The war on terrorism, how far is too far?

[LongDono]

How far do you think a country should go to defeat and destroy a terrorist group that has sworn to destroy you? ( Poll might come later )
What do you believe a nations policy on acts of terrorism, and terrorist should be?

I believe that if a country harbors terrorist and will not go after them in a real way then we tell them "Hey let us go after them". If they refuse we get this next message across "They want to destroy us, we can not allow them to do that, so either let us take them out or you will be our enemy as well". If they still choose to harbor terrorist we go in anyways. Some might say " How about we stay out of other nations? They did not do anything to us", now I ask you is giving our enemies a safe place to plot "not doing anything to us"? There is NO good reason not to go in to a country that harbors terrorist and refuses to do anything about it. You MUST show that there is no safe place in the world for your enemies, just like showing them that acts of terrorism gets them nothing.
Now I am normaly a "lets talk about this" guy but when someone has sworn to kill you in the same room(world) as you and they have shown that they mean it dont you think you should do something about it? Oh look someone ( Another nation ) gets between you and the other guy and is protecting him and saying "you have to get through me to get to him" and the guy behind him is loading a gun ( Planning an act of terrorism. ) what do you do? You move the guy to the side or beat him up so you can stop the guy loading the gun!
That my view on it.
So to put it in simple words, do whatever it takes to defeat them.

[Wardead]

Think of it this way: Why do you want to defeat the terrorists?

[Genuinous]

Uhh.... No comment here, or I'll go on for pages without us ever agreeing....

[LongDono]

We don't have to agree, I just like to know what others think.

[OldTrees]

Terrorism is a tactic not an agenda or a group. To defeat a tactic you must render it obsolete not just punish those that use it.
The radical islamist terrorist groups are the symptom of an idea. To defeat an idea you must be convincing. Censorship alone is not convincing.
Finally there are the individuals already devoted to the idea. To defeat an individual you only need to render them impotent. Death works but so do other means.

Learn what you are fighting and react accordingly. An any means necessary military extermination of terrorism will never be sufficient because it will cause reasonable people to join the terrorist cause even when the cause is lost.

[Genuinous]

You are fighting Terrorism. Terrorism is not a country or a nation, so you can't deal with it accordingly. If you have an opposing nation, you invade them, but if you have an opposing (terrorist) organization, you can't do the same. You have to work differently (don't ask me how, but not like it was done before) in these cases. Since Terrorists are scattered through the middle east and some parts of Africa, you can't simply invade every single country there!

Just try looking from the other nations point. You are there, peaceful or not so peaceful, and a (compared to you giant and strong) country asks permission, to let them KILL you people, to INVADE you with their army. Would you agree? I wouldn't. The US by saying 'We are fighting terrorism' invaded other countries, changed their government and set up new rules. Was it justified? Maybe, maybe not. But on what basis did the US do it? They claim that there are terrorists in that country. Well this reason can be used to quite a few other countries. Where is the limit?

True. We have to fight terrorism, but INVADING a country is not the same as doing so. Undoubtedly more civilians died then terrorists, US lost thousands of soldiers and then consider the expenses. Billions of dollars were spent every month/week/day to support this invasion. And what was the result? After 10 years they managed to kill the head of an organization. During those years the US gave reason and JUSTIFIED for middle eastern people to join terrorist organizations. If you're invaded, obviously you want to do something against it. This is certainly not the way everyone thinks about it, but I'm sure there are more terrorists in those regions, than in 2001.

Fighting terrorism is necessary. Invading? Not!

And for your example. You beat up 2 guys in that case. Now you have to worry about twice the danger, you are just digging a hole for yourself. If you keep beating up everybody around yourself, soon there will be too many enemies to deal with.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

better question
war against general players being inactive/quitting PvP events due to whatever reason in elements community, is it going too far?
I don't think banning helps much, to be plain, most players quit because of boredom, while some have legit reasons, banning players quitting an event because of boredom isn't the best way to really prevent further inactivity...

back to the terrorist topic (don't like posting off topic stuff, so even though I didn't intend to say about terrorism, gonna say something anyways)
to be honest, if it has to be done, I say nuke 'em if needed

[Genuinous]

Why did you post it in this topis? 
And meh.... 

[Neopergoss]

Terrorism is actually an interesting word. The countries at the UN have been careful to restrict the definition to non-state actors. The fact is that if you define terrorism as "using violence to achieve political goals," which is how it is traditionally understood, the biggest practitioners of terrorism are governments all around the world. And of course, "WE'RE NUMBER 1! USA! USA!"

This has been true for decades. If you don't know, it's probably because you're swallowing their propaganda. If you pay attention, it will shock you. A word of caution, though: establishment media has a history of propagating government lies. Ever heard of Pat Tillman? That was not an exception. For a recent example, consider the lies that were told about Osama Bin Laden's assassination. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/03/propaganda_bin_laden/index.html) They issued corrections the next day, but everyone has already been exposed to the lies, and I can assure you they will not go away for a long time.

Asking if we've gone too far is like asking if fire is hot. From the beginning, 9/11 was used to justify countless travesties: the erosion of civil liberties, torture, indefinite detention, numerous unjust wars (both well-known like Iraq, Afganistan, and Libya as well as the more secret wars such as Pakistan and Yemen), etc. If you think the president doesn't have the right to assassinate American citizens without any kind of due process, I've got news for you: you're more moderate than President Obama. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/03/awlaki)

And the worst part? There's no end in sight...

And LongDono, the fact is that when you kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in foreign wars, you make a lot of new enemies. Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the iceberg, btw. And it wasn't "just a few bad apples" -- it was official policy. "They hate us for our freedom," right? I honestly can't think of a better way to inspire new terrorism than what we're doing. If this is a serious strategy to end terrorism, it's laughable. But I'd give our government a little more credit than that. Ending terrorism isn't their true goal...

If "do whatever it takes to defeat them" are words to live by, had you stopped to consider that might've been what Bin Laden was trying to do? Are you aware of what grievances they may have had with us? Trust me, it's not as simple as "They hate us for our freedom." I'm not saying anything justifies what Bin Laden did, but nothing justifies what we did, either.