Bush Administration's latest excuse...

[Whaleboy]

But it will stop them from starting in the first place, nipping them in the proverbial bud.

A violent approach will only stir up more terrorism. I have yet to see a forceful approach stopping terrorism, however, the Northern Ireland peace process is showing a degree of promise, and might actually achieve what 30 years of military compaigns, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ideologies have failed to do - bring peace to ulster.

[Whaleboy]

The words are nice, "we must be strong in the face of terrorism", the rhetoric is pretty, but the question is, "Does it work?", and the answer to that question thus far, is no. Al Qauda is still operating, Israel is still being bombed, and only with the peace process has the IRA ceasefired. The smaller groups are now effectively not paramilitaries but drug gangs. Few of them represent much threat, except the Real IRA, but then that is a job for a new peace process, more diplomacy, with military action being a last resort.

[Giancarlo]

Well take Iraq for example. The US did go through the UN and waited months. And even gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country in the last days. But military operations did remove him from power.

Oh and on the point of Al Qaida, it certainly is not operating at the functionality it used to.

So in my opinion, that rhetoric certainly does work.

[Whaleboy]

"Well take Iraq for example. The US did go through the UN and waited months. And even gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country in the last days. But military operations did remove him from power"

If Iraq was a threat, it was military not terrorist. Saddam Hussein did not get on with Al Qauda (understatement) to a comparable degree he didnt get on with the US!!!

Saddam Hussein and Bathist Iraq was a state, not a sociological movement.

"Oh and on the point of Al Qaida, it certainly is not operating at the functionality it used to"

Perhaps, but the difference is negligible. Such terrorist organisations operate in the form of autonomous cells. Bin Ladens role was effectively to issue decrees to each cell, effectively giving orders by proxy. Easily replaced by people lower down the line. While some cells have no doubt been destroyed, many more lie undercover, probably incensed by what has been happening. They are as much of a threat as ever... we are not dealing with a conventional military.

If anything, the actions of the past 18 months has probably strengthened them, by removing their nexus, assuming it succeeded, you create strains, different autonomous versions of al quada that are harder to track, with individual cells more autonomous than ever. If I had to analyse the results of military action against terrorism, id say that it was blowing up in the US face.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
If Iraq was a threat, it was military not terrorist. Saddam Hussein did not get on with Al Qauda (understatement) to a comparable degree he didnt get on with the US!!!

Saddam Hussein and Bathist Iraq was a state, not a sociological movement.

Perhaps, but Iraq was a threat in my opinion and posed a long future threat. The de-Baathification of Iraq is for the better.

Perhaps, but the difference is negligible. Such terrorist organisations operate in the form of autonomous cells.

Really how would you know if the difference is negligible? Are you in a intelligence organization or something? Actually the difference is not negligible. Al Qaeda's base of command was Afghanistan and that was severely disrupted.

Bin Ladens role was effectively to issue decrees to each cell, effectively giving orders by proxy.

Though not as effectively as before.

They are as much of a threat as ever... we are not dealing with a conventional military.

And never did I say otherwise.

If anything, the actions of the past 18 months has probably strengthened them, by removing their nexus,

I strongly disagree with this statement. The actions of the past 18 months have weakened Al Qaeda in all respects.

assuming it succeeded, you create strains, different autonomous versions of al quada that are harder to track, with individual cells more autonomous than ever.

That is the problem.

Do you have a different idea what could be done other than tracking these units down and eliminating them?

If I had to analyse the results of military action against terrorism, id say that it was blowing up in the US face.

I say not. I strongly disagree with this statement. In fact I think the US is doing a very good job in the war against terror.

[Whaleboy]

My different solution would be to take the US off a war footing, but increasing homeland security (to a point, lets not kill civil liberties here imo ), then to not get involved in the Middle East... buy oil from the Russians instead .

Israel needs to be improved, we need a separate palestinian state with equal US funding to Israel.

After that, give it a little time. Methinks one will find the threat of Islamic terrorism reduced. There are plenty more measures on can take here, but my hands are tired.

" Perhaps, but Iraq was a threat in my opinion and posed a long future threat. The de-Baathification of Iraq is for the bette"

Perhaps, but whether Iraq was a threat or not is a different matter. If it was a threat, it was military, so does not come under the scope of terrorism.

"Really how would you know if the difference is negligible? Are you in a intelligence organization or something? Actually the difference is not negligible. Al Qaeda's base of command was Afghanistan and that was severely disrupted"

Theyre still functioning, if they are functioning, then we know the damage to be limited. Terrorism requires very little resources. Even US govt claims they are still a major threat.

" And never did I say otherwise"

hehe I know, I meant that because they are not a conventional military, they cannot be dealt with by military means.

"The actions of the past 18 months have weakened Al Qaeda in all respects"

Perhaps. Neither of us knows, only time will tell. If they still commit terrorist acts, we know that they are not destroyed.

"That is the problem"

Indeed. To prevent a weed from growing, one does not merely cut it in half, one provides weedkiller to remove the nutrients from the soil that feed it, that feed terrorism with hatred and pain, in this case, one improves the conditions in which the "source" communities live. All one will be left with then are the psycho crackpots who dont have valid concerns. There you have a justification perhaps for assassination, but only if you know it wont incite terrorism or any other angry response.

The nature of cell like autonomous organisations is precisely that they dont need a command and control centre to operate. If I was running one, I would specifically NOT have one! The strength of Al Qaeda is in its division.

[Whaleboy]

Of course, the above is my own opinions and observations yadda yadda

[HershOstropoler]

Elijah, you're wasting a crapload of words. Just call fez a happy little Goebbels arse****er, and be done with it like everyone else.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah
A violent approach will only stir up more terrorism.

So your conclusion is to give in to terrorists.

You can stop bringing up the Northern Ireland scenario, because its experience doesn't apply in the fight against the Islamic extremism. The very goals and methods of the terrorists is the most important factor in determining how much force should be applied.

IRA, above most all, don't resort to mass murder and don't plan the destruction of the British culture. Al-Qaeda, on the otherhand, is in such a disregard of human lifes that even lives of their members are not worth anything. Their ambition goes far beyond the establishment of a pan-arab empire and the destruction of Israel. They follow the teachings of the radical Wahhabists who demand no less than the forcibable imposition of Islam upon the entire world. The vast viciousness and ambitions of the Islamic extremists put them totally out of the league with the IRA.

Against such an enemy who has no scruple in carrying out any kind of atrocities, the only answer is to stand up to them, face them head on. These are the people who above all respect power and strength, and exploit and abuse any kind of weakness their opponents ( pretty much everyone else who don't follow their ideology). Our Somali fiasco and ineffective responses against their terror attacks during the 90s further encouraged their boldness and appetite. Thinking that we became weak and soft, they struck on 9/11.

They finally bit more than they could chew. Soon they got run out of Afghanistan; their leaders, instead of choosing to face Americans heroically, are hiding like street rats. Every government in the world are now cracking down on them with great diligence. Their recruitments suffered greatly as they no longer have a base of operation and disillusioned Muslims no longer join them in droves (a stark contrast with the 90s where thousands flocked to their camps in Afghanistan). History is not kind to losing causes. Today, the best attacks they can offer is to blow up cars in ME countries, quite a difference from 2001 when they still had the capability to drill holes under the American embassy in Rome.


Now, let's consider the scenario in which we hadn't ousted them from Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that they would have stopped, even if we gave in to all their demands?

[Whaleboy]

" So your conclusion is to give in to terrorists"

whoooaaaaa slow down there mon ami!!

The demands and the conditions that cause terrorism are two completely different things. I am not saying we appease them, I am not saying we give them what they want, I'm saying we need to give them what they need to stop terrorism (short of a bullet in the head before someone else says it).

With regards to the IRA, it is similar to Al Qaeda simply because people resort to terrorism when they feel desperate. They are poor, they feel impotent, they feel powerless, they want to change the world, so they attach themselves to an extreme issue, which they blow stuff up for.

You improve their conditions, economy, make them productive and happy, you prevent terrorism largely from occuring int he first place.

It is most important not to give into their demands, otherwise that will show that terrorism works. I repeat that I am NOT advocating appeasement, and I am saying that after the people have been calmed, and time has been given, then the remaining hardcore terrorists have fallen out of favour, one could levee the argument that assassination is acceptable, providing it doesnt stir up more terrorism. I wouldnt levee that argument, but I would understand if someone did.

Much of that is, if you dont mind me saying, rhetoric that is been largely used by Bush. The issues are somewhat more complex than that. I think that someone on the other side would have something to say about that, wheras the truth would probably lie somewhere in the middle.

Wheres Al Jazeera when you need them? Fox news... "Where"?? :lol

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah

You improve their conditions, economy, make them productive and happy, you prevent terrorism largely from occuring int he first place.

It is most important not to give into their demands, otherwise that will show that terrorism works. I repeat that I am NOT advocating appeasement, and I am saying that after the people have been calmed, and time has been given, then the remaining hardcore terrorists have fallen out of favour, one could levee the argument that assassination is acceptable, providing it doesnt stir up more terrorism. I wouldnt levee that argument, but I would understand if someone did.

Much of that is, if you dont mind me saying, rhetoric that is been largely used by Bush. The issues are somewhat more complex than that. I think that someone on the other side would have something to say about that, wheras the truth would probably lie somewhere in the middle.

Wheres Al Jazeera when you need them? Fox news... "Where"?? :lol

Al-Qaeda is too dangerous if their operations go unchecked. So our strategy is to crack down on them first, then try to win back the population (that's what Iraq is for).

BTW, Fox news is pretty accurate in reporting news, it's just their editorials are kind biased. Do you know that Al Jazeera took bribes from Saddam and fired their CEO lately to cover it up?

[Whaleboy]

"BTW, Fox news is pretty accurate in reporting news"

In the same way that the BBC is the last refuge of the intelligentsia!

"you know that Al Jazeera took bribes from Saddam and fired their CEO lately to cover it up?"

Im saying that if you take a dialectic of the Fox reporting (or any pro-american station), and the Al Jazeera reporting (both reportings are accurate, like you said the difference is the editorials), then you will probably end up with something pretty close to the truth. Just makes one realise that one shuoldnt trust the TV, beyond a good source of Rugby.

"So our strategy is to crack down on them first, then try to win back the population (that's what Iraq is for)"

Not going to happen. Believe me, its something of an impossible dream. The Arabs are a different culture, they wont respond to that in the same way we might expect, putting ourselves in their shoes.

It is a threat, and thus one should beef up ones internel security and internel intelligence, which failed pretty badly on 9/11.

[Giancarlo]

Elijah, this is getting very frustrating for me. You don't consider any of the points I have made. This thread has been going on and on.. for 340+ posts already.

You state the same things over and over again.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Elijah, you're wasting a crapload of words. Just call fez a happy little Goebbels arse****er, and be done with it like everyone else.

Try to keep the insults to a minimum...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah
"So our strategy is to crack down on them first, then try to win back the population (that's what Iraq is for)"

Not going to happen. Believe me, its something of an impossible dream. The Arabs are a different culture, they wont respond to that in the same way we might expect, putting ourselves in their shoes.

It is a threat, and thus one should beef up ones internel security and internel intelligence, which failed pretty badly on 9/11.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

We might fail, and things won't change much for the worse. If we succeed however, we would gain powerful allies and the world would be much safer.

I don't think our odds are that bad though: if we can turn the Japanese to our side, I don't see why we can't do that with Iraqis.