user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Their method of fighting, although they look like a bunch of pussies, is actually quite effective and has resulted in the unnecessary loss of thousands of people.
That pretty well sums it up. It could happen anytime, anywhere, and anyhow. You can round up and arrest all the terrorists you want, but you can never defeat terrorism - it's too efficient and effective. It's also the only way small powers can fight a giant like the U.S.
That's not to say we shouldn't be hunting down every known terrorist, because we should. But we have to be realistic - it's like pulling weeds. They'll just keep coming back. Bring down Bin Laden, and that might help a little bit for a little while, but it's not as if he's the only radical Islamic militant - he's just the one who had the funding, the patience, and the organizational skills necessary to carry out a 9/11. Which is why we should also devote a little thought to the conditions under which terrorism arises, and see if we can't make any progress in that regard.
"They shoot at U.S. soldiers from inside of "Holy places"
When did that happen?
They attack countries who are reactive rather than proactive.
Blow up one mosque full of terrorists and that will be the last time they hide in one.
One_Dollar: The Iraqis are hiding inside of a mosque, shooting at the Americans, knowing the Americans will not shoot back.
We can only do so much about the attacks... I guess the best thing to do is to track down the locations/members of the organisations themselves... but i guess everyone's already working on that.
by Dot on Sun Sep 12, 04 8:55am
[+]
How about finding a meeting place for a terrorist organisation, and instead of making a huge deal out of it publicly and then storming the place, attack in the same style as terrorists? People would have to swallow their pride here.
by Dot on Sun Sep 12, 04 8:59am
[+]
all is fair in love and war. Plus britain is about the only country to have defeated terrorist insurgents in a 'war', in borneo i think.
It make sthem impossible to defeat through strictly military means. A military is effective vs other armies and vs other countries. Only macho, posturing reactionaries can view it as an effective primary means of response.
lcb: US blow sup a mosque and Osama laughs his @** off thinking of the Arab outrage that will fuel his movement for decades.
Think it through, my friend. Short term win = long-term defeat in many cases. The US is showing atypical wisdom in NOT blowing up mosques.
New strategy, we kill every terrorist we find regardless of where they're hiding. Then we feed the bodies to pigs. All the while we put political pressure on various government that support terrorism (saudi arabia among others) pointing out that they have a much greater reason to fear uncle sam than they do osama bin laden. They will be able to crack down more effectively on these people than we could, but they won't unless they are terrified of what the US will do to them if they don't.
"Blow up one mosque full of terrorists and that will be the last time they hide in one."
Blow up a mosque and you'll probably stir up a world war.
"we kill every terrorist we find regardless of where they're hiding. Then we feed the bodies to pigs."
That'll never happen. It is completly un pro and you'll get very little results. If the US were to threaten or declare war on every Arab country then the US would be out numbered, bad idea. As for Saudi Arabia, George W. Bush has already labeled them as terrorist fighters, not supporters.
Come on, herzog! I know you are an intelligent guy. Do you *really* believe that a direct military confrontation that doesn't respect nearby religions / cultures has any chance whatsoever of being effective?
It would provide a short-term cathartic boost to a subset of Americans.
And it would set us back substantially in the Big Picture, if it didn't set the path for losing it outright.
I *know* that was a reflexive reply and not a considered one.
We're dealing with an iron age mentality in the middle east. They respect force, not cooperation, not generosity, not mercy. We land on them like a pile of bricks and they'll respect us and understand they're going to lose. We use some force, then back off or worse, try to bribe them with foriegn aid, etc and they see us as weak and easily pushed around. And the attacks continue.
The way to end terrorism, short of the muslim world rising up against the terrorists which doesn't look too likely, is to kill all current terrorists and show all the potential future terrorists that they will have no chance of success using these tactics. That fighting against us, or helping those who do is not only suicide but ineffective suicide. The actions of spain and other nations are what is encouraging these people. They see their tactics succeed, so they continue them and others are attracted to their cause. But if they see they are fighting an enemy even more stubborn then they are, with a vastly superior military eventually they'll start running out of new recruits. Yeah they're willing to die for their cause, but are they willing to die to accomplish nothing? Doubtful.
The US retreat from somalia, the halfassed and totally ineffective response to the cole bombing and other attacks, these are the things that fill the terrorists with hope of ultimate victory. They attack and we do nothing, or they attack and we fall back, clearly that means their strategy is working. But if they attack and we counterattack with overwhelming force, then they lose the initiative. They're down to responding to our actions in a massive war of attrition that they can't win. They need propaganda victories to get new members. We shouldn't allow this.
Herzog, your one good statement was this.
"They need propaganda victories to get new members. We shouldn't allow this."
They way you can stop this is by getting to the poor before the terrorists get to the poor. They use the Quran as their propoganda piece, not that the Quran is propoganda but they translate it to the poor in a way which will make the poor paranoid and make them think that everyone is the enemy. Spain has already arrested dozens of Al-Qaeda members just weeks after the attack. To stop the propoganda you have to get Saudi Arabia into this a lot more. Many Arabs over there don't trust the US very much. Saudi Arabia and a more Arab force will get better control over the general population. It is impossible to control someone using violence or by threat.
One_Dollar said it well!
"We're dealing with an iron age mentality in the middle east."
by herzog the Stone Age Caveman.
Terrorism is not defeated by military might. Or maybe herzog can point us to a situation where a terrorist organisation was destroyed after a country went to war with it. Ireland? Spain?
Conversely, can anyone point to a situation where a terrorist organisation got stronger and more determined after being attacked by governments? Go on herzog. Think hard now. Ug ug ug.
'Or maybe herzog can point us to a situation where a terrorist organisation was destroyed after a country went to war with it.'
General pershing ruthlessly put down a muslim terrorist campaign in the philipines. They didn't pose a threat to anyone for decades after that.
And here's a challenge f or you cretin, since I've answered your question.
Has there ever been a time where appeasement has worked to anhilate a terrorist organization? Perhaps retreating has been effective? Go ahead, feel free to use as much historical evidence as you want to prove that cowardice and avoiding fighting is an effective weapon against these animals.
herz: That is a spurious argument ... we are not limited to the options of only military approach and appeasement.
Not relying primarily on military approach does NOT mean appeasement. You have lapsed into Bushy black-and-white simplistic terms ... snap out of it, man!
You can't use force all the time. Every terrorist organization has a goal. The goal of Al-Qaeda is for western world to pull out of the middle east (Arab territory). How exactly can you do that? You have to leave (or fall back from) any Arab country that you have set your policies in or any Arab country that you have an embassy or position in. Simple as that. Al-Qaeda isn't a group of people, same as racism isn't a group of people. It is an idea, the only way you can get that idea out is by negotiation and asking the other side what they want. Herzog, answer me this. When do you expect war on terror to end? When will terrorism be gone? How will you stop terrorism by using force?
Arab/Muslim outrage is not a concern of mine, survival is.
If one serviceman dies to spare a mosque, that's one too many.
Controling muslim outrage is part of surviving. Want to survive? Then lay low.
|
|
