How to win the War on Terrorism

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's much smarter than lets smack them and make them madder at us so they can kill us again.

You're right.

Everyone knows that caving in to bullies and running away is the best way

Frankly, if there are any other terracts in the US by Arabs, we deserve them. We haven't changed anything and just became the same bullies we were before.

If they employ terracts, aren't they bullies?
I would think so.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by 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.

There are two ways of managing a conflict.

Winning - which is the best option, but then you have to fight and risk the failure of losing.
Surviving - which is what you are suggesting. Ingoring terror tendencies and appeasing demands will only feed the beast. Look at any historical example - you can't feed the irrational illogical beast of terror.

How can you consider people who don't blink when they kill thousands of innocent civilians possible of rational thought is beyond me.

Chamberlaine thought the same way you did - and was proven wrong, with harsh consequences.

I only wish we won't have to go through it again.

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

Reasons why the west is attacked:

1) the muslim and arab world is currently poor, opressed and backward. It feels the need to prove superiority.

2) the autocratic leaders, be they religious or not, channel popular descent against the evil west, which is different and non religious and non muslim.

3) the muslim world wishes to hold it's grounds and not lose more territory. israel is part of that territory which islam claims.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Chris62, I'm appalled

You should be Andy.

That might be the stupoidest article seen in some time.

The heart of this matter is simple, some people want the US to do what they say, and if the US refuses, they will attempt to kill as many as they can.

To even attempt to talk to such a bunch is pointless.

Next, the matter of US "adressing" the desires of the Islamic man in the street.
Ask me if I give a rat's ass what his desires are, the fact is the USA is blamed for any problem they may have.
For example, our friend Saddam right above me (Love that avatar marky, he looks so happy!) totally disreguarded the cease-fire of 91, and still flaunts it, because sanctions don't bother him personally, but Imran's "man on the arab street" is told the USA is starving babies in Iraq.
The guy that causes the problem draws politcal benifit from it, as amazing as that is.
I would care if they brought their complaints to us in a civilized fashion, point by point, but as long as they think murdering us is a good theme for a dance party, no dice.

Let's talk about Israel, what right does a man in Saudi Arabia have to tell the US whom it wants to ally with?
Who it gives weapons and aid to?
Sorry, as a nation that the US's choice, if Americans don't want that they can tell the government to stop it, but I have yet to see anybody beating down the doors of Congress to do this.
To say we have to pander to some clown walking the streets of Theran is insane.

I do agree with some things, like total withdrawl and severing ties with Saudi Arabia, in fact, I would be in favor of severing ties WITH ALL nations that don't give a fig about women's rights, and treat freedom like a joke.
Unfortunatly that would mean almost the entire Muslim world, but that's just my opinion (not all of it, and I'm not talking about religion, they can believe what they want, but since they like to treat women like property, I can do without them. And spare me any assinine charge of racism, I don't think I'm better then them as person, or as a people, or through religion, I just find this medieval attitude sickening).

On Palestine, I think it was Moomie who hit the nail on the head, if terror ended the state they want would be built overnight, but they will never get by blowing up children and old ladies and calling those bombers martyrs and heros.
I think they sure as hell should have a country, damn over-do, but they will never get it this way.

One last thing, I realize this seems rather harsh to some, but I have a real F*ck you attitude with people who try to kill me and mine, they can kiss my ass before I'll care what they think, simply because they tried to kill me.
I'm funny that way.

Oh, and Imran, if we go by your "The US deserves it" attitude, the USA would be withen it's rights to nuke Mecca, since their lose change was behind terror against the US.
After all, they brought it on themselves.

[Ecthy]

Chris, that article is fine.

Siro, the first side to bring up the nazis loses the debate

chegitz, I agree.

[Chris 62]

If you like it, that's fine with me.

I don't agree.

I should write that next time, to save typing time.

[Ramo]

Frankly, if they sat down and did nothing at all for a year, their state would be handled to them on a silver platter.

The Pals tried that in '81-'82. In response, they were invaded by Israel.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus




he gave that up years ago.

So now he is broke? Did he give all the money away? Of course he is probably broke now because he is probably dead thanks to the war on terrorism. Or maybe we should have just sat down to reason with him?

[chequita guevara]

No, OBL's not broke, but his family officially cut ties with him about ten years ago. They do to much business with the Bushes to jeapordize it by offically associatiing with Osama. Unofficially, he still calls his momma, at least up until 9/11. Two of his brothers are associated with an organization which has known links to terrorism (though the FBI investigation into that got quashed by the Bush II administration).

OBL probably doesn't have access to his money right now, with the crack down on the Islamic informal "banking" system. However, it's not really needed, since rich Saudis are still supporting various organizations against us. Neither the Saudis no the US is seriously looking into the Royal connections.

[Lincoln]

He probably doesn't have access to much at all in the grave.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Everyone knows that caving in to bullies and running away is the best way

Yes, like Britain did with Northern Ireland.

I also like how Siro likes to compare Palestinians to Hitler's Germany, when the proper comparision is with the Isreali government.

[cia]

Here's the deal.
First, why don't all these hard-working terrorists blow up and assasinate the Saudi royal family if they don't like them? A plane or two anyone?
Second, I say we withdraw our support from the Saudi Royals and let them get whacked. The next terrorist attack on the US will be met with a full-scale invasion and war on Saudi Arabia, followed by occupation. Oil problem solved.
Third, the damn Iraqi people are starving for two reasons, Hussein wants to spend the money on weapons and their suffering is a political tool of control. Please point to a time when he fed them and they were prosperous before rebutting this with some flippant comment.
Fourth, the poor people of the Middle East have now been completely indoctrinated into what to think. Appealing to their higher sensibilities will not work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please point to a time when he fed them and they were prosperous before rebutting this with some flippant comment.

Um... THE ENTIRE 80s!! Iraq was the richest Arab state before the Gulf War and the most modern.

[cia]

Imran,
HUH!
Ever hear of the Iran/Iraq war?

[Sirotnikov]

Imran, the Israeli government is infact doing exactly what the Brittish government has done.

So if you are comparing us to nazis, you are comparing 1940s Brittain to nazis.

[chequita guevara]

Although the Iran/Iraq war produced hardship, the people of Iraq were probably the best off of any Arab state. You could make claims about the Arab gulf states, but their great prosperity came on the enmiseration of their foreign workers, who made up a majority of the population of the Gulf States.

Siro, the anaolgy to Hitler you are making might be correct, except you are off by a decade. In "appeasing" terrorist the anaolgy with Hitler would be this. The German people are attracted to the Nazis because of the humiliating terms of Versailles, the lack of decent employment, and the political instablity of Germany. You could, do nothing, and watch the Nazis recruit ever more people and finally take power, or you could address the underlying problems that make the Nazis look attractive: abolish the indemnities imposed on the Germans, start a jobs program so people can have work, both of which would help stabilize the society.

No of course, because the nutjob violent Nazi minority (along with the majority of Germans) support such a simple program, if the Allies gave in, that would be appeasement in your definition. I think it's stopping a problem before it starts.