Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Oh Yeah..........It's Time for this question.. . . .AGAIN.. . ..Did you ever 'shake-up' a hornet's nest and as

a result CREATE more HORNETS ???

Who else is sick of the utter foolishness from those who 'think' that by fighting the terrorists, we are CREATING MORE ???

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, stirring up a hornets nest will get one stung. It also brings them from their nest so you can spray them.

    Direct contact with a good wasp-killer is the only way to end the scourge.

    But, to answer your question, there is no way to CREATE even one.

    Source(s): And the liberals around here have already forgotten that the terrorists attacked without nest-stirring, which is another thing hornets do.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I will say this you are right in theory by saying that you do not create more hornets by shaking their nest. I think terrorism of ANY kind is wrong, be it the bully in the school yard, an abusive spouse, parent or a person that will kill people that have never done anything to them just to make a point.

    That being said, when you attack a hornets nest that is filled with hornets that carry guns and bombs, you do tend to give their king the desire and ammunition to create more. You can not kill a snake or atleast right away by slowly removing pieces of it from the tail up. To kill the snake you must kill the head. Just like a worm or starfish, cut off one part of it and it will grow another.

    The War on Terrorism is not a war that can be won with guns and bigger bombs. Education and tolerance are the only things that are going to kill this snake or hornets nest.

    History is filled with people that we view as terrorist. If you go to Transyvlania the people there still hail Prince Vlad III Dracula, also known as Vlad Tepes, better known to the world as Vlad the Impaler as a hero and the savior of their people . Among other things he impaled his 'victims', or enemies depending on which side you were on, on long pikes along roadways and in his courtyard and while they were still very much alive he would set some ablaze and use them for light. His brutality kept his people safe for the most part. To his enemies he was the devil incarnate. So was the birth of the modern day blood sucking vampire, Dracula.

    If you were to ask the people of Troy, the Greeks were terrorist. But ask the same question to the Greeks and the men that fought the War of Troy for 10 years were national heroes.

    Even Hitler to those that followed him was a hero. (I would like to mention that I personally do not view him as such)

    Khubla Khan was viewed as a demon by his enemies and hailed as great by his people.

    Even the fathers of our country and the men that fought with them were nothing more than terrorists to the British crown and the subjects there. Our history shows them as great heroes that wronged the rights of a generation.

    You see, terrorism can be something that is viewed in the eyes of the seer. There are times that only time will tell who the real terrorist are. I personally do not think that a hero is a man or woman that will sacrifice even one person to try to make the world or even their God take notice of them. All that does is turn the vast majority of people against them.

    Until we can sit down face to face and decide that we can be different and still exist together, the proverbial question that you asked will still produce an answer that you do not want to hear.

    Again, let me say, TERRORISM IN ANY FORM is WRONG. But it will continue as long as there is any one person that believes something different, believes that their way is the only right way and has access to anything destructive be it a stick, rock, knife, gun or bomb. Or the ability to spread hate and fear.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I'll say this. It's time to stop thinking of the enemy as terrorist. That word implies the fight is against a rabble that is spontaneously emerging. I think in reality there is a concerted effort to conquer the world. And, it's not by any means a rabble doing so.

    These are not more terrorists emerging. It's more reserves coming into action.

    There are three things needed to conquer the world;

    1) a large population from which to raise an army.

    2) a large amount of ready cash to mobilize an army

    3) a large weapons stash.

    All three of these items exist for the taking. A crucial step needed to conquer the world would be to incapacitate the opposition beforehand. In other words, destroy the oppositions ability to arm itself for warfare: crash its economy.

    The destruction of the World Trade Tower was an attempt to crash the international currency market. Since that attempt failed, its likely more drastic action will be taken in the future to achieve that goal.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This isn't rocket science. Look at the increase of the number of people in the US joining the military after 9/11. Iraqi civilians are suffering casualties equal to our losses on 9/11 EVERY MONTH. Don't you think that some of their family members might get pissed off and blame the US for their loved ones death and seek revenge?

    Closed minded thinking or refusing to try and understand the culture in the places we are fighting will ultimately get more Americans killed.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The kidnapping, throat cutting, RDX belt wearing ,murdering terrorists count on such people.

    What do these people say in response to the Muslims that clearly state the danger posed by the Fundamentalists is very real?

    And that we are doing the tactically wise thing by neutralizing as many of them as possible?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You're analogy is false.

    By invading Iraq on flimsy-to-utterly-false pretences, we gave Muslim extremists one more recruiting tool. As horrible and evil as Sadam Hussein is (may he go straight to hell), Iraq under his rule was stable - horrible, but stable. We did not need to fear Muslim extremists recruiting a whole bunch of Iraqis as suicide bombers. Now that the iron-handed dictator is gone, Iraq is in chaos, because no-one is strong enough to control all those disparate factions.

    And guess what chaos breeds?

    We were not fighting terrorists at the beginning of the Iraq war. But we sure are now.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Jade
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Creating more terrorists - who buys into it? Not me and I will never buy into that logic. It reminds me of the same logic that taking guns away from law abiding citizens to erase crime makes. ZERO.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's always good to hear from you brave nest-shaking soldiers on the front line in Iraq.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I have never shaken one.

    My brother however sprayed some chemicals into one and then shook it up a few hours later and watch all the dead ones fall out

    Source(s): GED
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You have to draw the line somewhere,wouldn't you want to get the guy who put a carbomb on your street every week.Someone has to stop these arseholes,because its NOT going to get any better.But I have heard if you stick your head in the sand.......

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.