The war on terrorism is unwinnable

[Atahualpa]

Of course what I suggest sounds very easy. Sure its very hard to achieve in practise.

But in my opinion, being suspicious about everyone being a terrorist may help you in the short term. But not in the long term.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Azazel

In the absence of that, we're probably all going to die.

It's good that you're not histerical and fear-mongering.

When people crash planes into buildings and foster deluded notions of chosen gods and Sacred lands, I try not to count anything out of the realm of possibility.

Hopefully, i get laid b4 it all comes down.

[Atahualpa]

I recently read "A canticle for Leibowitz".

Great Sci-Fi Book. Though maybe not so Fi as one might think. Topic is post nuclear war and all that stuff.
Makes you think about the sense of anything when in the end it comes down to 2 buttons.

Here is the link

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553379267/102-6913522-0323362

4.5/5 in 148 Reviews is quite good too I guess

[BeBMan]

Re: The war on terrorism is unwinnable

Originally posted by Dissident

Right now we have two main choices. Take a hard stance against terrorism (my personal choice), and make every attempt to root out terrorist and kill them or put them in permanent detention. Or we try the nice guy way, and try to find out what's bothering the terrorists, and change our foreign policy to make other countries and other people happy. There is a third choice I suppose. And that is isolationism.

Go ahead with your thoughts on the future and how we should proceed from here.

Isolationism is no choice at all here, because it will not prevent anything. Thats an illusion.

And I´d say it isn´t a clear choice between "hard stance against terrorism" and "change (y)our foreign policy to make other countries and other people happy". You´ll certainly have to do both if you want to be successful, depending on the circumstances. The militant extremists can (and should) be fought militarily, but you hardly can deal with entire muslim populations in the same way - then it would be really unwinable, unless you want to use WMD, which isn´t exactly the result of "successful" policy.

[oedo]

question: does war on terrorism mean taking out the al qaeda group only which is the largest (maybe even the only) internationally acting terror organisation, or does it also include local terror groups like hamas, hisbollah, ETA, IRA, RAF or cosa nostra?

during the recent weeks many al qaeda leaders have been caught all over the world and even Islamic countries like Pakistan are cooperating. so I think it´s possible to wipe this certain organisation out in a couple of years and make the world slightly safer this way.
but the general problem - terrorism - can´t be solved. it´s useless and as I think even dangerous to declare a global war on terrorism in general. terrorism didn´t just start with 9/11. it´s an eternal phenomenon. as much as you can´t figure an end of terrorism you can´t figure it´s beginning. it was always present in history and so it will always be. this is sad and dreadful, but this is a fact.

but again, I believe the war on al qaeda can be won.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by oedo
RAF or cosa nostra?

The RAF is dead and the Cosa Nostra isn't a terrorist organization.

[Az]

the royal airforce is dead?

[BeBMan]

[oedo]

yes RAF is dead. this is an example that certain terror groups can be wiped out.
concerning cosa nostra: well, it seems we don´t even have a definition on what is terrorism and what isn´t. cosa nostra spreads terror. why shouldn´t it count as a terror group then?

[BeBMan]

Because then every criminal org. would be a terror org. Such a broad definition simply makes no sense in praxis.

[St Leo]

You can't fight a war on an abstract entity anymore than you can cut space-time or drink a mountain.

I don't think nukes will ever enter the equation (unless Bush nukes someone); their effects are more in line with something an end-of-the-world cult would want than something a terrorist organization would want. Remember that terror is a means to an end rather than the end itself for terrorists.

[Evil Knevil]

It's a bundle of different things. Just bombing and marching around didn't solve things when we sorted out the middle east, I doubt it will do much different these days.

Importantly, we should get an agreeable settlement in Palestine. Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon are very, very angry. The Palestinian minorities greatly influence terrorism in the ME. The existence of the state of Israel is a huge invitation to Jihad (reclimation of Muslims lands).

The failure of the Arab states to defeat this nation sours their abilities and helped lead to the collapse of Arab Nationalism (Nazirism). A fair settlement must be sought, not at the expense of wiping out Israel, but removing settlers from the most prominent 'invasions' of land.

That would help alot.

Doing something about Saudi Arabia would also be a help.

The alliance between a Western supported Monarchy and a fundamentalist Wahhabib movement on a territory with no national identity, and whose fundamental feature is that it contains Makka and Jathrib is dangerous.

But what can be done about Saudi Arabia?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Continue attacking them, degrading their assets, cutting off their support, until thoses portions of their organizations that have some rationality conclude that terrosism (at least as defined and catagorized the West) if a crappy losing strategy. Then we will only have the genuince wackos to deal with on that level.

[oedo]

Because then every criminal org. would be a terror org. Such a broad definition simply makes no sense in praxis.

sure, I understand.
but what is your definition of a terror organisation then? and how can we disassociate a terror org. from a criminal org. and a liberty fighting org.?

[Az]

those who are with us, and those who are against us, of course.