How to win the War on Terrorism

[Lincoln]

Now we deserve to be terrorized? Uh oh, where are the babies...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes Lincoln. Undoubtably, you've heard: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Well has been expanded. We know their issues, we know what to do, and we KNOW what has worked to stop terrorism in Northern Ireland. If we don't change, then it's 'shame on us'. Maybe my statement was a crude way to put it, but same difference.

Imran's point was that the Israelis should've addressed Palestinian terror like the British have recently addressed Irish terror - by examining their legitimate grievances, instead of increasing repression.

Bingo! When the Brits started listening to the disgrunted minority and started trying to address those problems, the violence fell dramatically. Violence only begets violence, as the British found out.

I do find it highly amusing that MANY Americans supported Irish terrorists as freedom fighters, but Palestinian terrorists are dirty terrorists. Perhaps some subtle racism plays in here as well?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I do find it highly amusing that MANY Americans supported Irish terrorists as freedom fighters, but Palestinian terrorists are dirty terrorists. Perhaps some subtle racism plays in here as well?

MANY?... Maybe you should have said "some"... because many implies just that. I doubt you could find any statistics to support "MANY". And yeah, I'm sure "some" people do... just like "some" people support the KKK... and "some" people support terrorist attacks against civilians

[Imran Siddiqui]

Try just about all of New England during the 80s and early 90s, Ming. Most of the money to fund the IRA came from Bostonians.

And I don't recall any administration, until Clinton's, really saying the IRA was bad.

[Lincoln]

That is all real nice but were we "opressing" OSB before he attacked us? If Israel needs to stop oppressing the Pals then fine, that is a good idea but what does that have to do with the motive for the attack against the United States?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Try just about all of New England during the 80s and early 90s, Ming. Most of the money to fund the IRA came from Bostonians.

Again... meaningless opinion... not based on facts. But, even if "ALL of Boston" was behind them, we are talking about only one percent of the US population

I find it sickening that ANYBODY can support ANY terrorist attacks on innocent civilians... and by the way, I never supported the IRA either. Terrorists are terrorists, no matter what their faith or skin color.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ming, but isn't it telling that an American President never said what the IRA did was wrong until the late 90s?

[Ecthy]

Chris62, I'm appalled

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
It would sure as heck help their efforts if they gave up on terror entirely. Much as I want to be on the Pal side of the conflict, every time they pull another "ha! got a schoolbus!" I can't help but to think that the Israelis should flush them all... for the benefit of mankind at large.

Taking this statement as an example. Palestinians know what Israel's demands and concerns are, from the left to right. When extremist Palestinians committ acts of terror, then those elemnts in Israelis society gain more support from mainstream Israelis. Thus, it is in the interest of Palestinians to respond to Israel's legitimate concerns. This would go a long way to ameliorating the support for Sharon and other Israeli extremists.

We can all see that this is logical. However, when we turn it around and say that "our" side should stop engaging in the activity that drives the Arab/Moslem mainstream towards exremists, we are accussed of giving in to terror. Rather I like to think we are pulling the rug out from underneath the terrorists. If the mainstream sees we take their concerns seriously, then they will not be drawn to extremists to have their concerns addressed.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ming, but isn't it telling that an American President never said what the IRA did was wrong until the late 90s?

I didn't say that I speak for the president... I don't find it telling at all... I will assume that as usual, it's a political issue... It's all about votes. If you are looking for the high moral ground in the White House, you are looking in the wrong place.

[Saint Marcus]

1) He says to take the words of terrorists at the face value, and assumes that they will stop attacking the Us if we give in to those demands.

2) But if we take their words at face value, then shouldn't we acknowledge that when they say they will destroy the hedonistic western civilization that they'll try to no matter what?

Hmmm, I may be nitpicking in your logic, but can't you just pospone invasion? I mean, just give in and see what happends. If the US is still targetted, you can always give the call and bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/bananaville then. What's the rush? Why should the US be so trigger happy? Yes I know it's the American way to shoot first and ask questions later, but may it not be possible to ask those questions first, and then shoot if needed? Sounds a lot better to me.

[Saint Marcus]

He owns a huge construction company

he gave that up years ago.

[Saint Marcus]

Also, the "argument" some of you use, "we will not give in to terrorism", doesn't hold ground at all. You expect other countries to "give in" when you attack them, why is this any different? Don't like being on the recieving end of a war? You reap what you sow.

you've been attacked, find the reasons why you were attacked, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Problem solved.

But no, you think: we've been attacked, our pride is hurt, we must strike back. Which in turn leads to the other side thinking: "they've attacked us again, we should strike back and hit them harder this time". A vicious cycle of violence. Nothing is solved, and only more bloodshed is the result. But you got your revenge, and that's what matters right? Hope you can sleep well at night.

[Sirotnikov]

When terrorists make demands, take them at their word. When bin Laden says he wants us to remove our military bases from the Arabian peninsula, drop trade sanctions against Iraq and stop arming Israel, believe it: that's exactly what he wants.

That's a nice piece of appeasement loving that our lefties sirely appriciate.

It may or may not be wise to give into these demands

Whoooaaa!!!

Did every lefty in Apolyton read that?

Did any european, or communist actually thought that perhaps, it is not wise to give in to bin Laden's demands, just because he is a suicidal maniac?

Or maybe it is not wise to give in to demands made by suicidal maniacs at all?

: 9-11 was an act of revenge for more than a decade of perceived insults and abuses.

So we're supposed to be forgiving and understanding to them slaughtering innocent people, because they percieve they are abused?

Muslims around the world watched in anger and despair as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, first in the Gulf War

Which was none other than Saddam's fault.

and later as the result of U.S.-imposed trade sanctions and daily bombing raids over Iraqi cities.

to prevent Iraq from getting the same weapons that al-Qaeda currently try to get.


This is ludicrous. If we haven't done all that, then there would be no 9/11/2001, but instead Saddam would have had nukes in 1993 and used them too.

They were appalled by the continuing carnage in the endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a meat-grinder that claimed a grossly disproportionate number of Palestinians.

Merely because a disproportionate number of Palestinians participates in terror, and a dispropotionate number of them often become victims of fire exchanges.

According to Muslims I've met from Amman to Tashkent to Karachi, President Clinton's 1998 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan were the last straw.

According to Hitler, not giving him Poland, was the last straw.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist;

That's what you'd like us to blieve.

But terrorist is anyone who targets innocent civilians. Period.

No matter for what goal you do it - once you target civilians you are a terrorist.

Guerilla warfare against military and government targets is acceptable. Targetting civilians is not.

This whole relativist babble is horse manuer. "One man's murderer is another man's entertainer / what ever".

A murderer is a murderer once he murdered. His motiefs make a difference in his sentance. He is still a murderer though.

Desperate, determined individuals whose political and other concerns are systemically excluded from mainstream discourse by those in power form resistance organizations.

Such as the Fascist party, the Nazi party and other bodies which we surely should let into political discourse

Few members know other members save the person who recruited them and one or two more they themselves recruit.

Where does he get this stuff from? His arse I bet.

Is this why the Israeli Shin Bet successfully arrests more and more terrorists? Because they do not know each other and thus unable to rat out?

Keep babling about things you know about instead.

[b]These tactics hardly ever work. [/q]
The Soviet union did a good job.
So did Syria on 20,000 muslim extremists which are now all extict together with their entire village.
So did Jordan to PLO in 1970.

Who doubts that Hamas recruits new members among those who watch Israeli bulldozers knock down their neighbors' homes?

Who is stupid enough to think that if Israel hasn't bulldozed down homes, Hamas would suddenly decide to stop sending suiciders?

I dont' recall any homes bulldozed in Sept 2000.

But you can no more bomb a resistance organization out of existence

Syria did that successfully.
Israel almost did that PLO, but then reinstated it.

than you can track down every one of the estimated 40,000 Al Qaeda members

Israel did that to the assassins of the sportsmen in Munich.

That broad-based outrage, in the form of millions of dimes and quarters dropped into collection plates in mosques worldwide, should serve as a signal that, just maybe, American policies in the Middle East and elsewhere should be reassessed.

rephrase:

The broad based outrage of Nazis in the form of millions of men going to the army, should serve as a signal that just maybe, they have a serious claim over Europe and the destruction of Jews.

Addressing Islamist demands-not caving in outright-would eliminate most of the broad-based Muslim support for jihadi groups. Moreover, they'd do us more good than harm

Good. This is positive.

You hear that euros - you address the demands. Not cave in outright. You do not cave in to Saddam. You do not cave in before bin-Laden. You do not cave in. Period.

Stopping or reducing our $3 billion per annum flow of arms to Israel would allow us to truly act as an impartial negotiator in the Middle East, not to mention put a dent in the deficit

This is nonsense which should be sunshine clear to anyone with any economy concept.

The $3 billion per year that America gives us, go right back into the American market - the arms market. It has the same effect on the American deficit as if the govt. would simply give $3 billion per year directly to the Arms companies.

He wants to fix the deficit at the expense of the American industry? Excellent

Furthermore, do you really think that just because Israel doesn't get $3 billion in arms per year, but with a power Jewish lobby and Zionist Christians in the Government and pro-Israelis in the Pentagon, the US will ever be considered impartial by the Muslims?

This man is either fooling you or is a fool himself. He's out hunting wolves armed with only with a duck whistle.

Take away the cause's raison d'être and the cause goes away.

1930s.
Germany found it's way out of the limitations of the versailles treaty.
Germany's every territorial wish until September was fullfilled.

Wait.... this means that WWII shouldn't have happenned, right?

I mean, there were no longer arms controls, land depravation and other things.

So what was the real reason for the war?
Hitler and Naziism.

And the allies slowly understood that and only after they got rid of that, did peace lay upon the land.

Just like now the real reasons for the war are bin-Laden, Hattami, Saddam, Assad and fundamentalists and terrorists.

Removing the causes without removing the instigators (all the people mentioned earlier) will not solve the problem.

Sure, fullfilling the demands is important. And it is part of the solution. But it is not a sufficient solution. And that's what lefties through out the last 100 years are ignoring - and it comes back to bite them in the arse.

[chequita guevara]

I think you've been misunderstanding us all along, Siro.