minds of Americans (that's kinda what terrorism is about), but instead of pondering that, people here went insane with anger and those who were indifferent or in support of the mosque were letting the terrorists win.

Then there was the war in Iraq. Not going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the relevant terror attacks at the time was letting the terrorists win.

How are they letting the terrorist win? Do you mean terrorism in this sense no longer mean causing terror?

I mean it IS causing terror and people are just walking right into it while telling other people who want to act methodically and effectively that they're letting the terrorist win.

 

[lrkun]

I mean it IS causing terror and people are just walking right into it while telling other people who want to act methodically and effectively that they're letting the terrorist win.

It? it - terror act? they? people? other people? :/ could you be more specific, because I don't know what this it is.

Let us suppose A does a terrorist act, B is scared as a result, now C tells D who acts via procedure that D is letting A win. Is this what you mean?

 

[televator]

I mean it IS causing terror and people are just walking right into it while telling other people who want to act methodically and effectively that they're letting the terrorist win.

It? it - terror act? they? people? other people? :/ could you be more specific, because I don't know what this it is.

Let us suppose A does a terrorist act, B is scared as a result, now C tells D who acts via procedure that D is letting A win. Is this what you mean?

Ah, yeah... except A kills B in the terrorist act, C is scared and so is D, But D manages fear in order to make an effective plan against A, C is overcome with fear and has extreme reactions against E, E is completely irrelevant, but sorta looks like A which scares the sh!t out of C enough to attack E without reason. C continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A.

 

[lrkun]

Ah, yeah... except A kills B in the terrorist act, C is scared and so is D, But D manages fear in order to make an effective plan against A, C is overcome with fear and has extreme reactions against E, E is completely irrelevant, but sorta looks like A which scares the sh!t out of C enough to attack them without reason. A continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A.

A case of mistaken identity, opportunity, and confusion. ^-^

 

[televator]

I made an edit.

I meant:

C continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A

Bu I mistakenly wrote:

A continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A

I'm a bit under the weather today, so it's a bit hard to keep stuff in order. :|

 

[lrkun]

I made an edit.

I meant:

C continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A

Bu I mistakenly wrote:

A continues to act out in fear, whilst inhibiting D which satisfies A

I'm a bit under the weather today, so it's a bit hard to keep stuff in order. :|

If that is what you meant, then it does seem that those who seek justice is having difficulty in doing so.

:3 no need to mention about your health, I hope you will get well asap.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

How did this boil down to two people debating on what terrorism means?...

Anyway we essentially let terrorists win when their demands are met by us after they have terrorized us. That's a clear way of judging whether they are winning or losing, right?

 

[Unwardil]

How did this boil down to two people debating on what terrorism means?...

Anyway we essentially let terrorists win when their demands are met by us after they have terrorized us. That's a clear way of judging whether they are winning or losing, right?

True.

So how do they win when we say, pass laws which make air travel inconvenient which is the context in which said phrase is generally announced.

I think my point is, they don't... I dunno, it was late, but my greater question was do the people saying this actually believe it. If so, they shouldn't be in power because they do not understand what the goal of terrorism is. I think that was my real point but I don't know anymore.

 

[lrkun]

How did this boil down to two people debating on what terrorism means?...

Anyway we essentially let terrorists win when their demands are met by us after they have terrorized us. That's a clear way of judging whether they are winning or losing, right?

True.

So how do they win when we say, pass laws which make air travel inconvenient which is the context in which said phrase is generally announced.

I think my point is, they don't... I dunno, it was late, but my greater question was do the people saying this actually believe it. If so, they shouldn't be in power because they do not understand what the goal of terrorism is. I think that was my real point but I don't know anymore.

What do you mean? I'm interested in your point of view.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

See, the stupidity is thinking that terrorists think that they can overthrow an entire country by blowing up a building or a bus. The terrorists have a couple of actual goals in mind, and so far they seem to be winning in America. Terrorists want to:

• Make people afraid
• Cause them to overreact
• Make them waste energy and resources on bullshit "security" activities that don't make anyone safer
• Fool stupid politicians into creating the idea that the terrorists are more powerful than they really are
• If possible convince some idiot to invade the wrong country, and then kill and torture innocent people as a recruiting tool

The Islamic terrorists have had no greater friends than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, so it looks like Osama Bin Laden beat America pretty soundly.