NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple enough question, right?

Well, it is one of the most complex issues in modern times. I used to be of the opinion that such a thing as the "war on terror" really doesn't exist (and I sorta still am), but I've come to the conclusion that there is something to be done.
More fundamentalist forms of Islam, and ultimately their political movements (I'll call it "Islamism") have become something of a rebel movement against the unfairness in the world. If people feel like they've got no chance for a better life here and now, or if they feel at odds with the world, they often turn to religion, and in some areas those are fairly radical forms of Islam.

That can be both a depressed kid in London who can't find a girlfriend, a boy in Germany who finished school but can't find a job because he looks middle eastern or a middle-class guy in Syria who's had his brother jailed and who feels that Islamism is the only political movement with a shot at providing freedom.

Apart from those would-be Islamists, there are of course also the Islamists who are already around, and who provide those that want it with a place to go, with training and with a cause and a reason for their meaningless lifes.

And then there are the governments, who sometimes want to end Islamism and only succeed in creating martyrs, and those who don't really care, or even support Islamism for whatever purpose.

Then there is the issue of Civil Freedoms in the West. Patriot Acts, Sedition Legislation, Detention without Trial. Torture, Rendition and Shoot-to-Kill policies.

So you see, it is a very large and complex problem.

So how would you solve it?

And seeing as to how I am psychic, and know there will be responses along the lines of "I'll bomb all the Terrorists!!!", I'll add a little qualification:
If you think that is the way to do it - then tell me how you will go about it. How do you know who to bomb? Where will you bomb? What about the governments of the places someone is at? What do you suppose that will mean for the defense budget, the way the military is organised? Would you consider going to total war then, and start a draft?

All these question I hope we will be able to answer.

It's problem shot through with economic disparagies, cultural differences, political clashes, as much - or even more - than it's about religion or military considerations. Any answer has to address all these facets, and be prepared to think long term - the Cold War was fought over a couple of generations, more or less, this is likely to last longer. I see it being like the Balkans - a problem 'solved' by the first world war, sporadically flaring up and not having its denouement till almost a hundred years later.

As for a solution, I'm too tired to post an opinion the now, but I'll watch with interest :)

The only way to combat violence is to use peace. So let's all hold hands and sing Bob Marley songs, and melt down guns to make metal statues.

Or we could just pull out of Iraq.

Well.

Let's do a step backwards in time before attacking Iraq.

I would have ordered the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The Soviets pretty well flattened the place. Teach to the people to rebuild their country. Help them do it. If they are busy swinging hammers, they aren't going to be too intrested in placing or wearing bombs.

Best way to eliminate recruits is to give them a future to which they can build.

Pakistan. Taliban started there so probably an attack on the Border areas. Or at least policing.

Just tossing an idea to get the conversation rolling.....

Arrest Dick Cheney, post-haste.

I don't think I could. I'm not very good at fighting wars on abstract nouns.

*Points to Team America World Police*;)

stop exploiting and haveing the CIA ass rape any third world nation with something corperate america needs, work in corroperation with the area where terrorism thrives to end the conditions which spawns it, namely poverty.


Or crash the earth into the sun.


Or get everyone to stoned to fight.

Or think about this and come back latter when my brain ain't doing many different things with to little....brain juice.

Y'all know what I mean.

Or we could just pull out of Iraq.
Would that bring the world (especially the Middle East) any closer to getting rid of radical Islamism?

Let's do a step backwards in time before attacking Iraq.
That's cheating, isn't it?

And of course the issue is not confined to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What about for example the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Or the aforementioned disaffected second- or third-generation immigrants in Europe, but also Australia and probably America?

Pull out of well everywhere. We'll assume they've learned their lesson. just maintain our forward bases and stay the hell out of everyone else's politics (yep that includes financially. The UN can start paying rent or leave). If anyone makes a terrrorist attack on our soil mandatory carpet bombing. Then back to minding our own business. Yep I mean US by us. Nope not saying anyone else should follow that strategy going back to minding our own damn business.

just maintain our forward bases and stay the hell out of everyone else's politics
Is that even possible? Having bases in a country like Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia is pretty much a political issue.

(yep that includes financially. The UN can start paying rent or leave).
Which is a little bit irrelevant to Terrorism, isn't it?

If anyone makes a terrrorist attack on our soil mandatory carpet bombing.
Carpet Bombing who?

Carpet Bombing who?
Oh, how I wish the answer to that one was Dick Cheney...

Well, first you're going to have to tackle the problem at home. There should be a concerted effort by the governments of North America and Europe (in particular) to address the economic disparity and cultural alienation that permeates the immigrant Muslim communities in their nations.

Ideally, there should be tax breaks and investment of government funds in to these regions to encourage economic development and job growth. The goal is to provide opportunity for the young, since they are the primary source of terrorism.

Secondly, there needs to be a massive effort by the OECD to pressure the Middle East on free trade and globalization; this region would be perfect for financial services, information technology, and manufacturing given its central location between Asia, Africa, and Europe, but the punitive trade protections on both sides restrict the ability of the Middle East to develop these industries. These sectors provide high pay and require a solid education; an educated Muslim middle class with plenty of economic opportunity would be a powerful weapon against terrorism.

Third, we need to take action to shut down madrassas and arrest religious leaders that are promoting terrorism and if necessary take military action against those states that directly support terrorism. However, military action should be the last resort.

Fourth, the US needs to normalize relations with Iran; an influx of US investment, products, jobs as well as technology would weaken the regime and enable us to better support democracy and reform. Otherwise, they're isolated, and that does nothing but give the Islamists more sway over the people.

Oh boy, I'm really gonna piss some people off.

Get things in Afghanistan and Iraq squared away and rebuilt, hand the Gitmo detainees over to the saudis for questioning, execute them, Capture Bin Laden (in any order) Invade Iran, rebuild Iran, and dispatch MEU's to any spot where Al Qaida is to take care of business.....Build a 20ft tall wall along the Mexican border with armed guards.

I could go into more detail, but that's it.

Is that even possible? Having bases in a country like Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia is pretty much a political issue.

Which is a little bit irrelevant to Terrorism, isn't it?


Carpet Bombing who?

Well honestly if we just fall back on carpet bombing we don't need those bases in Saudi and Uzbek. Those were set up to facillitate land invasions and Aircraft carriers know no borders.
The UN is highly relevant. Every time the UN desides that there is a situation that requires military interventionthey ask for US troops. Being non-interventionist means telling the UN to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. Recently we took unilateral action and in Afganistan I would say it was justified. But repeatedly in the past our troops are out there building new enemies on a UN sanctioned operation.
Carpet bombing the Nation of origion. AlQueda was all over Afganistan and so we carpet bombed Afganistan. Make a very clear foreign policy that if you harbor indiscriminate murderers that wish to target us we will target you with indescriminate murder as soon as they succeed.

...hand the Gitmo detainees over to the saudis for questioning, execute them...

All of them?

http://www.serendipity.li/more/nuclear_explosion.jpg

http://www.matt-garrett.com/photos/friends/hippy-dave-1.JPG

Psychological warfare? Or free pot?

Get things in Afghanistan and Iraq squared away and rebuilt,

hand the Gitmo detainees over to the saudis for questioning, execute them,

Capture Bin Laden (in any order)

Invade Iran, rebuild Iran,

and dispatch MEU's to any spot where Al Qaida is to take care of business...

..Build a 20ft tall wall along the Mexican border with armed guards.

1. Good.

2. Bad. Saudis (sometimes) love Islamists, especially when they're citizens. It's too risky, they might set them free or sell them or some such thing.

3. Good.

4. Might be a good idea, but impractical.

5. What is MEU?

6. Alright this one is just bizarre.

6. Alright this one is just bizarre.

Not really. The direct links between Mexicans and terrorism are very plain indeed.

Not really. The direct links between Mexicans and terrorism are very plain indeed.

Yeah, not like we've got that 2,000 mile border to the north or anything...:p

1. Develop an effective non-oil feul source produced in "home" countries thereby allowing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from middle-eastern nations. When we stop "interfering" in issues, we cut a leg out from underneath the justification of resentment.

2. Stop treating arabic imigrants into western nations like second-class citizens. There is a great deal of racism against arabs in many European nations and in the U.S. Once again, by not doing what we've been accused of, we cut the legs from beneath the demagogues like Osama Bin Laden.

3. Make an honest effort to reach out with humanitarian and economic aid, both eliminating another reason to be resentful and being the good guy.

4. Keep up-to-date internal security systems on planes, trains, and buses. Ensure that major buildings have adequate parking-lot and entery security. Spare no expense.

5. Change imigration policy. Address the Mexican border issue by both closing the border to further illegal imigration and allowing many times as many imigrants across legally, with full background checks. Improve background check capability.

6. Improve international image, make an honest effort to compromise internationally, present a good face to the world, but make it quite clear that you are not above retaliation against a threat. Walk softly and carry a big stick (rather than our current policy of stomping around whacking people at random).

7. Continue to promote self determination in the creation of foreign democracys (you can't force democracy, but you can certainly do things like support free trade with all democratic nations, promote investment in funcitoning democracys, and such things).

1. Good.

2. Bad. Saudis (sometimes) love Islamists, especially when they're citizens. It's too risky, they might set them free or sell them or some such thing.

3. Good.

4. Might be a good idea, but impractical.

5. What is MEU?

6. Alright this one is just bizarre.

MEU is a Marine Expeditionary unit. Think of an entire marine army that fits into a small aircraft carrier.

I was thinking hand the detainees over to the saudis for torture, not freedom. Keep them on a tightleash.

yes. Execute them all. Except for Bin laden, he gets hung off of the next WTC.

:D

1. Develop an effective non-oil feul source produced in "home" countries thereby allowing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from middle-eastern nations. When we stop "interfering" in issues, we cut a leg out from underneath the justification of resentment.

Yes, but the problem with that is the Middle East is not yet able to stand economically without oil; that would cause a depression in the region that would put even more young men out of work and in to poverty, and from there they'd probably embrace fundamentalism.

7. Continue to promote self determination in the creation of foreign democracys (you can't force democracy, but you can certainly do things like support free trade with all democratic nations, promote investment in funcitoning democracys, and such things).

This would have to be in place before you could do #1, since they are inevitably intertwined.

The US must stop interfering with the internal politics of other nations. Withdraw from Iraq. Stop unilateral support of Israel.

MEU is a Marine Expeditionary unit. Think of an entire marine army that fits into a small aircraft carrier.

I was thinking hand the detainees over to the saudis for torture, not freedom. Keep them on a tightleash.

yes. Execute them all. Except for Bin laden, he gets hung off of the next WTC.

:D
If only it were so simple to know where al-Qaeda was to eliminate them! I agree in principle.

Why hand them to the saudis? If we need information just torture them ourselves. I don't trust the Saudis to honestly report the information they get out of them.

I don't agree with executing them. Their followers would probably interpret it as martyrdom. I think that they should be charged (hawk as I am, I still believe in the legal system and the rule of law), tried, and incarcerated in cells soaked in pigs' blood. If nothing else that will make them commit suicide.

I think you really need to think more. Most of your positions seem to be based on testosterone and lust for revenge. You need to get some sex. ;)

The US must stop interfering with the internal politics of other nations. Withdraw from Iraq.
And allow it to become a nest of theocracy and terrorism?

Stop unilateral support of Israel.
And allow Israel to be crushed by the enemies that surround it?

Oh, how I wish the answer to that one was Dick Cheney...

Love how Liberals say they want peace but don't mind carpet bombing a republican.

Canada City']Love how Liberals say they want peace but don't mind carpet bombing a republican.
Liberals don't all say that want peace. They just don't want a particular war.

"How would you win the 'War on Terror?'"

A multitude of small, highly trained teams spread out over the world, who would speak the language of wherever they were stationed, know the culture, live with or as the locals do, learn what the problems were and recommend solutions ... which would then be actually implemented!

Yes, they would be soldiers. Yes, they would be armed, but would only fire in self-defense or when they had positively identified a member of the "terrorist infrastructure."

If they ever adopt this approach, I volunteer. It's what I did for 15 months in Vietnam. It works.

Stopping buying oil from Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC would be a start. Isn't going to happen though, so Bush will stick to inventing strawmen to pursue so it looks like he's doing something, then throwing tantrums when his activities are exposed as useless, pointless and irrelevant.

No one is ever going to "win" the war on terror. It is too nebulous a concept. As long as there are people there will be an oppressed (perceived or real) group that will fight for its beliefs. Kerry had the right idea, but could not articulate his way out of a paper bag; you'll never end terrorism, but you can by addressing the root causes as well as hammering the terrorists get it down to the point that terrorism gets lost in the background noise of life much like prostitution, illegal gambling, and organized crime.

Fewer people are killed by terrorists right now than are killed by cars, or alcohol, or heart disease, yet we do not get in a panicked tizzy over them. This is not to say we don't hunt the f*ckers down, just that we need to put the numbers into perspective in our public reactions and panics.

I think we would be far better off publicly ignoring terrorists in the press and government while privately hunting them down than we are now. The 25 Million dollar rewards on bin Laden and Zarqawi do nothing but inflate their images in the eyes of the Arab street. Next time a group claims credit for an attack the government should respond with, "Our resources indicate that (insert group name) does not have the resources or expertise to conduct an attack like this. Analysis indicates that they are claiming credit for this attack to gain publicity, but did not actually do it."

Just my 2 cents.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan

I think we would be far better off publicly ignoring terrorists in the press and government while privately hunting them down than we are now. The 25 Million dollar rewards on bin Laden and Zarqawi do nothing but inflate their images in the eyes of the Arab street. Next time a group claims credit for an attack the government should respond with, "Our resources indicate that (insert group name) does not have the resources or expertise to conduct an attack like this. Analysis indicates that they are claiming credit for this attack to gain publicity, but did not actually do it."


That is an excellent idea.

"Now what is victory? I say victory is persuading the American public and the rest of the world that this is not a matter that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years" ~Donald Rumsfeld

n00KS!!!!

.
And allow it to become a nest of theocracy and terrorism?

Well its already the latter, thanks entirely to the US presence. Should an American force or American puppet attempt to suppress a move towards theocracy that would only give it more support.

.And allow Israel to be crushed by the enemies that surround it?

And how do you think they're going to manage that "crushing" given their success rate so far? Also bear in mind that both Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. However withdrawal of unilateral support in the diplomatic sphere alone would suffice. Its there that the most damage is done

Implement a very stern "hugs for guns" program, insisting that everyone trade their weapons for hugs, all over the world. Or be fitted for a napalm overcoat.

First of all, a pedantic but important distinction: the war on terror is a complete misnomer. We can't beat terrorism anymore than we could beat the blitzkrieg. We can beat Al Qaida, much like the allies beat Germany

That's important, because if you let Bush call it the war on terror, and everyone buys into that terminology, then the US can continue the war for as long as it wants to. Call it the War on Al Qaida, and there will be a much more realistic measure of how we are doing and we can tell when the war is over.


Oh boy, I'm really gonna piss some people off.

Get things in Afghanistan and Iraq squared away and rebuilt, hand the Gitmo detainees over to the saudis for questioning, execute them, Capture Bin Laden (in any order) Invade Iran, rebuild Iran, and dispatch MEU's to any spot where Al Qaida is to take care of business.....Build a 20ft tall wall along the Mexican border with armed guards.

I could go into more detail, but that's it.

An MEU everywhere al Quida is?

hahahaha

The congress critters wouldn't pay for that in a million years - they aren't even willing to pay for troop levels we do need.

The numbers required to put MEUs into every Al Qaida spot would be phyrricly expensive.

Deal with Iran the way it should be: Stick and Carrot, with some nice schmoozing and politicking to help things along. The two impoprtant things to do are:
1) Let Israel bomb their nukes out of existance.
2) Help out the opposition - just make sure we do it on the black side.


A multitude of small, highly trained teams spread out over the world, who would speak the language of wherever they were stationed, know the culture, live with or as the locals do, learn what the problems were and recommend solutions ... which would then be actually implemented!

Yes, they would be soldiers. Yes, they would be armed, but would only fire in self-defense or when they had positively identified a member of the "terrorist infrastructure."

If they ever adopt this approach, I volunteer. It's what I did for 15 months in Vietnam. It works.

Bingo. That's one of the best suggestions on this thread. And any number of freinds and aquantances will tell you that's more or less exactly what I started saying at, oh around 11:L00 pm local time on Sept. 11, 2001.

(And were you with ICEX? That would have been going right around the time I seem to remember you were there...)

Jimbolandistan's suggestions are also good. A related idea - don't make a big deal out of captured or killed Al Qaida members, especially leaders. Itwould be much more effective propagandawise (playing to the Arab street) if certain Al Qaida members just ... dissapeared, never to be heard from again.

Well its already the latter, thanks entirely to the US presence. Should an American force or American puppet attempt to suppress a move towards theocracy that would only give it more support.
Iraq was no stranger to terrorism before the invasion. At least now the occupying force is attempting to wipe out the terrorist problem. I also do not accept the permission of any kind of theocracy.

And how do you think they're going to manage that "crushing" given their success rate so far? Also bear in mind that both Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. However withdrawal of unilateral support in the diplomatic sphere alone would suffice. Its there that the most damage is done
They haven't been very good at crushing Israel so far because Israel has always been supported by the US.

Iraq was no stranger to terrorism before the invasion.


The usual nonsense which we've dealt with at length. There were no islamist groups operating in Saddam controlled Iraq before the US invasion. Now theres more groups and more agendas than you can shake a stick at springing up in the fertile soil of the US presence.


I also do not accept the permission of any kind of theocracy.

What you want isn't really the issue. The day of the white "massa" arriving off the coast in his big ships and the natives lying down for them is dead and gone, (though the damage lingers still).


They haven't been very good at crushing Israel so far because Israel has always been supported by the US.

I specified at the diplomatic level in my last post.

Tell KSA regime that if they don't clean up the funding act by the oil-rich wahabbi sheikhs, I am gonna let the Shi'ites take over Mecca.

Tell Musharraf that if he is not gonna clean up the jihad factory, I am gonna let India do the job.

That oughta take care of 99.9999% of pan-islamist terrorism.

An MEU everywhere al Quida is?

hahahaha

The congress critters wouldn't pay for that in a million years - they aren't even willing to pay for troop levels we do need.

ARF seems to live in a sort of fantasy world where the US military has unlimited power.

They haven't been very good at crushing Israel so far because Israel has always been supported by the US.
Israel already has nukes and an airforce provided by America, cutting off the aids payments that are being ploughed into their genocide campaign in Palestine won't make much of a difference.

Well, first you're going to have to tackle the problem at home. There should be a concerted effort by the governments of North America and Europe (in particular) to address the economic disparity and cultural alienation that permeates the immigrant Muslim communities in their nations.

Ideally, there should be tax breaks and investment of government funds in to these regions to encourage economic development and job growth. The goal is to provide opportunity for the young, since they are the primary source of terrorism.

Secondly, there needs to be a massive effort by the OECD to pressure the Middle East on free trade and globalization; this region would be perfect for financial services, information technology, and manufacturing given its central location between Asia, Africa, and Europe, but the punitive trade protections on both sides restrict the ability of the Middle East to develop these industries. These sectors provide high pay and require a solid education; an educated Muslim middle class with plenty of economic opportunity would be a powerful weapon against terrorism.

Third, we need to take action to shut down madrassas and arrest religious leaders that are promoting terrorism and if necessary take military action against those states that directly support terrorism. However, military action should be the last resort.

Fourth, the US needs to normalize relations with Iran; an influx of US investment, products, jobs as well as technology would weaken the regime and enable us to better support democracy and reform. Otherwise, they're isolated, and that does nothing but give the Islamists more sway over the people.
is this the only reasonable start that has been suggested?

how about we work with our FRIENDS to agree on what it will take to cut the support of radical islam? no more letting mullahs come in from other countries to preach hate for us in our own countries. no more letting them collect up money to be sent to groups that support terror. no more being friends with countries that support hatred of the west while holding hands with our national leader.

not that some of this hasnt already been done. we need to keep it up. i think that many arab eyes have been opened by terror attacks in saudi arabia and jordan (not to mention the targeting of civilians in iraq). we need to build on that.

we need to support the democrization of the middle east. as well as freedom of the press. too much public discontent is eased by blaming all troubles on the united states when most of it is bad local government. and we need to stop fucking with people's lives just so we get a steady supply of oil. they have reason to hate us when we support bad governments.

we need to keep the pressure on countries like indonesia, egypt and saudi arabia to keep an eye on their own terrorist groups.

we need to find a real solution to the israel/palestine problem. that has collected more support for terror than any other issue in the world. solving that would show that we are serious about the concerns of moslems.

we need to recognize that in terms of dead people, terrorism is insignificant. we give them way too much power over us and our public policies. yes its scary when the subway system gets bombed. its a terrible thing for the people affected. but drunk driving kills more people and im not terrified of that. we need to get some perspective.

I'd use a massive propaganda campain promoting atheism. :)

Simple. Play a game of Battleship against the Terrorist Leader. If I lose, then I give in to their demands. If I win, then they are killed. Since its too good to pass up, they'll accept my proposition. Sadly they will fail to realize that I am unbeatable at Battleship, and they will be soon at the end of a firing squad.

Simple. Play a game of Battleship against the Terrorist Leader. If I lose, then I give in to their demands. If I win, then they are killed. Since its too good to pass up, they'll accept my proposition. Sadly they will fail to realize that I am unbeatable at Battleship, and they will be soon at the end of a firing squad.

How can one be unbeatable in Battleship?

To truly beat islamist terrorism would require a major upheaval in the way our nations are governed. First thing we would have to do is remove the disproportionate power that the capitalist ruling classes weild over our political systems. This could be achieved by thing like dismantling dangerous cartels, and banning private donations to political parties (State fund them according to previous electoral success). This would be necessary for step 2:

With the political power of the oil industry destroyed, make a huge increase in the funding of research of sustainable fuel sources for power generation and transport. I believe that it's possible, Brazil showed the way with ethanol powered cars, and there are still a multitude of existing technologies such as biodiesel, other biofuels, improving electric and hybrid cars, and other stuff that is yet to be discovered. Power generation needs investment in generation methods such as wind, hydrolectric, tidal power, ect. as well as existing technologies like nuclear and cleaner modern ways of burning coal.

Once relative energy independence has been achieved, it's bye bye middle east. Their people want rid of western influence, so let them have it. Let's see how they enjoy living in theocracies that are economically ruined due to lack of oil revenue. And after that we should completely cease all trade with muslim countries. Economically they wouldn't offer us anything, so lets pull everything out. Businesses, aid organisations, the lot. See how they like life when they're completely hung out to dry.

After this, we need to focus on the enemy within. We need to get rid of the stupid idea that islam and the west are compatible with each other when they're clearly not. The London bombings, with our born and bred 'British' bombers has shown us that. This poses problems because I wouldn't want my country to go completely nazi, but at the same time I wouldn't want my country to remain a spineless whipping boy that constantly gives lip service to every minority and every foreign ideology.

I like Eutrusca's plan, but I doubt all of the countries we'd want to monitor would allow us access to their country. Furthermore, from my experience foriegn states often prefer to come up with their own solutions. I don't think there's a way to convince countries to allow us to change, prehaps, their entire society for them.

I do agree the army, and Americans as a whole, NEED a better knowledge of foreign cultures.

How can one be unbeatable in Battleship?

Exactly. You'll never figure out my secret...

*goes off to cheat*

How can one be unbeatable in Battleship?

He can read minds.

Last time I played battleship me and my friend ended up in a fight, wrestling around on my basement floor for like an hour. The game board got broken and I never played battleship with her again. I was finding colored pegs around my basement for weeks.

After this, we need to focus on the enemy within. We need to get rid of the stupid idea that islam and the west are compatible with each other when they're clearly not. The London bombings, with our born and bred 'British' bombers has shown us that. This poses problems because I wouldn't want my country to go completely nazi, but at the same time I wouldn't want my country to remain a spineless whipping boy that constantly gives lip service to every minority and every foreign ideology.

I see, 4 guys weren't compatible, but all those hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live peaceful and productive lives in the West don't count? You have asshat logic.

I see, 4 guys weren't compatible, but all those hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live peaceful and productive lives in the West don't count? You have asshat logic.
It's not just those 4 guys, it's the way I've witnessed the mentality of pretty much every muslim I've ever met in this country.

It's not just those 4 guys, it's the way I've witnessed the mentality of pretty much every muslim I've ever met in this country.

I'm sure that if you don't tell them your plans for deporting every single one of them then they're actually fine people.

I'm sure that if you don't tell them your plans for deporting every single one of them then they're actually fine people.
It's not like I go shouting my views from the rooftops. My hatred of muslims didn't just magically appear out of nowhere - it's the profuct of life experience that I gained as a naive child. I never used to hate them, but when I saw the damage that a large muslim population did to the town I used to live in, and when I've seen their attitudes for myself, I can't feel anything but hatred towards them.

Simply Put, I Would Get Out Of The Middle East, Stop Trying To Spread Democracy And Chrisitanity In Dictatorship Muslim Countries, And Get All The Other Nutbags Trying To Do That Out Of There, And Then The Terrorists Will Finnaly Leave Us Alone!

How to win the war on terror? Simple.
The answer is in chapter 11 of Dick Clarke's book. "Against all enemies".

Simply Put, I Would Get Out Of The Middle East, Stop Trying To Spread Democracy And Chrisitanity In Dictatorship Muslim Countries, And Get All The Other Nutbags Trying To Do That Out Of There, And Then The Terrorists Will Finnaly Leave Us Alone!

Riiiight.

1. Spend a lot of money on ramping up enhanced breeder reactors that not only burn up and destroy weapon plutonium, but burn up and use depleted uranium and other radioactive wastes, eliminating them from the nuclear cycle (see last month's Scientific American for the details).

2. Spend a lot of money on developing orbital solar power platforms, deep ocean thermal taps, and more research into fusion energy.

3. Once we're not dependent on ANY foreign oil (I don't care if it come from Norway - I never want to buy foreign oil again), the US should be using its own coal reserves for producing plastics and fertilizer. No more foreign oil.

4. Change the US response to major terrorist attacks against any US assets, foreign or domestic. Stop taking prisoners, and engage in a worldwide campaign of clandestine extrajudicial assassination (in cases where you feel that only a group is responsible). Kill the members of that group, their family members, the people who owe them money, and burn their houses to the ground. If you can identify a nation as being the sponsor of a major terrorist act against US interests, use a B-61 nuclear device set for maximum yield at optimum airburst altitude above one or more of their major cities (to avoid producing fallout and maximize civilian casualties).

5. Announce the change of response in advance - tell people that in the event of an attack on US interests, there will be absolutely no negotiation, no warning, and no mercy.

6. Tell Iran that if it fires a single nuclear device anywhere on the planet, that not only will the US vaporize every major city in Iran, but we will ground burst Mecca and Medina to make sure that no one can ever visit those places again.

Their people want rid of western influence, so let them have it. Let's see how they enjoy living in theocracies that are economically ruined due to lack of oil revenue. And after that we should completely cease all trade with muslim countries. Economically they wouldn't offer us anything, so lets pull everything out. Businesses, aid organisations, the lot. See how they like life when they're completely hung out to dry.
Did you read the first post?

Making everyone even more unhappy is not going to improve their perception of life, and therefore will make some sort of religious cause, linked to the afterlife, even more attractive.

And Deep Kimchi...why does it always have to be nuking civilians with you? Why do you think they'd have anything to do with the actions of their government? And why do you think the Terrorists would even care?

How would I end the War On Terror?

Execute every Republican senator and Congressman, and continue to do so until no one has the courage to run on a conservative platform.

Alternatively, pummel every rural county with a Republican majority with antimatter projectile weapons until every one is dead.

A more serious response will follow after this.

6. Tell Iran that if it fires a single nuclear device anywhere on the planet, that not only will the US vaporize every major city in Iran, but we will ground burst Mecca and Medina to make sure that no one can ever visit those places again.

Okay, even for your extreme US Neo-Colonist point of view that could only be described as an act of insanity. Saudi Arabia supplies nearly half of the US with petroleum products, plus they're friendly to US interests, and you want to [b]use nuclear weapons[/u] on their soil?

Besides, it won't just be Mulism fanaticals who want to turn western civilization into a segment of history, it will be every Muslism in the world.

I like Eutrusca's plan, but I doubt all of the countries we'd want to monitor would allow us access to their country. Furthermore, from my experience foriegn states often prefer to come up with their own solutions. I don't think there's a way to convince countries to allow us to change, prehaps, their entire society for them.

I do agree the army, and Americans as a whole, NEED a better knowledge of foreign cultures.
Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if anyone even read it! :)

And Deep Kimchi...why does it always have to be nuking civilians with you? Why do you think they'd have anything to do with the actions of their government? And why do you think the Terrorists would even care?


What's the point of having nuclear weapons, and how well do they deter, when few living today have a life memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You have to refresh people's memories of what you're capable of.

If I were the US, I might even adopt a unilateral nuclear use policy - if anyone uses them on anyone, the US will identify and strike.

As Mao said, the populace is the river in which the fish (guerillas) swim. Dry up the river, and there's no source for terrorists on that count.

This isn't punishment - this is making sure that it doesn't happen again from the same source.

If the war of ideas is Western Civ vs. Islam (as opposed to the previous Capitalism vs. Communism), then I believe that everyone needs to be reminded how crazy we are (not how crazy we might be).

As Kissinger once put it, we have to make sure that everyone sees us accelerate the car to top speed, head on, and that everyone sees us throw the brake pedal and steering wheel out the window. Victory goes to the player who convinces the others that he is the craziest person on earth.

Goes a long way towards explaining current foreign policy. In the aftermath of 9-11, we appear reckless and careless - we don't care if someone really was connected - we'll invade them anyway.

I'm taking it a step further - we won't care if someone was accurately connected - we'll be happy with "they were Arab" or "they were Muslims" - it won't matter. And we won't invade - we'll just waste the place in 20 minutes.

After that, everyone in the world will chill in a major way, so as not to draw attention to themselves. Yes, we will be regarded as psychotic and crazy, but after that, fewer will be willing to screw with us.

How would you win the "War on Terror"?
I wouldn't. And neither will anyone else.
You cannot just stop terrorism. It is a concept, and you cannot kill it.
You can fight a war against a particular group of terrorists, but terror will never die.
So you see, it is a very large and complex problem.

So how would you solve it?
That's a better question.
How would I solve the problem? I don't know.
4. Change the US response to major terrorist attacks against any US assets, foreign or domestic. Stop taking prisoners, and engage in a worldwide campaign of clandestine extrajudicial assassination (in cases where you feel that only a group is responsible). Kill the members of that group, their family members, the people who owe them money, and burn their houses to the ground. If you can identify a nation as being the sponsor of a major terrorist act against US interests, use a B-61 nuclear device set for maximum yield at optimum airburst altitude above one or more of their major cities (to avoid producing fallout and maximize civilian casualties).
<snip>
6. Tell Iran that if it fires a single nuclear device anywhere on the planet, that not only will the US vaporize every major city in Iran, but we will ground burst Mecca and Medina to make sure that no one can ever visit those places again.
Those are brilliant ideas, assuming your intent is to slaughter as many random people as possible and get everybody to hate you.

Take a bunch of nukes, spread em all over the world so that they overlap each other, let me and a couple other people get off of Earth in a ship with tons of supplies, we wait for radiation to subside and repopulate the earth using brainwashing and intimidation.
Yep.

BTW, I'd have to get my Judas Priest, Rush, and Metallica cds first. And my guitar. :)

What's the point of having nuclear weapons, and how well do they deter, when few living today have a life memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You have to refresh people's memories of what you're capable of.

If I were the US, I might even adopt a unilateral nuclear use policy - if anyone uses them on anyone, the US will identify and strike.

As Mao said, the populace is the river in which the fish (guerillas) swim. Dry up the river, and there's no source for terrorists on that count.
So your solution to terrorism is to kill everyone before they become terrorists?
Well, I suppose that's one way to do it.
This isn't punishment - this is making sure that it doesn't happen again from the same source.
How will this deter terrorism? If you bomb random citizens of Iran, I'd wager quite a bit that terrorist groups will use it as a pretense to strike, same as anything else.
If the war of ideas is Western Civ vs. Islam (as opposed to the previous Capitalism vs. Communism), then I believe that everyone needs to be reminded how crazy we are (not how crazy we might be).
To me, that sounds like exactly the opposite of any rational foreign policy. Ah well, to each their own.
As Kissinger once put it, we have to make sure that everyone sees us accelerate the car to top speed, head on, and that everyone sees us throw the brake pedal and steering wheel out the window. Victory goes to the player who convinces the others that he is the craziest person on earth.
What's to stop the terrorists from being just as crazy?
Goes a long way towards explaining current foreign policy. In the aftermath of 9-11, we appear reckless and careless - we don't care if someone really was connected - we'll invade them anyway.

I'm taking it a step further - we won't care if someone was accurately connected - we'll be happy with "they were Arab" or "they were Muslims" - it won't matter. And we won't invade - we'll just waste the place in 20 minutes.
Great idea. What if a terrorist group moves to a country allied to ours? Will you nuke them too? And what if we have an American terrorist? Let's glass one of our own cities! I mean, there's a connection, isn't there?
After that, everyone in the world will chill in a major way, so as not to draw attention to themselves. Yes, we will be regarded as psychotic and crazy, but after that, fewer will be willing to screw with us.
Perhaps fewer countries would be, but I really don't think the terrorist mindset will be deterred by that. The terrorists seem to love having somebody attacked, because it gives them a reason to themselves attack. Unless you glass the entire Middle East, you are going to get retaliation. And what happens if the rest of the world decides they don't like our nuclear rampage? Do you think we can hold up against everybody?

Also, I love how you want to use scaring everybody into submission as a strategy against terror. It is terror in and of itself.
Terror never dies.

*snip*

First use nuclear weapons policy eh? Sounds like a good way to set the road to WWIII. What makes you think India, Pakistan, Russia and China won't follow suit? They aren't crazy you say? Maybe not, but the Kashmiri zone is still a sore point between India and Pakistan while Chechnya has been something of a thorn in Russia's side.

We'll probably see a resumption of the cold war for a while. Followed by a hot war about maybe one year later. After that? Well, after that, things like nations, terrorists, foreign policy and all that will become moot concepts.

You sir, sound like the American Osama Bin Laden. Only with nukes.

ARF seems to live in a sort of fantasy world where the US military has unlimited power.

Yep. The US does have the most powerful military in the world without question, but there are limits. Plus, it's currently primarily oriented (and will continue to be oriented for the foreseeable future) towards fighting old style wars (a la the cold war) - new programs like the F-35 and FCS for example. These need to be drastically scaled back or cancelled. The US needs to orient more towards fighting the brushfire wars of the post-cold war era. We do need a strong force to knock in the door, but it doesn't need to be so big. There's a serious need for a significant increase in CA (Civil affairs) and SOF units.

I like Eutrusca's plan, but I doubt all of the countries we'd want to monitor would allow us access to their country. Furthermore, from my experience foriegn states often prefer to come up with their own solutions. I don't think there's a way to convince countries to allow us to change, prehaps, their entire society for them.

I do agree the army, and Americans as a whole, NEED a better knowledge of foreign cultures.

Most of those actions would have to be black jobs. Note that there are supposed to be several black ops that have been carried out in Jordan, Syria, and Iran, for example.


Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if anyone even read it!

:::raises hand:::

DK, if the current administration is attempting to update Dr. Kissenger and Nixon's Madman theory (I'm skeptical as to that), they're doing a poor job, IMHO. Instead of appearing unstable and liable to do anything, Bush seems to coming off as greedy and/or incompetent.

How to win "the war on Terror"? It's so fuckin' simple it doesn't have a chance in hell of happening. Terrorism is an act of desperation, commited by people who's backs are against the wall and feel they have nothing to lose.


Don't put people in that position.


Don't condemn what you don't understand. Terrorists always have an agenda, a problem or cause they feel strongly enough about to die for. Address those problems or concerns and you take away the reason behind the act.


See? So fuckin' simple no-one will ever go for it...

1. Pull out of Iraq. I do mean immediatly.

2. Pull support of Israel. It doesn't need america to prop it up against the middle east. It has nukes of its own.

3. Leave Afghanistan soon. Not abandon them, but put in referendums in each territory, and leave the ones who vote a majority to leave. These referendums would be held every once in a while.

4. Make a public announcement that America was going to stay out of Middle eastern affairs, and that we want nothing to do with them(This would coincide with a move to nuclear energy, though the nuclear energy is more an economic choice than a political one).

5. Gradually move into political isolation(Economicly, still keep up trade, etc). Worry about making america the best damn nation at home, not worrying too much about others.

5a. Spend revenue gained from not being in iraq, etc, on homeland security.

I would conquer the Muslim world and destroy their culture and religion, supplanting it with American culture and religion. Whenever there is an uprising, I would crack down on it harshly, including retaliations against civilian populations. It would take a generation, but the result would be total and complete victory over terrorism of the islamic species. Anything short of that will mean constant war or defeat.

Personally I don't want to win the war on terror. I hate islamic radicals, but I really wouldn't care about it if we weren't provoking them to attack us. I would give in to Bin Laden's demands(only after ensuring Afghanistan and Iraq are safe from radical dominance, I don't want a state capable of threatening Europe). We should stop supporting Israel, we should bring our soldiers home from worthless deployments all over the world, and we should keep buying their oil. Trade, time, and separation will bring peace.

I like the idea of Shimon Perez (sp?) in his book "The New Middle East". We should begin by building Gaza. Build water, sewer, schools, port, roads, etc. Then offer low interest loans to people to start businesses. Then if that works move to the West Bank area. People who are starving and looking over the fence at prosperity will fight. People who have a chance to improve life probably won't. If we would just use 10% of the $$ we've spent in the Mid East for war and weapons we could try doing something that could bring peace.

Perez offers a view of the future where high speed trains send tourists across N Africa and into India. Another takes travelers from Europe to Mecca with another branch into Egypt and south into Africa.

Then there is the idea of taking sea water and dropping it into the Dead Sea, generating power as it drops. The power could be used to power desalinization plants that would bring fresh water to the area.

Maybe we need a few world leaders that think of progress instead of war.

I'd immediately suspend all aid to Israel, pull all troops out of the Middle East (as well as every other country abroad), drastically strengthen border security, tighten security (though not too excessively) at airports, break off relations and trade with all terrorist-sponsoring nations, return all troops home, and then offer a 1 trillion dollar reward for bin Laden's head.

The West should adopt Sharia (Islamic Law).

I would conquer the Muslim world and destroy their culture and religion, supplanting it with American culture and religion. Whenever there is an uprising, I would crack down on it harshly, including retaliations against civilian populations. It would take a generation, but the result would be total and complete victory over terrorism of the islamic species. Anything short of that will mean constant war or defeat.

Personally I don't want to win the war on terror. I hate islamic radicals, but I really wouldn't care about it if we weren't provoking them to attack us. I would give in to Bin Laden's demands(only after ensuring Afghanistan and Iraq are safe from radical dominance, I don't want a state capable of threatening Europe). We should stop supporting Israel, we should bring our soldiers home from worthless deployments all over the world, and we should keep buying their oil. Trade, time, and separation will bring peace.

You will give into bin laden's demands? America is going to become a muslim theocracy?

I'd immediately suspend all aid to Israel, pull all troops out of the Middle East (as well as every other country abroad), drastically strengthen border security, tighten security (though not too excessively) at airports, break off relations and trade with all terrorist-sponsoring nations, return all troops home, and then offer a 1 trillion dollar reward for bin Laden's head.

You would bankrupt our nation for bin laden's head?

You will give into bin laden's demands? America is going to become a muslim theocracy?Uh... that must be a new demand because I never heard it before.

What I heard is a demand for America to pull out of Saudi Arabia and other mideast countries.

BTW We can use nuclear weapons without creating fallout by detonating them in the air so that very few particles get irradiated. That way we can flatten cities with shockwaves and melt them with heat and be able to drill oil from beneath them the next day.

You would bankrupt our nation for bin laden's head?

Hell, for a trillion dollars, even the most batshit terrorists would turn him in. And with bin Laden out of the picture, al Qaeda would be severely weakened.

Hell, for a trillion dollars, even the most batshit terrorists would turn him in. And with bin Laden out of the picture, al Qaeda would be severely weakened.

I don't think a Trillion dollars would do them that much harm.

Uh... that must be a new demand because I never heard it before.

What I heard is a demand for America to pull out of Saudi Arabia and other mideast countries.

Thats the one Bin Laden espouses in his press releases to the west. If you have read his written jihads, or whatever they are called, he talks about how america is evil because our people don't follow sharia, basically, and they we should.

Thats the one Bin Laden espouses in his press releases to the west. If you have read his written jihads, or whatever they are called, he talks about how america is evil because our people don't follow sharia, basically, and they we should.

As I said im my suggestion.

Hell, for a trillion dollars, even the most batshit terrorists would turn him in. And with bin Laden out of the picture, al Qaeda would be severely weakened.

Again... You would bankrupt our nation, at the same time making someone the richest person in the world by multiple powers above bill gates, someone who was probably a terrorist or supporter(if they were the least bit intelligent). You would do this, to slightly hurt al-queda(though bankrupting america would help them far, far more than that).

You fail at life.

Again... You would bankrupt our nation, at the same time making someone the richest person in the world by multiple powers above bill gates, someone who was probably a terrorist or supporter(if they were the least bit intelligent). You would do this, to slightly hurt al-queda(though bankrupting america would help them far, far more than that).

You fail at life.

Adding another trillion to the already 8 trillion dollar debt isn't going to bankrupt the US. It's just over 12%.

The real problem is that it's an unbelievable figure - nobody would ever do it because nobody is going to believe that they'd ever see that money, especially any member of Osama's inner circle (the ones who'd have the access to turn him in).

100 million is probably the highest believable figure.

The only way to combat violence is to use peace. So let's all hold hands and sing Bob Marley songs, and melt down guns to make metal statues.

Or we could just pull out of Iraq.

That is a joke at best. People made the same argument for Isreal to pull out of Palestine. Did that stop the violence. On the contrary, it exploded from unified resistance to Israel to the brink of Civil war and militant organizations taking governmental control.

The reality is, the war on terror will be one through one thing... education. The middle east, a hot bet and spawning ground of terrorism is one of the most uneducated regions in the world... where schools teach one thing, and one thing alone, the Ku`ran.

When kids start learning, math, literacy, history, cultures, world religions... when they are taught to think for themselves rather then follow the leader, then and only then will you see real change. Through education, you open doors and give opprotunity and hope to otherwise desperate people.

Adding another trillion to the already 8 trillion dollar debt isn't going to bankrupt the US. It's just over 12%.

The real problem is that it's an unbelievable figure - nobody would ever do it because nobody is going to believe that they'd ever see that money, especially any member of Osama's inner circle (the ones who'd have the access to turn him in).

100 million is probably the highest believable figure.

Except it wouldn't be a trillion dollars to the debt, it would be a trillion to the deficit. Which would mean we couldn't pay for the vast majority of government programs. And the government is pretty intertwined with buisness, etc.

America would go into a depression, no ifs or butts.

Hell, for a trillion dollars, even the most batshit terrorists would turn him in. And with bin Laden out of the picture, al Qaeda would be severely weakened.
You think it makes a difference to a Pakistani goatherder whether it is 25 million or one trillion dollars?
He can't imagine what to do with that much money anyways (neither can I for that matter - 10 million is the top of what I could ever spend), and if he's not giving Bin Laden up for 25 million, he's made a decision out of principle, not out of concern for money.

You think it makes a difference to a Pakistani goatherder whether it is 25 million or one trillion dollars?
He can't imagine what to do with that much money anyways (neither can I for that matter - 10 million is the top of what I could ever spend), and if he's not giving Bin Laden up for 25 million, he's made a decision out of principle, not out of concern for money.

You couldn't spend a trillion dollars?

Jeez. It would completely fund my Pastafarian crusade in africa.

That is a joke at best. People made the same argument for Isreal to pull out of Palestine. Did that stop the violence. On the contrary, it exploded from unified resistance to Israel to the brink of Civil war and militant organizations taking governmental control.

The reality is, the war on terror will be one through one thing... education. The middle east, a hot bet and spawning ground of terrorism is one of the most uneducated regions in the world... where schools teach one thing, and one thing alone, the Ku`ran.

When kids start learning, math, literacy, history, cultures, world religions... when they are taught to think for themselves rather then follow the leader, then and only then will you see real change. Through education, you open doors and give opprotunity and hope to otherwise desperate people.

Palestine and Israel is a bad comparison. They actually have a border, for one. That plays a huge part in most nations relations.

Al queda has a hell of a time hurting us at home, while they can kill americans oversea's much easier, especially when we send them out there. Will Al queda immediatly love us for leaving? No, but there will be much less incentive to become a terrorist against america, and they will lose much of their support. And eventually die out, as few people will want to maintain jihad over centuries, across an entire ocean, against someone who leaves them alone completely.

uhh...folks...might I just interrupt for a moment to point out a few things..

Pan-islamism goes a long way back. Back to the days of Shah Waliullah. (Some might argue it goes back to the days of Mohammed, and that Islam = Islamism, but that's another matter altogether).

The ideology itself has not NOTHING to do with US/West. It existed BEFORE your interference/intervention/presence in the Middle-East. And it WILL exist EVEN if you get out of Midde East altogether.

The modern salafi movement (one and mean ONE of which is AQ) is a movement that targets many countries apart from the west/US. Infact the biggest victim of islamist terror in modern times is not even the west/US.

So please try to understand what the problem is and how to approach it, instead of engaging in generic OMG!!111THEMSULSIMSLETSNUEKEMALL nonsense (yes, that's you Deep Kimchi).


If it were not for the US's shortsighted policies (which are CONTINUING even now), the salafi terror movement would be a lot less menacing than it is today. So much for US fighting this war on terror. My sympathy for the US in this is at an all time low.

For those who are interested, there is a thread where some of this were discussed at length.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314
Islamism study thread

Hell, for a trillion dollars, even the most batshit terrorists would turn him in.

The core group around him and his sympathisers in the Paki regime won't give him even if you double or triple that amount.

And with bin Laden out of the picture, al Qaeda would be severely weakened.

You know this is a bit tiring, but WTH, I will repeat..

Bin Laden is actually out of the picture. He is not the operational commander anymore. But AQ is not severely weakened, because they operate differently.

Even if AQ is out of the picture, pan-islamist salafi terrorism will be alive and well, because the movement existed before AQ and it will exist after AQ.

AQ is not even the biggest fish in that pond.

AQ is not even the biggest fish in that pond.
One could say that the fish aren't even the problem...it's the pond.

So how would you solve it?

Step 1: Allocate a huge amount of money for "terrorist defense". Enough to install videocameras everywhere, have every airport tightly secured with multiple anti-bomb gates, missile defenses near important objects etc.

Step 2: Use that money for something which is actually useful. Combat diseases. Better public education. Foreign aid. An improvement of traffic security. Accept terrorism as a saddening inconvenience which we can deal with after the more important problems are solved.

The core group around him and his sympathisers in the Paki regime won't give him even if you double or triple that amount.

Yes, they would. If any of them were even half-smart, and to pull off some of the things they have, they would do it for the money(assuming they had an assured way of getting it). It would majorly hurt the US, and majorly help them. Hell, if OBL really is commited to his cause, he might just tell his people to do it, letting him be a martyr for the cause.

Yes, they would. If any of them were even half-smart, and to pull off some of the things they have, they would do it for the money(assuming they had an assured way of getting it). It would majorly hurt the US, and majorly help them. Hell, if OBL really is commited to his cause, he might just tell his people to do it, letting him be a martyr for the cause.

You think that kind of money/wealth was not offered to Musharraf?

It is not all about the money. There are other things at play here. The regime cannot round up the Bin Ladens and Zawahiris without rounding up the Hafiz Saeeds and Masood Azhars (and I am betting 99% do not know the last two names). He cannot round the latter because they were (and still are) part and parcel of the regime. The unravelling of the jihad factory can lead to the unravelling of the regime and even the unravelling of the state.

So you see, it is not about the money at all.

Classic American thinking (No offense intended.:) ) . Throw more money at it . Well it did not work and it won't work.

For those who believe the best way to end terrorism is to slaughter millions of innocent civilians and nuke your own allies:

1) Terrorist leaders would be delighted. You'd really make their day. Do you think they'd care or be frightened? You'd be creating enough anger and resentment among ordinary people to supply them with recruits for several generations! The leaders themselves would just sit back, watch the destruction, enrol new recruits, and gloat.

2) Ordinary civilians would react quite predictably: They'd be absolutely desperate, and furious. Becoming a suicide bomber would suddenly seem like a useful way of going out, much more useful than waiting to be killed by foreign monsters for no reason. With nothing to lose any more, and fuelled by enough hatred to keep them going forever, they'd lap up the words of terrorist leaders. Trying to stop resistance through brute force has never worked in history. The more German occuppiers tried to crack down on the French Resistance, the more the Resistance grew.

3) Other world powers would freak out. Faced with an insane opponent, they'd take immediate and ruthless measures to ensure their own safety. I can just picture any of the nuclear powers quietly smuggling a few WMDs into Washington City and setting them off.

Now, with that nonsense solution dealt with, let's see what could effectively be done.

People turn to terrorism out of despair more often than not. The best way to stop them isn't simply to crack down: that only fuels their leaders' propaganda machine, and creates new recruits. By all means, prevent terrorist acts, but also work on the root causes of terrorism. The CIA has, throughout the decades, murdered innocent people, propped up bloody dictatorships, thwarted the legitimate aspirations of foreign peoples in order to impose that which best suited the US, funded and armed terrorist groups which then killed civilians... And then you wonder where the anger comes from, and claim in mock-innocence that "they hate the freedoms we love". No. They'd like the freedoms themselves, some of them at least, and they hate the fact you've opposed their attaining them. Supporting dictators and overthrowing democracies isn't exactly fostering freedom abroad.

Several people have said there has to be more understanding of foreign cultures. That's a definite first step. Too many Americans (though not all) are ignorant and simplistic. They want easy answers to everything, and they want to see the world in reassuring colours: black and white. We good guys, them bad guys. We kill bad guys, them go away. It's easy to believe that your average terrorist recruit is simply driven by the same "evil" as terrorist masterminds, and that nothing the US does can possibly be wrong. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. And as long as you insist on seeing the world in simplistic black and white, you'll be working in a fantasy world disconnected from reality, and that'll get you nowhere.

The ideology itself has not NOTHING to do with US/West. It existed BEFORE your interference/intervention/presence in the Middle-East. And it WILL exist EVEN if you get out of Midde East altogether.

It won't exist if:

a. we round up the Muslims in our own countries and eliminate them
b. round up all Muslim literature and destroy it
c. kill every last man, woman, and child in majority Muslim countries
d. raze every mosque to the ground

Kind of hard for people to "resist" or "engage in terrorism" when they don't exist.

Now, that might eliminate terrorism that has its roots in Islamism.

Won't do a thing about eco-freaks, anarchists, etc.

1) Terrorist leaders would be delighted. You'd really make their day. Do you think they'd care or be frightened? You'd be creating enough anger and resentment among ordinary people to supply them with recruits for several generations! The leaders themselves would just sit back, watch the destruction, enrol new recruits, and gloat.

What recruits? The people in those countries would be dead.
2) Ordinary civilians would react quite predictably: They'd be absolutely desperate, and furious. Becoming a suicide bomber would suddenly seem like a useful way of going out, much more useful than waiting to be killed by foreign monsters for no reason. With nothing to lose any more, and fuelled by enough hatred to keep them going forever, they'd lap up the words of terrorist leaders. Trying to stop resistance through brute force has never worked in history. The more German occuppiers tried to crack down on the French Resistance, the more the Resistance grew.
The French Resistance was overrated, mostly by people who joined the moment the Germans threw down their arms. And it would never have been organized at all had it not been for the British Special Operations Executive. Ordinary citizens are motivated by fear - no one would want to step forward and defend a Muslim because it would entail certain death.

3) Other world powers would freak out. Faced with an insane opponent, they'd take immediate and ruthless measures to ensure their own safety. I can just picture any of the nuclear powers quietly smuggling a few WMDs into Washington City and setting them off.

See Kissinger's theory about how to win a war where people have nukes - we won by using just that strategy when we acted during the Cuban Missile Crisis and when we based nukes in Europe which were aimed not at military or civilian targets, but at the families and bunkers of the USSR leadership - according to Presidential Directive 59, a promise that no matter what else might happen in a nuclear war, the leadership and their families would be hit by ground penetrating nuclear weapons that would arrive BEFORE any other targets were hit.

I would nuke everyone. Because as long as there's people, there's going to be terrorists. Well, as long as there's the amounts of people we're used to.

The simple fact is, regardless of what the right or left says about the causes of terrorism, there are people in the world who will always want to tell other people what to do, and be willing to kill or hurt people to do it. And they'll resort to terrorism to get it done.

This article is about the very thing I posted earlier in response to this thread. This is the sort of thing I was doing in Vietnam back in 1967-69. Talk about "the better way!" :)

U.S. Troops Build Schools in Africa (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,84850,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Christian Science Monitor | January 09, 2006
CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI - Pointing to his computer screen, Maj. Gen. Timothy Ghormley sounds more like a Peace Corps volunteer showing off holiday photos than the shaven-headed U.S. Marine entrusted with defeating Al Qaeda in East Africa.

"That's what it's about right there," he says, stabbing his eyeglasses at the pictures of African children celebrating as water gushes from a new well. "Look at those kids. They're gonna remember this. In 25 years they'll say, 'I remember the West - they were good.' "

In 2002, more than 1,500 U.S. troops were sent to this former French colony in East Africa to hunt followers of Al Qaeda throughout the region. Now, under General Ghormley, their mission has evolved to preempt the broader growth of Islamic militancy among the area's largely Muslim population.

"We are trying to dry up the recruiting pool for Al Qaeda by showing people the way ahead. We are doing this one village, one person at a time," says Ghormley, commander of the joint task force based in Djibouti. "We're waging peace just as hard as we can."

Previously East Africa has hosted an array of Islamic militant groups. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 220 people. The group has also tried to shoot down an Israeli airliner in Mombasa, Kenya, and sink oil tankers and U.S. Navy vessels in the Red Sea.

Now many analysts worry that trouble is again brewing as rising poverty combines with the anti-Western ideologies of hard-line Islamic missionaries in a region already dogged by porous borders, plentiful weapons, and poor governance.

"There aren't actually that many groups or individuals involved," says Matt Bryden, director of the Horn of Africa project for International Crisis Watch. "But there's a danger that if these groups are not contained it is just a matter of time before they strike at Western targets in Somalia or start reaching out to the region again."

"Some of them did have links with Al Qaeda but for the most part there doesn't seem to be an active Al Qaeda or even an Al Qaeda franchise," says Mr. Bryden. "But the US has discovered that there are actually much fewer targets than they expected." No targets but hearts and minds

Unable to find or strike at any visible Al Qaeda members, U.S. forces based in Camp Lemonier - Djibouti's former French Foreign Legion base - have instead begun to work to tackle the factors that might contribute to the growth of extremism in the future.

Ghormley's men have so far built more than 30 schools and 25 clinics, as well as new wells and bridges. They are focusing particularly on the mainly Muslim areas close to the porous Somali border where poverty and dissatisfaction with pro-Western central governments might make many receptive to extremist teachings.

"Ungoverned spaces are vulnerable. The forces of law and order don't exist there," says Lt. Col. Richard Baillon, of Britain's Parachute Regiment. A small contingent of British troops are working with U.S. forces in a coalition effort. "The people in these areas aren't getting government support."

Planners in Camp Lemonier say that their long-term strategy is to gradually move deeper into these poor and ungoverned areas.

"We're not likely to go where we're not wanted or where there's open hostility," says Baillon, tapping a wall-map like a schoolmaster. "But it's about pushing the boundaries of where we are wanted."

The Coalition's planners hope that by tackling localized dissatisfaction now, they can create long-term goodwill toward the US in the region. "A lot of times when we first show up there's a mixed reaction," says Sgt. Richard Crandall of the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion. "One place we went to they considered the US to be warmongers. But we built a school and when we left they said they considered us friends."

The military is taking time to adapt to its new humanitarian mission too - and this means that there have been some mistakes made along the way.

For example, the task force's military budget only covers the cost of constructing and renovating school buildings. Before the schools can open, soldiers have to pester nongovernmental organizations, charities, and friends back home for donated textbooks. In other cases there has been poor communication between the US and local people. Some villages, thinking that the Americans could only build schools, requested a new school when they needed wells and bridges instead. The mistake was realized too late.

Meanwhile, the US increasingly depends on local governments to use their cultural and linguistic knowledge to track and tackle Islamic extremists.

"The information sharing is not ideal; not up to the point that we would like," admits Nabeel Khoury, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen.

And although there are handfuls of up-armored Humvees parked alongside rusting French artillery pieces throughout Camp Lemonier, the US increasingly seeks to delegate its military operations.

"We're doing military-to-military training with five countries in the region," says Col. Doug Carroll, director of operations for the Horn of Africa task force. The US has trained Yemeni special forces in counter-terrorism while officers from Mauritius and the Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean have been taught how to train their own soldiers once they return home.

"In Ethiopia we've taught border security, we've taught basic counter-terrorism, what they call advanced map reading and also defensive operations," says Carroll, who denies that the training will upset the region's delicate balance of power. "We're not teaching them anything that would be applicable to the Ethiopian-Eritrean border war," he says of the training of Ethiopian border guards, while also denying that U.S.-trained troops have been used to crush recent uprisings in Yemen. Somalia remains a clear blind spot

But although the lack of recent Al Qaeda attacks in the region points to the mission's success so far, there remains a clear blind spot at the heart of the U.S. deployment.

"It's a bit of a paradox," says Bryden. "The threat that the US perceives in the region comes from Somalia, but that is the only place where they can't operate."

Senior officers in Djibouti refuse to even discuss Somalia, although one officer privately admitted having contact with high-level members of the government of Somaliland - a breakaway republic in the north of the war-torn country that recently arrested one Al Qaeda team linked to extremist groups in Mogadishu.

"The US has had to develop a much more nuanced approach and it shows that they are dealing with the problem," says Bryden. "They've had to discover the difference between terrorism and a domestic insurgency."

As the US gradually increases its understanding of the region there is no sign of the mission winding down. Instead, as more British troops also prepare to deploy to the region, the operation seems to have become entirely open-ended.

"It's important that we share what we have to allow all nations to advance," says General Ghormley. "We didn't earn being born in America - the Good Lord put us there and with that came responsibility." An area five times larger than Iraq

Standing in his office, Ghormley, surrounded by maps where arrow-straight borders drawn by European colonialists cut across mountains, deserts, and complex ethnic groups, provides more than an echo of a Victorian soldier-missionary.

"You can win a heart and mind today and lose it tomorrow," Ghormley continues. "We see no spread of radical ideology. We see a lot of people who would like it to spread."

But with Camp Lemonier boasting less than 1 percent of the troops currently deployed in Iraq and responsible for an area five times larger, Ghormley is aware that there is a limit to what the US can achieve in the region.

"I could use more money, more people, but I've got the resources I need to carry on," he says, taking a last look at the pictures on his computer screen. "They're good people and it breaks your heart that you can't do more for them."

"That's what it's about right there," he says, stabbing his eyeglasses at the pictures of African children celebrating as water gushes from a new well. "Look at those kids. They're gonna remember this. In 25 years they'll say, 'I remember the West - they were good.' "

[...]

"We are trying to dry up the recruiting pool for Al Qaeda by showing people the way ahead. We are doing this one village, one person at a time," says Ghormley, commander of the joint task force based in Djibouti. "We're waging peace just as hard as we can."

[...]

Unable to find or strike at any visible Al Qaeda members, U.S. forces based in Camp Lemonier - Djibouti's former French Foreign Legion base - have instead begun to work to tackle the factors that might contribute to the growth of extremism in the future.

Ghormley's men have so far built more than 30 schools and 25 clinics, as well as new wells and bridges. They are focusing particularly on the mainly Muslim areas close to the porous Somali border where poverty and dissatisfaction with pro-Western central governments might make many receptive to extremist teachings.

[...]

The Coalition's planners hope that by tackling localized dissatisfaction now, they can create long-term goodwill toward the US in the region. "A lot of times when we first show up there's a mixed reaction," says Sgt. Richard Crandall of the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion. "One place we went to they considered the US to be warmongers. But we built a school and when we left they said they considered us friends."

[...]

"I could use more money, more people, but I've got the resources I need to carry on," he says, taking a last look at the pictures on his computer screen. "They're good people and it breaks your heart that you can't do more for them."

Bravo, Eutrusca. It's heart-warming to see some people are doing it right.

What recruits? The people in those countries would be dead.

You couldn't possibly kill them all. And more would come from elsewhere. Blind, murderous, genocidal repression has never worked. History has taught us that many times.

Ordinary citizens are motivated by fear - no one would want to step forward and defend a Muslim because it would entail certain death.


I think you'd be surprised. You underestimate people's capacity for compassion and yearning for justice. Besides, fear would more likely lead them to rebel than anything else. If they know they could be killed tomorrow for no reason whatsoever, don't you think they'd be willing to risk their lives for a good cause anyway? Nothing to lose, after all.

I can't believe anyone would still actually advocate genocide. The slaughter of innocent human beings. If you met and knew even one of them, would you still casually be recommending their murder? Even if there are millions and millions of them, each one is still a human being. Elderly people, younger people, children, babies, pregnant women... Amongst them, brilliant minds, or simply people filled with compassion and humanity who try to make their fellow beings' lives better on a daily basis. People with hopes and aspirations and loved ones. Some who may have visited the West, found it a pleasant place, learnt from it. Some who actually believe in the ideals your country supposedly represents (but which you reject), and who believe they may hold hope for their own future. People who are a lot more human than you are. When did you lose your humanity, Deep Kimchi?

No matter what you do, someone will take offense and declare war on you. The War on Terror cannot be won, there are only degrees of losing. Only when we have one united world government, that is fair and just, regardless of race or religion will we have political peace.

The kid in London and Germany you mentioned as examples, those are the people who emulate terrorists because it looks 'cool'. The real terrorists - those who blow themselves up on busy streets on a daily basis - feel they have nothing more to live for and feel that by taking out a few of the opposition when they leave this Earth, they are helping their own move towards victory. I think the first step towards resolving this situation isn't to wage war, but to step back and say 'well, you won, what do you want us to do', and do it. The US has no business in the middle east, bin Laden has still not been found and the whole situation is a complete mess, with US troops stuck trying to fix the screw up in Iraq, probably for several years to come.

Good communication is needed to sort all this out, unfortunately, both sides need to cooperate, and that's not going to happen any time soon

Did you read the first post?

Making everyone even more unhappy is not going to improve their perception of life, and therefore will make some sort of religious cause, linked to the afterlife, even more attractive.
I don't think that making their lives any better is going to make us any less targets of terrorism. Look at the London bombers. One of them was a teaching assistant, he lived a comfortable middle class existance his entire life. And look at the 9/11 hijackers, a lot of them were rich. It's got nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with islam. If we were still targeted after severing all ties with muslim countries then there's only one option and that's to make an example of whatever country's screwing with us. Bomb what little of their infastructure is left so they're reduced to the level of Somalia. Then I doubt they'd be capable of even getting here, never mind bombing us.

You think that kind of money/wealth was not offered to Musharraf?

It is not all about the money. There are other things at play here. The regime cannot round up the Bin Ladens and Zawahiris without rounding up the Hafiz Saeeds and Masood Azhars (and I am betting 99% do not know the last two names). He cannot round the latter because they were (and still are) part and parcel of the regime. The unravelling of the jihad factory can lead to the unravelling of the regime and even the unravelling of the state.

So you see, it is not about the money at all.

Classic American thinking (No offense intended.:) ) . Throw more money at it . Well it did not work and it won't work.

A trillion dollars? No, I don't believe there has ever been a bounty on anybody in the world for close to that amount.

..snip... Bomb what little of their infastructure is left so they're reduced to the level of Somalia. Then I doubt they'd be capable of even getting here, never mind bombing us.
Harsh but effective...we cannot fight a war with one hand tied behind our backs, militant islam must be defeated utterly:sniper: , Judeo-Christian society must prevail.

I don't think that making their lives any better is going to make us any less targets of terrorism. Look at the London bombers. One of them was a teaching assistant, he lived a comfortable middle class existance his entire life. And look at the 9/11 hijackers, a lot of them were rich. It's got nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with islam. If we were still targeted after severing all ties with muslim countries then there's only one option and that's to make an example of whatever country's screwing with us. Bomb what little of their infastructure is left so they're reduced to the level of Somalia. Then I doubt they'd be capable of even getting here, never mind bombing us.

You're forgetting that you can use perceived injustice as your justification even if you are not directly a victim of said injustice.

Also, the London Bombers came from the UK - if the UK would apply your strategy they would have to bomb their own country.

Also, remember the Oklahoma Bomber - he came from New York. Do you want to bomb New York back the Stone Age?

good lord would you people get a grip. the number of people killed by terrorists is vanishingly small. we dont have to sell our souls to get rid of it.

yes its a problem but we can work on it, we dont have to nuke the world to save a few americans a year.

who gives a fuck what bin laden says, he lives in a cave somewhere and kills fewer people a year than defective toys do.

if we take a measured rational approach, we can keep terrorism to a minimum. if we stop invading countries who have never done anything to us and start supporting liberal islamic groups we'll go a long way to cutting support for radical islam.

I don't think that making their lives any better is going to make us any less targets of terrorism. Look at the London bombers. One of them was a teaching assistant, he lived a comfortable middle class existance his entire life. And look at the 9/11 hijackers, a lot of them were rich.

You're assuming that because they're well off they would care nothing for the poverty and misery of others. Being rich doesn't necessarily make you insensitive to injustice. (I'm not condoning their disgusting and barbaric actions, merely rectifying your incorrect assumption).


Judeo-Christian society must prevail.

Oh, goodie, let's all go back to the eleventh century...

You don't seem much of a Christian to me, by the way.

You're assuming that because they're well off they would care nothing for the poverty and misery of others. Being rich doesn't necessarily make you insensitive to injustice. (I'm not condoning their disgusting and barbaric actions, merely rectifying your incorrect assumption).
That's true, you get a lot of people in this country who do things like preach the virtues of socialism while living the high life. But it's only in islam, with its ideas of the ummah, where people resort to the worst barbarities because of percieved injustices in the other side of the world. Islam sanctions jihad in these situations, and as far as I know no other religion does.

Islam sanctions jihad in these situations, and as far as I know no other religion does.

You should have been here some months ago. Some people were going around saying that Christianity made bombing family planning clinics and murder ok because abortion was wrong.

That's true, you get a lot of people in this country who do things like preach the virtues of socialism while living the high life. But it's only in islam, with its ideas of the ummah, where people resort to the worst barbarities because of percieved injustices in the other side of the world. Islam sanctions jihad in these situations, and as far as I know no other religion does.

I guess that would depend on your definition of "Jihad". Not all Muslims think that Jihad should be a violent struggle and, if I remember correctly, Mohammed only allowed violence out of self-defense.

good lord would you people get a grip. the number of people killed by terrorists is vanishingly small. we dont have to sell our souls to get rid of it.

yes its a problem but we can work on it, we dont have to nuke the world to save a few americans a year.

\begin{sarcasm}
How DARE you let facts get in the way ! Anyone who does not agree that terrorism is a HUGE threat to civilisation because Bush says so is nothing more than a NONPATRIOT ! Expect to see your name and that of your 4 year old offspring on the list of known TERRORISTS very soon. Go to your corner and be ASHAMED of yourself !

Oh - and fork over more taxdollars. The bottomless pit needs them.
\end{sarcasm}

I've seen alot of people posting things that I don't agree with on this thread.

1) One poster said that these people were involved in terrorism because they lacked opportunities. Nope. One doesn't join a violent and repressive religious organization because he can't find a job. Anyone who joins such organizations is a true believer, and IMHO cannot be converted back into a productive human being.

2) Another poster said that there was alot of racism agains Muslims in the US. No, there isn't. The number of hate crimes against Muslims, particularly violent hate crimes is remarkably low. Even just after 9/11 there weren't many hate crimes. Also Muslims tend to be wealthy and well educated in the US.

Those are just two examples of the misinformation posted so far.

Islamist terrorism is a bigger problem than most people can concieve of. Partly because they cannot accept that a particular religious view (extremist Islam) can actually motivate people to sacrifice their lives in order to kill in great numbers. Partly because terrorism in the past has not been an existential threat to nations, but rather a tool to achieve limited political ends.

This war on terrorism won't be won for decades. It will require a determined effort by intelligence agencies to penetrate and neutralize cells. It will require military action at certain times and places, and it will require debates on what levels of surveilance and infringements on privacy peple will be willing to accept in order to prevent massive casualties. The only way to bring the threat under control more quickly is to reward moderates and punish all who support extremists with economic penalties or perhaps military action.

good lord would you people get a grip. the number of people killed by terrorists is vanishingly small. we dont have to sell our souls to get rid of it.

<snip>.
It's vanishingly small until a nuclear weapon falls into the hands of terrorists through:

1) Pakistan's government being taken over by radical islamists

2) Someone in N. Korea, Russia or Pakistan selling a nuclear weapon or worse still weaponized smallpox

3) Iran transferring nuclear technology to a terrorist organization

Then we'll see casulaties in the millions. Then it will be too late.

Oh - and fork over more taxdollars. The bottomless pit needs them.
\end{sarcasm}
Really? I thought he'd funded the war on terror/Invasion of Iraq through foreign loans rather than hiking taxes.

It's vanishingly small until a nuclear weapon falls into the hands of terrorists through:

1) Pakistan's government being taken over by radical islamists

2) Someone in N. Korea, Russia or Pakistan selling a nuclear weapon or worse still weaponized smallpox

3) Iran transferring nuclear technology to a terrorist organization

Then we'll see casulaties in the millions. Then it will be too late.

Yes, yes, yes. We all saw the same scare thing with Russia, Korea and all the other nuclear powers before. Smallpox may be one thing, but nuclear arms makes everyone too edgy for safety to the seller. Heck. Russia may be piss poor, but you don't see them selling off their immense nuclear stockpile.

Nobody will give away their ace in the hole. Not unless they have so many holes in the head, they should be dead.

It's vanishingly small until a nuclear weapon falls into the hands of terrorists through:

1) Pakistan's government being taken over by radical islamists

2) Someone in N. Korea, Russia or Pakistan selling a nuclear weapon or worse still weaponized smallpox

3) Iran transferring nuclear technology to a terrorist organization

Then we'll see casulaties in the millions. Then it will be too late.
Assuming that any of these cases should arise (Pakistan are unlikely to give up any of their nuclear capacity due to them being involved in an arms race with India, btw), precisely how are a terrorist organisation going to launch a nuclear strike? Highjacking a few airliners is one thing: sneaking a device that weighs a few hundred pounds and glows in the dark through customs without anybody noticing is quite another.
"Ah, no, my friend. This is my pacemaker. They are a bit more unwieldy in Iran than they are over here..."

Yeah, not like we've got that 2,000 mile border to the north or anything...:p

okay, okay... if there's a 20-foot-high wall along the Mexican border... how about end-to-end hockey goals along the Canadian border?

Canadians love hockey...

US promotional ad shown on Canadian TV:

"Do you hate the United States? If so, test your slapshot on us! If you think you've got what it takes to damage the border, go for it! Our introductory special is two shots for $1. That's two for the price of one! Come on, Canadian terrorists, let us have it!"

, militant islam must be defeated utterly: , Judeo-Christian society must prevail.

Speaking as an athiest and general hairy arsed heathen, Judaeo-Christianity are just two other middle eastern cults we could do without, thanks very much.

, Another poster said that there was alot of racism agains Muslims in the US. No, there isn't. The number of hate crimes against Muslims, particularly violent hate crimes is remarkably low. Even just after 9/11 there weren't many hate crimes. .

Some would differ with you there (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml)

Certainly if the sectarian bile I've seen on various message boards finds any echo in real life, it can't augur well.

As to the wonderful individual who urged mass killing - please don't grow up, as the thought of you "pissing" in the gene pool is most off putting

Speaking as an athiest and general hairy arsed heathen, Judaeo-Christianity are just two other middle eastern cults we could do without, thanks very much.



Some would differ with you there (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml)

Certainly if the sectarian bile I've seen on various message boards finds any echo in real life, it can't augur well.

As to the wonderful individual who urged mass killing - please don't grow up, as the thought of you "pissing" in the gene pool is most off putting
First of all, the report was based on CAIR's numbers, which are suspect. CAIR is a political lobbying and advocacy group. It's in their best interests to manufacture a problem to keep the donations rolling in.

The report was based on complaints received by the council, but when comparing the data to 2001, the researchers did not include an abnormal spike seen in complaints in the days following the attacks on New York and Washington. Nimer explained that some complaints seen in the spike were deemed untrue or unsubstantiated.

For 2002, the council said it received 602 complaints of discrimination and harassment, compared to 525 valid complaints for the previous year.

Note that there was no spike in anti-muslim attacks just after 9/11, where in a racist society you would expect to see numerous lynchings and such. Note as well that we're talking about 602 complaints. That's less than two per day and includes "workplace harassment", which could be one asshole employee calling a Muslim one a "camel Jockey". Even CAIR's numbers aren't very impressive.

Some would disagree with me, but some people are just wrong.

Persistance, genocide or intense occupation of the entire semitic region.

Persistance, genocide or intense occupation of the entire semitic region.
Playing Motorhead songs throughout the entire semitic region until such time as their teeth rattle out of their head and they can't see straight or hear the call to prayer over the buzzing in their fucking ears likely wouldn't hurt any.

A trillion dollars? No, I don't believe there has ever been a bounty on anybody in the world for close to that amount.

Thanks for missing my point completely.:)

The upping of the bounty (25 mill to 50 mill whatever) just played into the jihadis fantasy that the evil kafirs are unsuccessfull and are trying more by offering more money...which only serves to strengthen the core group's convictions and also get more sympathizers for his "cause".

The fact remains that the US, for all its bravado and bluster ("dead or alive".."we are gonna smoke him out" :rolleyes: ), did NOT have the will to follow him on his escape from Tora Bora and relied on that slimy bastard Musharraf to do the dirty job. A job that he did not do and will not be doing anytime soon.

Thanks for missing my point completely.:)

The upping of the bounty (25 mill to 50 mill whatever) just played into the jihadis fantasy that the evil kafirs are unsuccessfull and are trying more by offering more money...which only serves to strengthen the core group's convictions and also get more sympathizers for his "cause".

The fact remains that the US, for all its bravado and bluster ("dead or alive".."we are gonna smoke him out" :rolleyes: ), did NOT have the will to follow him on his escape from Tora Bora and relied on that slimy bastard Musharraf to do the dirty job. A job that he did not do and will not be doing anytime soon.
Well, why would Musharraf upset his Jihadists citizens? They might try to assasinate him, or maybe they won't pay attention to him when he tries to get them to attack India.

Well, why would Musharraf upset his Jihadists citizens? They might try to assasinate him, or maybe they won't pay attention to him when he tries to get them to attack India.

News flash. They've tried assassinating him before.

News flash. They've tried assassinating him before.
Yeah, I know. They already don't like him for siding with the US against Afghanistan. If he really sided with the US and took serious actioin to try to capture or kill jihadists and their supporters it would be civil war.

First of all, the report was based on CAIR's numbers, which are suspect. CAIR is a political lobbying and advocacy group. It's in their best interests to manufacture a problem to keep the donations rolling in.

Note that there was no spike in anti-muslim attacks just after 9/11, where in a racist society you would expect to see numerous lynchings and such. Note as well that we're talking about 602 complaints. That's less than two per day and includes "workplace harassment", which could be one asshole employee calling a Muslim one a "camel Jockey". Even CAIR's numbers aren't very impressive.

Some would disagree with me, but some people are just wrong.

Heres a c&p of the "highlights of what you call the "no-spike" period

"On the afternoon of Saturday, 2001-SEP-15, a gunman killed the 49 year old owner of a gas station in Mesa, AZ. He was a Sikh. His family believes that he was killed because he "looked Middle Eastern." Additional shots were fired at a Lebanese clerk and at the home of an Afghan family.

On the evening of Saturday, 2001-SEP-15, a gunman killed a Pakistani Muslim store owner in Dallas, TX.

Adel Karas, 48, an Egyptian-American grocer was shot and killed near his International Market store in San Gabriel, CA. He was a Copt -- neither Muslim nor Arab. No money was taken. Police are investigating the murder as a possible hate crime.

A man drove his car through the front entrance of Parma Mosque in Cleveland OH.

Also on Saturday, a Christian of Egyptian origin was shot dead in California.
Near Chicago, IL, there was a march in which about 300 anti-Arab youths waved flags, shouted "USA, USA," and attempted to march on a mosque in Bridgeview, IL -- a suburb southwest of Chicago. Colin Zaremba, 19, said: "I'm proud to be American and I hate Arabs and I always have." Three demonstrators were arrested.

In Chicago, a Molotov cocktail was thrown t an Arab-American community center. There were no injuries and little damage.

In Huntington, NY, Adam Lang, reportedly a drunken driver, 75, allegedly tried to kill a Pakistani woman with his car. He later followed the woman into a store and threatened to kill her for "destroying my country."
In Gary, IN, a man wearing a mask pumped over 20 bullets from a high-powered assault rifle at a Muslim, Hassan Awdah. He survived. Hassan is a U.S. citizen, born in Yemen.

Source of above (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm)

Heres a c&p of the "highlights of what you call the "no-spike" period

"On the afternoon of Saturday, 2001-SEP-15, a gunman killed the 49 year old owner of a gas station in Mesa, AZ. He was a Sikh. His family believes that he was killed because he "looked Middle Eastern." Additional shots were fired at a Lebanese clerk and at the home of an Afghan family.

On the evening of Saturday, 2001-SEP-15, a gunman killed a Pakistani Muslim store owner in Dallas, TX.

Adel Karas, 48, an Egyptian-American grocer was shot and killed near his International Market store in San Gabriel, CA. He was a Copt -- neither Muslim nor Arab. No money was taken. Police are investigating the murder as a possible hate crime.

A man drove his car through the front entrance of Parma Mosque in Cleveland OH.

Also on Saturday, a Christian of Egyptian origin was shot dead in California.
Near Chicago, IL, there was a march in which about 300 anti-Arab youths waved flags, shouted "USA, USA," and attempted to march on a mosque in Bridgeview, IL -- a suburb southwest of Chicago. Colin Zaremba, 19, said: "I'm proud to be American and I hate Arabs and I always have." Three demonstrators were arrested.

In Chicago, a Molotov cocktail was thrown t an Arab-American community center. There were no injuries and little damage.

In Huntington, NY, Adam Lang, reportedly a drunken driver, 75, allegedly tried to kill a Pakistani woman with his car. He later followed the woman into a store and threatened to kill her for "destroying my country."
In Gary, IN, a man wearing a mask pumped over 20 bullets from a high-powered assault rifle at a Muslim, Hassan Awdah. He survived. Hassan is a U.S. citizen, born in Yemen.

Source of above (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm)
Yeah, a handfull of violent attacks. Some of them may not even have been motivated by hate, but perhaps robberies gone bad. It's a job hazard for gas station workers and grocers.

If you'll look at the quote in my previous post you'll notice that even CAIR says that there wasn't a significant spike in post 9/11 hate crimes.

Yeah, a handfull of violent attacks. Some of them may not even have been motivated by hate, but perhaps robberies gone bad. It's a job hazard for gas station workers and grocers.

If you'll look at the quote in my previous post you'll notice that even CAIR says that there wasn't a significant spike in post 9/11 hate crimes.


Of course, nothing bad happens in America, and its all a huge love fest. Pardon me for even insinuating that anything other than the purest light could shine from its ass.

It's conceivable that a robbery might have been a trifle more apt to go wrong if the robbee was asian or semitic looking at that point, surely?

Of course, nothing bad happens in America, and its all a huge love fest. Pardon me for even insinuating that anything other than the purest light could shine from its ass.
I didn't say nothing bad happens. Please stop the sarcasm, it's irritating. It doesn't make you look smarter, nor does it make me look dumber. It only makes you look like an ass.

The fact is that there isn't widespread racism agains Muslims in the US. They tend to be well educated, well paid, and the number of hate crimes against them are low. That's all I was saying. Of course there will be a few hate crimes. There are assholes in every community. There are hate crimes against blacks, whites, latinos, everyone, but against Muslims they are pretty rare.

From the standpoint of cultural freedom, educational opportunities, and job opportunities a Muslim is better off in the US than in almost any other country. That includes most European ones.

Let the Islamics know that the next terrorist attack on America or Europe will cost them Mecca. When it comes nuke Mecca...then let them know that Medina is next. Just keep going down the line of holy sites and major muslim cities until they realize that they cannot hope to keep up with the body count that nuclear weapons can deliver.

Also, when you kill a terrorist make sure to defile his body according to their customs. If having their body touch a swine sends their soul to hell then drench their bodies in pigs blood then set them on fire after cooking under the sun for 3 days.

You make fighting so brutal to their sensibities that they no longer have the courage to oppose you. When you go to war you aren't out to make friends, you go out to fight until your opponent loses his desire to resist you. Right or wrong.

Let the Islamics know that the next terrorist attack on America or Europe will cost them Mecca. When it comes nuke Mecca...then let them know that Medina is next. Just keep going down the line of holy sites and major muslim cities until they realize that they cannot hope to keep up with the body count that nuclear weapons can deliver.

Also, when you kill a terrorist make sure to defile his body according to their customs. If having their body touch a swine sends their soul to hell then drench their bodies in pigs blood then set them on fire after cooking under the sun for 3 days.

You make fighting so brutal to their sensibities that they no longer have the courage to oppose you. When you go to war you aren't out to make friends, you go out to fight until your opponent loses his desire to resist you. Right or wrong.

It's been said so many times before, but I'll emphasize it again for all you button-happy Busheviks.

Even threaten to nuke every Muslim holy site and city along with defiling their dead and the terrorists really do win.

All those moderate and neutral Muslims who stayed out of the mess will be truly convinced that Bin Ladin was right all along and that the West wants to exterminate Islam. Then all those billions who were minding their own business will start to join the Jihadist cause.

Not to mention nuking Mecca means nuking Saudi Arabia, and apart from Bush and his oil buddies not wanting that to happen ever, it also means the US will face an embargo that makes the 1970s look like a trickle in comparison.

Not to mention the complete alienation of the U.S. from the rest of the world for opening up with nukes. Which means every other country with nukes gets the green light to play Missile Command.

And so on, and so forth...

:rolleyes:

Let the Islamics know that the next terrorist attack on America or Europe will cost them Mecca. When it comes nuke Mecca...then let them know that Medina is next. Just keep going down the line of holy sites and major muslim cities until they realize that they cannot hope to keep up with the body count that nuclear weapons can deliver.

Also, when you kill a terrorist make sure to defile his body according to their customs. If having their body touch a swine sends their soul to hell then drench their bodies in pigs blood then set them on fire after cooking under the sun for 3 days.

You make fighting so brutal to their sensibities that they no longer have the courage to oppose you. When you go to war you aren't out to make friends, you go out to fight until your opponent loses his desire to resist you. Right or wrong.

What you just described wout swell terrorist ranks in the blink of an eye, and only serve to escalate tensions. If you threaten Mecca, you reveal a distain for the religion on a whole, and you give into Radical islamists atempts to make this a religious war, rather then radicals vs moderates (where we have the upper hand). You publically say "the next terroirist attack we bomb your most holy site" and every young muslim boy who has even the most remote reason to resent America already will be knocking on osamas door. Terrorists will run to commit that terrorist attack as fast as possible just to test us. And when it inevitably happens, what we nuke Mecca ? Kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and become as bad as them ? Thats about as rational as saying turn the middle east into a glass parkinglot.. sounds nice and powerful but its only our undoing.

You want to win through brutality fear and tryanny... not exactly upholding our ideals of freedom, peace, morality. And after we beat the islamists using these methods, why not anyone else who dare oppose us, for even the simpleset reason... maybe even just the protesting labor union member down the block. Its a sippery slope my friend.

You win this war through education, any other means are just delaying the inevitable.

Give them enough rope to hand themselves. The only people who can defeat terrorists are the terrorists themselves.

Just as the only way we'll lose the war on terror is by giving in. Giving up our rights and liberties for safety that isn't. That's how we'll lose.

Everytime the terrorists blow something up, they prove us right. Everytime we invade a Muslim nation, arrest an Arab on flimsy evidence, we prove al-Qaida correct.

Solution? Don't bite the bait. Let the terrorists blow themselves to kingdom come. They'll hurt a lot of people before they give up, but history will judge them immoral and unjustified, and us as righteous and empathic.

Bravo, Eutrusca. It's heart-warming to see some people are doing it right.
Yes it is. Let's just hope that this "better way" will work and that it will be recognized at the highest levels as the best way to go.

I'd have the US be as isolationist as possible. Cut off all foreign aid and try to keep my own house clean and stop telling everyone else how to run their country.

One poster said that these people were involved in terrorism because they lacked opportunities. Nope.
They get involved with Islam as a segregated, rebel movement. This is how it works in Europe: The people who moved there once weren't pious. They never taught their kids to be pious.
And yet, quite orthodox Islam becomes popular in big cities these days - because it offers second- and third-generation immigrants a feeling of connection, an alternate society in which they are valued and do get the opportunities to feel special.
That does not mean they become terrorists...but it does mean that this community, coupled with the hate of the society that didn't want them can lead to Islamism. And some of those Islamists may at some point consider terrorism.

The home-grown bombers didn't just imitate AQ. They may have gotten the idea from them, they may have gotten the bombs from them...but they got the motivation for it because they didn't feel included, because they didn't feel they belonged - and they looked for refuge with Islam.

Islamist terrorism is a bigger problem than most people can concieve of. Partly because they cannot accept that a particular religious view (extremist Islam) can actually motivate people to sacrifice their lives in order to kill in great numbers. Partly because terrorism in the past has not been an existential threat to nations, but rather a tool to achieve limited political ends.
Right then...show me how many people were killed by Terrorism. How many by car accidents? How many by AIDS, or Malaria? How many by Malnourishment?
And then tell me...which state has ever been destroyed by Terrorism? When has terrorism ever been successful when it didn't just aim for small political concessions, like some autonomy for some region?
Whether they be Marxists, radical religious or any other sort of group that wants massive changes to society itself, they have all failed.

I once read a book that tried to explain middle eastern thinking. The main thing I took from that was this. Me against my brother, me and my brother against my father, me and my father against my uncle...etc. The other thing was that if you want concessions then you must control something that the other side wants. If the terrorists are willing to go to heaven by the city full then by all means lets send them there.

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if we could all hold hands and discuss our mutual differences like reasonable people. However, if they aren't willing to do that why should I. If they have a problem with the government of America then they should take out the government. If they have a problem with the military of America by all means attack the military. But if you attack civilians in America then by Allahs beard you had better pray because I will attack your civilians right back. In a war of attrition based on ones willingness to kill and be killed, I will make you fear war. Fine let more people flock to the AQ banner. Let other nations stand apart from us. I know I have enough oil where I am, and I have a bicycle.

In order to control something, you must be able to destroy a thing.

I once read a book that tried to explain middle eastern thinking. The main thing I took from that was this. Me against my brother, me and my brother against my father, me and my father against my uncle...etc. The other thing was that if you want concessions then you must control something that the other side wants. If the terrorists are willing to go to heaven by the city full then by all means lets send them there.

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if we could all hold hands and discuss our mutual differences like reasonable people. However, if they aren't willing to do that why should I. If they have a problem with the government of America then they should take out the government. If they have a problem with the military of America by all means attack the military. But if you attack civilians in America then by Allahs beard you had better pray because I will attack your civilians right back. In a war of attrition based on ones willingness to kill and be killed, I will make you fear war. Fine let more people flock to the AQ banner. Let other nations stand apart from us. I know I have enough oil where I am, and I have a bicycle.

In order to control something, you must be able to destroy a thing.
Every time you ride that bicycle of yours, the terrorists win.

I think the west has a greater access to destructive weapons than Middle Eastern Islamics.

Again I wish our leaders could just sit down and talk this out. Barring this I choose me and mine over them and theirs. I won't even say they are wrong for hitting us on 9-11. I don't understand what they are going through, so I won't judge them. According to christian belief only God can judge, I am just willing to make the introduction.

More fundamentalist forms of Islam, and ultimately their political movements (I'll call it "Islamism") have become something of a rebel movement against the unfairness in the world. If people feel like they've got no chance for a better life here and now, or if they feel at odds with the world, they often turn to religion, and in some areas those are fairly radical forms of Islam.

Ah, the blame the victim approach. I suppose there is comfort in thinking somehow it is your fault. You then can look inward at a solution rather than taking action against the external source. (the same justifaction an abused spouse often uses)

Your presumption has no validity because there are plenty of places in the world (Far worse than,say, Saudi Arabia) where there is 'no chance for a better life' (as if that were a valid definition of anything) yet islamo-fascism (nor any other violent perversions) have taken hold of the people, church, media and government at all levels.

Other terrorist groups never experienced anything like what you describe. Tim McVeigh, for example. What he DID have in common with the terrorists is - bigotry. The perception that one race - yours - is superior to others. Arabs are quite hung up on this if you notice - but few in the media have the balls to point it out.

That pretty much invalidates the rest of your assumptions.

sorry

So how would you solve it?


The same way any war is won -the complete and total domination of your opponent. You look at the wars which were won and resulted in any long term peace and you see the annihilation or complete domination of the opponent. WW2, The US Civil War and the Indian wars are a few examples. Had the victories not been complete and utter, the battles and killing would still be going on. (Such as WW1, which ended without the complete dominance of Germany)

To win the war on terror the culture which supports it must be disassembled. The people who support it must be killed. The schools and mosques which support it disassembled and replaced. (Somewhat like school intergration)

IT is hard and requires time. IT took 100 years to reduce bigotry to the level it is at in the US today. (Still present, but considerably less when compared to lynchings-as-social-events of the past)

I don't think most Americans (and I am certain that most Europeans don't) have the stomach to make the sacrafices neccessary to impose racial tolerance on another culture the way the north did to the south 100 years ago. The Americans want it too fast - and the Europeans just don't care. (or just think things will get better if they just think happy thoughts)

The same way any war is won -the complete and total domination of your opponent. You look at the wars which were won and resulted in any long term peace and you see the annihilation or complete domination of the opponent. WW2, The US Civil War and the Indian wars are a few examples. Had the victories not been complete and utter, the battles and killing would still be going on. (Such as WW1, which ended without the complete dominance of Germany)

Except for the fact that we're still fighting battles that are hold overs from WWI and much, much earlier.

The solution isn't nessesarily to kill people, so much as it is to keep them from fighting. There are two ways of doing this, either of which is political suicide (and one of which might see one sitting before an international war crimes court):

Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

or

Carpet every town in Iraq (or ) that is a bastion of the insurgency with pamphlets telling people to get the hell out. Then set up refugee camps on the out skirts of the city in question. And then you pull the Mongol move: carpet bomb the city until no stone stands upon another. Have explosives experts go through the city and remove any undetonated ordinance and then put the refugees to work, working 12 hour days rebuilding their city. The former insurgents will be so busy working to rebuild their own homes, that they won't have enough time to devote to thoughts of blowing up Americans. And once they're done, they will have been working alongside American soldiers and fellow Iraqis for so long, they won't [i]want to blow up anyone. Especially given that if they did, they would be going back out to the refugee camps the next day.

Ah, the blame the victim approach. I suppose there is comfort in thinking somehow it is your fault. You then can look inward at a solution rather than taking action against the external source. (the same justifaction an abused spouse often uses)
Notice how you start with strawmen? :rolleyes:
People don't blow themselves up for nothing - and notice how I'm not blaming anything but failed attempts to integrate minorities into the mainstream in Europe.

And to be honest...you can tell me absolutely nothing new about this. I've had long discussions with our resident anti-Islamists (Holy Womble and Aryavartha, the only two here with the background knowledge necessary to begin to understand) and they have taught me that it really is not all our fault.
I used to think that they were the victims - today I know that some faults are with us, but many are with them too. And although Terrorism is just a tiny problem in the grand scheme of things, Islamism in government can have horrible implications for the people who live with it, on a grand scale.

I'm afraid though that so far no one has had a look at what Islam itself can do to protect itself against this stream of ultra-orthodox scholars that have hijacked its theological foundations for the past years. All I hear is "Nuke everyone!"

Your presumption has no validity because there are plenty of places in the world (Far worse than,say, Saudi Arabia) where there is 'no chance for a better life' (as if that were a valid definition of anything) yet islamo-fascism (nor any other violent perversions) have taken hold of the people, church, media and government at all levels.
That's because those places are generally ruled with an iron fist by dictators who crack down on these groups. And a "Muslim Brotherhood" equivalent is always there, lurking just beneith the surface.
As to the places where no Muslims live...well, obviously Islam isn't the answer to the people there. But other sort of niche-movements are - Africa has this all-encompassing belief in the supernatural for example, Shamanism, Witchcraft and all the rest of it.

Other terrorist groups never experienced anything like what you describe. Tim McVeigh, for example.
You'd say McVeigh fitted in with his environment, had lots of friends and felt accepted by his peers?

That pretty much invalidates the rest of your assumptions.
sorry
What, because I'm looking at the micro-level, the individual decisions that need to be made in order to make someone blow themselves and many others up?

The same way any war is won -the complete and total domination of your opponent.
Ahem...and who are you going to dominate then? Notice how Islamist Terrorism doesn't have a government, a leadership, a country or an army.

To win the war on terror the culture which supports it must be disassembled. The people who support it must be killed. The schools and mosques which support it disassembled and replaced. (Somewhat like school intergration)
Now, finally you have a valid idea. Except that you haven't made the effort of defining that culture.

The Americans want it too fast - and the Europeans just don't care. (or just think things will get better if they just think happy thoughts)
Step One for Europe at least would be to deal with the issue at home. And believe it or not, the people who pose the risk are the people I described, those with problems fitting in, who can't find work, or can't find a girlfriend or these things.
You can't help people find a girlfriend, but a proper effort must be made to open up these immigrant communities that have developed and where radical Islam quickly becomes the answer when the real world doesn't go the way you want it to.

2 words: glass everyone.

Question: Is an overt violent policy necessary (or for that matter, helpful) for victory in the War on Terror?

In my opinion it seems to be a crude, simplistic way of handling the issue, and I'm not sure that simple violence (or even use of strategic violence except where absolutely necessary.) will actually make things better (engendering resentment is never a good idea, especially when you're fighting something that conventional tactics will not work against).

I'm not a military buff, but it seems unlikely that the U.S. can field a (willing) army large enough to carry out an effective War on Terror within a human timeframe, let alone afford or get away with such a policy.

I'm not a military buff, but it seems unlikely that the U.S. can field a (willing) army large enough to carry out an effective War on Terror within a human timeframe, let alone afford or get away with such a policy.
A working military solution could only be feasible in conjunction with other ways to go about it, and would consist of small special forces teams destroying training facilities and the like and capturing the staff there.

But the actual "Terrorism" part of it is little more than a legal issue. With a bit of international cooperation, police forces would do a better job than the entire US Military.

A working military solution could only be feasible in conjunction with other ways to go about it, and would consist of small special forces teams destroying training facilities and the like and capturing the staff there.

But the actual "Terrorism" part of it is little more than a legal issue. With a bit of international cooperation, police forces would do a better job than the entire US Military.

That was certainly the impression I got, but there seemed to be a number of people seriously saying that all out war was a solution.

*shrugs*

I could have misread them.

I didn't say nothing bad happens. Please stop the sarcasm, it's irritating. It doesn't make you look smarter, nor does it make me look dumber. It only makes you look like an ass.

The fact is that there isn't widespread racism agains Muslims in the US. They tend to be well educated, well paid, and the number of hate crimes against them are low. That's all I was saying. Of course there will be a few hate crimes. There are assholes in every community. There are hate crimes against blacks, whites, latinos, everyone, but against Muslims they are pretty rare.

From the standpoint of cultural freedom, educational opportunities, and job opportunities a Muslim is better off in the US than in almost any other country. That includes most European ones.

Well, if you drop the flag waving, I might drop the sarcasm, but as you might guess thats an offer I'm making because its just not likely to happen. I'm a member of a number of boards and constantly read messages that are repeadtedly refering to "bombing them all", "the evil of Islam" and wildly exaggerate the threat of Jihadi style groups, often coming from an age group of 35 and above. It doesnt take a genius to realise that theres bound to be some evidence of this attitude present in society. Secondly, even if these attitudes only express itself in unilateral support for Israel, or coninued support for bush, they effect real harm on the world at large.

<snip>

Right then...show me how many people were killed by Terrorism. How many by car accidents? How many by AIDS, or Malaria? How many by Malnourishment?
And then tell me...which state has ever been destroyed by Terrorism? When has terrorism ever been successful when it didn't just aim for small political concessions, like some autonomy for some region?
Whether they be Marxists, radical religious or any other sort of group that wants massive changes to society itself, they have all failed.
Car accidents, AIDS, Malaria and Malnutrition don't have an organization and a plan to overthrow governments and inflict massive casualties in order to remake the world in a new radical islamist image.

Terrorism in the past wasn't used for such ambitious purposes, but Al Quaeda is a new animal. It's linked groups from around the world, like Abu Sayyaf, GIA, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. It's turned small terrorist organizations with limited scope into an organized Jihadist network that's focused on pushing the west out of the Muslim world in order to weaken the current political leaders, then overthrow them and unify the Muslim world under a new caliph.

We know for a fact that Al Quaeda wants WMD. We can be sure that if they get WMD they will use it against the civilian population of the US. They have stated their goal of killing 4 MILLION Americans. They want to make it too costly in terms of lives and economic damage for the west to interfere in their plan for domination of the Muslim world, and they have long term plans to do it.

Car accidents, AIDS, Malaria and Malnutrition don't have an organization and a plan to overthrow governments and inflict massive casualties in order to remake the world in a new radical islamist image.

Terrorism in the past wasn't used for such ambitious purposes, but Al Quaeda is a new animal. It's linked groups from around the world, like Abu Sayyaf, GIA, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. It's turned small terrorist organizations with limited scope into an organized Jihadist network that's focused on pushing the west out of the Muslim world in order to weaken the current political leaders, then overthrow them and unify the Muslim world under a new caliph.

We know for a fact that Al Quaeda wants WMD. We can be sure that if they get WMD they will use it against the civilian population of the US. They have stated their goal of killing 4 MILLION Americans. They want to make it too costly in terms of lives and economic damage for the west to interfere in their plan for domination of the Muslim world, and they have long term plans to do it.
Finally! The truth comes out. Thank you!

Well, if you drop the flag waving, I might drop the sarcasm, but as you might guess thats an offer I'm making because its just not likely to happen. I'm a member of a number of boards and constantly read messages that are repeadtedly refering to "bombing them all", "the evil of Islam" and wildly exaggerate the threat of Jihadi style groups, often coming from an age group of 35 and above. It doesnt take a genius to realise that theres bound to be some evidence of this attitude present in society. Secondly, even if these attitudes only express itself in unilateral support for Israel, or coninued support for bush, they effect real harm on the world at large.
1) I never advocated "bomb them all". It's not feasible, ethical, or politically realistic to bomb every Muslim into extinction. Most Muslims aren't terrorists.

2) I'm not saying Islam in general is evil. I'm saying the style of Islam preached by Al Quaeda is evil.

3) Israel is a separate issue from Al Quaeda. Hamas is not Al Quaeda, but there have been signs recently that their ideologies are converging.

4) I do not and never have supported Bush.


I think maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

Leonstein,

Right then...show me how many people were killed by Terrorism. How many by car accidents? How many by AIDS, or Malaria? How many by Malnourishment?
And then tell me...which state has ever been destroyed by Terrorism? When has terrorism ever been successful when it didn't just aim for small political concessions, like some autonomy for some region?

The state of Kashmir which was a paradise on earth is now a hellhole.

What you miss is the effect that instability due to terrorism causes to economy and the social fabric of the victim nation.

The serial bomb blasts in Mumbai setback the economic progress considerably.

A serial blasts in Bangalore will setback the BPO-IT led growth considerably.

I remember saying this to you before...it is NOT just in the numbers. It is the overall effect.

Terrorism leads to instability....growth will be less under unstable conditions...and eventually you will have lesser means to fight diseases or improve safety and quality of life.