NationStates Jolt Archive

Fourteen Marines were killed in Iraq recently. Closer to home, eight Georgia National Guardsmen have been killed in the last couple weeks. I haven't heard anything from the Administration that even remotely resembles a threat to avenge the deaths of our soldiers and Marines. Only some weak comment by a general, whose name I can't remember. He said something like "The terrorists are well prepared and well armed."

That's nothing like what he should have said. He should have described how we will hunt down and kill the scum that are responsible for the killings. I don't think the armchair generals in D.C. quite get it.

Then we get this little gem from Bush:

We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq," Bush said in Texas as a videotape by Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No.2, was broadcast around the world.

This was in response to al-Zawahri's pledge to conduct more attacks and kill more Americans if we don't cut and run from the trouble in Iraq.

This brings me to the idea that I have resisted for a long time. The current administration appears to only pay lip service to support of a "war" on terror. I don't think that there is enough political courage in Washington to force the issue on a number of items. Not in the Administration, not in Congress.

Surely arms and men are coming into Iraq from Syria and possibly Jordan. Why doesn't Bush allow the armed forces to control that influx?

Surely money is coming into Iraq from Saudi Arabia. Why can't the administration stop that?

Soldiers and Marines are sent into harms way, but there never seems to be any supporting arms used. Why can't they have helicopters, artillery, and tanks for support of the infantry?

This is a war that we need to win. Why doesn't the Administration try harder? What ever happened to the man that said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? It doesn't appear he lives in the White House anymore.

This is a war that we need to win. Why doesn't the Administration try harder? What ever happened to the man that said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? It doesn't appear he lives in the White House anymore.
He's on Holidays.

And I still don't think that you could win a war against a noun, no matter how much money you spend on it.

And I still don't think that you could win a war against a noun, no matter how much money you spend on it.

Just what I was going to say.

Also, I fail to see what Iraq had to do with the "war on terror" in the first place.

He's on Holidays.

And I still don't think that you could win a war against a noun, no matter how much money you spend on it.
But we like fighting those "wars" in the U.S. We have the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on [insert noun]. It's a lot less judgmental than attacking drug dealers, terrorists, or whoever else might be connected to the nouns.

the war on terrorism will never be won.

But we like fighting those "wars" in the U.S. We have the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on [insert noun]. It's a lot less judgmental than attacking drug dealers, terrorists, or whoever else might be connected to the nouns.
Comes down to the same thing in the end though.

At any rate, all those wars are doomed to fail though. You can't defeat drugs, they'll be supplied as long as there is demand for them, and you can't defeat terrorists because it is primarily a political concept and because killing the people who have an idea doesn't stop others from having the same idea. It encourages them rather.

It's because they see that this a war without end and they've squeezed all the political advantage they could out and now its starting to turn on them. The government has too much momentum in the empire direction to turn back now. Even if we did we will always have enemies to bring us back into it. Just like Michael Corleone said: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!".
So what to do? I don't forsee a bright future with the current power governments staying in power. I honestly don't know if it would be better to pull out worldwide or to go for the gold one country after the next. Well see.

lso, I fail to see what Iraq had to do with the "war on terror" in the first place.
I'm not trying to make that argument. We could, and have, go round and round about it for days and only repeat the same arguments. There isn't much new that I've seen, one way or another on that topic.

My worry is that since we are engaged, will we actually make a serious effort the destroy the Islamic fundamentalists that want to destroy the west? Or is this just a waste of time and men?

the war on terrorism will never be won.

No, but with the proper foresight, patience, gestalt approach, international cooperation and tact, it can be lowered to a nuisance level.

Wait, who was it who got excoriated for saying something similar? Oh, it was a liberal, so the Administration doesn't care.

Hey! Let's pick a random nation in the Middle East, say, Iraq! Yeah, we never liked them anyway! (except for Reagan, he liked Saddam) Now that we have chosen our battlefront, let's ship over large crates of money and soldiers and say "God Bless the US" until the public likes us!

Sad that such a silly tactic worked to perfection... And nobody's looking at it straight any more, not the politicians, not the public. It's become so politicized: We're killing terrorists! We're making enemies! More Islamic Extremists! Another terrorist bombing! Nobody's looking at the actual people or situations any more, they're grouping and they're generalizing and the right hates the left and the left points fingers at the right and nobody really knows what the hell is going on.

Except that we're becoming addicted to war.

Comes down to the same thing in the end though.

At any rate, all those wars are doomed to fail though. You can't defeat drugs, they'll be supplied as long as there is demand for them, and you can't defeat terrorists because it is primarily a political concept and because killing the people who have an idea doesn't stop others from having the same idea. It encourages them rather.
The alternative is to do nothing but search the population for terrorism devices like bombs and anthrax. I think that's a losing proposition, too. Terrorists need support and if we can discourage the nations that support terrorists -- Islamic fundamentalists, in particular -- we are better served. If we don't have the will or courage to do what's needed, be that the use of diplomatic or military force, we might as well just resign ourselves to more attacks. Simply leaving the Islamic fundamentalists alone isn't going to satisfy them.

Damn.. I was gonna tee off when I read War on Terror but you guys already covered it pretty well :D

Fuck it... I'll comment on that anyway. The 'War on Terror' is a sham that can be convieniently used by Bush, etc... whenever they want to take away a pesky civil right or invade a nation that has the audacity to possess large amounts of natural resources or mouth off to the big boys without nuclear weapons to back them up. Plus part of it is that the 'War on Drugs' has been going on for 20 years now, it's not generating outrage anymore and we needed a new catch phrase... in 20 more years when 'War on Terror' gets old we'll kick off a 'War on Farts' or something.

Have you guys read 1984? Where Big Brother refers to 'Goldstein' and 'Goldsteinism' when it is trying to channel hate and fear amongst the populace or justify a wrongdoing of some type? That's what I think of when I hear 'Terror' and 'Terrorism' get thrown around by the Bush administration. It's not a new concept.

To get back on topic a bit, like everyone else has said I don't think it's a war we CAN win. We aren't fighting an army, we're fighting a concept, a belief. As such, at what point can we even declare victory? The only way to defeat something like that with force is some type of genocide.

We can curb terrorism a bit though. Leaving Iraq would probably reduce recruitment and money to these groups. Slowing down and more closely monitoring immigration would help a ton. So would improving emergency services and the like just in case something does happen. Alternative fuel sources and forcing Detroit to make some fuel efficient cars would help take the 'crack addict' oil-addicted edge off of our policies and dealings with those nations, too.

With the Iraq war, plugging entrances to neighboring nations might end up in some citizens of said nations getting killed and things really going to hell. Helicopters are easy to shoot down and also tend to make the news when they do. Artillery causes too much collateral damage, and tanks can be blown up... also I think there's something about the image of tanks rolling down the streets of an occupied city that people want to avoid.

I hate to say it but Iraq at this point really is a no-win situation. What will probably happen is that we'll set up something like what we had with the Shah of Iran, call it a victory, get the hell out of there and spend trillions a year propping up the regime so that whack islamic fundamentalists don't take over.

We'll never do this, but the best bet with Iraq is to suck it up, admit we screwed up and just try and patch things up as best we can with the help of the international community... no more talk about rooting everyone out and killing them.

Terrorism has been defeated before.

K.P.S.Gill, the man who is credited with defeating Khalistani terrorism (Sikh seperatism) in Punjab said that the only way you can defeat terrorism is by killing the terrorists.

His profile and writings can be found here
http://satp.org/satporgtp/publication/nightsoffalsehood/index.html

Islamist terrorism can also be definitely defeated.

Cut off Saudi funds, cut off manpower supply to training camps in Pakistan and clean up the place, identify the recruiters and jihadist preachers in homeland and deport/jail/execute them. Concentrate on the funders, planners, recruiters and trainers. If they are taken out terrorism can be subdued. The head needs to be taken out. Instead the west is concentrating on the swishing tails (foot soldiers). The snake will keep growing new ones as soon as you cut one.

But the US (and poodle UK) administration strategy is to co-opt the regimes of KSA and Pakistan and bribe,coax,coerce,beg them and somehow make them do their dirty job of cleaning up the place. But the regimes themselves only pretend to do that and do nothing concrete. If somebody has been following my thread about Shehzad Tanweer, it is clear that training camps were running near cities in Pakistan. So it must have been known to both the Paki administration and the American intelligence in Pakistan. But still the camp was functioning in full glory. I can only think that Musharraf could not do anything about it (which begs the question , then what is the purpose of propping him up) and the US is fine with it since the assumption is that the terrorists trained there will not be attacking the US/west but only India. The London bombings proved otherwise.

This selective war on terror won't work.

Pussyfooting around nations openly funding and running terrorist camps and hoping that the products of the jihad factory will be attacking someone else is stupidity. Tolerating Paki terrorist orgs in UK as long as they were bombing somebody else was UK's most ridiculous stupidity. I mean, what the heck where they thinking :headbang:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1721920,00.html
They also recruited Britain’s first suicide bomber, Mohammad Bilal, who on Christmas Day 2000 rammed a vehicle packed with explosive into an Indian military post in Kashmir. Jaish and another outlawed group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, collect more than £5 million a year in donations from Britons who believe their funds are going to charities in Kashmir.
UK administration turned a blind eye as long as JeM and LeT were targetting Indians.
Pakistani ministers say that none of the 600 people rounded up in their crackdown on militants since 7/7 has anything to do with Britain’s inquiry.Yet a senior security source has told The Times that there are seven men detained who are being questioned about their associations with the 7/7 bombers.
Question - why wait for 7/7 to happen to put pressure on Pakis to round up 600 militants ?

The answer - assumption that they would be terrorising somebody else. Well guess what, the camps that trained them, trained the UK bombers too and God knows who else. Recently Thai islamist violence was in the news. Here's the link to Pakistan training camps
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-8-2005_pg3_1
Of the 20,000 that joined the various seminaries, almost 1,100 were from Thailand. But Pakistan denied exporting violence to southern Thailand, even as the seminary which trained the Thais lost at least four of its heads to terrorist vendettas in Pakistan
Trainee in the US. This beard is not the father-son duo arrested in Lodi California. The Son trained at an LeT camp.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--terrorismarrest0804aug04,0,4252030.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Mahmud Faruq Brent, of Gwynn Oak, is accused in a criminal complaint of conspiring to support the Lashkar-e-Taiba between 2001 and May 2005 by attending a terrorist training camp the group ran in Pakistan.

In Oz
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10338944
"We have one person convicted who trained overseas. We know some of them have trained in Afghanistan, we know some of them trained in Pakistan."

In France
http://www.grangier.fr/news/journal-2002-11-27.txt
The six suspects, Algerians and Pakistanis, were taken into custody in a suburban Paris roundup of alleged associates of ``shoe bomber'' Richard
Reid,officials said
In UK, back in 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13502560&method=full&siteid=50143
The 35-year-old Pakistani has been quizzed for four days about an alleged plot to plant a bomb
DC sniper linked to Islamist group in Pakistan
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/7159060?source=Evening%20Standard
Muhammad has been connected to Al Fuqra, a cult devoted to spiritual purification through violence.

The group has been linked to British shoe bomber Richard Reid and the murderers of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan last year.
In Afghanistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/08/attack/main572004.shtml
Taliban fighters, paid and trained by al Qaeda, are pouring into Afghanistan from Pakistan, the top American commander in Afghanistan said
In Indonesia
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/09/indonesia.blast/
The perpetrators behind the deadly car bomb attack on Jakarta's Marriott hotel received training in Pakistan and Afghanistan from al Qaeda bomb-making experts, Indonesia's defense minister has said.
In Italy
http://vigilant.tv/article/2160/washingtonpost-italian-police-arrest-pakistani-al-qaeda-suspects
15 Pakistani men have been arrested and apparently charged with
association with a terrorist group, after Italian authorities boarded a
ship last month off the coast of Sicily.
In Kuwait
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2337671.stm
A teenager has been arrested with petrol bombs in his car near buildings housing American military officers.
The 17-year-old allegedly told police he had received orders from Pakistan over the internet to carry out an attack in Fintas, south of Kuwait City.
And there is more and more in my archives, I just skimmed the top.

Coming back to the UK bombings and LeT connection
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1691382005
The methods adopted by the bombers have all the hallmarks of established jihadi groups. The thinking behind them, the use of sleeper cells and the visits to Pakistan by the 7 July bombers - all point to the involvement of experienced terrorists from that country.

Mohammad Amir Rana, a journalist who has placed his life on the line to investigate the jihadis operating in his country, and in doing so has become Pakistan's foremost expert on al-Qaeda, is certain that the trail will lead back to the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation.

LeT started life as a Kashmiri terrorist group fighting India in the disputed territory claimed by both Delhi and Islamabad, but has since mutated into a formidable terrorist network. It raises funds from donations in the UK, trains up young men at its madrassas in Pakistan and in recent years has started grooming sleeper cells in the US, Britain and Australia.

President Musharraf is well aware of the dangers posed by LeT. Yet for all his much-vaunted crackdown on militants in the wake of the London bombings, LeT remains intact. Perhaps that is because it still has powerful friends in Pakistan; it was, after all, established with the assistance of the country's security forces, and continues to do sterling work in their cause against Indian forces in Kashmir. Perhaps it is too valuable an ally to cut adrift.
The July 21 bombing suspects also seem to be linked to Pakistan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8791099/
According to Western counterterrorism officials, authorities now think the apparent leader of the July 21 bombing suspects traveled to Pakistan late last year.

Muktar Said Ibrahim obtained a British passport last fall. Officials say that in December he traveled from Britain to Saudi Arabia, then on to Pakistan.

“It raises the possibility that they were involved with Pakistani jihadists and possibly even with al-Qaida itself,” says terrorism analyst Dan Benjamin.

That would put Ibrahim in Pakistan at the same time as two of the July 7 bombers, who were seen arriving in Karachi in November.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1718984,00.html
Both Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammad Sidique Khan had family ties in Pakistan though relatives say they do not know where the pair stayed during their three-month trip this year. What interests police is where Mr Ibrahim visited, as the 27-year-old Eritrean refugee has no known family connections in Pakistan.
more on LeT / Jamaat ud dawa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1540466,00.html
Wearing a long, scraggly beard of the type usually associated with deeply conservative Muslims, Mr Mujahid said that the organisation runs 137 schools and 40 madrasas. It also sends a team of clerics to mosques around the country to "preach and discuss political issues facing Islam".
137 schools and 40 madrassas and atleast 10 known training camps, you make the math of how many jihadis are produced in this factory.

But , hey, let's bomb Iraq. That will teach them jihadis :rolleyes:

This menace can be defeated by a concerted and co-ordinated effort by the world. This needs a meeting of minds and common objectives and treating terrorism as a global problem. Alienating other powers and doing it in a "my way or highway" approach and allowing or tolerating terrorism as long as it is directed against others and attacking countries like Iraq under the pretext of combating terrorism just because it suits other agenda , is not the way to win this "war on terror".

Terrorism has been defeated before.

K.P.S.Gill, the man who is credited with defeating Khalistani terrorism (Sikh seperatism) in Punjab said that the only way you can defeat terrorism is by killing the terrorists.

Which was exactly how Hulagu Khan destroyed the Hashshashins. Killing suicide-terrorists has historically been shown to be the only method that works. Unfortunately it results in widespread "collateral damage" (a bunch of more or less innocent people will get killed). The western nations simply don't have the political will to do that. This may change if WMD use becomes common.

If you start killing people, wouldn't you get non-terrorists angry? I mean by fighting this war, you could be creating more terrorists...

I'm sure there's a way this can be solved diplomatically.. But then again, I'm just a naive little girl.

But then again, I'm just a naive little girl.
And as usual, the more little and naive one person is, the more that person speaks the absolute truth.
No preconceptions, no bias, just pure common sense.

Terrorism has been defeated before.

K.P.S.Gill, the man who is credited with defeating Khalistani terrorism (Sikh seperatism) in Punjab said that the only way you can defeat terrorism is by killing the terrorists.

Well, all I can say is that thank fuck we didn't have him involved in the Northern Ireland peace process.

But we like fighting those "wars" in the U.S. We have the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on [insert noun]. It's a lot less judgmental than attacking drug dealers, terrorists, or whoever else might be connected to the nouns.

One question on the side :
What have any of those achieved so far? Has there been any reduction in poverty in the States? Has drug abuse decreased? Have you found/trialed a single terrorist or prevented further attacks?

The funny thing is, Americans seem to keep falling for the "War on whatever" slogans...

And as usual, the more little and naive one person is, the more that person speaks the absolute truth.
No preconceptions, no bias, just pure common sense.

Score!

If you start killing people, wouldn't you get non-terrorists angry? I mean by fighting this war, you could be creating more terrorists...

I'm sure there's a way this can be solved diplomatically.. But then again, I'm just a naive little girl.

Islamists have already declared war. It is immaterial what you do or think to the contrary. There IS a war going on. The sooner we wake up to that the better.

Hey, how are the Uighur muslim seperatists doing in Sinkiang/Xinjiang? I haven't heard from them recently.

Daistallia 2104,

Did you know that the word assassins came from "Hashishins" (suicidal attackers doped with hashish) ? Sorry if you knew that already.

The funny thing is, Americans seem to keep falling for the "War on whatever" slogans...

It is quite easy to declare whatever level of victory you want in a war on an abstract noun: they aren't in the habit of issuing their own contrary press releases.

There is no political will to win the 'War on Terror' because it's unwinnable. People want to hear that we are killing those damn terrorists, the politicians don't have the will to hold talks for peace. Northern Ireland was not won with bullets, it is being won, slowly, with words, with compromise and with tact.

Islamists have already declared war. It is immaterial what you do or think to the contrary. There IS a war going on. The sooner we wake up to that the better.

The IRA were at war too...

Hey, how are the Uighur muslim seperatists doing in Sinkiang/Xinjiang? I haven't heard from them recently.

They are oppressed.

There is no political will to win the 'War on Terror' because it's unwinnable. People want to hear that we are killing those damn terrorists, the politicians don't have the will to hold talks for peace. Northern Ireland was not won with bullets, it is being won, slowly, with words, with compromise and with tact.

Politicians don't have an interest in winnig this "war" in the first place:

It's perfect to push through whatever legislation you want
It's easy to put the label terrorist on whosoever you need out of the way, and remove him
It's a nice distraction from your own shortcomings, have the media report on war instead of social or economical issues, makes for better pictures, too.
It can completely polarise society, making it so easy to manipulate it in any way you could imagine

In short, it makes the job so much easier and you can enjoy your holidays....

If you start killing people, wouldn't you get non-terrorists angry? I mean by fighting this war, you could be creating more terrorists...

Who here advocates killing "people" ?

Since when did I lose the right to kill somebody before he kills me ? The terrorist wants to die for his cause. I say, why not oblige him !

Pan-Islamist terrorism is not something you negotiate with. It is something that needs to be destroyed. If you think that US/west withdraws from the "muslim lands" after a "negotiation" with the pan-islamists, the jihad would stop, then you are sadly mistaken. The jihad will only be strenghthened. The islamists fervor would increase with the perception that they have defeated both the superpowers (erstwhile USSR and now the US).

Besides any such treaty you make with an islamist will only be like the Hudaibiya treaty (look it up).

My worry is that since we are engaged, will we actually make a serious effort the destroy the Islamic fundamentalists that want to destroy the west? Or is this just a waste of time and men?
To "destroy the Islamic fundamentalists that want to destroy the west" it is to just change the ideology that makes them want to kill. Weather or not that means changing their philosophies or changing our own socity to be less offenisve to them is up for debate. I think that by attacking them we are only validating their point and polarizing people that perhaps did not feel strongly to begin with.

Who here advocates killing "people" ?

Since when did I lose the right to kill somebody before he kills me ? The terrorist wants to die for his cause. I say, why not oblige him !

Pan-Islamist terrorism is not something you negotiate with. It is something that needs to be destroyed. If you think that US/west withdraws from the "muslim lands" after a "negotiation" with the pan-islamists, the jihad would stop, then you are sadly mistaken. The jihad will only be strenghthened. The islamists fervor would increase with the perception that they have defeated both the superpowers (erstwhile USSR and now the US).

Besides any such treaty you make with an islamist will only be like the Hudaibiya treaty (look it up).

In other words we need to kill all muslims just in case.

Who here advocates killing "people" ?

Cut off Saudi funds, cut off manpower supply to training camps in Pakistan and clean up the place, identify the recruiters and jihadist preachers in homeland and deport/jail/execute them.

So are these chaps not people but instead 'subhumans'?

The IRA were at war too...

IMHO, Islamist terrorism, its ideology, its goals, its tactics are a whole different dimension than IRA, Basques ETA, LTTE and other such terrorist organisations.

The other organizations have a specific goal and can be negotiated with since there is a middle ground.

Not with Pan-islamism. It seeks to first overthrow western "presence" in "muslim lands" and from there to islamize the world. That is the essence of pan-islamism. Even if all kafirs leave "muslim lands" today, pan-islamists would setup a caliphate and will renew the jihad with vigor, backed with control over oil and possibly nukes.

There is no middle ground to negotiate with a pan-islamist. It is his world vision against mine. It is him or me. And I really have no choice in this because he set that rule. So the sooner I play by his rules and get him, the better.

Please visit here for the ideology
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

In other words we need to kill all muslims just in case.

Are you telling me all muslims are pan-islamist terrorists? :confused:

I have been clearly making a distinction between muslims and islamists.

So are these chaps not people but instead 'subhumans'?
:headbang:

Cut off Saudi funds - where is the killing of innocent muslims here ?


cut off manpower supply to training camps in Pakistan and clean up the place - where is the killing of innocent muslims here ?


identify the recruiters and jihadist preachers in homeland and deport/jail/execute them. -where is the killing of innocent muslims here ?

Are you telling me all muslims are pan-islamist terrorists? :confused:

I have been clearly making a distinction between muslims and islamists.

I'm saying more Muslims become terrorists every time you kill innocents (or indeed terrorists, if someone killed your uncle Ahmed you'd want revenge too). So you need to killthem all just to be sure.

Instead of asking 'is there enough political will'...

Maybe we should be asking ourselves the seemingly more obvious question of

"Is it even possible to win a war being fought not against people, land or resources...but against an ideal?'

I'm saying more Muslims become terrorists every time you kill innocents (or indeed terrorists, if someone killed your uncle Ahmed you'd want revenge too). So you need to killthem all just to be sure.

I don't know why you are again and again insinuating that I want to kill innocent muslims. :headbang:

The war is against pan-islamist terrorists, who have already taken to the path of pan-islamism and have already declared war on kafiroun. {added later: vast majority of muslims are not in that category, however by delaying decisive action against pan-islamists and by making counter-productive actions like Iraq war, there is a chance that more will join that camp}

FYI, I am against the counter productive Iraq war and its "collateral damages". I was against the way the Afghan war was conducted - bribing one set of war lords against others and turning a blind eye to the atrocities by the warlords on the coalition's side.

You are missing my points TOTALLY. The steps that I mentioned have nothing to do with killing innocent muslims. I have even specified to concentrate on the head (planners, funders, recruiters and trainers) instead of the tail (foot soldiers). The foot soldiers are cannon fodder.

But again, some of you are so squeamish that one cannot put the word Islam and terrorism in the same sentence before being accused anti-muslim and wanting to murder all muslims of the earth !

Dhimmitude comes to mind.

to add to earlier post..

Inaction to a terrorist attack will lead to "enemy is weakened, a few more blows and he will fall" fervor

If you attack randomly and kill innocent muslims in the process as "collateral damages" it will lead to "see I told you the Kafir is blah blah..we muslims have to unite" and recruition

If you clamp down on your own society, close borders, curtail civil rights (banning hijab etc) it will lead to the same "enemy is scared , a few more will bring him to knees"..

So pretty much whatever you do , action, reaction, proaction, pre-emption,...the pan-islamist won't cease or call it a truce. Even a truce will be like the Hudaibiya type.

Hence I suggested to clamp down on funding, eliminate the planners, recriuters and trainers, destroy the infrastructure for training. I dunno where you read that I advocated "let's kill all the muslims".. :confused:

He's on Holidays.

And I still don't think that you could win a war against a noun, no matter how much money you spend on it.

My sentiments exactly!

Here's an example of how Bush's policies are counter-productive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05fri1.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=login
Afghanistan's Forgotten War
Afghanistan is out of the headlines, but its war against the Taliban goes on. These days, it is not going well. One of the most important reasons for that is the ambivalence of Pakistan, the nation that originally helped create, nurture and train the Taliban. Even now, Pakistan's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seems to invest far more energy in explaining his government's tolerance of Taliban activities than he does in trying to shut them down.

General Musharraf has provided logistical help to Pentagon operations and cooperation to American law enforcement agencies trying to track down Al Qaeda leaders. But his aid has been frustratingly selective. He has been an intermittent collaborator in the fight against international terrorism rather than a fully committed ally. Washington has been understandably reluctant :rolleyes: to push him for more consistency, not wanting to risk losing the help he does offer.

Pakistan's passive enabling of the Taliban, however, is too important and dangerous for Washington to overlook. The current Taliban offensive is killing American soldiers - at least 38 have died in action so far this year, as well as hundreds of Afghans. It also endangers next month's parliamentary elections.

Successful elections are crucial to extending the geographical reach of Afghanistan's new national institutions. And they can provide needed political accountability for President Hamid Karzai, who now rules without an elected Parliament. Afghanistan will be a functioning democracy only when citizens can take their grievances against the central government to elected local representatives instead of to armed local warlords. Those grievances are real. Some governors and police chiefs Mr. Karzai has appointed are thuggish and corrupt. Antidrug efforts go after poor farmers while traffickers thrive. Alternative development lags. A lack of judges stymies the rule of law.

Earlier this year, there were reasons to be hopeful about Afghanistan's future. The presidential election had gone off remarkably smoothly, and the absence of major attacks on polling places suggested that Pakistan was at last responding to Washington's pleas to rein in the Taliban. Mr. Karzai had begun easing notorious warlords out of cabinet ministries and provincial governorships. More money was being directed at antinarcotics efforts.

But once the snows began to melt this March, Taliban fighters started showing up in greater numbers and with suspiciously sophisticated gear in regions of Afghanistan that border Pakistan. Afghan military and intelligence officers are convinced that they are coming from Pakistani training camps.

General Musharraf says that he has sent tens of thousands of troops to police border areas. Yet well-supplied Taliban fighters keep showing up to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He insists that the training camps are still shut down and that he is committed to thwarting the Taliban, but says he must proceed cautiously so he doesn't inflame militant groups in Pakistan. That would be more persuasive had the general not spent close to six years marginalizing mainstream parties and cutting deals with Islamic extremists to reinforce his rule.

When questioned about why he has repeatedly violated his promises to restore civilian democracy, General Musharraf argues that he must retain power because Pakistan needs his strong and effective hand. Washington needs to ask him why that strong hand seems so helpless against the Taliban.


Guess how many Taliban did Musharraf catch in all these years following 9-11 , after Pakistan became the frontline state in the "war against terror".

None. Zero. Zilch. Poojyam. 0.

This is the sham called "war on terror".

Who here advocates killing "people" ?

identify the recruiters and jihadist preachers in homeland and deport/jail/execute them. -where is the killing of innocent muslims here ?



So are you claiming that because someone is not innocent they are not a person?

Here's the exact quote that irritated me so much.

"This is a very lethal and unfortunately very adaptable enemy we are faced with," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, a Pentagon staff officer. Now this guy sounds like he got into the Army during the "don't ask, don't tell" years. This doesn't sound like what any of the great generals would have said after losing man after man.

I'm all but convinced that this battle against Islamic fundamentalists has become just a costly charade. The only benefit seems to be that we keep the Islamists a little less organized than they could be and that keeps them from conducting large scale attacks.

Here's the exact quote that irritated me so much.

"This is a very lethal and unfortunately very adaptable enemy we are faced with," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, a Pentagon staff officer. Now this guy sounds like he got into the Army during the "don't ask, don't tell" years. This doesn't sound like what any of the great generals would have said after losing man after man.

I'm all but convinced that this battle against Islamic fundamentalists has become just a costly charade. The only benefit seems to be that we keep the Islamists a little less organized than they could be and that keeps them from conducting large scale attacks.

I would argue that they are more organized now, for the simple reason that they have an available common enemy. Groups that might not have coordinated in the past are doing so. They get lots of on-the-job training too. Individials who would never have mustered up enough hatred are finding it much easier now.

Here's the exact quote that irritated me so much.

"This is a very lethal and unfortunately very adaptable enemy we are faced with," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, a Pentagon staff officer. Now this guy sounds like he got into the Army during the "don't ask, don't tell" years. This doesn't sound like what any of the great generals would have said after losing man after man.


Would you rather he said some thing along the lines of 'The enemy we are currently facing are a disorganised incompetent rabble, and the only reason our soldiers got killed was because they themselves were incompetent'? It seems to me that something along those lines is the only other option if you reject his claims that the opposition are in fact lethal and adaptable.

Seems to me that the Brigadier General was speaking the turth: his enemy is both lethal and adaptable. Why the problem with him stating this?


Aside from which, what the fuck do allusions to sexuality have to do with the matter at hand?

Who here advocates killing "people" ?

Since when did I lose the right to kill somebody before he kills me ? The terrorist wants to die for his cause. I say, why not oblige him !

Pan-Islamist terrorism is not something you negotiate with. It is something that needs to be destroyed. If you think that US/west withdraws from the "muslim lands" after a "negotiation" with the pan-islamists, the jihad would stop, then you are sadly mistaken. The jihad will only be strenghthened. The islamists fervor would increase with the perception that they have defeated both the superpowers (erstwhile USSR and now the US).

Besides any such treaty you make with an islamist will only be like the Hudaibiya treaty (look it up).
If the US and other western nations completely pull out of "muslim lands" then I'm sure Osama will redefine the term "Muslim lands" to include anywhere that Muslims live. We will see attacks against the USA because Muslims living there are subjected to US law instead of sharia. Same thing in France, Germany, and UK.

Think about it, what makes a piece of land "Muslim" other than being home to a Muslim population? What borders does Osama's version of Islam recognize other than the border between lands where Mulsims live and lands where there are no Muslims yet?

Instead of asking 'is there enough political will'...

Maybe we should be asking ourselves the seemingly more obvious question of

"Is it even possible to win a war being fought not against people, land or resources...but against an ideal?'
Winning means that the numbers of people embracing that particular ideology are reduced, and that the majority of people are convinced that such an ideology is barbaric.

How many NAZIs are around now as compared to in the 1930's? How much popular support do they get? Didn't we win against that ideology?

And as usual, the more little and naive one person is, the more that person speaks the absolute truth.
No preconceptions, no bias, just pure common sense.


I disagree here. I do not believe there is a diplomatic solution because the terrorists here see the rest of us as an affront to their God. In their eyes, God will not be satisfied until all of us are either converted or eliminated. Our very way of life is an insult to their God to them. We are infidels and MUST be eliminated. Our gays, our uncovered women, our tolerance of zionism, our rock music and our alcohol.

To the fundamentalists, there is no compromise. Anyone who thinks there is in light of everything these people have done is deluding themselves to lend credence to a shaky point of view.

Period.

In answer to the original question; No I don't think there is the will to win this war, because to win it is to remove a threat to the U.S. and believe me, the people in power don't want that.
It's very simple; keep people scared and they'll buy more stuff and support the government because it is there only hope (see: the patriot act)
Defeating the terorrists was never the goal, or they wouldn't have been so stupid to invade Iraq. Of course the US government knew there weren't any terorrists in Iraq it's just a way of keeping the fear high while not doing anything about the causes, at least they look busy.

my kind regards

Winning means that the numbers of people embracing that particular ideology are reduced, and that the majority of people are convinced that such an ideology is barbaric.

How many NAZIs are around now as compared to in the 1930's? How much popular support do they get? Didn't we win against that ideology?

Hey - I'm not at all saying I support terrorism, I think that we should bring back hanging for failed terrorists here in Britain...

It's just that the whole concept of a 'war on terror' is ridiculous. I accept your point that we won a war against the Nazis...but we were fighting against Germany then in a real war.

You must see the differences between that war and this...'war...

Hey - I'm not at all saying I support terrorism, I think that we should bring back hanging for failed terrorists here in Britain...

It's just that the whole concept of a 'war on terror' is ridiculous. I accept your point that we won a war against the Nazis...but we were fighting against Germany then in a real war.

You must see the differences between that war and this...'war...
Sure. Now we're fighting against loosely affiliated organizations present in many countries. Still it's winable. The nations that knowingly harbor terrorists? You punish them like Dresden was punished. Break the will of the people to resist because half measures will only strengthen their resolve. After you grind them into dust you raise them back up in a more acceptable incarnation, just like we did to Germany and Japan. The nations that fight the terrorists? You share resources and intelligence with them to further our common goal of eradicating terrorism.

Sadly, no, there probably isn't enough political will to accomplish that.

As somebody said earlier -

As long as George is in power (and I'm not turning this into a debate about him), and the US Government can convince the people of the States that there is an external threat to the Homeland - the war on terror will continue.

Think about it - an un-ending war, with funds constantly diverted to the military in the goal of eradicating a threat to the world...

I wouldn't be surprised - and I'd be horrified if it actually happened - if the Bush administration, between now and the next Presidential election, doesn't try to push a bill through the Senate to allow him to serve a Third Term in Office to continue the war on terror in the name of the American people...

(It is the Senate where your laws go, right? I'm not too hot on the American system)

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/2/14388822_F_tn.jpg

Hey - I'm not at all saying I support terrorism, I think that we should bring back hanging for failed terrorists here in Britain...

It's just that the whole concept of a 'war on terror' is ridiculous. I accept your point that we won a war against the Nazis...but we were fighting against Germany then in a real war.

You must see the differences between that war and this...'war...

Hanging for sucide bombers?

hahahahahaha :D

Would you rather he said some thing along the lines of 'The enemy we are currently facing are a disorganised incompetent rabble, and the only reason our soldiers got killed was because they themselves were incompetent'? It seems to me that something along those lines is the only other option if you reject his claims that the opposition are in fact lethal and adaptable.

Seems to me that the Brigadier General was speaking the turth: his enemy is both lethal and adaptable. Why the problem with him stating this?


Aside from which, what the fuck do allusions to sexuality have to do with the matter at hand?
I rather he had said something like 'We mourn the losses of our brave soldiers and Marines. We will continue to seek out those that are responsible for their deaths and kill them where they hide. Despite the lethality and adaptabliity of our enemy, we will not rest until our losses have been avenged'. Now no general would ever say something like that to a reporter, but I sure would feel a little more assured the Pentagon took this fight seriously if I saw a little regret expressed at the losses.

I wouldn't be surprised - and I'd be horrified if it actually happened - if the Bush administration, between now and the next Presidential election, doesn't try to push a bill through the Senate to allow him to serve a Third Term in Office to continue the war on terror in the name of the American people...

(It is the Senate where your laws go, right? I'm not too hot on the American system)



There're plenty of resources that describe the U.S. legislative process. Bush couldn't serve a third term any more than Clinton could. It's been prohibited by Constitutional amendment since we made the mistake of allowing FDR to screw up the country for nearly 16 years.

Did you know that the word assassins came from "Hashishins" (suicidal attackers doped with hashish) ? Sorry if you knew that already.
It's always puzzled me how anyone could possibly have enough drive to become a suicide attacker, when they're wasted on hash. I can barely make it to the fridge. ;)

It's always puzzled me how anyone could possibly have enough drive to become a suicide attacker, when they're wasted on hash. I can barely make it to the fridge. ;)
I used to love to get stoned and clean my appartment or work out. Getting stoned and sitting around only made me paranoid.

This is the response I expected. We should see stories like this in the paper every single day.
From the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. Marines and Iraqi troops pounded insurgents with bombs and tank cannons Friday during a major offensive along a stretch of the Euphrates River valley where 22 Marines were killed this week.

About 800 U.S. Marines and 180 Iraqi soldiers moved into Haqlaniyah, one of a cluster of western towns in Anbar province around the Haditha Dam that is believed to be a stronghold of Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters.

Heavy Abrams tanks battled insurgents armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, while U.S. jets destroyed at least four buildings — two of which were found booby-trapped with explosives, a U.S. military statement said.

I rather he had said something like 'We mourn the losses of our brave soldiers and Marines. We will continue to seek out those that are responsible for their deaths and kill them where they hide. Despite the lethality and adaptabliity of our enemy, we will not rest until our losses have been avenged'. Now no general would ever say something like that to a reporter, but I sure would feel a little more assured the Pentagon took this fight seriously if I saw a little regret expressed at the losses.

How about if he said something like... oooh... off the top of my head... "Any time any unit loses a member, it's hard. But I think one of the things that we should be very proud of is that ... they will deal with their mission, and they will continue with their mission and accomplish their mission. There will be a time to take pause and to grieve the loss of friends and comrades, and they'll do that in an appropriate manner. But for right now, my guess is they are very, very specifically focused on accomplishing the mission that has been assigned."

Would that be sufficient to assuage your ire?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050803_2321.html

*snip*

This is a war that we need to win. Why doesn't the Administration try harder? What ever happened to the man that said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? It doesn't appear he lives in the White House anymore.
I completely agree with your post, Myrmidonisia, an exceedingly rare event.

And as usual, the more little and naive one person is, the more that person speaks the absolute truth.
No preconceptions, no bias, just pure common sense.
No knowledge either. ;)

There're plenty of resources that describe the U.S. legislative process. Bush couldn't serve a third term any more than Clinton could. It's been prohibited by Constitutional amendment since we made the mistake of allowing FDR to screw up the country for nearly 16 years.
...or lift away the depression and save it from the Nazis and Japanese, whatever.

There're plenty of resources that describe the U.S. legislative process. Bush couldn't serve a third term any more than Clinton could. It's been prohibited by Constitutional amendment since we made the mistake of allowing FDR to screw up the country for nearly 16 years.

...or lift away the depression and save it from the Nazis and Japanese, whatever.
I see we have re--established the status quo :).

No actual comment on what the chap actually said, as opposed to what soundbites the mass media saw fit to report?

Aside from which, surely the purpose of the military block is to neutralise the enemy, not to seek vengeance?

So are you claiming that because someone is not innocent they are not a person?

:confused:

Since when is a pan-islamist terrorist a person ?

You completely lost me.

I don't consider a pan-islamist who has already made the decision to kill me , as a person. He is a killer, more than a person. The person in him has already been consumed by the killer who he is now. Is that too hard for you to understand ? I have no choice but to kill him before he kills me. He made that rule. Not me.

Buddy, I have lost many near and dear to this islamist terrorism. More than 100,000 people are living as a refugees in their own country, driven out of their ancestral homes due to islamist jihad. My country has lost more than 40,000 civilian lives to this. And this is going on and on with no end in sight.

So cut out your semantics and word play.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=313555
In a pre-dawn strike, militants today killed five Hindus by slitting their throats after dragging them out of their hutments in a hamlet in Rajouri district of Jammu and Kashmir
In another incident, militants killed one Seema Akhtar by slitting her throat in Jaglanu village in the same area last night, he said.

Are the victims not persons ?

If you had the chance to kill the terrorist before they could do this, would you do that or would you be concerned about the rights of the terrorist..oops..persons more than the rights of the victims ?

Since when is a pan-islamist terrorist a person ?

...

So cut out your semantics and word play.

So, if we are avoiding semiotics here, what would you define them as if they are not a person?

what would you define them as if they are not a person?

Let me try this again.

Let's take the terrorists who slit the throat of civilians, in the news I gave in my post before this.

Let's say that I am at the scene, just before the slitting of the throat.

Would you rather have me kill the terrorist or respect his rights as a "person", and forget about the victim's rights to live? Is it not my duty to kill the terrorist before he kills his victim ?

The terrorist may have been a "person" once, but when he has taken the decision to kill me in his war, he has become a killer and I don't have a choice but to kill him before he kills me.

Now, please be kind and answer the following question.

What about the 5 persons who got their throats slit by the terrorists ? Are they not persons ?

Whose rights as a "person" takes precedence, the innocent civilian or the one who tries to kill him ?

The pan-islamist's ideology is such that it has no place for me in his world. The pan-islamist terrorist is willing to use terrorism as a tool for imposing his ideology. It is either him or me. The salafi can only accord me a place as a dhimmi in his world. Either that or I die.

I dunno about you, but I don't particularly like living as a dhimmi nor do I like dying with my throat slit or my behind bombed.

I think many more people will die before the political will required will develop. People in the safe parts of the world won't react until they truly feel threatened.

So far they feel safe enough, most are sure it will not happen to them. The concept of pre-emptive self-defense is too difficult and unnecessary in the minds of most - plus it's just so icky.

I think many more people will die before the political will required will develop. People in the safe parts of the world won't react until they truly feel threatened. So far they feel safe enough, most are sure it will not happen to them.

Yes, some nations have sort of made an individual peace with the islamists. They do not realise how stupid that is. This will only postpone the attack in their country. You are kinds pushed back in the priority, but you are still on the list. ;)


The concept of pre-emptive self-defense is too difficult and unnecessary in the minds of most - plus it's just so icky.

Partly due to the Iraq war which had nothing to do with combating pan-islamist terrorism. I would say that the Iraq war has been the biggest *distraction* in the war against pan-islamist terrorism. The IIF is still operational. LeT has effectively become the C&C of AQ. The foot soldiers are still being trained. The jihad is still on.

Yes, some nations have sort of made an individual peace with the islamists. They do not realise how stupid that is. This will only postpone the attack in their country. You are kinds pushed back in the priority, but you are still on the list. ;)



Partly due to the Iraq war which had nothing to do with combating pan-islamist terrorism. I would say that the Iraq war has been the biggest *distraction* in the war against pan-islamist terrorism. The IIF is still operational. LeT has effectively become the C&C of AQ. The foot soldiers are still being trained. The jihad is still on.

I wonder if rephrasing the question of "is there enough will?" to "what is required to maximize political will?" would lead to more productive debate?

For instance, many people are divided just in defining what the threat is, and what the motive of the terrorists are. Work that out via debate for starters. Not just between individuals, but between nations. Talk facts, not opinion where possible - candid discussion for once.

Debate the civil rights issues, an area of considerable contention. Establish in advance thresholds at which restrictions might be required, essentially ask permission in advance from citizens. Consider 'sunsetting' - type legislation, that which will expire automatically unless ther people want to keep it. People correctly don't trust their governments, this sort of approach may minimize the effect on civil rights. US Patriot Act is a good example - a law I would have supported reluctantly had it not been permanent.

Specifically identifying and addressing areas of contention between nations, particularly the US and Europe, on what constitutes the right to pre-emptive self-defense, how to respond with united front against government sponsored terrorism. We have not agreed on some ground rules, maybe getting this on the table once and for all would be beneficial.

Basically, take steps through transparent means which recognize that ultimately it is up to the people how they respond to the problems. At present people are not in full possession of the facts, distrustful of their government, or too dependent on their government to have the will to solve the problem.

True, you can leadthe horse to water and not make him drink, but it's better to try. I think it's time for honesty on all sides, maybe the political will is there.

There is a severe lack of understanding in this board about what is islamism, pan-islamism, pan-islamist terrorist, global salafi movement, its ideology, past history, past methods, future goals, their current methods, state actors involved, non-state actors involved etc. Take the thread on islamism started by the Holy Womble. It had such a wealth of information, but it all went over the head and did not evoke any interest.

Often times, one person accuses the other of advocating killing all muslims and the other reciprocates that the former is a bleeding heart liberal.

The former type does not realise the threat that pan-islamism poses. The later tends to be an Bush fan supporting the start of Iraq war.

Both these groups have poor idea of what they are fighting. So instead of trying to debate about the issue at hand (pan-islamism) , the debate degenerates into anti-Bush Vs pro-Bush , anti Iraq war Vs pro Iraq war, EU Vs US, Liberals Vs Conservatives.

And to top it we have some "innocent" folks advovating negotiation :confused:

As callous it may sound, I cannot help but think what would happen if they get a taste of islamist terrorism. How would they like to have twelve bombs go off in a serial explosion as it happened to my native city, killing 58 and injuring 200.

Ironically, it seems that only such bombs will wake them up.

Alot more than political will is needed to make war on something as ambiguous as terror. Might as well wage a war on drugs ...

The terrorist may have been a "person" once, but when he has taken the decision to kill me in his war, he has become a killer and I don't have a choice but to kill him before he kills me.

Being a killer and being a person are not mutually exclusive. He remains a person.

Now, please be kind and answer the following question.

What about the 5 persons who got their throats slit by the terrorists ? Are they not persons ?

Yes. Your point being?

Yes. Your point being?

Edited: sorry did not note your reply.

Yes. Your point being?

Please answer this question then,

Let's say that I am at the scene, just before the slitting of the throat.

Would you rather have me kill the terrorist or respect his rights as a "person", and forget about the victim's rights to live?

Is it not my duty to kill the terrorist before he kills his victim ?

There is enough will on the anit terror side. Trouble is this is matched by the terrorists. The USA will not negotiate with terrorist. I can understand why, but after a while this policy may have to change. To win the war on terror enormous comprimise, understanding and common ground much be reached by all sides. The war on terror should be renamed the terror war, it has only just begun.

There is enough will on the anit terror side. Trouble is this is matched by the terrorists. The USA will not negotiate with terrorist. I can understand why, but after a while this policy may have to change. To win the war on terror enormous comprimise, understanding and common ground much be reached by all sides. The war on terror should be renamed the terror war, it has only just begun.
I don't see that negotiations with Islamists have any potential. I don't believe that they have the honor(?) or determination to live up to the bargain, if indeed one is made.

The negotiations with the IRA were successful because they started with achievable demands. I don't think there is another example in history that parallels the demands made by the Islamists. Except maybe the Crusades and we know how well that went.

The only possible "middle ground" I can think of at the moment is to engage non-extreme Muslims in the battle. If those folks can make life intolerable for the extremists, maybe we can make some headway into minimizing the problem to levels that can be handled through law enforcement, rather than marital law.

Just noticed this.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9378213&postcount=15
OHidunno
I'm sure there's a way this can be solved diplomatically.. But then again, I'm just a naive little girl.
Leonstein
And as usual, the more little and naive one person is, the more that person speaks the absolute truth.
No preconceptions, no bias, just pure common sense.

Me,
Hey, how are the Uighur muslim seperatists doing in Sinkiang/Xinjiang? I haven't heard from them recently.
OHidunno,
They are oppressed.

Really ! I wonder why the Chinese are not solving this diplomatically.

Instead of that the Chinese are using the army to kill anybody who is suspected of taking arms, clamping down on travel of muslims to Pakistan, Tajkistan, Afghanistan and even to Haj pilgrimmages to KSA, swamping the place with Han ethnicity and diluting the Uighur identity, installing state trained Imams to deliver state sanctioned sermons to muslims in mosques, arresting protesters and sending them to Gulag style "re-education" programs, executing those who are beyond re-education and bill the cost of the bullet to the family and harvest organs if applicable, and does not allow any outsider to go into the region or any information to go out of the region.

I guess that's Chinese way of "diplomatic" solution. ;)

I see we have re--established the status quo :).
as it should be.

Please answer this question then,

Let's say that I am at the scene, just before the slitting of the throat.

Would you rather have me kill the terrorist or respect his rights as a "person", and forget about the victim's rights to live?

Is it not my duty to kill the terrorist before he kills his victim ?

Whether it is your duty or not to kill the chap with the knife here is irrelevant to the question of whether they are a person or not. You still maintain your claim that they are not a person?

Whether it is your duty or not to kill the chap with the knife here is irrelevant to the question of whether they are a person or not. You still maintain your claim that they are not a person?

I did answer your question a few posts back.

"The terrorist may have been a "person" once, but when he has taken the decision to kill me in his war, he has become a killer and I don't have a choice but to kill him before he kills me."

So yes, he is a homo sapien who is commonly known as a human being who is also referred as a person and all but No, I don't consider him a person in the same sense that I consider his victim a person.

Now please answer my question without worrying about its relevancy to your question.

What would you have me do when I am in the scene where the "chap" with the knife is about to slit the throats of his victims ?

Please let me worry about the relevancy and humor me.